The
Morality of Love
Two points constitute the significance
that short story “Lady and the Dog” bears. Sergeyeyna’s husband is not directly
described as a villain, and the story is written from the perspective of the
two adulteresses.
Of course, this is not the first story
in human history that deals with the theme of adultery. The Bible has stories
of adultery, whether mistaken or unintentional. Shakespeare deals with adultery
in his plays and poems. However, there are significant differences that set
this story apart from any other of these stories. Chekhov’s characters are
serious; they live in real world where adultery is considered as a sin a crime,
while Shakespeare’s characters in comedies live in fantasy world where one or
two day’s bed switch was considered as the most humorous thing at that time.
Also, the characters adulterate in intention; they do not mistakenly sleep
together as Noah or Shakespearean characters would do in deceivable situations.
Most importantly, the husband of Sergeyeyna is not vilified although the
protagonists are willing to justify and enjoy their espionage.
The discussion on Chekhov’s realism had
been rampaging here and there, but what seems to be more important is the significance
of the realism, not whether the story is a realistic one or not. The characters
in Chekhov’s “The Lady and the Dog” are not gods and goddesses in Greek Myth.
They do not have superhuman powers or classical atmosphere that makes adultery
somehow justified and accepted as Zeus would. Instead, the affair goes on in a
very real place—Yalta—where we can find the city on a map. The description is
real: the dog eats the bone, the grass is mowed, and the adulterers’ wife and
husband are real. It is as if they are people who could be existent any minute
during the late 19th century.
Nonetheless, there is less hostility towards
the couple to be found in this story. This couple intentionally engages into
immorality, yet they enjoy the umbrella held by Chekhov to protect themselves
from moral criticism. Not only are those, the couple’s counterparts, the
faithful wife and husband not depicted as villains. Of course, the protagonists
had some dissatisfaction with their spouses. However, the level of dissatisfaction
is very low: calling her husband a “flunkey” is not much of a slander, while
characterizing one’s wife as “boring” is something universal. They are not villains.
The “flunkey” husband even lets his wife freely travel to Yalta and to Moscow
whenever she wants to.
Then what is the significance of these characterizations
done by Chekhov? Why are the characters depicted as engaging in an intentional
and unreasonable adultery? Do they have a reason to do so?
The striking significance is that there
is no such grand reason, there is no such justification. Things we call “immorality”
can be an unfair denomination of what are just consequences of random emotions.
In the past, loving one another than the wife was considered a sin. There had
to be a justification that either the spouses were evil or it was
unintentional. However, as restrictions go loose, there is no such need. What,
should love be restricted in the upcoming 20th century?
I really enjoy your posts, as they tend to wander outside the typical approach, and have an air of jest to them. And yes, I'm glad you feel the same way about the "question of realism" that I do. Nice comparisons of adultery, and how other writers treat it. And indeed, how we are encouraged to feel about the unseen spouses is worthy of discussion. We never meet them, and other than an ugly fence, there is no evidence that Anna's husband is a bad man. In fact, Dimitri tempts us to think that Anna is even "pathetic" for a brief moment. So, is she credible? Is he credible? There are no real answers, and that's why it's a great short story.
답글삭제As for your post, I like it, but at times I'm frustrated by some sloppy diction that you'd easily clean up with a bit of revision. :) And some of your sentences are a bit fraught. All in all, good stuff and keep thinking outside the box.