Chapters 33-36 of Resurrection: Nekhlyudov's Non-Participation

Chapter 33: We go back to Nekhlyudov who receives the letter he wanted, which frees him from the wife he was having an affair with. This plot line is not only reminiscent of the Sonya freeing Nikolai plot towards the end of War and Peace, but it is also treated in such a rushed and dismissive way that the plot line plays out the same way, with the character being important only until the moment they are inconvenient to the plot and the character's development. Here, the character hasn't even appeared in the novel but serves as a backdrop to Nekhlyudov's character development so far, showing his immorality and uncertainty earlier in the novel and at this point showing his certainty and resolve through his break with her. He resolves to go to the prison and marry Katusha and gives up his apartments, decides to give the peasants their land, and is no longer disgusted by the people around him. Just as Pierre, in his strongest moments (contrary to his weakest moments, when he is fundamentally paralyzed by uncertainty) is absolutely certain about what he needs to do and does not have to overthink his decisions, Nekhlyudov's moral development is highlighted by his ability to make decisions and stick to them. This really allows us to think about how Tolstoy sees the relationship between moral development and certainty/resolve. Immoral people in Tolstoy's fiction often act mechanically (the famous early analogy in War and Peace of Vasily being like an actor in an old play is rather indicative) and motivated by forces they aren't even aware of, acting without reflection, but purely on instinct, like an animal. People with what we might call "moral potential" act in ways that are uncertain, cloudy, or don't act at all. The line between impulsive action (such as Nekhlyudov's rape and Natasha's relationship with Anatole) and seemingly thoughtless moral/political/household action (such as Andrei being able to put together his affairs and make decisions in ways that Pierre will only be able to at the end of the novel) is the instinctive impulsive nature of immoral action, similar to how an animal might act. The interplay between passivity and aggressiveness plays a key role, as aggressiveness is almost always wrong (see Napoleon) and patience and acceptance of circumstances is almost always correct (see Kutuzov and Bagration), but being forced into decisions (such as Pierre's marriage to Helene) or finding yourself in debates about what one should do (see the endless debates of military strategy in War and Peace) shows a moral weakness. Moral action is somewhat of a non-action, in that it is selfless, does not "gain", and is not done on instinct/impulse, but neither is it done by "rationality" or by debate. This somewhat frustrating framing colors his political and religious arguments as well, as instinct nor rationality serve as the guide.

Nekhlyudov also has a sister named Natasha, which is of course interesting, but may not mean anything. The more important idea is the focus at the end of the chapter on Nekhlyudov's newfound attitude.

"when he pictured himself seeing her and telling her everything, confessing his guilt to her, telling her he would do everything in his power to atone for it by marrying her, an extraordinary feeling of elation seized him, and tears came into his eyes."

I think there are two ways to look at this: the first being the most obvious and what we've discussed before with his discussion with the advocate; Nekhlyudov hasn't actually done anything yet to help Maslova, and yet he feels a change inside of him, which seems like an extremely cynical disposition to have. The alternative is to view the change and his attitude as authentic and the motivation of his actions from here on out being without an ulterior motive. 

Chapter 34: Nekhlyudov goes back to the courtroom to try to speak to Maslova. He sees the characters he served on the jury with and has a much more positive reaction to them, which further demonstrates the way his character has changed. He is supposed to be part of a trial that includes a young man that used a now deceased locksmith to commit a robbery. Part of the seemingly unnecessarily complicated setup here is to show that the main culprit of the crime is already dead and the trial itself is rather pointless in a search for justice if justice could be found in the courtroom. The policeman used as a witness is described as "in spite of the fact that he had been drilled into stupidity and had become a mere machine he was clearly sorry for the lad and reluctant to testify about his arrest." Just like Maslova's courtroom scene, Tolstoy here makes the defendant the victim of a system that people are reticent to prop up. 

