The Fidget by Anton Chekhov

I read the Larissa Volokhonsky and Richard Pevear translation of this story.

This Post contains spoilers.

As I observed here, one common aspect of Anton Chekhov’s stories is that they champion the voiceless. In the story Anyuta, the tale’s namesake is exploited by her boyfriend, Stepan Klochkov. In response, Anyuta suffers silently. Furthermore, Stepan shows no redeeming qualities.  Having read a fairly large number of Chekhov’s stories, I can say that this type of unhealthy relationship is very common in the great Russian writer’s tales. 

The Fidget is another of the tales of the voiceless as well as their exploitive counterparts. Newlywed Olga Ivanovna neglects her husband, Dymov, and cheats on him with her artist friend, Ryabovsky. The entire story concerns her ill treatment of him. Though Dymov comes to realize what is going on, he never confronts his wife. 

When she decides to cheat on Dymov, Olga Ivanovna ponders, 

“She wanted to think of her husband, but the whole of her past, with the wedding, with Dymov, with her soirées, seemed small to her, worthless, faded, unnecessary, and far, far away… What Dymov, indeed? Why Dymov? What did she care about Dymov? Did he really exist in nature, or was he merely a dream? “For him, a simple and ordinary man, the happiness he has already received is enough,” she thought, covering her face with her hands. “Let them condemn me there, let them curse me, and I’ll just up and ruin myself, ruin myself to spite them all… One must experience everything in life. Oh, God, how scary and how good!””

As cruel as the above is, there is a tinge of regret in Olga Ivanovna’s mind, despite the fact that she rationalizes her actions with, “For him, a simple and ordinary man, the happiness he has already received is enough” she realizes that what she is doing is wrong.

  

This is unusual for Chekhov. In most of his other stories, like Anyuta, those that exploit the good and the silent do so without any regret. Furthermore, the malicious person usually gets away scot-free and ends up self-satisfied. However, something unusual happens in The Fidget.

Upon Dymov’s death, Olga Ivanovna is wracked with guilt and regret, 

“Olga Ivanovna recalled her whole life with him, from beginning to end, in all its details, and suddenly understood that he was indeed an extraordinary, rare man and, compared with those she knew, a great man...The walls, the ceiling, the lamp, and the rug on the floor winked at her mockingly, as if wishing to say: “You missed it! You missed it!”” 

Olga pays a price for her horrible treatment of Dymov. Her punishment is self-reproach. The story ends on this note. This reader is left to wonder what becomes of her. Will she go on, full of regrets as broken person, or will she use this tragedy and create something better for herself and for the world?

I think that there is at least some hope in the fact that Olga Ivanovna realizes what she has done. It gives her humanity. This is rare, as Chekhov’s oppressors do not usually show much compassion. Checkhov often wrote stories filled with darkness. Often the humanity he illuminates is only present in the downtrodden. In this tale, however, we see some light even in one who is culpable. 

Ward 6 by Anton Chekhov

This post contains spoilers.

I read the Larissa Volokhonsky and Richard Pevear translation of this story.

Like many of his stories, Anton Chekov’s Ward No. 6 explores various aspects of the human condition. It also takes a dive into stoic philosophy.

The ward of the title is a small facility that is part of a hospital complex where the severely mentally ill are housed. Several patients are described in this tale. Central to the story is Ivan Dmitrich Gromov who is confines to the ward. .He is philosophical thinker. Though he clearly is suffering from paranoid delusion, he often shows also great deal of sanity and insight.

The patients live under terrible conditions. They are physically abused. The ward is squalor filled. Dr. Andrei Yefimych Ragin is the Director of the hospital. Though he sees the terrible way in which that the patients are treated, he passively allows it to continue.

There is a lot going on in this story. At its heart are the philosophical discussions between Andrei Yefimych and Ivan Dmitrich. The Doctor is a stoic. He references Marcus Aurelius and other stoic philosophers at several points in the story.

Ultimately Chekov seems to be labeling stoicism as hypocrisy.  At one point Dr. Andrei Yefimych tries to lecture Ivan Dmitrich on the advantages of a stoic attitude,

"You can find peace within yourself under any circumstances. Free and profound thought, which strives towards the comprehension of life, and a complete scorn for the foolish vanity of the world— man has never known anything higher than these two blessings. And you can possess them even if you live behind triple bars”

Ivan Dmitrich is having none of this however. At one point he criticizes the philosophy that the doctor espouses,

“I know that God created me out of warm blood and nerves, yes, sir! And organic tissue, if it’s viable, must react to any irritation. And I do react! I respond to pain with cries and tears, to meanness with indignation, to vileness with disgust. In my opinion, this is in fact called life. The lower the organism, the less sensitive it is and the more weakly it responds to irritation, and the higher, the more susceptible it is and the more energetically it reacts to reality. How can you not know that? You’re a doctor and you don’t know such trifles!”

The narrative contains several lively debates and interactions between the two men. The fact that the doctor is preaching philosophical and emotional indifference from a position of comfort and security is underscored.

When Andrei Yefimych’s luck turns bad, he losses his position, financial security and his home. In a twist of fate, as his mental health deteriorates he is committed to Ward 6. However, he is unable to apply his stoic principles to cope with his terrible situation.

It seems clear, that based upon Andrei Yefimych fate, that Chekov is being highly critical of stoicism. Ivan Dmitrich, critic of stoicism, seems to be the voice of the author here. The hypocrisy and arrogance of Andrei Yefimych’s situation is highlighted in both the dialogues and the storyline.

My take on this is that Chekov has a point, but I do not go as far as him. For people who are in positions of security and ease to lecture those who are not so advantaged on the virtues of indifference, is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance. With that said, people have applied stoic philosophy successfully in dealing with terrible hardship  as well as a means to great success.  As a useful way to cope with suffering it can be enormously beneficial. Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl is but one of many examples of people who cite stoic ideals as the means through which they persevered through horrendous circumstances. However, this thought system should not be applied in a judgmental way. It also is not a universal solution to all the world’s suffering.

Ward 6 is another example of thoughtful but dark Chekov tale. Like many if not most of the author’s works, it is full of insights into human nature and life. This tale in particular, is a intellectual tidbit for those interested in philosophy.