the structural role of language in chekhov's later stories

19
The Structural Role of Language in Chekhov's Later Stories Author(s): L. S. K. le Fleming Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 48, No. 112 (Jul., 1970), pp. 323-340 Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206237 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic and East European Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: l-s-k-le-fleming

Post on 20-Jan-2017

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

The Structural Role of Language in Chekhov's Later StoriesAuthor(s): L. S. K. le FlemingSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 48, No. 112 (Jul., 1970), pp. 323-340Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206237 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SLAVONIC

AND EAST EUROPEAN

REVIEW

Volume XLVIII, Number 112?July 1970

The Structural Role of Language

in Chekhov's Later Stories

L. S. K. le FLEMING

The language of Chekhov's later stories has been the subject of a

steady stream of monographs (about 120 to date) and the impression

they give generally supports that gained from reading the stories,

namely, that Chekhov wrote in standard Russian, the spoken

language of educated Russians, adhering nearly always to the literary norm in morphology, but not limited to strictly literary vocabulary and syntax.1

Chekhov revised most of the 56 stories he wrote between 1888 and

1903. Successive editions, culminating in the 'Collected Works'2

published by A. F. Marks between 1899 and 1901 (a supplementary volume appeared in 1906 after Chekhov's death), reveal Chekhov's

increasingly scrupulous attention to language. The revised texts

satisfied his artistic criteria in the last years of his life and are those

printed in the edition of his complete works published between

1944 and 1951.3 Even without the revisions it is clear that in the

later stories he is particularly careful not to venture into language which could be considered obscure: with very few exceptions?

justified by the contexts?colloquialisms, dialect, professional

L. K. S. le Fleming is a lecturer in Russian at the University of Durham. 1 E.g. V. Khalizev, 'A. P. Chekhov kak stilist' (Russkiy yazyk v natsional'noy shkole, n. 3,

Moscow, i960, p. 3). 2 Sobraniye sochineniy A. P. Chekhova, 11 vols, published by A. F. Marks, Moscow 1899- 1906. 3 Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy i pisem A. P. Chekhova (hereafter cited Chekhov, Polnoye sobraniye), 20 vols (Gostlitizdat), Moscow, 1944-51.

1?S.E.E.R.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

terminology, ecclesiastical and foreign words are restricted to those

which were generally familiar and comprehensible in contemporary Russian.

Comprehensibility as a principle in the choice of language meant

more to Chekhov than the recognisability of the words. In a well-

known letter referring more to language in general than to individual words he advised Gor'ky:4

When reading your proofs cross out where possible noun and verb

qualifiers. There are so many attributive words in your writing that it is difficult for the reader to sort them out and he tires of it. He can under? stand when I write 'the man sat down on the grass'; he understands because it is clear and does not hold up his attention. On the other hand it is rather heavy going mentally if I write: 'a tall, narrow-chested man of medium build with a light ginger beard sat down on the green grass already trampled by passers by, sat down noiselessly looking round him

shyly and timidly'. This cannot be taken in immediately, and literature must be taken in immediately, in a second.

From this we can deduce that Chekhov selected his language and ordered it on the basis of a simple theory of communication, that to

convey meaning efficiently it is best to aim at making the language it? self as unnoticeable and easy to assimilate as possible and that if it attracts attention to itself it will distract the reader from the idea it

represents. Hence any word which is too noticeable will delay the reader's comprehension of the passage. The idea is expressed else? where in his letters. In 1889 he advised his brother Alexander5

similarly but without giving his reasons: 'Beware of affected language. Language must be simple and elegant. Servants must speak without

"pushchay" and without "tepericha".' In letters to aspiring writers who asked him for critical comments he emphasised the same point again and again: to Goslavsky6 who had used colloquial forms too often for his liking he wrote:

?My-sta' and 'shashnadtsat" spoil horribly the fine conversational Russian. So far as I can judge from Gogol' and Tolstoy, correct gram? mar does not remove from speech its genuine popular feeling. These forms like 'my-sta' and 'shashnadtsat" have the same effect on me as 'mouches volantes5 which interfere with my view of a clear sky.

Elsewhere he objected to other categories of language, to the pre? tentious, to the recherche, as well as to the uncouth?to words for words' sake, in fact.7

4 Letter to A. M. Peshkov (Gor'ky) of 3 September 1899 (ibid., XVIII, p. 221). 5 Letter to Al. P. Chekhov of 8 May 1889 (ibid., XIV, p. 362). 6 Letter to E. P. Goslavsky of 23 March 1892 (ibid., XV, p. 352). 7 E.g. in letters to I. L. Leont'yev (Shcheglov) (21 October 1889: ibid., XIV, p. 418); L. A. Avilova (15 February 1895: ibid., XVI, pp. 214-5); A. V. Zhirkevich (2 April 1895: ibid., XVI, pp. 234-6); O. P. Vasil'yeva (20 March 1898: ibid., XVIII, p. 247).

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV S LATER STORIES 325

The categories and qualities of his language have been commented

on in critical studies and detailed analyses scattered among literary and linguistic journals. Yet the structural role of words in the later

stories has been ignored. Perhaps Soviet scholars are reluctant to

adopt a critical approach which might be associated with formalism.

The presence of key words in a story is soon revealed by careful

reading or by an attempt to translate any of the later stories. These

words form an unobtrusive lexical structure which supports and ties

the often loose threads of the action. Thus a formal structure may tend to replace plot as a unifying force. Since frequent repetition of

identical words would make a story's language monotonous, a word

may be varied morphologically; since even this may not be sufficient

to prevent a word from 'surfacing' to strike the reader as an obvious

device the thought may be repeated using synonymous words or

phrases, thus allowing the repetition to retain its power to affect the

reader at a subconscious level of assimilation without its being noticed

by him.

This contention finds some support in Bitsilli's8 study in which

the repetition of the verb 'protyanut" is noted in these phrases from

Student: 'protyanul odin val'dshnep', 'po luzham protyanulis'

ledyanyye igly', 'protyagivaya k ognyu niki'. Towards the end of

this story the student crosses a river; Bitsilli considers this symbolic in the context of the student's thoughts about the continuity of time

and events, of how he had touched one end of a chain and the other

end had trembled. Bitsilli observes that this gives unity ('tselostnost") to the work.

