PHILOSOPHIC CONTENT

OF ANTON CHEKHOV’S WORK

E.S. Grevtsova
Department of History of Philosophy
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Miklukho-Maklaya str., 10a, Moscow, Russia, 117198

Understanding of the philosophic content of the A.P. Chekhov’s oeuvre, which is based on the writer’s
idea of the original religious and philosophic world view and at the same time of him as a thinker of an exis-
tential type, who had a significant impact on the development of Russian philosophy of the XX-th century
is presented and exposed in the article.
Key words: Chekhov, Russian philosophy, Russian literature, intelligentsia, existentialism, existential
nature of Russian philosophy, world view, self-knowledge.

“Russia loved itself in Chekhov.

Nobody had ever expressed its collective type like he did,
not only in his works but also in his face, his appearance,
his manners and it seems that also in his living and behavior”.
(V. Rozanov)

According to Vasily Rosanov, Chekhov, a great classical author of Russian litera-

ture, expressed a “collective type” of Russia and Russians in his writing (and that is a phi-
losophic challenge). However, the historical and philosophic analysis of artistic legacy
of Chekhov is still a rare occasion. Famous books on the history of Russian philosophy
written by V. Zenkovsky and N. Lossky do not mention Chekhov as a thinker; this
fact may breed an illusion of his low priority for philosophic community. Also there are
no articles about Chekhov in contemporary reference scientific publications including
encyclopedia “Russian Philosophy”. Unfortunately, there is no section on Chekhov as
a thinker in the recently published monograph by S. Semenova, a scholar of Meta-
physics of Russian Literature [1].
Chekhov’s work, being, may at least be named to be close to philosophy (if not
philosophic) as many specialists allow an opinion that Russian philosophy and literature a
closely connected and literature is the embodiment of Russian philosophic ideas. How-
ever, historically Chekov gained an unjust reputation of “non-philosophic” writer in
Russian culture, especially as compared to L. Tolstoy and F. Dostoyevsky. Chekhov’s
“non-philosophic” stereotype has been following him since the end of 19th — early
20th century. Moreover, the stereotype was mostly established by book critics and essay
writers those who are responsible for the great bulk of publications on Chekhov; they
ignored philosophic content of his writing absolutely. Chekhov was blamed to have “no
ideals”, “no wings”, “no ideology” and even “no general idea”. Even the critic D. Me-
rezhkovsky (who was no alien to philosophy) argued that regarding philosophic thinking
Chekhov was just a “pure tramp”. These negativistic statements are part of the antholo-

59
 Вестник РУДН, серия Философия, 2014, № 1

gy “A. Chekhov: Pro et Contra. Works of A.P. Chekhov in Russian thought of the
XIXth — early XXth centuries. (1887—1914)” [2].
The stereotype of “non-philosophic” nature of Chekhov still persists. Penetration
into the worldview part of his writings is still shallow and some up-to-date efforts to
include the writer into the context of “metaphysics of Russian literature” look like a
worthless playing for deconstruction from the point of view of postmodernism. Let us
consider one of such efforts: “Russia found in Chekhov its ideal for secularity — the
secularity which removes religious strain of culture but at the same time acts as a criti-
cism for secularity according to the religious programme of this culture. Its result is
an absolute zero, a full-weight zero that embodies an absolute in itself” [3. P. 507].
The occurrence of these negative, even “twaddle” records of Chekhov’s worldview
was mentioned by V. Katayev, a well-known Russian Chekhov scholar and the chairman
of the Chekhov Committee of Russian Academy of Sciences: “New works on the pecu-
liarities of Russian idea, Russian notion are published. Chekhov is either not men-
tioned there or is mentioned in a negative context” [4. P. 366]. According to Katayev,
the pseudo-original presentations result in inability to penetrate into the depth of phi-
losophic measurement of Chekhov’s work. Katayev states that Chekhov was an origi-
nal thinker indeed, one of “epistemological” writers. According to Katayev (being a
reputed expert of Chekhov works), the distinction was that Chekhov had never pro-
posed any final metaphysical solutions of ideological issues; he called to search for
truth and never left room for any possibility of giving up the process. As for Chek-
hov’s “secularism”, his “disbelief in anything”, the bottom of this long-standing cliché
may be knocked out by the words of the writer saying: “There is a huge gap between
notions “the God exists” and “there is no God” and it may be narrowed with a great
difficulty by a genuine man of wisdom”. On the one hand, Chekhov’s attitude to the
idea of God was serious and responsible; there was no blasphemy in it. At the same
time he was strange to the “intellectual” search for God and any “greasy religiosity”. He
wrote: “A man shall stray, seek for a goal, be dissatisfied until he understands and
finds his God. One cannot live in the name of children or humankind. And if there is no
God then there is no reason to live one should perish” [5. P. 214].
A remarkable article of S. Bulgakov “Chekhov as a thinker” (1904) that originated
the study of philosophic content in Chekhov’s work states that “spiritual capital” left
by him is far from mastering and comprehension and that Chekhov’s deep penetration
into the “mystery of a human” is the main value of his writing. Bulgakov’s focus here is
on the fact that Chekhov writes not about heroes but about “ordinary people” and this
is an issue of comprehensive and universal importance because it does not refer to
Russian life only but opens ways to learn human nature itself.
So what is a reason for the mentioned underestimation of Chekhov as a thinker
in Russia (as opposed to, for instance, England where Chekhov is looked upon as an
intelligent writer, in particular a play writer)? To answer this questions at least in broad
terms one needs to look at differences in the meaning of an image of intellectual leader
in the West and in Russia.

