Sincc frustration .so often accompanies love and marriagc in Chekhov wc nccd not be surpriscd at this course of cvcnts. But wc may also note that the unfortunatc Hussian mastcr and bridcgroom Nikitin would have bccn cqually doomcd had he choscn to rejiiain single. That option was onc that Chckhov fully explorcd in Doctor Startsev (1898). Startscv (thc 'Nikitin' of thc later story) rejccts his 'Masha' (Cathcrine Turkin), but only to sink into thc bog of provincial complacency, card-playing and winc-bibbing against which Nikitin prochaims his revolt—with what prospccts of succcss we do not lcarn—in thc last paragraph of The Russiati Master.
Frustration in love, that typical Chekhov thcmc. is Uavishlv rcprcscntcd elscwherc in this volumc.
ln the short but powerful His Wij'e the sick doctor is the victim of his hatcful, prcdatory Olga. In Terror thc woman is morc thc victim of thc man, while The Order ofSt. Antie has a male predator, thc ludicrous Modestc Alckscvcvich, secking to victimize his bcautifu] young wifc, only to have the tablcs turncd on him in the end in onc of the maturc Chckhov's rarc snap conclusions. Yct othcr amorous posturcs .are found in A Lady with a Dog, pcrhaps the bcst-known of all Chckhov's storics. But though cha{!rin d'amoiir docs indecd suffuse this saga ofan expericnced philandcrer uncxpectcdly caught up in .a profound passion. the dcnouement by no mcans excludes somc kind ofhappy solution. Wc are rcminded that A Lady with a Do{! was writtcn during thc carly st.agcs of the author's lovc affair with Olga Knippcr, thc .actress who eventu.illy bcc:imc his wifc. It reflccts Chekhov's own hopcs, but also his irritaition with his inv.ilid condition which forced him to winter in thc south .Tway from hcr—and from thc city of Moscow for which hc oncc said that hc had comc to yearn as much as any of his own Thrcc Sistcrs.
Far more anomalous is the love pattcrn in .another of Chckhov's most rcnowncd storics, which also happens to havc bccn Tolstoy's favouritc: Anl!ef, known to othcr translators as The Darlinl!. Thc hcroinc, another of Chckhov's many Olgas, is rcmarkablc for her haibit of contracting happy marri.Tges or marital unions—threc in all. whcrc.as we may search almost in vain clscwherc for any othcr Chckhov chaTricter who cnjoys cvcn one such s.itisfactory rclation- ship. The story is ex-ccptional too in th.it Chckhov for once dcscribcs provincial life without thc contempt, unmistak:iblc though rcstraincd, which we dctcct in Doctor Sftutsev, The RHssian Master and cvcn A Lady with a Dof!. And yet we shall err if we rcad solcly .is thc ch:irming study of a kindly, simplc woman whose hc:irt ovcrflows with lovc for her various spouses and the littlc boy whom shc evcntually looks aftcr. We must also be alive, as :ilways with this author, to contrary undcrcurrcnts; not sentimcnt unalloycd but thc tension bctwecn scntimcnt :ind irony is the cluc to Ai1,1!el.
Yct another marital or cohabitational episodc domin:itcs Tlie Duel. includcd hcrc .is :in cspccially fine specimcn of Chckhov's longer work. It also contains the most sustaincd portrayal of a quarrcl to comc from a writcr who was himsclf a notably pcaccable man, but could yct dclincate thc squabblcs of othcrs with admirablc skill. This he docs in pitting The Ducls slovcnly, slippcr-shufflling Laycvsky (paramour of thc no lcss slovenly Nadczhda) against thc forthright, puritanical zoologist von Korcn: that prophct of the survival of the ftttcst. But though von Koren cvcntually finds himself in a position to cxterminatc Laycvsky—dcmonstrably unfit to livc and thcrcforc liquidation-ripc—in a pistols-.at-dawn contcst, that contest fizzlcs out in the prcdictablc Chckhovian fiasco; and thc tcxt cxplicitly makcs thc point that thc hcroic agc of ducls a la Lermontov and Turgcncv has now givcn way to a humdrum era when issucs arc lcss majestically clear-cut. How disappointing, though, that Chckhov should havc fallcn, in the last fcw pagcs of his Duel, from his usual high standards by suddcnly prctcnding that thc problems so succcssfully vcntilated in his first nincty-odd pagcs wcrc in fact no problcms at all. The D»el's fccblc last chapter—in which a rcformcd Laycvsky is sccn marricd to a reformcd Nadczhda, and in which both arc forgiven by a rcformcd von Koren—givcs thc answcr to those who complain of Chckhov's many unhappy cndings. Hcrc, aftcr all, is a 'happy' cnding: but onc so unconvincing and banal that, though it cannot spoil so supcrb a story, it yct remains a considcrablc minor blemish.