In a rare Soviet comment on the formal function of words in

Chekhov's stories Bel'chikov and Karpov9 note the several words

whose meanings are associated with the slow tempo of life in the

third paragraph of Dom s mezoninom ('The House with the Veranda'):

'starykh', 'mrachnuyu', 'temno', 'starost", 'sumerkakh', 'starom', 'starushka'.10 This suggests that there are connections between words

not bound into syntactical units, that there can be associations of

meaning among words distributed over a number of sentences.

Further examples of this are not difficult to find. If we extend the

area of search beyond a single paragraph to the whole of a story the

number of recurrent words and phrases increases. In Dushechka

('The Darling') a large number of words associated with the idea of

'home' occur, e.g. 'dom', 'doma', 'dvor', 'fligel", and such phrases as cu nas v gorode', cu nee v dome', 'u sebya v komnate'. These

8 P. M. Bitsilli, Tvorchestvo Chekhova, Sofia, 1942. 9 Yu. A. Bel'chikov, Ye. L. Karpov, 'Nablyudeniya nad stilem avtorskogo povestvo- vaniya v rasskazakh A. P. Chekhova' (Russkiyyazyk v shkole, no. 1, i960). 10 Chekhov, Polnoye sobraniye, IX, p. 87.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

accumulate in the reader's subconscious to create a comfortable sense

of domestic security in spite of the character Olga's frequent bereave?

ments. In Chelovek v futlyare (The Man in the Box'), on the other

hand, something of Belikov's fear of the unexpected is conveyed to

the reader by the frequency of the word 'vdrug' in the narrative.

Words, it would seem, can have a cumulative role in building up the atmosphere in a story. To appreciate the importance of words to

the structure of a story it is clearly necessary to examine in some de?

tail the ways in which repetitions of words and phrases and of ideas

contribute to the central theme of a story, to its clarification and de?

velopment; as examples I have taken three stories of 1888-9,

Nepriyatnost' ('The Unpleasantness'), Knyaginya ('The Princess') and

Imeniny ('The Name-day Party'), referring generally to their defini?

tive versions of 1899-1901. A comparison of recurrent lexis is also

made between Imeniny and ?hena (1891) in an attempt to show that

the use of a lexical structure in each story was a conscious feature of

Chekhov's technique.

II

The story Nepriyatnost' was first published in A. S. Suvorin's

newspaper Novoye vremya in the issues of 3 and 7 June 1888 with the

title %hiteyskaya meloch'. It underwent a title change, some alterations

to the text and shortening for inclusion in the collection Khmuryye

lyudi which first appeared in 1890 and ran to ten editions by 1899. In

1901 the story appeared with very little further change in volume V

of Marks' edition of Chekhov's 'Collected Works'. The remarks

which follow concern the first variant of the story as a product of

Chekhov's transitional period, although they apply substantially to

the later texts also.

The story is about a young doctor in a zemstvo hospital who

punches his drunken felobcher in a moment of anger and suffers emo?

tionally from the situation which develops. The story is neither an

unmoving clinical account nor a purely subjective impression without meaning for people who have not shared the experience. Dr Ovchinnikov's emotions are given the force to convince and affect

the reader by Chekhov's careful organisation of his language, by the

formal arrangement of his material.

Although the story is not one of physical action but of emotional

reaction and words denoting emotional condition would be expected to recur, this does not result in the language being saturated with

words highly charged with emotion. The doctor's almost hysterical state of mind is conveyed by deliberate repetition of certain key

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV'S LATER STORIES 327

words and phrases which are unobtrusive and impose a gradual realisation of his desperation.

The vocabulary is not as neutral as that of many of Chekhov's

other later stories. The colloquial 'toporshchit'sya' occurs three

times in Chekhov's description of the doctor's impressions on enter?

ing the hospital to do his rounds and the popular form 'odezha' is

also used. In the passages of direct speech by the magistrates (the

mirovoy and the predsedatel' upravy) there is some ironical and angry use of slang:

k TOMy ace bm cMa3ajiH ero npn HcnojiHeHHH cjiyaceGHbix o6fl3aHHOCTeii

and

Bee HopoBHTe, KaK 6bi 3to no-yMHOMy, ^a no npHHipinaM, #a co bcakh- MH BblKpVTaCaMH, a BblXOftHT y BaC TOJIbKO OftHO: TeHb HaBOflHTe . . .

[pp. 127-8. The page references for this quotation, and all those which occur in the text below are taken from Chekhov, Polnoye sobraniye (cf. footnote 3), volume VII.]

Apart from a few such colloquialisms and a few common medical

terms the vocabulary is unostentatious.

There are scarcely any unusual or striking words in the story. By the end the doctor's anger has subsided predictably to indignant dis?

gust expressed in exclaiming 'Kak glupo'. He uses this phrase first

when the feldscher comes to apologise to him and he realises he

cannot settle the affair satisfactorily:

Kto-hhGvab h3 Hac, % hjih Bbl, AOJDKeH bbihth! (?Boace moh! 51 He to

eMy roBopio! ? yacacHyjica AOKTOp. ? KaK rjiyno, KaK nryno!?) [p. 121.]

He repeats his exclamation when the feldscher leaves having made

his scorn for the doctor's agitation clear and again, playing whist at

the garrison commander's house (p. 122). The next day he tries to think of a way to word his request for the feldscher's dismissal:

H3jio3KHTb ace 3Ty Mbicjib TaK, hto6h Bbimjio He rjiyno h He ctmaho? AJifl nopHAOHHoro nejioBeKa noHTH hcbo3mo5kho [p. 122.]

Chekhov uses the words glupo and stydno which are characteristic of the doctor to associate his thought more closely with him.

When the feldscher slanders him he refers to it as gluposti and on

receipt of a summons about the affair uses the same root in his

thoughts:

3to yac coBceM rjiyno ... ? AyMaji oh, pacnncbiBaacb b nojiyneHHH. ? Tjiynee h npH^vMaTb HHHero Hejib3H [p. 123].

