Resurrection

Katerina Maslova is both the emotional center and the symbolic conscience of the novel. Once a sheltered servant girl with dreams of marriage, she is seduced and abandoned by Nekhlyudov, an event that alters the trajectory of her life. Ostracized, abused, and ultimately drawn into sex work, Maslova’s initial portrayal reflects society’s cruelty toward “fallen” women. When she is falsely accused of murder, her trial becomes a catalyst not only for Nekhlyudov’s awakening, but for her own transformation as well.

Maslova’s character is a blend of complexity and resilience. In prison, she is at first bitter, sarcastic, and suspicious of Nekhlyudov’s sudden reappearance. However, as the journey to Siberia progresses, she grows in strength and clarity, influenced by her relationships with Maria Pavlovna and Simonson. Her acceptance of Simonson’s companionship—if not romantic love—marks her self-assertion. She refuses to accept marriage as atonement or pity, which shows the deepening of her dignity and moral agency. In the end, Maslova is neither idealized nor condemned: She is a survivor, a woman molded by hardship who refuses to be defined solely by her past.

Vladimir Simonson is an idealistic political prisoner who develops a quiet, respectful affection for Maslova during the journey to Siberia. Unlike Nekhlyudov, whose actions are driven by guilt, Simonson offers Maslova emotional support without judgment or obligation. His sincere, egalitarian worldview and commitment to social reform reflect Tolstoy’s ideal of moral action rooted in compassion and reason.

Simonson represents a path of transformation grounded not in personal redemption but in mutual respect and principled resistance. His proposal to Maslova is made without pressure, affirming her agency at a moment when others seek to define her future for her. Though not a central figure, Simonson’s presence highlights the possibility of dignity and ethical love within a corrupt system.

Nekhlyudov’s aunts—Misses Mencshova and Mikhaylova—are genteel, unmarried noblewomen who raise Maslova with kindness but also with an undercurrent of paternalism. Though well-meaning, they reinforce the social hierarchy that ultimately leaves Maslova vulnerable. They educate her and treat her with affection, but she is never fully accepted as family. Their failure to protect her after the seduction reveals both the limits of their compassion and the social codes that govern their behavior.

The aunts embody the injustice within the justice system in a more domestic, everyday form. They are not oppressors, but they uphold a system that prizes reputation and propriety over justice. When Nekhlyudov abandons Maslova, they do nothing to intervene. Their passivity shows how personal kindness can coexist with structural harm. Their presence also reinforces The Impact of Personal Actions on Others—they shape both Maslova’s sense of self and Nekhlyudov’s early moral compass even as they ultimately recede into the background of his transformation.

The women and children confined with Maslova reveal the novel’s deep compassion for society’s forgotten and condemned. Each character is briefly but vividly drawn. Fedosia, who once tried to poison her abusive husband, is kind and nurturing. Korablyova, accused of killing her spouse, becomes a protective and stern matriarchal figure. Other inmates include women charged with infanticide or arson, many of whom endured lifetimes of poverty and abuse. These women form a fragile, conflicted, but deeply human micro-society, offering each other both cruelty and kindness as they cope with brutal conditions.

Children in the cell are an important symbol of innocence caught in the machinery of state punishment. Aksyutka, for instance, is the young daughter of a convict who is eventually adopted by the political prisoners. These portrayals emphasize that criminality in Tolstoy’s world is not inherent, but circumstantial, often the result of systemic oppression and neglect. In showing these characters as more than their crimes, Tolstoy insists on their humanity and invites readers to question the justice of a system that punishes suffering with suffering.

Maria Pavlovna is a noblewoman turned revolutionary who becomes one of the most morally grounded and emotionally steady characters in Resurrection. Calm, practical, and deeply committed to the people around her, she acts as a mentor and emotional anchor to the women in the prison, especially Maslova. Pavlovna’s quiet authority and care reflect Tolstoy’s ideal of service without ego. She lives her values daily, helping others without condescension or self-congratulation.

Pavlovna embodies The Possibility of Redemption and Transformation, not through dramatic reversal but through unwavering consistency in her beliefs and behavior. She shows how revolutionary conviction and human kindness can coexist, offering an alternative to both passive suffering and ideological dogmatism.

The political prisoners Nekhlyudov encounters during the journey to Siberia reflect a wide range of beliefs, personalities, and backgrounds. Some are revolutionaries, others religious dissenters or exiled intellectuals. Among them is Kryltsov, a principled and terminally ill activist whose calm strength and quiet suffering deeply influence Nekhlyudov. In contrast, Novodvorov—a rigid and self-important Marxist—represents a more dogmatic approach to reform. These contrasting figures reveal the diversity of conviction among those imprisoned not for crimes, but for ideas.

Through their conversations and conduct, the political prisoners highlight The Injustice of the Judicial and Penal Systems. Their imprisonment exposes how the state punishes thought and conscience alongside actions. They also demonstrate The Impact of Personal Actions on Others, as their principled behavior and mutual support help restore dignity and hope to those around them, including Maslova and Nekhlyudov.

Tolstoy portrays the bureaucrats and legal officials in Resurrection with sharp satire, depicting most as flat characters who represent institutional indifference rather than individual malice. In the courtroom, figures like the court president and prosecutor prioritize image, efficiency, or self-interest over justice. The president hurries the trial to keep a personal engagement, and the prosecutor, though ambitious, is shallow and more concerned with rhetoric than truth. Maslova’s wrongful conviction results from a technical error no one corrects—underscoring The Injustice of the Judicial and Penal Systems as a product of routine negligence.

This pattern repeats throughout the penal system. Convoy officers and prison inspectors vary in tone—some are quietly indifferent, others casually brutal—but few show genuine concern for the prisoners in their charge. Maslennikov, the acting governor, typifies this hypocrisy. He boasts of moral leadership while ignoring beatings and wrongful detentions. The governor of the region where Kryltsov dies is similarly disengaged, focusing more on entertaining visitors than on alleviating human suffering. Even prison doctors treat patients with clinical detachment, offering care without compassion.

By giving these figures minimal emotional depth, Tolstoy underscores how bureaucracy erodes empathy. These are not villains, but ordinary people who defer to systems rather than conscience. Their failure lies not in sadism but in the ease with which they carry out cruelty by procedure. In doing so, they reveal The Impact of Personal Actions on Others—not through violence, but through passive complicity in injustice.