Peasaiits rcflccts vcry diffcrcnt prcoccupations. Of all Chckhov's works this creatcd thc grcatcst stir among his contemporaries in his own country. It may sccm disappointingly slight on first rcading, being hardly a story at all—rather a sequcncc of skctchcs set in an unprcposscssing Russian villagc pcoplcd by the usual drunkards, wifc-bcatcrs and wiscacrcs. Chckhov had drawn on his own cxpcricnccs as rcsidcnt from 1892 onwards of the village of Mclikhovo ncar Moscow to illustratc all thc most typical clcments in late nincteenth-ccntury Russian rural lifc. And since such down- trodden, backward rustics constituted four-fifths of the total population of the Russian Empirc, numbering about a hundrcd million in all, his Peasants is a document of outstanding social importancc. It also happcns to furnish thc quickcst short cut availablc to understanding a crucial arca of Russian socicty in his day. But if wc choosc, as wcll wc may, to call Peasants a documcntary. wc must add that it is a documcntary of genius. Only suprcmc litcrary skill could purvcy, in a merc thirty pagcs, morc :ibout this complcx socual situ:ition th:in many anothcr :iuthor h:is contrivcd in an cntirc volumc, bcsidcs which Chc:khov's rcstraincd :ind subtle humour givcs Peasams a dimension beyond the rcach of othcr Russian rural studics. As for thc abusc which grcctcd Peasants in Russia on first publication, that too forms a signific:mt commcnt on thc agc. Chckhov had sinncd, in thc opinion of many contcmporary intcllcctuals, by flouting an un- spokcn taboo whcrcby no author might mcntion such unedifying fcatures of vilhagc lifc as dirt, squalor, dunkcnncss, brutality and dcceitfulncss without simultancously proclaiming or implying thc Russi:m muzhik to be a paragon of ccrtain mystcrious virtucs visiblc only to thc cye of faith. But Chckhov's cyc was ahvays that of a critical obscrvcr who, frankly. could not discern these mystcri- ous rustic virtues. Whcther he was discussing pcasants or anything clsc, hc always belicvcd in rcporting accuratcly what he saw. And in any casc his unconvcntional and :ipparcntly unfavourablc picturc of thc muzhik is fundamcntally sympathctic, as must surcly be cvidcnt to any scnsitivc rcadcr of Peasants. Nor was Chckhov thc squirc of Melikhovo in the lcast hostilc to thc local rustics, for his outstanding rccord as dcvotcd village doctor, assiduous school- buildcr and good neighbour dcmonstratcs thc vcry opposite.
Finally thcre are the threc rcmarkablc storics A Hard Case, Gooseberries and Concerninl! Love. Thcy arc sometimes callcd a 'trilogy', bcing unique in Chckhov's fiction in posscssing a single unifying thcmc illustratcd by characters who spill ovcr from onc story to anothcr. Each item in thc trilogy contains as its principal clcment a story-within-thc-story told by onc of thrcc narrators to onc or both of thc others. And all thrcc stories dcnounce the tcndcncy whereby, in Chckhov's vicw, human bcings tcnd arbit- rarily to fettcr thcmsclvcs with supcrfluous cncumbrances— ideology. ambition, love—thus renouncing man's most prccious birth-right, frecdom. Thc hidcbound schoolmastcr Bclikov who tyr:innizcs thc townsfolk in A Hard Case; thc ludicrous Nicholas Chimsha-Gimalaysky who saicriĥccs his wholc lifc for a singlc plate of sour gooscbcrrics; the uncntcrprising Alyokhin who cravcnly rcnounccs the one triic love of his life—all thrcc kcy charactcrs admirably exemplify Chekhov's ccntral thcmc. Thcy havc all madc thc wrong choicc, as hc shows, whilc also rcminding us by implic:ition of somcthing which hc docs not show: that in Chckhov, alas, virtually all choiccs arc wrong. Wh:it if Alyokhin had in fact gone off \vith thc scductive Mrs. Luganovich? What ifthc unfortu- natc Nicholas had ncvcr savcd up to buy his cstatc complccc \vith its gooscbcrry patch, and what if Bclikov had ncvcr taught Grcck or bullicd his collcagucs? Thcy would only havc cmbraccd some othcr activity cqually futilc, equally sclf-limiting. Of this wc m.ay bc ccrtain, for anti-climax and the frustration of illusions rcmain basic to Chckhov's art at its best. And, as wc arc again rcmindcd, thc last pagcs of The Duel arc thcre to show how right hc was to stick to his triie mcticr, how disastrous any attcmpt to brcak out of it might prove. Wc arc also rcminded that Chckhov, at his bcstt, usually focuscs on \vhat docs not—scldom on what docs—h.appcn.