The succeeding paragraph originally ended with this sentence:

Oh 3JiHJicfl h Ha ce6a, h Ha <})ejib,znTiepa, h Ha o6cT05rrejibCTBa5 KOTopbie

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

TaK rjiyno CKjiaAbiBajracb, h ottoto, hto HyBCTBOBan ce6a Tenepb rjiynbiM h CMeuiHbiM, bch acH3Hb Ka3ajiacb eMy cMeuiHoii h rjiynoii [pp. 527-8.]

But the words after 'obstoyatel'stva' were absent from the 1890 and

subsequent editions. In the penultimate paragraph the doctor's

thoughts again conclude with the powerless exclamation:

HeyacejiH, ? AyMaji oh, ? b nocjieAHioio He^ejno 6buio TaK mhoto

Bbicrpa/jaHo, nepe/jyMaHo h CKa3aH0 TOJibKo ajih toto, hto6w Bee KOHHHjiocb TaK Hejieno h nouijio! KaK rjiyno! KaK myno! [p. 130.]

Through the doctor's thoughts, and also by using the words 'kak

glupo! Kak glupo!', Chekhov reminds us of the previous occasions on which the word 'glupo' has been used.

Chekhov employs words as elements of the structure of his story. The word 'glupo' and other forms of the same root are simple and

unostentatious; their frequent repetition helps to express the doctor's

agitation and inability to deal firmly with the feldscher, his emotional nature which hinders him in trying to think rationally and decisively. More than a leitmotif to remind us of the doctor's state of mind, this word and its cognate forms bind the emotional process which make the subject of the story into a coherent and convincing truth.

His reaction to having hit the feldscher is further expressed in the word 'gadko', a more overt expression of disgust than the bewildered

self-reproach of 'glupo'. He uses 'gadko' earlier in the story than

'glupo' but not at first to refer directly to the outrage:

npeac^e Bcero ra#Ko to, /rvMaJi aoktop, hto (^ejibflniep nocrynHji b 6ojibHHijy He npocTo, a no npOTeKijHH CBoen tctkh, cjiyacameii b hh- Hioimcax y npeAceAaTejiH 3eMCKOH ynpaBbi... [p. 115].

'Gadko' reappears only at the end of the story when the chief magi? strate has settled the matter with an unsatisfactory compromise which leaves the doctor even more wretched than before (pp. 129- 30). The feldscher can now despise him for having to be defended by his social allies as well as for having lost his temper, having had to resort to force and for behaving childishly.

In apparent contrast to the doctor's state of mind is the effect of

normality which the patients and midwife strive to maintain and which is expressed in the repeated pretence that all is well; the word used is 'blagopoluchno', a word often used with irony by Chekhov to

suggest its opposite?anything but a satisfactory state of affairs. When the doctor makes his round of the women's ward

. . . Bee BpeMH 3a hhm xoAHJia pycajiKa h noMorana eMy c TaKHM bh?om, KaK 6yATO HHHero He cnyHHJiocb h Bee oGctohjio Gjiaronojiyn- Ho[p. 118].

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV S LATER STORIES 329

A page later we are reminded of this passage when 'rusalka' is

mentioned again:

TO-H-^ejio OHa BxoAHJia b npHeMHyio, hto6m noMOHb Ha onepairHH hjih B3?Tb peijenrbi, h Bee c TaKHM bhaom, KaK 6yATO Bee 6hjio fjjiaro-

nojiynHO [p. 119].

He decides to let the feldscher take him to court, imagining that this

will provide the best solution:

3Ta Htfefl yjibi6Hyjiacb eMy. Oh o6paAOBajica h craji AyMaTb, hto

Bonpoc penieH 6jiaronojiynHO h hto 6ojiee cnpaBeAJiHBoro peuieHHH He Mo?ceT 6biTb [p. 120].

In the last paragraph the word reappears when the doctor, still

smarting with shame, is back at work and everyone, including now

the feldscher, keeps up the pretence. Chekhov's irony is neatly directed at the doctor whose constant

shame and trembling are first experienced by the guilty feldscher:

OejibAinep He inaTajica, OTBenaji Ha Bonpocw CKjiaAHO, ho yrpioMO- Tynoe jihijo, TycKjibie rjia3a, Apoacb, npo6eraBnraH no mee h pyKaM, GecnopwoK b oaokac, a rjiaBHoe ? HanpaaceHHbie ycnjina HaA caMHM co6oh h acejiaHHe 3aMacKHpoBaTb CBoe coctohhhc, CBHAeTejibCTBOBajra, HTO OH TOJIbKO HTO BCTaJI C nOCTCJIH, He BblCnaJICH H 6bIJI nbHH, nb5IH

tjdkcjio, co BnepauiHero ... [p. 113].

A little later, before the doctor loses control of himself and strikes

him, we read of the feldscher:

EMy 6buio AOcaAHO Ha ce6a h ctmaho, hto Ha Hero b ynop tji^aht 6ojibHbie h CH^ejiKH, h, hto6m noKa3aTb, hto eMy He craAHO, oh npn- HyameHHO ycMexHyjica H nOBTOpHJi: ? KaKHX ace BaM eme Hoacen hvjkho? [p. 114].

From this point on the roots 'styd' and 'drozh" refer constantly to

the doctor, as does the adverb 'dosadno' on its only reappearance

(p. 123). Immediately after the feldscher's moment of shame the

doctor starts trembling:

floKTop noHVBCTBOBaji Ha rjia3ax cjie3bi h Apoacb B najibijax. Oh c/jejiaji naA co6oh ycnjine h nporoBopnji ApoacamriM tojiocom:

? CrynaHTe npocnHTecb! # He acejiaio roBopHTb c nb^HbiM . . . [p. 114].

Like the feldscher earlier, the doctor, ironically, has to try to hide his shame from the patients:

Ohh KaK 6vato noHHMajra, hto eMy ctmaho h 6ojibHo, ho H3 AeJiHKaT- hocth ^eJiajiH bha, hto He noHHMaiOT. H oh, acejiaa noKa3aTb hm, hto eMy BOBce He ctmaho, KpHnaji cepAHTo: ? 3h, bm, TaM! 3aTBop5iHTe ABepb, a to ckbo3ht!

