Chekhov Short Story Thread

[Janine]

Quark, Glad this translation would not make that much difference to my understanding. I think maybe it is an older translation; the book is from 1924; my library is a little behind the times..ugh.

I think one impression I have about the story is that Yakov (in my book they refer to him as Yakob) always seems to be adding up things in his head in a 'monetary' way and seeing life as a value set in the exchange of money, which of course is hollow and meaningless in reality. He seems to equate 'happiness' with money, such a falsity. I feel that looking at nature and the river brings him into some sense of focus on just what is important and basic in life, and what he missed out on by not paying closer attention to life - real vital life and nature - which is a very sad thing to regret, this late in his life. He very much reminds me of a friend of mine who is always talking about how much this pays or this costs, and seems obsessed with money even though he does not have a great deal himself and always feels cheated or resentful. This story to me seems to be about regret and the path back is something vital but lost to now; there still remains no feeling of hope for Yakov, but to leave his violin to the Jewish musician. He has not child or wife to leave behind, but to leave the music seems symbolic to me of leaving some legacy of oneself to another, something truly meaningful and personal to him at last - something one cannot place a monetary value on. For someone who seems never to have learned to really share his life with another this is a big final step.

I think that Chekov's story reads more like a fable or a morality tale than reality to me. I don't feel true reality in this story, but relate it to other authors who employed similiar tales to present a certain aspect/concept of how life should be or should have been. I don't know about Chekov's other stories - if they are as symbolic or contain more realism. I agree about the river - the reflection is a good thing to contemplate. It is a 'mirror' for Yakov to view finally his true self and his life and to reflect upon it's meaning and the meaning of life and death.

My question would be - do you think that Yakov ever really did have a blissful or truly happy existence? I did not feel this from the story. I felt he had probably had a short period of loving and happiness with his wife in their younger days, but it seemed that he took his wife 'for granted' and missed out himself, on having a fuller, richer, closer relationship and connection with his wife and people in general. His tears mifted me, since he seemed to be so shut off from his true feelings. Do you think the violin brought out those deeper feelings?

As for the river - I keep thinking of the phrase 'the river of life' and how when life is removed from Yakov's existence (his wife's life) he sees his own life so differently in the reflection of the 'river of life.' He sees death in it, too, in that he no longer represses his image of his dead child and dead wife. It is as if something more had to be taken away from him, before he could see his own life as it really was.

Let me say that I feel I need to re-read the story, since I read it several nights ago and forget some of it now or it is a bit vague to my memory.

As you said - Quark, in the TTLH thread this all may seem to be a 'ball of confusion' but I hope it makes some bit of sense to you.

Idril - yes, the passage you quoted from the other story is quite interesting and wonderful in it's imagery. I don't know if I felt this way in this story about Yakov. I can't think of a particular passage to show this flowing prose style as an example.

[Quark]

I think one impression I have about the story is that Yakov (in my book they refer to him as Yakob) always seems to be adding up things in his head in a 'monetary' way and seeing life as a value set in the exchange of money, which of course is hollow and meaningless in reality. He seems to equate 'happiness' with money, such a falsity. I feel that looking at nature and the river brings him into some sense of focus on just what is important and basic in life, and what he missed out on by not paying closer attention to life - real vital life and nature - which is a very sad thing to regret, this late in his life. He very much reminds me of a friend of mine who is always talking about how much this pays or this costs, and seems obsessed with money even though he does not have a great deal himself and always feels cheated or resentful. This story to me seems to be about regret and the path back is something vital but lost to now; there still remains no feeling of hope for Yakov, but to leave his violin to the Jewish musician. He has not child or wife to leave behind, but to leave the music seems symbolic to me of leaving some legacy of oneself to another, something truly meaningful and personal to him at last - something one cannot place a monetary value on. For someone who seems never to have learned to really share his life with another this is a big final step.

