Whom Did Anton Chekhov Write For? The False and Truth in Classics Actualization

The representation of classical literature as relevant and adequate to modern ideological demands has long been firmly rooted in both mass and scientific consciousness. How accurate is this representation? May modern interpreters impose on classical works those meanings that they objectively do not contain? Negative answers to the questions posed are methodologically productive. Scientific interpretation assumes awareness of the socio-cultural and linguistic distance between the researcher and the object of study. A consequence of this distance’s violation is false actualization analyzed in the article, which leads to aberrations of perception and analysis of classical literature texts in general and Chekhov’s heritage (considered as indicative illustrative material) in particular. Actualization is a kind of preliminary concept that precedes the text interpretation. The analysis of Chekhov’s worldview and works interpretations (carried out by M.M. Dunaev, V.D. Dneprov, D.L. Bykov) demonstrates the inadequacy of the results of such interpretations. Characteristically, M.M. Dunaev and V.D. Dneprov, proving diametrically opposite points of view (concerning Orthodox and atheistic character of Chekhov’s works) operate with a similar set of scientifically incorrect assumptions: quotes taken out of the context, nondistinction of the author and the narrator, etc. Moreover, the complex history of the writer’s real relationship with the reading public of his time is discordant with the statements about the harmony of Chekhov’s creativity with the cultural context of the late 20th — early 21st century. There is a lot of evidence that Chekhov experienced, at least twice in his life, a sense of loss of connection with his contemporary readers. This is confirmed by letters and memoirs of eyewitnesses of the relevant periods (late 1880s and early 1900s). The crises indicate that the writer consciously focused on the needs of his contemporary readers. A.P. Chekhov wrote for the people of the era the language of which needs to be studied by modern readers and interpreters. This is the only condition for the adequacy of interpretations, non-compliance with which leads to the erroneous actualization of classical heritage.

A.P. Chekhov, reception, classical literature, interpretation, false actualization

1. Gasparov M.L. Zapisi i vypiski [Notes and Excerpts]. Moscow, Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ., 2001, 416 p.

2. Stepanov A.D. Opening Speech at the Defense of Doctoral Dissertation, Chekhovskii vestnik [Chekhov Bulletin], 2005, no. 16, pp. 27—36 (in Russ.).

3. Penkovsky A.B. On the “Anti-Poetical Nature” of Onegin, or How to Read Pushkin, Issledovaniya poeticheskogo yazyka pushkinskoi epokhi [Studies of the Poetic Language of Pushkin’s Epoch]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2012, pp. 46—74 (in Russ.).

4. Nikolaev P.A., Khalizev V.E. (eds). Klassika i sovremennost’ [Classics and Modernity]. Moscow, MGU Publ., 1991, 256 p.

5. Nagibin Yu.M. Our Contemporary — Chekhov, Vremya zhit’ [Time to Live]. Moscow, Sovremennik Publ., 1987, pp. 308—314 (in Russ.).

6. Dneprov V.D. S edinoi tochki zreniya: literaturno-esteticheskie ocherki [From a Single Point of View: Li-terary and Aesthetic Essays]. Leningrad, Sovetskii Pisatel’ Publ., 1989, 376 p. (in Russ.).

7. Belova L.A. Anton Chekhov — Our Contemporary, Rossiyane [Russians], 1995, no. 11—12, p. 109 (in Russ.).

8. Kannone S. Our Contemporary Anton Chekhov, Pryamye investitsii [Direct Investments], 2010, no. 3, pp. 100—101 (in Russ.).

9. Khalin S.M. Gogol — Our Contemporary, Tsennosti i smysly [Values and Meanings], 2009, no. 2, pp. 144—160 (in Russ.).

10. Bakhtin M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [The Aesthetics of Verbal Art]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1986, 446 p.

11. Lotman Yu.M. Roman A.S. Pushkina “Evgenii Onegin”. Kommentarii [Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin. A Comment]. Leningrad, Prosveshchenie Publ., 1983, 416 p.

12. Lotman Yu.M. Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta. Analiz poeticheskogo teksta [The Structure of Artistic Text. Poetic Text Analysis]. St. Petersburg, Azbuka Publ., Azbuka-Attikus Publ., 2016, 704 p.

13. Bushkanets L.E. “On mezhdu nami zhil…”. A.P. Chekhov i russkoe obshchestvo kontsa XIX — nachala XX veka [“He Lived among Us…” A.P. Chekhov and the Russian Society of the Late 19th — Early 20th Century]. Kazan, Kazanskii Universitet Publ., 2012, 756 p.

14. Bykov D.L. Two Chekhovs, Druzhba narodov [Peoples’ Friendship], 2010, no. 3, pp. 189—197 (in Russ.).

15. Dal V.I. Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language]. St. Petersburg, Moscow, 1907, vol. 3, 893 p.

16. Polikarpov A.A. (ed.) Chastotnyi grammatiko-semanticheskii slovar’ yazyka khudozhestvennykh proizvedenii A.P. Chekhova [Frequency Grammatical-Semantic Dictionary of the Language of Literary Works of A.P. Chekhov]. Moscow, MAKS Press Publ., 2012, 571 p.

17. Dunaev M.M. Vera v gornile somnenii [Faith in the Crucible of Doubt]. Moscow, Izdat. Sovet Rus. Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Publ., 2003, 1056 p.

18. Sukhikh I.N. (ed.) A.P. Chekhov: pro et contra. St. Petersburg, Russkogo Khristianskogo Gumanitarnogo Instituta Publ., 2002, 1072 p. (in Russ.).

19. Kozhinov V.V. Why Should We Study a Literary Work? Kontekst-1973 [Context-1973]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1974, pp. 176—195 (in Russ.).

20. A.P. Chekhov v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov [A.P. Chekhov in Memoirs of his Contemporaries], Goslitizdat Publ., 1960, 834 p.

21. Averintsev A.A. A Laudable Word of Philology, Yunost’ [Youth], 1969, no. 1, pp. 98—102 (in Russ.).