A eMy vac 6biJio ctmaho h tjdkcjio [p. 119],

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

To heighten the irony even further Chekhov uses these same roots

'styd' and 'drozh" as the basis of the feldscher's contempt for the

doctor:

Oh BcerAa CHHTaji AOKTopa HenpaKTHnecKHM, KanpH3HbiM MajibHHin-

koh, a Tenepb npe3Hpaji ero 3a Apoacb, 3a Henomrrayio cyeTy b cjio- Bax . . .

? H noAaM, ? CKa3aji oh yrpioMO h 3Jio6ho. ? fla, h noAaBairre! ? A hto ace bm AyMaeTe? He noAaM? H noAaM ... Bm He HMeeTe

npaBa ApaTbca. fla h cTMAHJincb 6m! [p. 122].

In all, the root 'styd' occurs fourteen times and 'drozh" eight times in the first edition of the story.

Conversely, the doctor who begins the story as a gentle figure loses

this quality to the subdued feldscher. As he makes his rounds at the

beginning he notices the feldscher's drunkenness and we are told:

EMy CTajiH npoTHBHM 3KHjieTKa, AJiHHHonojiMH ciopTyK, cepbra B machctom yxe, ho oh CAepacaji CBoe 3Jioe nyBCTBo h cKa3aji mhtko h bokjihbo, KaK BcerAa:

? flaBajiH TepacHMy MOJioKa? [p. 113].

The feldscher copies this tone in his reply:

flaBajiH-c ... ? OTBeTHji Mnxanji 3axapbin Toace mztko [p. 113].

The doctor's temper is fraying when he asks the next question 'grubo i zadykhayas", but the feldscher again answers 'myagko'.

In the last paragraph the doctor again makes his rounds and most

of the key words applicable to him reappear; the now gentle feldscher

accompanies him and the story ends with the doctor again, as the

feldscher before him, trying to show that he is not ashamed by a dis?

play of confidence:

EMy 6bIJI0 CTMAHO, HTO B CBOH JIHHHMH BOnpOC OH BnVTaJI nOCTOpOH- HHX JHOAeH, CTMAHO 3a CJIOBa, KOTOpbie OH TOBOpHJI 3THM jiioaam, 3a

BOAKy, KOTOpyK) OH BMHHJI no npHBMHKe nHTb H aCHTb 3pfl, CTMAHO 3a cboh HenoHHMaronjHH, He rjry6oKHH vm . . . BepHyBiHHCb b 6oJibHHiry, oh TOTnac ace npHHfljicfl 3a oSxoa najiaT. <PejibAHiep xoahji okojio Hero, cryna*! m^tko, KaK kot, h mjjtko OTBenaa Ha Bonpocbi. . . H

4>ejibAHiep, h pycajiKa, h chacjikh AeJiajiH bha, hto minero He cjiynH- jiocb h hto Bee 6mjio 6jiaronojiyHHO. H caM aoktop H30 Bcex chji

cTapajicH Ka3aTbca paBHOAyuiHMM. Oh npHKa3MBaji, cepAHJicn, myTHji c 6ojibHMMH, a b M03ry ero KononiHJiocb: ? Tjiyno, rjiyno, rjiyno ... [p. 130].

The key words which form a submerged structure are not the only

repeated words in the story. There are other repetitions and leit?

motifs which do not relate directly to the doctor's emotional state and

so do not play an obvious structural role. 'Zhiletka' which occurs twice on page 112, twice on page 113 and once on page 124; and the

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV'S LATER STORIES 331

phrase 'pozhat' plechami' which occurs twice on page 113 and once

on page 124 (where the phrase 'povodil plechami' also occurs) are

part of the attempt to equate the feldscher's and the mirovoy's 'can't-be-bothered' attitude which is also expressed in their untidy dress. Doctor Ovchinnikov is similarly confused by both of them; with the feldscher he thinks even as he is speaking: 'ne to ya yemu

govoryu' (p. 127) and 'Bozhe moy! Ya ne to yemu govoryu!'

(p. 121); and with the mirovoy: 'ne to my govorim, chto nuzhno'

(p. 126) and 'chort znayet, chto, ne to ya govoryu!' (p. 127). Here

the function of repetition is primarily to suggest similarity of charac?

ter although the structure gains unity from this similarity.

Repetition is also used to emphasise traits of character, without

structural significance. The doctor, for instance, has difficulty con?

trolling his temper:

CAepacaji cbo6 3Jioe hvbctbo [p. 113]; CAepacaji AHxaHHe, hto6m He

roBopHTb, ho He BMAepacaji [p. 113]; CAejiaji HaA co6ok> ycnjine [p. 113]; CAejiaji HaA co6oh ycnjine h nporoBOpHji ApoacaujHM tojiocom [p. 114]; oh CAepacaji ce6a h, CTapaacb Ka3aTbCH noKoiiHMM, npoGpajica ckbo3b

TOJiny MyacHKOB b KaMepy [p. 123].

Once again there is a suggested exchange of roles between doctor and

feldscher when he imagines the feldscher saying to himself: 'sdelayu nad soboy usiliye, poproshu proshcheniya . . .' (p. 121).

The structure of Knyaginya ('The Princess') first published in

Novoye Vremya on 26 March 1889, is underpinned by the repetition of certain words and phrases and by the repetition of certain ideas

which are not conveyed by identical word roots each time, but by

synonyms or partial synonyms. The central character of this story, the princess, is marked by her affable smile:

Ee npHBeTJiHBaa, Becejiaa yjibi6Ka [p. 212]; OHa yjibi6ajiacb eme npn- BeTjiHBee [p. 213]; npHBeTjiHBo yjibiGaacb [p. 214]; Ha npHBeTjiHByio, KpoTKyio yjibiGKy khhthhh [p. 214]; npHBeTjiHBo yjibiGHyjiacb [p. 222]; npHBeTjiHBo yjibiGaTbca [p. 222].

Her smile is twice mentioned without epithets on page 216, once without an epithet and twice with the epithet 'myagka', 'myagko' on

page 222, where the adverb 'privetlivo' occurs also with the phrase 'zakivala golovoy'.