My question would be - do you think that Yakov ever really did have a blissful or truly happy existence? I did not feel this from the story. I felt he had probably had a short period of loving and happiness with his wife in their younger days, but it seemed that he took his wife 'for granted' and missed out himself, on having a fuller, richer, closer relationship and connection with his wife and people in general. His tears mifted me, since he seemed to be so shut off from his true feelings. Do you think the violin brought out those deeper feelings?

Idril - yes, the passage you quoted from the other story is quite interesting and wonderful in it's imagery. I don't know if I felt this way in this story about Yakov. I can't think of a particular passage to show this flowing prose style as an example.

Hmm, I was viewing Yakov's money fixation as a symptom of his repression. Are you seeing it as a more basic question of what's important in life? My argument was that Yakov is preoccupied with money only because his sense of loss is coming back to him. He knows that he has lost something very important. It's far too painful for him to recall so he forcibly keeps his mind off it. Despite his attempts to keep it out of his consciousness, though, it returns to him in the form of an obsession with lost cash. Yet, I can start to see what you're saying. Perhaps, this isn't psychological. Maybe it's simply a matter of misplaced ideals. Yakov valued money and his own career over his wife and child, and now he rues that he never enjoyed his family's company. Yakov is despondent at the end, then, not because he has lost his family, but because he never really knew he had one in the first place. This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure what to think. If we believe in the psychological reading then, yes, Yakov was happy earlier in his life. But, if we believe that Yakov was always selfish, then, no, he was never happy.

[Quark]

In order to decide whether Yakov was happy earlier in life, we need to know what's causing Yakov's depression at the end. Is it the fact that he always lived his life selfishly and lost contact with his family, or is it that he simply lost his daughter? It seems like Yakov attitude towards his wife was the same earlier in his life as it was at the end of the story. He says that he "never" showed affection for her. This would make it seem like Yakov didn't ever live blissfully. He also says his life is "wasted" not lost or taken from him. That makes it sound like he was responsible for the depressing circumstances he finds himself in. This is all evidence that Yakov always placed his money and career over his relationships with others. He even concludes, "If it were not for hatred and malice people would get immense benefit from one another". This sounds like self-accusation, and Yakov could be blaming his misplaced attention. In this case, Yakov was never happy. He was always a misguided idiot who wasted his life.

Yet, at the same time, we can make an argument that Yakov did have a enjoyable past--only he's repressing it. We never really know whether Yakov accepts the fact that he had a daughter who died. We know he accepts his grief when he plays the violin at the end, but we're still not sure if he knows why he's grieving. All of Yakov's unpleasantness--that malice that he believes ruins relationships--could be a symptom and not a cause. He could be depressed because he has lost his daughter, and now he's inflicting the pain he feels internally onto others. His obsession with lost money and work could be the misplaced feeling he has about his lost daughter. Think about the violin playing; it evokes such a powerful emotion from Yakov because it's played plaintively. It makes more sense that Yakov would respond to the music because of a sense of grief and not a misspent life. When Yakov goes to the river and realizes that life could have been different, better. He imagines positive images like the geese coming together or the river filled with boats. If this is what Yakov hasn't been seeing in his life, then the music which would remind him wouldn't be plaintive. It would have to be symbolic of the life he had chosen to turn his back on. Really, it makes more sense that the music would reach Yakov because it's reminding him of a painful memory which he's trying to repress. That's the best argument I can make for this reading. There are others but it might become tedious if I listed them all.

I was hoping I might make this problem a little more solvable by the end of this post, but that's not going too well. I'll give one last possibility. It could be both A and B.

[Janine]

Quark, glad you see you reasoning it all out and considered my own theory. You did a good job; with quotes from the story - ones I was thinking of to show his neglect of his wife's emotional needs.

I personally do not think Yakov ever found true deeply felt happiness or happiness that was wholly furfilling in his life. I do see Yahov as a person who equates his life value in rubbles (dollars and cents) and not in friendships, love, relationships. Those seem to have fallen by the wayside somewhere in his life and existence. He is like the man who sees the glass half empty and not half full. Even his profession relies on death to bring in more money and he seems to constantly be thinking of his losses and his struggles with monetary issues, and not of the blessings he has had experienced in his life.