The accused confesses and is described as a trapped animal and Tolstoy puts emphasis on the soldiers ("gendarmes") with their swords surrounding him, as if he is dangerous. We get this character's backstory and Nekhlyudov inner monologues: "but aren't we dangerous?...I am a rake, a fornicator, a liar...It's quite obvious that this lad is no extraordinary villain...he became what he is simply because he found himself in circumstances which create such people. And so it seems obvious that if we don't want lads like this we must try to wipe out the conditions that produce such unfortunate individuals...knowing quite well that a thousand others remain at liberty, and shut him up in prison, in conditions of complete idleness or work of the most unhealthy, senseless kind, in company with fellow beings like himself, debilitated and confused by life, and then deport him at public expense...we actually encourage the institutions which produce them....we encourage and regulate them."....Nekhlyudov went on thinking to himself as he looked round the huge court-room...not only here but throughout Russia, who received salaries for performing this farce that nobody needed."
I put that entire quote in there because I think it is extremely important in understanding the thematic material of not only the book itself, but all of Tolstoy's (especially later) political thought in general. With the traditional Christian understanding, based primarily on an apocryphal story tacked onto the Gospel of John, that the one without sin has to be the one that casts the first stone (or more probably, the "judge not" passage from the Sermon on the Mount), a system of judgment and class is inherently based on hypocrisy. Nekhlyudov has come to realize his own sins and his own failings as a person through his reintroduction to Maslova and his previous crimes, and through this, he realizes it is inappropriate for him to stand in a position where he judges other people and sentences them for their crimes. Nekhlyudov also understands the traditional liberal/leftist critique of the court system beyond Tolstoy's religious critique, that criminality is not caused by people that are exceptionally bad, but by the circumstances that people find themselves surrounded in. This, of course, is fundamentally intertwined with Tolstoy's beliefs about history and free will. If people are entirely free and responsible for their actions, like the Existentialists and conservatives claim, then the court system makes perfect sense, but if, like Tolstoy claims, people are products of their environment and their free will is limited by the choices they have available to them and the way their personalities are shaped, then the entire court system is a sham that has no basis in reality. And this is the central political and social thrust of the novel. Not only is the system immoral and misguided, but it is ineffective, since there are thousands, millions, and perhaps billions, of people that are in the same circumstances and the court system does not change these circumstances, wasting the money of the government and in turn, the taxpayer. 

Chapter 35: Nekhlyudov decides that he will not take part in the trial and tries to get permission to see Maslova. He tells this to the prosecutor, who then talks to a member of the Court and says "There's something abnormal about young people these days...He carries the day by wearing one out: talks and talks, there's no end to it." Just as in War and Peace, particularly in the Speransky scenes, the disconnect between the generations and the reformation of political structures is in the forefront, as the older generations cannot possibly imagine the political structures as being any different than it currently is. This lack of imagination is, for Tolstoy, the key barrier to why change does not happen and why humanity cannot unshackle itself from its institutions. The member of the court ends the chapter by saying "People of that kind should simply be stopped; otherwise they become real obstructionists". Nekhlyudov rejects participation, rather than throwing himself onto the gears and completely blocking the trial. There is no speech or protest that tries to bring down the court system; he does not "sit-in", nor does he make any "active" action that stops the trial. He simply does not participate and for the court system, and the political system in general, this is "obstructionism" because those systems rely on active participation. This is the non-resistance of Tolstoy defined. The system, whether it be court, military, or political, needs participation in order to function, and without it, it can no longer live and change can truly happen. 

Chapter 36: Nekhlyudov continues to get shifted around from place to place and is unable to see Maslova. This administrative shuffling is a scene that has appeared quite a bit in popular media and serves to show the bureaucratic nightmare of the political system. It is also reminiscent of the Balashov plot thread in War and Peace where he attempts to talk to Napoleon. One scene has a pianist playing a song "everyone was already tired of" the entire time in a touch of background comedy. On a more serious note, the prisons that criminals like Maslova are overcrowded. 

"The public prosecutor had forgotten that six months previously some political incident had been exaggerated to the utmost limits by the gendarmery, with the result, it would seem, that all the preliminary detention centres had been swamped by students, doctors, labourers, girl-students and doctors' assistants."
Exaggerated political events, like the Dreyfus Affair, the murder of Vereshchagin, or basically anything Napoleon does, serve as instructive and definitive for Tolstoy. Like the strange opera that no one understands, but pretends to and does not question, governmental action, no matter how absurd, is used to further power and sow division (it is no accident that Rostopchin's placards and speeches are so divisive and nationalistic). It also sweeps a whole generation of, again, younger people, under the rug and out of the way, ruining lives, just as the court system ruins Maslova's lives and others, and preserving the system.