The combination 'privetlivaya ulybka' and its various ramifica?

tions, which seemed at first to suit the gracious behaviour of the

princess as she enters the monastery, gradually loses its positive quality and is ultimately revealed to be the smile of insensitive self- satisfaction. This ironic development of meaning is shared by the

adjective 'krotkiy' and its partial synonyms 'myagkiy' and 'laskovyy': 'yeyo . . . krotkiy vzglyad' (p. 212); 'na privetlivuyu, krotkuyu

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

332 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

ulybku' (p. 214); the doctor in his tirade refers ironically to her

'angel'skaya krotost" (p. 219), the sting of which is sharpened by the

princess's earlier comparison of herself to an angel (p. 213). Tender?

ness and gentleness are qualities which she alone is convinced that

she possesses: 'ona chuvstvovala, chto yeyo ulybka neobyknovenno laskova i myagka' (p. 222); 'ona vsyo yeshcho shchurilas' i myagko

ulybalas" (p. 222); the idea of gentleness then spreads to the motion

of the coach in which she leaves the monastery at the end:

BcTpenHbie MyacHKH KjiaHajracb en, KOJiacKa mhtko inypniajia, H3-noA KOJiec BajiHJiH oGjiaKa nbiJin, yHOCHMbie BeTpoM Ha 30jiothctvio poacb, h KHflrHHe Ka3ajiocb, hto ee Tejio KanaeTca He Ha noAynncax kojiackh, a Ha oGjiaKax, h hto caMa OHa noxoaca Ha jiencoe, npo3panHoe oGjiaHKo ...

[p. 223]; noTOM jiacKOBO KHBHyjia nocjiynrHHKaM [p. 211];

The first occurrence of 'laskovo' on the first page is in the author's

narrative and our suspicions that its meaning is anything but

straightforwardly descriptive are not yet awakened.

KHHTHHfl noAyMajia, hto xopomo Gm ocraHOBHTb 3Ty crapyxy h CKa3aTb

eiiHTOH-HGyAb jiacKOBoe [pp. 213-14].

The second occurrence is already out of the narrator's hands?the

character has come to life and the word is part of her thoughts about

herself, as it is in the third paragraph from the end. By then it has be?

come obvious that her tenderness is rooted only in her smug inability to realise how selfishly she treats other people.

The meaning has been undermined and indeed reversed towards

'heartless', 'ruthless', 'unheeding', 'unpitying'. This applies equally to the key phrase 'privetlivaya ulybka' and the lexical structure

which these words support is therefore based on a change of meaning, and the meaning of every other word referring to the princess's actions and outlook is subject to the same semantic shift. Details of the princess's character which acquire new meaning on repetition are a fundamental part of the revelation of her nature which is the

subject of the story. The justification for such conclusions may be found in a straight?

forward analysis of the central figure of the story. The princess's character is shown to be self-centred by her actions and words, in the doctor's tirade and her inability to understand it. The monks recog? nise her from a long way off which suggests that they have been

waiting for her, a point supported by the doctor's fierce accusation of her thoughtlessness for monks and abbot (pp. 219-20), and by his

description of her habit of keeping her subordinates waiting (pp. 217-8), the ironic culmination of which is the doctor's wait to

apologise (p. 222). Her triple description of herself to the monks and

abbot in the opening scene as their own princess ('svoya knyaginya',

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV S LATER STORIES 333

pp. 211 (twice), 212) and to the doctor (p. 214) shows presumption as

does her habit of interfering in other people's affairs, notably the

doctor's. She wants to console him for the loss of his wife the previous

year?without remembering that she had dismissed him five years earlier without reason and that she had refused to admit his wife

when she came to petition her. However sincere her desire to comfort

him, her words show that she is unable to understand his loss; she

compares her own sorrows?her husband's infidelity and her

financial troubles?with his. (In Vragi ('The Enemies'), a story of

1885, Chekhov had described a similar incomprehension of real

grief in a person whose wife feigns illness in order to gain time to run

away from him.) The curt tone of the doctor's first answers, short

sentences beginning with 'da' or 'net', is more eloquent than the

princess's self-pitying wails. Her welfare schemes are considered by the doctor to be self-centred and ridiculously unpractical, just as

Tolstoy had depicted Vronsky's hospital as an attempt to convince

others of his liberal-mindedness as a landowner. Her inability to

understand what the doctor has been saying is suggested by her

flinching not from his words but from his hat which he keeps waving about. That night she indulges in more self-pity, but the next morn?

ing remembers only that she was unhappy, and is cheerful and

pleased to notice the doctor among the monks who see her off. While

the doctor is pale and begs forgiveness, she is now birdlike and happy. The dog it was that died . . .

The princess's happy belief that she is like a bird to the monks

(pp. 212, 213, 222) and her equally presumptuous belief that if only

people were to understand her they would be full of sympathy for her

unselfishness (pp. 221, 222) are recurrent. The monastery bells (pp.

213, 220, 221) which give her comfort and the smell of cypress

(pp. 212 (twice), 221) which she enjoys are details of the outside

world which she is happy to perceive as being provided for her benefit.

Whenever she is threatened by a disturbing thought or sight the

princess is able to escape from it merely by covering up her face

(pp. 220, 221, 222, 223). Peace of mind is not difficult for her.

Such repetitions of identical words and phrases and of words with

closely associated meanings serve to develop character, but since this

story consists of the revelation of the princess's character these

repetitions are integral to the structure.

Repetition of words is significant for both form and content, but there are repetitions of a purely formal kind: stylistic features, rather than actual words, can be repeated. A common example in Chekhov's stories is the doubling up of words, particularly epithets: 'chudnyy, chudnyy starik' (p. 221); 'vozdukh temnel bystro, bystro . . .' (p. 213); 'daleko-daleko' (p. 213); other words, not

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334 L- s- K- LE FLEMING

epithets, are also doubled, even trebled: 'sidet' by nepodvizhno, slushat', i dumat', dumat', dumat'...' (p. 213); 'ya davno uzh

zhdal sluchaya, ch toby skazat' vam vsyo, vsyo . . .' (p. 216);

'zhdyom, zhdyom, pereminayemsya s nogi na nogu' (p. 218) and the

final words of the story which are essential also to the content: 'kak

ya schastliva!?sheptala ona, zakryvaya glaza.?Kak ya schastliva!'