I don't know if the lost child can be totally explanatory of the sadness and repression in his life, either. It might have been traumatic to him, and to his wife, but one incident such as that would not made for a whole lifetime of misery and repression in my opinion. It could be that you are right, and A and B are true, but each only partly so. If he was happy with his wife, I don't see that they were very close or had developed a good communication and sense of affection between them.

Of course, all this I am just surmissing and guessing. Perhaps we, each individual, has to decide just how to fill in the blanks on that aspect of the story - the parts that are not totally explained to us in words.

[Quark]

I personally do not think Yakov ever found true deeply felt happiness or happiness that was wholly furfilling in his life. I do see Yahov as a person who equates his life value in rubbles (dollars and cents) and not in friendships, love, relationships. Those seem to have fallen by the wayside somewhere in his life and existence. He is like the man who sees the glass half empty and not half full. Even his profession relies on death to bring in more money and he seems to constantly be thinking of his losses and his struggles with monetary issues, and not of the blessings he has had experienced in his life.

I don't know if the lost child can be totally explanatory of the sadness and repression in his life, either. It might have been traumatic to him, and to his wife, but one incident such as that would not made for a whole lifetime of misery and repression in my opinion. It could be that you are right, and A and B are true, but each only partly so. If he was happy with his wife, I don't see that they were very close or had developed a good communication and sense of affection between them.

No, I don't think repression could explain all of Yakov's misery. It wouldn't tell us why Yakov never showed affection towards his wife. Repression might cause his fixation on lost money; it might even explain his career as coffin maker. Yakov's repressed feeling of loss and grief could stop him from progressing. He could be stuck on things reminding him of death and loss because he hasn't given himself time to grieve and get over his daughter's death. His playing the violin in the end could be seen as him finally coming to terms with his lost child. That's a more optimistic reading I'll admit. Probably, he was always a greedy and selfish fool who wasted his life, and he's just now remembering his daughter as a symbol for all the life he could have had.

Of course, all this I am just surmissing and guessing. Perhaps we, each individual, has to decide just how to fill in the blanks on that aspect of the story - the parts that are not totally explained to us in words.

I guess that another question to consider. Do you think Chekhov ever answers any of the questions he raises? Many questions are asked in "Rothschild's Violin" like, "Why was a man could not live so as to avoid losses and misfortunes? Why do people always do what isn't needful? One wondered why they had cut down the birch copse and the pine forest. Why had Yakov all his life scolded, bellowed, shaken his fists, ill-treated his wife, and, one might ask, what necessity was there for him to frighten and insult the Jew that day?" Do you think any of these are really answered? Does it matter?

[Janine]

Be back tonight to comment,Quark. Re-read the story last night.

[Janine]

Ok, I am back with some comments. I copied the story into an offline file, so I could quote different parts. In this very first paragraph much is said about Yakov's way of living:

THE town was a little one, worse than a village, and it was inhabited by scarcely any but old people who died with an infrequency that was really annoying. In the hospital and in the prison fortress very few coffins were needed. In fact business was bad. If Yakov Ivanov had been an undertaker in the chief town of the province he would certainly have had a house of his own, and people would have addressed him as Yakov Matveyitch; here in this wretched little town people called him simply Yakov; his nickname in the street was for some reason Bronze, and he lived in a poor way like a humble peasant, in a little old hut in which there was only one room, and in this room he and Marfa, the stove, a double bed, the coffins, his bench, and all their belongings were crowded together.

