Yelena
Shavrova (1874-1937) sends Chekhov a story she has written in which a character
contracts syphilis. She asks his advice, and he suggests she lock the story in
a trunk for a year, and only then reread it. “By that time things will seem
clearer to you,” he says, prudently. “I am afraid to decide for you for fear of
making a mistake.” Then he proceeds to demolish what sounds like an awful
story: “The story is a little wishy-washy, it exudes tendentiousness, the
details all run together like spilled oil, and the characters are barely
sketched out.”
Most
damningly, Chekhov tells Shavrova she has “failed to cope with the formal
aspects.” He means her science is weak. She doesn’t understand the disease, how
it manifests itself and how it can be treated (with mercury compounds, unreliably,
in the late nineteenth century). Recall that Chekhov was a working physician:
“Degeneracy,
general nervousness and flabbiness are not due to S [Chekhov’s discrete abbreviation
for syphilis] alone, but to a combination of many factors: vodka, tobacco, the
gluttony of the intellectual class, its appalling upbringing, its lack of
physical labor, the conditions of urban life and so on and so forth. What is
more, there are other diseases no less serious than S. Tuberculosis, for example.”
Chekhov
was coughing blood as early as 1884, and the disease killed him in 1904, but
the mention of TB here is fleeting, a hypothetical example. There’s no evidence
Shavrova knew Chekhov had the disease, nor even certainty that he accepted the
diagnosis at the time he was writing the letter, in 1895. His next sentence is
personally revealing and suggestive of Chekhov’s aesthetic sense: “I also
feel that it’s not the duty of the artist to lash out at people for being ill.
Am I to blame for having migraines?” To this day, a belief in disease as moral
punishment is latent in many of us.
Chekhov
condemns the doctors in Shavrova’s story. They “behave abominably” and violate
the Hippocratic Oath. “S isn’t a vice,” he writes, “it isn’t the product of ill
will, but a disease, and the people who have it need warm, human care.” He
reminds Shavrova of the risks one runs just being alive, and then states a sort
of artistic credo deeply informed by his medical training and experience, and
by his native sense of tact:
“For
myself, I stand by the following rule: I write about sickness only when it
forms part of the characters or adds color to them. I am afraid of frightening
people with diseases. I can’t accept the idea of `our nervous age,’ because
people have been nervous in all ages. Anyone who is afraid of being nervous should
turn himself into a sturgeon or a smelt. A sturgeon can make a fool or a
blackguard of himself once and only once by getting caught on a hook. After
that he goes into soups and pies.”
Chekhov’s
letter is remarkably various. It zig zags from topic to topic, tone to tone,
without seeming chaotic. He is able to criticize Shavrova without humiliating
her or making ad hominem comments. One would love to know her reaction and what
she eventually did with the story. Did she revise it? Was it ever published?
Would Russian censorship have permitted a story about syphilis to appear without
excisions? Chekhov writes:
“I’d
like to see you write about something cheerful and bright green, a picnic, for
example. Leave it to us medics to write about cripples and black monks. I’m soon going back to writing humorous
stories, because my psychopathological repertory is exhausted.”
In
the next year or so, Chekhov would write “Three Years,” “My Life” and "Peasants." He
wrote his letter to Shavrova on this date, Feb. 28, in 1895.
[An
online source of unknown reliability reports: “Elena Mikhaylovna Shavrova sent
more than twenty of her stories to Chekhov who liked them, reviewed for her and
edited. She failed to develop into a serious writer as he hoped she would, but
their ten years’ correspondence (which started in 1889, when she was 15)
resulted in more than 200 letters.”]
No comments:
Post a Comment