At first
glance, Anton Chekhov’s The Student seems
like a master piece that effectively portrays the Russian countryside of his
time. However, a few rereads brings readers to the conclusion that Chekhov
attempted more than simple scene depiction in his work. Chekhov’s seemingly
mundane choice of characters and the landscape are in fact, richly dipped in his
view of the Russian society.
After my second reading, it dawned upon me that for Chekhov to write about Ivan’s meeting with the two widows, mentioning the laborers was not necessary. Yet, the laborers seem to serve a certain purpose. Around the time when The Student was first published, the 1890s, socialism was gaining its hold in Russia. Socialism was at a stage where it stopped remaining a sophisticated philosophy for the learned and rather began transforming into a craved dream for the oppressed. Chekhov could have taken notice of such a trend in the society and implicitly embed it in his writings. The contrast between the Lukerya and her mother, Vasilisa, adds support to this analysis. Lukerya, a village peasant with a “stupid face”, does not make any attempt to converse with Ivan, but rather stared “immovably at the student” and “flushed crimson”. On the other hand, Vasilisa, “expressed herself with refinement” and showed “a soft, sedate” smile to Ivan. Chekhov’s portrayal suggests that Lukerya, or perhaps, the younger generation at the time, was ready to show resentment to the upper class—Ivan, in this case—whereas Vasilisa, or perhaps, the older generation at the time, still felt obliged to willingly serve and make sacrifices for the upper class. It seems Chekhov made his support for the oppressed plainly.
After my second reading, it dawned upon me that for Chekhov to write about Ivan’s meeting with the two widows, mentioning the laborers was not necessary. Yet, the laborers seem to serve a certain purpose. Around the time when The Student was first published, the 1890s, socialism was gaining its hold in Russia. Socialism was at a stage where it stopped remaining a sophisticated philosophy for the learned and rather began transforming into a craved dream for the oppressed. Chekhov could have taken notice of such a trend in the society and implicitly embed it in his writings. The contrast between the Lukerya and her mother, Vasilisa, adds support to this analysis. Lukerya, a village peasant with a “stupid face”, does not make any attempt to converse with Ivan, but rather stared “immovably at the student” and “flushed crimson”. On the other hand, Vasilisa, “expressed herself with refinement” and showed “a soft, sedate” smile to Ivan. Chekhov’s portrayal suggests that Lukerya, or perhaps, the younger generation at the time, was ready to show resentment to the upper class—Ivan, in this case—whereas Vasilisa, or perhaps, the older generation at the time, still felt obliged to willingly serve and make sacrifices for the upper class. It seems Chekhov made his support for the oppressed plainly.
Chekhov’s
choice to end the story by portraying an seemingly uplifting scene of Ivan made the story
stand out among other short stories. The ending scene in which Ivan looks down
upon the village from the hill might be mistaken for a sign that Chekhov
approves of Ivan’s pride. However, the hill scene seems to be rather a device
of black humor that serves as the finishing touch of Chekhov’s cynicism. Ivan’s
previous actions, such as interrupting the two widows’ peaceful evening so that
he could recite his practiced preaching marks him as an immature youth who has
not yet learned the trick of viewing the world from other’s perspective. Thus,
Ivan’s hope is understood not as one that is shared by others, such as the two
widows, but rather as one that is valid only to Ivan. Ivan mistaking his preaching
to be successful is a source of black humor that earns The Student the title of the “Perfect Short Story”.
An atheist, Chekhov could have implied his distaste for religion. Ivan preaches the widows on Jesus and Peter. Ivan’s story of Jesus and Peter is like a décalcomanie to Chekhov’s story of Ivan and the widows. Both stories contain a preacher, working class people that do not welcome the preacher, and a third person that sympathizes with the preacher. Chekhov makes this connection even stronger by making Vasilisa weep just as Peter had wept for Jesus. If the author, Chekhov, had been a religious man, it would be reasonable to view Ivan, who is compared to the holy Jesus, in a positive light. Yet, considering Chekhov’s distaste of religion, it would rather be plausible to view Jesus, who is compared the Ivan, the joke of the story, in a negative light. This interpretation gains even more validity by the fact that the church was the symbol of the old regime that enlightenment thinkers and socialists aimed to topple down.
In a final
analysis, Chekhov uses his cynical, yet masterful manner of writing to create a
short story that effectively expresses his thoughts on the Russian society. His
implicit portrayal of socialism seeping into the oppressed people implies his
approval of the society’s trend. The black humor present in the hill scene
shows his cynical view of the society. Comparing Ivan to Jesus is an expression
of his contempt at the Russian church and the old regime in general. 
This time, I wanted to try several new(probably only to me) approaches. But, there were more instructions than usual and I didn't have the genious to manage new style and increased instructions at the same time. What a pity~ but the experience was good.
ReplyDeleteGood approach, and I get where you are coming from. No need for the explanation, and I actually think you have a cohesive single "approach" that doesn't seem all that new. In any case it is well structured.
ReplyDeleteI would agree Chekhov is not commenting favorably in support of religion. But he isn't condemning it either, which is the purpose of writing "realism." He is simply illustrating a "slice of life" from the perspective of this young religious idealist who seems to think he has done something grand. Has he? Not really, but we can empathize with his youthful approach to filling himself up with "lofty" meaning.
I don't think we can look at Ivan as a member of the upper class just because he is affiliated with the church. He is the lowest level of preacher and can likely only command a bit of respect. He is, however, definitely someone who doesn't mark progress towards Russia's future. If religion is the opium of the masses, he has the pipe firmly in place. The daughter's reaction to him is like "Chekhov's Gun." It allows the reader to consider Ivan in a foolish, invasive light, which dampens the poetic epiphany at the end just enough to make sure there is room for debate.
Well done, all in all.