Already I get the impression that Yakov never had the incentive to move to a better town and help himself to make a more profitable living. He might have moved onto the chief town to try making coffins or even worked for someone who did and make more money than he did here in this hopeless little town. So why didn't he. Yakov seems to me to be someone with little incentive to try to better himself or his way of life. He seems to be stuck in a rut - quite inert throughout his life. I can't blame his wife for hating her existence - can you really imagine living in a crowded one room house with coffins sitting around. How dismal must that have been a life? Also, would it not cause her considerable pain knowing she buried a child and to live in this room where there would be to be constant reminders of death, with the coffins and business right there in your everyday existence.

Curious to me what he says about the children's coffins. I suppose this is born out of his repression of his memory of his dead child.

He was very unwilling to take orders for children's coffins, and made them straight off without measurements, contemptuously, and when he was paid for the work he always said:

"I must confess I don't like trumpery jobs."

Dictionary meaning of trumpery: 1. something showy, but worthless. 2. nonscense

Rather odd thing to say about them I think.

Now this next part the story shifts to something that could be positive in Yakov's life, but instead by the end of the paragraph we still have the feeling it makes him sad which is a definite contrast to the mood there would be at a wedding where there would be happiness and gaiety and uplifting music. Again Yahov sees only the monetary value of playing his fiddle at the wedding. If he had found pure joy in his heart at doing so and of enjoying the surrounding festivities and atmosphere he would probably not have this grudge against everyone and especially this Jew named Rothschild, who happens to have the same name as a millionare. Obviously he has connected this subconsiously in his mind and has seen it as something to be bitter about because a few statements later it says that "For no apparent reason"....he has become "possessed by hatred and contempt" and especially Rothschild.

Apart from his trade, playing the fiddle brought him in a small income.

The Jews' orchestra conducted by Moisey Ilyitch Shahkes, the tinsmith, who took more than half their receipts for himself, played as a rule at weddings in the town. As Yakov played very well on the fiddle, especially Russian songs, Shahkes sometimes invited him to join the orchestra at a fee of half a rouble a day, in addition to tips from the visitors. When Bronze sat in the orchestra first of all his face became crimson and perspiring; it was hot, there was a suffocating smell of garlic, the fiddle squeaked, the double bass wheezed close to his right ear, while the flute wailed at his left, played by a gaunt, red-haired Jew who had a perfect network of red and blue veins all over his face, and who bore the name of the famous millionaire Rothschild. And this accursed Jew contrived to play even the liveliest things plaintively. For no apparent reason Yakov little by little became possessed by hatred and contempt for the Jews, and especially for Rothschild; he began to pick quarrels with him, rail at him in unseemly language and once even tried to strike him, and Rothschild was offended and said, looking at him ferociously:"If it were not that I respect you for your talent, I would have sent you flying out of the window."

Then he began to weep. And because of this Yakov was not often asked to play in the orchestra; he was only sent for in case of extreme necessity in the absence of one of the Jews.

The paragraph goes on to state that he is nasty and treats Rothschild harshly. Yahov is possessed of "much hatred and contempt" Then Rothschild makes some remarks (justifiably), back to Yakov. So Yakov is quite antagonist to all the Jews in the orchestra and hardly ever gets asked to play unless there is an emergency, since when Rothschild makes his statement back to Yahov he cries. He seems to continually sabotage his own success of making this exta money playing in the orchestra. He does this by his poor attitude of resentment. Consciously, does he know why he acts this way, do you think? Is this part of his repression of the tragic events of his life and not having a furfilling and rewarding existence?

Yakov was never in a good temper, as he was continually having to put up with terrible losses. For instance, it was a sin to work on Sundays or Saints' days, and Monday was an unlucky day, so that in the course of the year there were some two hundred days on which, whether he liked it or not, he had to sit with his hands folded. And only think, what a loss that meant. If anyone in the town had a wedding without music, or if Shahkes did not send for Yakov, that was a loss, too. The superintendent of the prison was ill for two years and was wasting away, and Yakov was impatiently waiting for him to die, but the superintendent went away to the chief town of the province to be doctored, and there took and died. There's a loss, for you, ten roubles at least as there would have been an expensive coffin to make, lined with brocade. The thought of his losses haunted Yakov, especially at night; he laid his fiddle on the bed beside him, and when all sorts of nonsensical ideas came into his mind he touched a string; the fiddle gave out a sound in the darkness, and he felt better.