(p. 223). These final words remind us in form of the stylistic feature

of doubling up which has been recurrent in the story and at the same

time sum up the princess's self-satisfaction and show her unmoved by the doctor's tirade. By echoing in intonation and syntactical form

two exclamations in her opening remarks to the abbot?'kak ya rada, svyatoy otets, chto nakonets vizhu vas! . . . Kak u vas zdes'

khorosho!' (pp. 211-12)?she reveals in form as well as in content the

persistence of her insensitivity, unshaken by the abbot or the doctor

and still a threat to humanity. The story's meaning is conveyed thus

by a system of lexical and stylistic repetitions, forming a purposeful structure.

III

Chekhov revised some of his stories very considerably over the

years and reasons for this and guiding principles in the work involved

have been suggested by a number of critics. If he was aware of the

linguistic structure of his stories then we might expect that words and

phrases important to the stories' structure would have tended to

survive the revisions; and that when stories which had previously been published separately were combined in a single volume, Chekhov would have sought to ensure that the linguistic structures of

these stories were not based on the same words. But it is not easy to

define this process of revision clearly, because some pruning of the

structure would perhaps have been necessary when the story was

shortened, otherwise the structure would have appeared obtrusive?

its chief strength is its imperceptibility in ordinary reading; further?

more, Chekhov may have intentionally avoided using the same key words in different stories even before he published them in a collec?

tion.

The story Imeniny was quite drastically revised. It was written in

1888 and first published in November of that year in the journal

Severnyy vestnik. In this original form11 it was more than twice the

length of Nepriyatnost'; it was shortened by some three thousand

words for republication as a separate edition in 1893. (This was re?

printed in 1894 and 1899.) It was shortened again by three hundred

11 Ibid., VII, pp. 530-43-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV'S LATER STORIES 335

words before it was included in the fourth volume of the 'Collected

Works' of 1901. The story's length was reduced by about one fifth, but the number

of recurrent word roots and the number of recurrences of each word

root were not reduced by a corresponding amount.

Imeniny is an account of a young wife's misery, brought about by the knowledge that her husband is concealing from her the reasons for

his own apparent anxiety. In the story she is occupied with the

arrangements for entertaining guests at her husband's name-day

party. The vocabulary contains many words denoting her state of

mind; such words as 'dosada', 'oskorbleniye', 'obida', 'naprya-

zheniye', 'utomleniye', 'nenavist", 'revnost", 'mucheniye', 'skuka',

'strakh', and verbs, adverbs and adjectives formed from their roots

recur throughout the story. Some of these words are also used to con?

vey the other characters' moods; 'utomleniye' is for example, used

repeatedly to describe the husband's state of mind, and is also em?

ployed to establish the effect upon his guests of one of his arguments.

Strikingly frequent are words expressing physical and mental con?

cealment (the same roots, 'skryvat" and 'pryatat", are used for

both), and withdrawal ('uyti'). Words which denote lying ('lozh" and 'lgat") are a constant torment of the wife, and words denoting

falsity ('fal'shivyy', and even the word 'to smile'?'ulybat'sya') recur

during her observations about the people around her.

The atmosphere, too, is oppressive?'dushno'?and this oppres? sion is accentuated by the buzzing of bees at the beginning of the

story, and by the constant threat of rain. Not only is there a lyrical connection between the meteorological and psychological atmo?

spheres, but two of the words which are to recur?'pryatat" ('to

hide') and 'tyazholyy' ('heavy')?are first encountered in this

description:

Ojibra MnxafijioBHa CHAejia no cio CTopoHy njieTHa, okojio niajiaina. CojiHije npflTajiocb 3a oGjiaKaMH, AepeBba h B03Ayx xMypmracb, KaK nepeA AoacAeM, ho, HecMOTpa Ha 3to, Gmjio acapKO h avhiho. CeHo, CKonieHHoe noA AepeBbHMH HaKaHyHe IleTpoBa aha, Jieacajio HeyGpaH- Hoe, nenajibHoe, necrpea cbohmh noGjieKHiHMH ijBeTaMH h HcnycKaa TflacejibiH npHTopHbiii 3anax. Bmjio thxo. 3a njieraeM mohotohho acyacacajiH nnejibi... [p. 141.]

The words 'pryatat" and 'tyazholy' are transferred to the psycho? logical front as the story progresses, while the bees, and the word 'dushno' ('oppressive') remain on the material level, but the name-

day dinner ('obed'), though it suggests physical things, symbolises for

Olga the psychological ordeal from which she tries to escape at the start of the story:

ITocjie HMeHHHHoro oGeAa, c ero BOceMbio GjnoAaMH h GecKOHenHMMH

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

336 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

pa3roBopaMH, aceHa HMeHHHHHKa Ojibra MHxaiiJiOBHa nouijia b caA [p. 140].

'Oskorbleniye' (which recurs 16 times), 'pryatat" (7 times) and

'napryazheniye' (6 times) were unaffected by the revisions which the

story underwent. Words denoting the wife's feeling of boredom

('skuka', 'skuchno') which occurred 7 times in the original edition, were reduced to 4 in the final version; while words indicating the

boredom of the other characters were reduced from 6 to 2, in order to

sharpen the contrast with the stuffy, motionless and genteel environ?

ment. The word 'obed',?an actual event which acquires symbolic overtones for Olga?recurs throughout the final version of the story

(p. 140 twice; p. 141 three times; pp. 144, 145; p. 146 twice; p. 147 twice; p. 160; p. 170 second occurrence). It had been cut twice (cf.

pp. 533, 542); it also appears five times with neutral significance for

the other characters.