60
 Grevtsova E.S. Philosophic content of Anton Chekhov’s work

The main distinctive feature of philosophy in Russia, in particular regarding its

maintenance and development is the existence of inconsistences between philosophic
ideas and living conditions in Russia. M. Gershenzon noted: “Truly, historians would
not make any mistake if they begun studying the life of Russian society in two sepa-
rate ways — life and ideas — – as there was almost nothing in common between
them” [6. P. 81]. Thus, the immersion of Russian thinkers into the world of feelings
of an individual devoted to the sense of life that determined general existence-oriented
philosophical nature of Russian philosophy follows. And, the migration of philosophic
ideas into the fields of culture adjacent to philosophy including imaginative literature
follows too.
It is well known that Chekhov possessed the highest level of civic awareness. No
matter where he lived — in Moscow, Melikhovo, Yalta — he had wide connections
with “general public” in an old Russian meaning: he maintained contact with fellow
countrymen from Taganrog, he sent books to the Taganrog public library, he took
part in a jury, participated in the work of the Serpukhov district council, in various
charity events, in the census of enumeration, he helped starving people, he was building
a school and a hospital. And finally, having a degree in medicine Chekhov performed
his medical duties. During the noisome pestilence of cholera he worked voluntary as
a district doctor (without being paid). However, being socially active and concerned
about the chaos of Russian life Chekhov never claimed to be a teacher of life and a pub-
lic leader. He simply stated: “We have no politics”.
I have no aim and intention to prove that Chekhov belonged to one commonly
recognized school of philosophy. There is no so-called conceptual existentialism in his
writings. Nevertheless Chekhov expresses an existential orientation which is very typical
for Russian philosophy.
Emphasising the existential nature of Russian philosophy it is necessary to under-
line that there is no any attempt here to establish a link with existentialism, one of the
prominent schools of European philosophy. However, there is an idea that existentialism
in itself cannot be considered as a special philosophy as, according to the well-known
American studier Walter Kaufman, “it is not a distinct branch of philosophy but a general
name for various riots against classical philosophy”. And he continues further: “To be
precise, existentialism is neither a school of thought not a combination of philosophic
statements” [7. P. 11].
It might be concluded that within a general interest to the topic of a human being
in Russian philosophic thought there appeared divergent directions for its interpretation
due to distinctions in philosophic and theoretical foundations.
Chekhov’s existential orientation is marked not only by a vital interest to the
“mystery of a human” but also by his style in which his interest is expressed — the
shape in which his idea of combination of individual plan of human existence and social
being is stated. The style and the shape are definitely in conflict with that interpretation
of combination of individual and social issues that existed in the anthropologism of
Chernyshevsky and have been eventually inherited by Soviet Marxism in its dogmatic
version. It is typical that Chernyshevsky in his “Anthropological principle in the philoso-

