Classic English Literature
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, born in the small seaport of Taganrog, Ukraine in 1860, was a physician who wrote short stories and plays. While he spent his early years under the shadow of his father's religious fanaticism, he managed to support his medical studies by taking tuitions. As a doctor, Chekov spent his daytime caring for the needy while he spent the nights writing. His medical background is clearly evident in much of his plays as evidenced by the apathy many of his characters show towards tragic events. His plays and short stories are influenced by his doctoral research at the penal colony of Sakhalin, north of Siberia, where he surveyed over 10,000 convicts. Some of his memorable stories including ‘Neighbors’ (1892), ‘Ward Number Six’ (1892), ‘The Black Monk’ (1894), ‘The Murder’ (1895), and ‘Ariadne’ (1895).
As a Russian writer, his works were translated into English and it can be gathered that his plays and short stories were indeed influenced by his interactions with people of different cultural and social backgrounds. In trying to understand Chekhov, Rayfield (2000) in ‘Anton Chekhov: A Life,’ says, “Chekhov's plays can best be understood through the short stories whose characters, situations, techniques and even phrases they recycle.” In ‘The Lady with the Dog,’ for example, Dmitri, the protagonist, found that he was much more comfortable in the company of ‘the lower race.’ Dmitri, all of forty, lived with his wife and two sons and a daughter in Yalta and he was never comfortable in the company of men. There is a connection between the character of Dmitri and Chekov, as it was at the age of 41 that he married. His affair with Anna continues until she is called by her husband. In some of his plays and stories, Chekov made it a point to talk about peasants too. Even in ‘Ward No.6,’ when Yefimitch is about to die, “a peasant woman stretched out her hand to him with a registered letter.” Doctors dominated most of his stories and then there were women who made the lower rank of society.
There was something about Chekov’s writing that seemed to expose his sensitivity toward life. It may have been due to his personal experience in life; a troubled childhood, a responsible youth, a lonely adolescence and a philosophical adulthood. As Rajko (2005) in Anton Pavlovich Chekov (1860-1904), said, “Chekhov's stories and plays show deep psychological insight.” This is particularly true, as Chekhov, according to Rajko, realized that he couldn’t use scientific rationalism to answer questions like, “What is the meaning of life?” On going through most of his short stories, it’s not too hard to understand why. On a personal level, Chekov had seen and experienced the difficult years of survival of men. Russian was not a country that presented itself as heaven on Earth, but as a country that was ravaged by war and abject poverty. Struggling for survival, Chekov showed the existence of mankind as being absurd. Chekhov’s use of character-driven stories by merging the plot and the protagonist can be seen as his way to show deep psychological insight into human existence. This can be most appropriately described in the characterization of Dmitry Gurov, the protagonist of ‘The Lady with the Dog.’ Being extremely comfortable in the company of ‘the lower race,’ had it not been for his initiative to befriend Anna, the story would have ended in a drab. Instead, Chekov used the situation at the restaurant to befriend Anna through her dog, which led to their exploration of that side of life that dealt with love, romance and feelings.
Chekhov was not a wealthy man, even though he was a doctor. He rarely charged his patients. In 1890, he made a journey across Siberia to Sakhalin Island, where Russian convicts were imprisoned. While it would be difficult to explore the various reasons why they were imprisoned there, Chekov does throw light on a few prisoners there. In trying to relive his journey and his experience during his voyage and stay there, Chekov wrote one of his most noted stories, ‘Ward No.6.’ In that story, Chekov wrote on the “brutalities he witnessed there, which made such an impression on the Russian public that corporal punishment was abolished for women in 1897 and for men in 1904” (Rajko, 2005). Prisons in those days were atrociously dark and lacked basic amenities, and prisoners had to face all kinds of physical and mental torture. There were not too many open spaces and prisoners were cramped together in small cells. They were not given proper food and clothes and even when they fell sick, they didn’t get proper medical attention. Any form of challenge was met with an iron hand and prisoners were kicked and beaten with brute force.
On the subject of darkness and death, while poverty dominated his subjects, there was an equal show of weakness, passivity, and ineffectiveness. If one were to visualize the hospital yard through the eyes of Chekov, it brings to mind a picture of intense darkness and death. In ‘Ward No.6,’ Chekhov describes the pathetic condition of the hospital; “a small lodge with a rusty roof faces the hospital separated by the grey hospital fence with nails on it. These nails, with their points upwards, have that peculiar, desolate, God-forsaken look which is only found in our hospital and prison buildings.” The condition of the lodge is such that no visitor would have ever lived there, and the hospital itself in a dilapidated state, would have dissuaded any sick person to go anywhere near it. Such was the state of the hospitals in Russia during the 18th and 19th century. The hospitals would have had no proper ventilation nor would they have been maintained well enough to keep diseases away. Plague, typhoid, malaria and other life-threatening diseases were prevalent and the horrific condition of the hospitals could only have aggravated air-borne and water-borne diseases, leading to frequent deaths.
Continuing with the subject of darkness and death, Chekov was very fortunate enough to be allowed to visit the prisons and settlements on Sakhalin. Chekov throws a lot of light on the conditions of prisoners and doctors in prisons in ‘Ward No.6.’ In chapter XVIII of ‘Ward No.6,’ when Nikita strikes Andrey Yefimitch, “He felt as though someone had taken a sickle and thrust it into him” (Online-Literature, 2013). The pain was so excruciating that he felt the “chaos in his brain flash the terrible unbearable thought that these people, who seemed now like black shadows in the moonlight, had to endure such pain day by day for years” (Online-literature, 2013). The kind of methods used to torture the prisoners were so brutal that there was not a hint of humanity in the staff. The prisoners were considered non-entities who had the right to be tortured. In addition to the physical torture, the prisoners were subjected to mental torture as well. They were not allowed to walk, speak up or even argue against the authorities who ran the prison.