Some details in the first edition were cut entirely before the 1893 edition: the ant which Olga observed in the shed, and remembered at intervals throughout the story (cf. p. 531, three times; p. 532;

p. 539, three times); also cut were the references to the student's

'zolotistyye usiki' (cf. pp. 535, 538) and the character of Zakhar (cf. p. 530). The occurrences of the word 'zatylok',?a detail of the hus?

band's appearance which caught Olga's attention?were reduced from io to 4, but for non-stylistic reasons: Pleshcheyev pointed out to Chekhov the obvious similarity with the effect of Karenin's ears on

Anna, in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

In the 1888 edition the following words were mentioned or

repeated 469 times:

GaGba jiorHKa, GoraTbiii, BApyr, raAKO, rpoMKo, AeTCKH-GecnoMomHo yjibiGaTbOi, AOcaAHO, Apoacb, AyniHO, acyacacaHHe, 3Jio, hckpchhhh, KpnnaTb, jiraTb, Jioacb, jichhbmh, MajieHbKHH nejiOBeneK, MypaBen, Myxa, MVHemie, HaAoGHOCTb, HanpaaceHHe, HacMenuiHBO, HeAOBOjieH coGoh, HeHaBHCTb, HeoacHAaHHO, HenoABHacHO, HenpaBAa, HeTepnejiHBO, o6eA, oGHAa, oGmkhobchho, ocKopGjieHHe, OTKpMTb, no3ApaBjraTb, npHBeTjiHBo yjibiGaTbca, npHBbncaTb, npjrraTb, mejia, paBHOAynmo, peBHOCTb, pbiAaTb, caMOJiioGne, cKpMBaTb, cojiHAHaa noxoAKa, cojihaho, CTpax, CTporo, ctma, cmtmh, tomhmh, Taacejio, ye3acaTb/ yexaTb, yKpMTb, yjibiGaTbca, yTOMJieHHe, yxoAHTb/yiiTH, 4>ajibHib and necTHO.

These were reduced to 376 in the 1893 edition, and to 366 in the

1901 edition. Thus, rather more than one fifth of the recurring words in the original edition did not appear in the 1901 version of Imeniny. However the cuts tended to affect words which are not necessary to the structure of the story, at any rate in its revised versions (e.g., 'iskrenniy', 'muravey', 'skuka', 'sytyy'). But some of the recurrent

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV'S LATER STORIES 337

words and phrases were not reduced in number to anything like the

same extent; the retention of only some of them in a less diffuse struc?

ture suggests improved technique and a desire not to leave this new

structure too exposed. For example, the words and phrases placed in

brackets in the quotation below were included in the 1888 edition, but had been removed by 1901:

CKOJibKo Gmjio HeHyacHbix pa3roBopoB (o rocyAapcTBe b rocyAapCTBe, o jiH6epajiH3Me), ckojibko 6pio3acaHbfl h HencKpeHHero CMexa HaA TeM, hto He CMeuiHo! Y3HaB ace, hto ero npHBjieKaiOT k cyAy, oh BApyr yTOMHJica h naji AyxoM (. IIpeKpaTHJiHCb pa3roBopbi, 6pio3acaHHe h CMex. Oh), CTaji njioxo cnaTb, (acajiOBajica Ha CKyKy,) name, neM

oGbiKHOBeHHo, CTOflji y OKHa h GapaGaHHJi najibijaMH no cre'KjiaM. H

(KaK Ka3ajiocb Ojibre MnxanjiOBHe, b sto BpeMH MeacAy eio h MyaceM 3ajierjia MajieHbKaa 4>ajibuib.) oh ctmahjich C03HaTbCH nepeA (Heio) aceHOio, hto eMy Taacejio, a en Gmjio AocaAHO . . . (, hto oh He co3Ha-

Bajica; KorAa OHa 3aroBapnBajia c hhm o cbe3Ae hjih npeAcrojimeM cyAe, oh HanHHaji GpaBHpoBaTb nepeA neio, KaK Tenepb nepeA JIk>-

Gohkoh.) ? ToBopflT, bm Gmjih b IIojiTaBCKOH ryGepHHH? [p. 144; cf. p. 541].

As can be seen, of the words listed above as recurrent 'vdrug',

'utomilsya', 'obyknovenno', 'stydilsya', 'tyazhelo' and 'dosadno' are

representative and are retained, while 'skuku' and 'fal'sh' are cut.

(Tskrenniy'?3 occurrences?was cut entirely leaving two 'neis-

krenniy's, one of which we see here.) The retention of the emotionally

expressive key words in this shortened text accounts for some of the

vagueness, the deliberately suggestive rather than explicit treatment

of characters' states of mind, which are typical features of the later

stories. The excision of the clause after 'dosadno', which leaves the

reader to make his own explanation, will serve as an example of the

technique. A further point is that due to the story's length some words are not

recurrent throughout the whole narrative. In the final version

'dosadno' is used twelve times mainly to describe Olga's feelings dur?

ing the party. (Four of its occurrences in the original chapter 1 had

been cut.) In the last quarter of the story it is used once, but does not

then refer to Olga. On only one occasion is the word 'ulybat'sya' used to mean a genuine, sincere smile:

yKpbiBuiHCb c rojiOBoii, OHa nojieacana mhhvtm Tpn, noTOM b3tjih- Hyjia H3-noA OAeajia Ha jiaMnaAKy, npHCJiyrnajiacb k thihhhc h yjibiG- Hyjiacb.

On the previous nine occasions (pp. 140, 141, 146, 150, 158, 159;

p. 161 twice; and cf. the passage cut from the end of chapter 3,

p. 538) her smile is forced (e.g.: 'obyazannost' nepreryvno

ulybat'sya . . .', p. 140), as it is in the phrase 'privetlivo ulybat'sya'

(pp. 146, 157; and p. 160 twice). Six 'smiles' by other characters

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

338 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

also precede Olga's 'genuine' smile. (Only her husband's 'childishly-

helpless smile'?'detski-bespomoshchnaya ulybka' (p. 166 twice;

pp. 171, 539) follows.) The word 'rydat" ('to sob')? a sincere

expression of her pain and emotion?thereafter becomes recurrent

(p. 166 three times; p. 167 three times; pp. 168, 169). 'Obida' is cut

three times from chapter 1 (cf. p. 532) but is retained in chapter 3 twice (p. 161) and in chapter 4 (p. 167). 'Oskorbleniye' occurs fre?

quently but the characters to whose feelings it refers change: in

chapter 1 it is used twice as a legal term and three times to describe

the action of her husband's, arguments on his listeners in general; when the guests have departed it describes Olga's feelings (pp. 152,

164 first occurrence; p. 165 first occurrence) and her husband's

(pp. 164, 165; p. 166 three times; pp. 168, 170, 171). Thus, some

words which were part of the recurrent vocabulary of the whole of

Imeniny in the first edition were relegated in later editions to short-

term structural elements. 'Solidnaya pokhodka' (pp. 147, 148) and

'solidno' (p. 147, three times) are characteristic of the husband's

demeanour and might be expected to recur as leitmotifs, but the

only later repetition of the phrase in the original edition, at the end of

chapter 5, was cut in 1893. The story %hena ('The Wife') was written in 1891 and first pub?

lished in the January 1892 issue oiSevernyy vestnik. The editor Chertkov

wanted to include this in a collection in 1892, but Chekhov was

apparently not satisfied with the story. In June 1892 he wrote to

Chertkov:

it is difficult to hold an opinion about one's own works, but my story Zhena seems to me to be unsuitable for you. If you think otherwise then

by all means take it and print it. I shall have a look in my desk and per? haps find some other story which I shall send you; I would prefer it if

my contribution to your project did not consist of %hena.