61
 Вестник РУДН, серия Философия, 2014, № 1

phy” does not define the anthropological principle per se and does not raise an issue
about it at the very beginning; he states the social and political determination of phi-
losophy and the bound connection of philosophy and politics. First of all, Chernyshevsky
wrote that every philosopher was a member of some sort of political party that “fought
to dominate above the society”. Purpose and intent of Chernyshevsky philosophy
mainly aimed not to study a human as he or she was but to solve topical problems of
social restructuring in a socialistic way which was supposedly to establish all condi-
tions to “make human better”. Here it is possible to distinguish not only an education-
al utopianism but also an uncompromising political attitude to philosophic ideas that
contravened the materialistic anthropologism of Chernyshevsky. Eventually the modified
version of his standpoint took shape of a well-known “principle of party spirit in philoso-
phy” in dogmatic Marxism.
On the contrary, Chekhov rejected and disliked any kind of party spirit, sectio-
nalism as well as nihilistic illiberality and attitude to different ideas. He followed the
same principles both in life and in writing. Chekhov should be considered to be ideo-
logically broad-minded or, speaking contemporarily, an extremely tolerant thinker.
He was very delicate and amiable in his attitude to the opinions of other people. He
helped anyone very patiently and in spite of being severely ill accepted enduring
crowds of admirers and pilgrims “to Chekhov” in his country house in Yalta. As A. Su-
vorin, the shrewd publisher of Chekhov writings, justly specified, he never was a
“man of theory” (for instance, as compared to D. Merezhkovsky). With all dislike of
Suvorin for “common liberalism”, assumed that Chekhov’s liberalism is quite acceptable
for a conservative as he has “his own personal liberalism that enables him to tell the
truth as he sees and understands it, not how it is stated in the theory” [8. P. 391].
It is possible to conclude that Chekhov has sought to tell and been actually telling
the truth about human and this is the principal value of philosophy of this outstanding
Russian thinker.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Semenova S.G. Metafizika russkoy literaturyi: V 2 t. M., 2004. (Semenova S. Metaphysics
of Russian Literature: In 2 v.)
[2] Chehov A.P.: Pro et Contra. Tvorchestvo A.P. Chehova v russkoy myisli kontsa XIX nachala
XX v. (1887—1914). SPb. 2002. (A.P. Chekhov: Pro et Contra. Works of A.P. Chekhov in Rus-
sian thought of the XIXth — early XXth centuries (1887—1914)).
[3] Epshteyn M.N. Slovo i molchanie. Metafizika russkoy literaturyi. M., 2006. (Epstein M.
Words and silence. Metaphysics of Russian literature).
[4] Kataev V.B. Chehov plyus... Predshestvenniki, sovremenniki, preemniki. M., 2004. (Katayev V.
Chekhov plus... Predecessors, contemporaries, successors.)
[5] Chehov A.P. Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem: V 30 t. Soch. T. 17. M., 2009. (Chekhov A. The complete
works and letters: In 30 v. Works. V. 17.)
[6] Gershenzon M.O. Tvorcheskoe samosoznanie // Vehi. Iz glubinyi. M., 1991. (Gershenzon M.
Creative consciousness // Milestones. From the depth.)
[7] Kaufmann W.A. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. N.Y., 1989.
[8] Kuzicheva A. Chehov. Zhizn «otdelnogo cheloveka». M., 2010. (Kuzicheva A. Chekhov.
Life of an “ordinary individual”.)

62
 Grevtsova E.S. Philosophic content of Anton Chekhov’s work

ФИЛОСОФСКОЕ СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
ТВОРЧЕСТВА А.П. ЧЕХОВА
Е.С. Гревцова
Кафедра истории философии
Факультет гуманитарных и социальных наук
Российский университет дружбы народов
ул. Миклухо-Маклая,10а, Москва, Россия, 117198

В работе раскрывается понимание философского содержания творчества А.П. Чехова, осно-

вывающееся на представлении об оригинальном религиозно-философском мировоззрении писателя
и одновременно мыслителя экзистенциального типа, оказавшего значительное влияние на развитие
русской философии ХХ в.
Ключевые слова: Чехов, русская философия, русская литература, интеллигенция, экзистен-
циализм, экзистенциальная природа русской философской мысли, мировоззрение, самопознание.