It was not only the prisoners who were subjected to torture. Even doctors, who empathized with the prisoners, were not spared. In ‘Ward No.6,’ Yefimitch says, “For an intelligent, educated man, made in God's image, proud and loving freedom, to have no alternative but to be a doctor in a filthy, stupid, wretched little town,” (Online-literature, 2013) Yefimitch was deputed to Sakhalin, and when he began his rounds in the prison, he did so with the notion of doing service to humanity. However, even he was not spared by Nikita, who gave him a taste of his powers. Yefimitch was brutally assaulted by Nikita for supporting the prisoners who wanted some form of freedom in the prison. The pathetic condition of the prisons made Yefimitch challenge the authorities; the cells were in total darkness and had little space for movement. If a prisoner fell sick, it could spread to others in the cell too. What’s more, doctors were a rarity. Given such conditions, it was acceptable for Yefimitch to raise his voice against the civic conditions. Yefimitch calls the prison a wretched town because the prison housed hundreds of people from different religions, caste, creed and color.
According to Galton (2009), “Chekhov, as a doctor, was given access to all the prisons and settlements on Sakhalin and he could visit anyone he wished to except for political prisoners.” His visit to Sakhalin was represented in the form of a short story. It carried the perennial sufferings and pain of the inmates.
In ‘Typhus,’ Chekhov uses darkness to indicate the condition in which people in Russia lived during the 18th and 19th century. Just like the black plague that wiped out of most of Europe, Chekov wanted to portray typhus in a similar vein. It was not to bring about a more grotesque picture of the impact of typhus, but to show the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of treatment on such an epidemic. “Typhus is caused by Rickettsiae bacteria that are spread by human lice. Periodic outbreaks occurred throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and typhus was a common cause of death during the Civil War due to the crowded camp living conditions” (Geisler, 2010). This should not come as a surprise, as in the 18th and 19th century Russia, the living condition of Russians were far from hygienic. People lived in clusters and if there was a case of typhus in the clan, it would spread to other members of that clan. Doctors were few and treatment came at a price.
‘Typhus,’ is Chekhov’s way of illustrating the life of common people in Europe and Russia. In typhus, with the war raging and soldiers being sent to different parts of the world to fight enemy lines, young lieutenant Klimov, affected by typhus and on his way home, is confronted by a couple of men, who seem to be Finns or Swede in the train. The train is packed to the brim and young Klimov summarizes his surrounding by saying, “There seemed to be no room for his arms and legs, his mouth was dry and sticky, his head heavy and clouded. Outside, among the seats was people looming in the darkness.” The young officer, who was suffering from Typhus, and on his way home for treatment, expresses the physical condition of people, streets, food and stations on the way. Here, the use of darkness seems to imply the lackadaisical nature of the people around him. Darkness is followed by death, as Katy, his sister, dies from contact with typhus.
Chekov always believed in portraying the common man; writing about his needs and role in society. According to Gordon (1993), Chekhov showed special interest in “religion; political, artistic, and spiritual freedom; equality for all races and creeds; special devotion to equality for the peasantry, Jews and women; and personal action to achieve public good.” There are enough and more references to people of different walks of life in his stories and plays. In ‘Ward no.6,’ he referred to Jews, Negros and children, in ‘The Lady with the Dog,’ it was about man-woman relationship, in the ‘Peasants,’ the focus was on peasants, and the ‘Three Sisters,’ it was about family relationship. In ‘The Cherry Orchard,’ the focus is on personal identity and happiness. Each character is involved in a struggle to remember, but more importantly in a struggle to forget; the qualities that make Chekov’s psychological insights. He manipulates his characters to show them in better light, but their surroundings encapsulate their attempt to free themselves. In ‘The Peasants’ for example, the peasants are forced into Chekhov's search for love and home, while “‘The Cherry Orchard’ is a satire on society” Gareth (1982).
Conclusion
Chekov’s stories and his plays, including Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard, strongly appeal to readers and theatergoers the world over. Chekhov's numerous characters include an array of doctors, patients and common man, who are hindered by various problems and poor working conditions. His works depict the 18th and 19th century lifestyle of Russia and in portraying his characters, Chekov has been able to reveal to the world, the life of people in Russia. What he experienced as a doctor, Chekov was able to share it with his readers through his numerous short stories and plays.
Bibliography
Galton, D. J, (2009), Anton Chekhov’s MD Thesis, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, ISSN 1460-2725, 03/2009, 102(3), 231 – 232, doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcn179
Gareth, W. J, (1982), Anton Chekov, The Modern Language Review, ISSN 0026-7937, 07/1982, Volume 77(3), 764 – 765
Geisler, S, (2010), Anton Chekov: Typhus, Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 21(3): 40-3, CINAHL AN: 2010843643
Gordon, M, (1993), Anton Chekov the Iconoclast, The Modern Language Review, ISSN 0026-7937, 10/1993, 88(4), 1050 - 1051
Rajko, I, (2005), Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904), The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(12), American Psychiatric Association, ISSN 0002953X, Scholarly Journals, 40
The Literature Network: Ward No.6, http://www.online-literature.com/anton_chekhov/1266/