Later the same month he offered Chertkov Imeniny and in August wrote again 'take Imeniny too, if you find it suitable, but do not pub? lish it together with Zhena* I do not like the idea of these two stories in one book, but I cannot say why exactly.'12

IV

A quick comparison of the two stories provides no obvious ex?

planation for Chekhov's refusal to allow them to appear together. There are indeed similarities in the wives' dissatisfaction with their

pompous husbands. Money is an imagined or real source of tension to both couples and in these stories the antagonisms between

12 Ibid., XV, pp. 399, 393, and 415.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LANGUAGE IN CHEKHOV'S LATER STORIES 339

husband and wife are settled in an unexpected and disturbing way, far removed from the conventional 'lived-happily-ever-after' end?

ing. These themes, though parallel, are not so identical as to hinder the

stories' inclusion in a single volume and they could not be con?

sidered incompatible were it not for the correspondences in their key words.

The words and phrases recurrent in the first edition of Znena ancl

with a weight of meaning sufficient for them to be considered sig? nificant to the structure, may be compared to the similar list for

Imeniny already given; in Zaena we ^n^ these words recur:

GaGbfl jiorHKa, 6ecnoMoiimo yjibiGaTbca, BApyr, bajio, rpoMKO, 3aTM-

JIOK, HCKpeHHHH, KpHHaTb, HeHaBHCTb, HHHT03KHMH, oGnacaTbCfl, ocKopGjieHHe, noKOH, npraTHMH, npHTaTb, paBHOAyniHMH, pa3Apa- acaTb, caMOjnoGne, CKyKa, CMex, CMymaTb, cTpax, ctma, cmtmh, thxhh, TaacejiMH, ye3acaTb/yexaTb, yjibiGaTbCH, yTOMHTb, yxoAHTb/ yirra, yioTHMH, and HecTHbiii.

There are also recurrences in the ordinary course of the narrative of

words which were significant in the structure of Imeniny: 'bogatyy', 'dosada', 'mukha', 'nepodvizhno', 'neterpelivo', 'obed', 'obykno- venno', 'privetlivo ulybat'sya', 'revnost", 'skryvat", 'slabyy'. These

may not have been essential to the structure of Znena"> but they may have suggested to Chekhov that the lexis of the two stories was too

similar for him to permit them to be published together. Several

of these words, for example 'vdrug', 'privetlivo', 'ulybat'sya' and

'tyazholyy' recur in other stories, of course, and may play a part in

their lexical structure. In spite of this the lexical correspondences between these two stories are striking.

Not only are some words common to the structure of both stories but they are also used in similar, 'particular' ways: just as 'ulybat'sya' ('to smile') in Imeniny is generally used to express boredom and dis?

gust, so 'smeyat'sya' in ZJiena 1S no expression of mirth, but is rather

ironic, even scornful and vicious.

In the very short story Student (1894) the expressive and structural roles of words are combined particularly closely. The physical and the emotionally expressive meanings of the key words 'kholod', 'veter', 'dut" and their partial antonyms 'ogon", 'kostyor', 'gret" acquire as they recur a structural role. Warmed both physically and

psychologically by his moment of human contact at the bonfire

('kostyor') with the two widows, the student Velikopol'sky sets off into the darkness, immune now to the cold wind ('kholod', 'veter'), the same wind which has blown ('dut") bleakly through history. The

glow of warmth in his soul is even reflected back onto the natural scene in a crimson glow which lingers in the sky from the sunset.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340 L. S. K. LE FLEMING

Structural strength and philosophical content in this story both

spring from the associations of ideas underlying simple words.

The simplicity and unobtrusiveness of words used in key roles dis?

tinguish them from leitmotifs whose function is to be memorable

(as with Turgenev's definition of Lezhnyov in Rudin as 'flegmati-

cheskiy'). Unobtrusiveness ensures that the lexical structure has a

subconscious effect; the sense of unity is conveyed directly to the

reader's emotions, and he need make no effort to correlate events or

ideas rationally. All he has is a vague sense of continuity. One important question remains. Is the linguistic structure in

Chekhov's stories a conscious device or does the structure merely become effective by default, in the absence of a strong story line or of

dramatic events? The interest in these later stories lies in the

characters' states of mind rather than in the action. A 'state of mind'

may, in Chekhov, be evoked by quite trivial occurrences, therefore

words expressing emotion are liable to predominate over narrative

description, if not numerically, then at least by their significance in

being close to the centre of interest. Unless synonyms are used such

words are bound to recur. But when the same word reappears with a

slightly different meaning, and when it is used to refer to different

characters or to both character and environment, it assumes a

structural role stronger than leitmotif. This suggests that the employ? ment of such words was a deliberate artistic device and that the princi?

ples which governed Chekhov's use of language may have been more

complex than the aims of simplicity and neutrality which charac?

terised his choice of vocabulary. His use of simple vocabulary renders the deeper, hidden meaning of

the words more accessible to the ordinary reader. Superficially Chekhov appears to have no concern beyond the immediate moment, the circle of vision, but by employing words in a structural role he is

able to charge them with the power of conveying his complex ideas.

Content is apparent in the manner of presentation as well as in the

choice of subject. Chekhov prefers to conceal his opinions, but the

formal features of his writing involve the reader with his themes. In

Chekhov in particular simple words subtly repeated and varied help to give a story the convincing integrity of an emotional experience.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:33:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions