Letters of Anton Chekhov to His Family and Friends
I expect you.... We all expect you.
* * * * *
TO MADAME M. V. KISELYOV.
MOSCOW,
January 14, 1887.
... Even your praise of “On the Road” has not softened my anger as an
author, and I hasten to avenge myself for “Mire.” Be on your guard, and
catch hold of the back of a chair that you may not faint. Well, I begin.
One meets every critical article with a silent bow even if it is abusive
and unjust--such is the literary etiquette. It is not the thing to answer,
and all who do answer are justly blamed for excessive vanity. But since
your criticism has the nature of “an evening conversation on the steps of
the Babkino lodge” ... and as, without touching on the literary aspects of
the story, it raises general questions of principle, I shall not be sinning
against the etiquette if I allow myself to continue our conversation.
In the first place, I, like you, do not like literature of the kind we are
discussing. As a reader and “a private resident” I am glad to avoid it, but
if you ask my honest and sincere opinion about it, I shall say that it is
still an open question whether it has a right to exist, and no one has yet
settled it.... Neither you nor I, nor all the critics in the world, have
any trustworthy data that would give them the right to reject such
literature. I do not know which are right: Homer, Shakespeare, Lopez da
Vega, and, speaking generally, the ancients who were not afraid to rummage
in the “muck heap,” but were morally far more stable than we are, or the
modern writers, priggish on paper but coldly cynical in their souls and in
life. I do not know which has bad taste--the Greeks who were not ashamed to
describe love as it really is in beautiful nature, or the readers of
Gaboriau, Marlitz, Pierre Bobo. [Footnote: P. D. Boborykin.] Like the
problems of non-resistance to evil, of free will, etc., this question can
only be settled in the future. We can only refer to it, but are not
competent to decide it. Reference to Turgenev and Tolstoy--who avoided the
“muck heap”--does not throw light on the question. Their fastidiousness
does not prove anything; why, before them there was a generation of writers
who regarded as dirty not only accounts of “the dregs and scum,” but even
descriptions of peasants and of officials below the rank of titular
councillor. Besides, one period, however brilliant, does not entitle us to
draw conclusions in favour of this or that literary tendency. Reference to
the demoralizing effects of the literary tendency we are discussing does
not decide the question either. Everything in this world is relative and
approximate. There are people who can be demoralized even by children’s
books, and who read with particular pleasure the piquant passages in the
Psalms and in Solomon’s Proverbs, while there are others who become only
the purer from closer knowledge of the filthy side of life. Political and
social writers, lawyers, and doctors who are initiated into all the
mysteries of human sinfulness are not reputed to be immoral; realistic
writers are often more moral than archimandrites. And, finally, no
literature can outdo real life in its cynicism, a wineglassful won’t make a
man drunk when he has already emptied a barrel.
2. That the world swarms with “dregs and scum” is perfectly true. Human
nature is imperfect, and it would therefore be strange to see none but
righteous ones on earth. But to think that the duty of literature is to
unearth the pearl from the refuse heap means to reject literature itself.
“Artistic” literature is only “art” in so far as it paints life as it
really is. Its vocation is to be absolutely true and honest. To narrow down
its function to the particular task of finding “pearls” is as deadly for it
as it would be to make Levitan draw a tree without including the dirty bark
and the yellow leaves. I agree that “pearls” are a good thing, but then a
writer is not a confectioner, not a provider of cosmetics, not an
entertainer; he is a man bound, under contract, by his sense of duty and
his conscience; having put his hand to the plough he mustn’t turn back,
and, however distasteful, he must conquer his squeamishness and soil his
imagination with the dirt of life. He is just like any ordinary reporter.
What would you say if a newspaper correspondent out of a feeling of
fastidiousness or from a wish to please his readers would describe only
honest mayors, high-minded ladies, and virtuous railway contractors?
To a chemist nothing on earth is unclean. A writer must be as objective as
a chemist, he must lay aside his personal subjective standpoint and must
understand that muck heaps play a very respectable part in a landscape, and
that the evil passions are as inherent in life as the good ones.
3. Writers are the children of their age, and therefore, like everybody
else, must submit to the external conditions of the life of the community.
Thus, they must be perfectly decent. This is the only thing we have a right
to ask of realistic writers. But you say nothing against the form and
executions of “Mire.” ... And so I suppose I have been decent.
4. I confess I seldom commune with my conscience when I write. This is due
to habit and the brevity of my work. And so when I express this or that
opinion about literature, I do not take myself into account.
5. You write: “If I were the editor I would have returned this feuilleton
to you for your own good.” Why not go further? Why not muzzle the editors
themselves who publish such stories? Why not send a reprimand to the
Headquarters of the Press Department for not suppressing immoral
newspapers?
The fate of literature would be sad indeed if it were at the mercy of
individual views. That is the first thing. Secondly, there is no police
which could consider itself competent in literary matters. I agree that one
can’t dispense with the reins and the whip altogether, for knaves find
their way even into literature, but no thinking will discover a better
police for literature than the critics and the author’s own conscience.
People have been trying to discover such a police since the creation of the
world, but they have found nothing better.
Here you would like me to lose one hundred and fifteen roubles and be put
to shame by the editor; others, your father among them, are delighted with
the story. Some send insulting letters to Suvorin, pouring abuse on the
paper and on me, etc. Who, then, is right? Who is the true judge?
6. Further you write, “Leave such writing to spiritless and unlucky
scribblers such as Okrects, Pince-Nez, [Footnote: The pseudonym of Madame
Kisselyov.] or Aloe.” [Footnote: The pseudonym of Chekhov’s brother
Alexandr.]
Allah forgive you if you were sincere when you wrote those words! A
condescending and contemptuous tone towards humble people simply because
they are humble does no credit to the heart. In literature the lower ranks
are as necessary as in the army--this is what the head says, and the heart
ought to say still more.
Ough! I have wearied you with my drawn-out reflections. Had I known my
criticism would turn out so long I would not have written it. Please
forgive me! ...
You have read my “On the Road.” Well, how do you like my courage? I write
of “intellectual” subjects and am not afraid. In Petersburg I excite a
regular furore. A short time ago I discoursed upon non-resistance to evil,
and also surprised the public. On New Year’s Day all the papers presented
me with a compliment, and in the December number of the _Russkoye
Bogatstvo_, in which Tolstoy writes, there is an article thirty-two pages
long by Obolensky entitled “Chekhov and Korolenko.” The fellow goes into
raptures over me and proves that I am more of an artist than Korolenko. He
is probably talking rot, but, anyway, I am beginning to be conscious of one
merit of mine: I am the only writer who, without ever publishing anything
in the thick monthlies, has merely on the strength of writing newspaper
rubbish won the attention of the lop-eared critics--there has been no
instance of this before.... At the end of 1886 I felt as though I were a
bone thrown to the dogs.
... I have written a play [Footnote: “Calchas,” later called “Swansong.”]
on four sheets of paper. It will take fifteen to twenty minutes to act....
It is much better to write small things than big ones: they are
unpretentious and successful.... What more would you have? I wrote my play
in an hour and five minutes. I began another, but have not finished it, for
I have no time.
TO HIS UNCLE, M. G. CHEKHOV.
MOSCOW,
January 18, 1887.
... During the holidays I was so overwhelmed with work that on Mother’s
name-day I was almost dropping with exhaustion.
I must tell you that in Petersburg I am now the most fashionable writer.
One can see that from papers and magazines, which at the end of 1886 were
taken up with me, bandied my name about, and praised me beyond my deserts.
The result of this growth of my literary reputation is that I get a number
of orders and invitations--and this is followed by work at high pressure
and exhaustion. My work is nervous, disturbing, and involving strain. It is
public and responsible, which makes it doubly hard. Every newspaper report
about me agitates both me and my family.... My stories are read at public
recitations, wherever I go people point at me, I am overwhelmed with
acquaintances, and so on, and so on. I have not a day of peace, and feel as
though I were on thorns every moment.
... Volodya [Translator’s Note: He had apparently criticized the name
Vladimir, which means “lord of the world.”] is right.... It is true that a
man cannot possess the world, but a man can be called “the lord of the
world.” Tell Volodya that out of gratitude, reverence, or admiration of the
virtues of the best men--those qualities which make a man exceptional and
akin to the Deity--peoples and historians have a right to call their elect
as they like, without being afraid of insulting God’s greatness or of
raising a man to God. The fact is we exalt, not a man as such, but his good
qualities, just that divine principle which he has succeeded in developing
in himself to a high degree. Thus remarkable kings are called “great,”
though bodily they may not be taller than I. I. Loboda; the Pope is called
“Holiness,” the patriarch used to be called “Ecumenical,” although he was
not in relations with any planet but the earth; Prince Vladimir was called
“the lord of the world,” though he ruled only a small strip of ground,
princes are called “serene” and “illustrious,” though a Swedish match
is a thousand times brighter than they are--and so on. In using these
expressions we do not lie or exaggerate, but simply express our delight,
just as a mother does not lie when she calls her child “my golden one.” It
is the feeling of beauty that speaks in us, and beauty cannot endure what
is commonplace and trivial; it induces us to make comparisons which Volodya
may, with his intellect, pull to pieces, but which he will understand with
his heart. For instance, it is usual to compare black eyes with the night,
blue with the azure of the sky, curls with waves, etc., and even the Bible
likes these comparisons; for instance, “Thy womb is more spacious than
heaven,” or “The Sun of righteousness arises,” “The rock of faith,” etc.
The feeling of beauty in man knows no limits or bounds. This is why a
Russian prince may be called “the lord of the world”; and my friend Volodya
may have the same name, for names are given to people, not for their
merits, but in honour and commemoration of remarkable men of the past....
If your young scholar does not agree with me, I have one more argument
which will be sure to appeal to him: in exalting people even to God we do