How many times the word 'loss' or 'losses' is stated here. Yahov is someone continually and obessively looking, not once at the blessings of his life, but rather adding up every loss he has endured. He is harboring much resentment but who is the resentment really directed to? his wife? his dead child? who is responsible for all this lose? In my opinion he is more resentful of himself and his lack of incentive to move beyond his circumstances and see life can be worthwhile with some effort and some connection to other people, especially his poor wife.

Now his wife becomes seriously ill, but toward evening after playing his fiddle all day long the following occurs:

When it was quite dark he took the book in which he used every day to put down his losses, and, feeling dull, he began adding up the total for the year. It came to more than a thousand roubles. This so agitated him that he flung the reckoning beads down, and trampled them under his feet. Then he picked up the reckoning beads, and again spent a long time clicking with them and heaving deep, strained sighs. His face was crimson and wet with perspiration. He thought that if he had put that lost thousand roubles in the bank, the interest for a year would have been at least forty roubles, so that forty roubles was a loss too. In fact, wherever one turned there were losses and nothing else.

He is really suffering over these losses of his with much anxiety. He is so angry he even tramples the reckoning beads. Again the word losses is emphasised and the last statement really adds up just how Yakov thinks the majority of the time. He is feeling totally hopeless, and the tone of the story so far feels very hopeless and sad and tragic with much underlying resentment and anger and lashing out at people for no appropriate reason. Also, he seems to be oblivious to his wife being so ill and he seems to be in some kind of denial by emersing his attention in his adding up of is losses.


I will continue with this tomorrow. Hope some of this give you a good idea of how I am perceiving the story as a whole.

[Quark]

Already I get the impression that Yakov never had the incentive to move to a better town and help himself to make a more profitable living. He might have moved onto the chief town to try making coffins or even worked for someone who did and make more money than he did here in this hopeless little town. So why didn't he.

Not only could he have made better coffins in a more profitable marker, he might have decided not to make coffins at all. At the end of the story he expresses desire to make boats instead of coffins. This is highly symbolic since we were talking about the boats being in a river representing life, and the coffins obviously represent death. Yakov could have decided to enjoy life, but instead he obsessed over loss and death. And, you're right, the important question is why.

Yakov seems to me to be someone with little incentive to try to better himself or his way of life. He seems to be stuck in a rut - quite inert throughout his life. I can't blame his wife for hating her existence - can you really imagine living in a crowded one room house with coffins sitting around. How dismal must that have been a life? Also, would it not cause her considerable pain knowing she buried a child and to live in this room where there would be to be constant reminders of death, with the coffins and business right there in your everyday existence.

I think Yakov has every reason to improve his situation. Neither the dismal surroundings or the unsatisfying profession seem like an incentive to continue living that way. Nor do I think he's only living this way out of habit. His wife longs to die from the life that Yakov leads; and, at the end, Yakov does too. I think we're still left asking why they don't simply change.

Curious to me what he says about the children's coffins. I suppose this is born out of his repression of his memory of his dead child.

Dictionary meaning of trumpery: 1. something showy, but worthless. 2. nonscense

Rather odd thing to say about them I think.

That's a good observation. I hadn't actually picked up on that, but it's more evidence of Yakov's repression.

Now this next part the story shifts to something that could be positive in Yakov's life, but instead by the end of the paragraph we still have the feeling it makes him sad which is a definite contrast to the mood there would be at a wedding where there would be happiness and gaiety and uplifting music. Again Yahov sees only the monetary value of playing his fiddle at the wedding. If he had found pure joy in his heart at doing so and of enjoying the surrounding festivities and atmosphere he would probably not have this grudge against everyone and especially this Jew named Rothschild, who happens to have the same name as a millionare. Obviously he has connected this subconsiously in his mind and has seen it as something to be bitter about because a few statements later it says that "For no apparent reason"....he has become "possessed by hatred and contempt" and especially Rothschild.

The paragraph goes on to state that he is nasty and treats Rothschild harshly. Yahov is possessed of "much hatred and contempt" Then Rothschild makes some remarks (justifiably), back to Yakov. So Yakov is quite antagonist to all the Jews in the orchestra and hardly ever gets asked to play unless there is an emergency, since when Rothschild makes his statement back to Yahov he cries. He seems to continually sabotage his own success of making this exta money playing in the orchestra. He does this by his poor attitude of resentment. Consciously, does he know why he acts this way, do you think? Is this part of his repression of the tragic events of his life and not having a furfilling and rewarding existence?

His fixation of wealth is certainly tied to his unhappiness. That isn't why he's mad at Rothschild for. Near the bottom of the passage you quoted we can see where they become enemies. It says,

this accursed Jew contrived to play even the liveliest things plaintively. For no apparent reason Yakov little by little became possessed by hatred and contempt for the Jews, and especially for Rothschild; he began to pick quarrels with him, rail at him in unseemly language and once even tried to strike him, and Rothschild was offended and said, looking at him ferociously:"If it were not that I respect you for your talent, I would have sent you flying out of the window."

What sets Yakov off is the way Rothschild plays his music, not his millions of dollars. Earlier, Chekhov mentions that the conductor takes most of the money. Why is Yakov as furious at him? He's upset with Rothschild because the plaintive music recalls all that Yakov has lost and repressing. At the end of the story, Yakov plays similar music and gives Rothschild his violin to show that he accepts death, loss, and tragedy. He even refers to Yakov in fond language. Money is important to Yakov in the beginning. He might be somewhat envious of his rich musician friend. But, what aggravates Yakov the most is Rothschild's meaningful way of playing the violin.

How many times the word 'loss' or 'losses' is stated here. Yahov is someone continually and obessively looking, not once at the blessings of his life, but rather adding up every loss he has endured. He is harboring much resentment but who is the resentment really directed to? his wife? his dead child? who is responsible for all this lose? In my opinion he is more resentful of himself and his lack of incentive to move beyond his circumstances and see life can be worthwhile with some effort and some connection to other people, especially his poor wife.

Yakov is most upset with himself. He even welcomes his own death. Do you think that Yakov has changed any during the story, though? If he didn't contact an illness, would he have lived a better life? Or, is he still stuck?

Now his wife becomes seriously ill, but toward evening after playing his fiddle all day long the following occurs:

This may be where the violin becomes beautiful rather than annoying to Yakov. He begins to use it as a method of grieving.

He is really suffering over these losses of his with much anxiety. He is so angry he even tramples the reckoning beads. Again the word losses is emphasised and the last statement really adds up just how Yakov thinks the majority of the time. He is feeling totally hopeless, and the tone of the story so far feels very hopeless and sad and tragic with much underlying resentment and anger and lashing out at people for no appropriate reason. Also, he seems to be oblivious to his wife being so ill and he seems to be in some kind of denial by emersing his attention in his adding up of is losses.

Oh, that is a good point. You're right when he hears his wife is going to die he goes straight for his pocketbook. He can only think about loss in terms of money because his real loss is to painful to look at.

[Janine]

Not only could he have made better coffins in a more profitable marker, he might have decided not to make coffins at all. At the end of the story he expresses desire to make boats instead of coffins. This is highly symbolic since we were talking about the boats being in a river representing life, and the coffins obviously represent death. Yakov could have decided to enjoy life, but instead he obsessed over loss and death. And, you're right, the important question is why.

Quark, Exactly my own thoughts. Yes, quite a contrast when he looks back on things he might have done instead of the dismal not to mention unprofitable profession of coffin making. It almost seems that from the beginning he has set himself up for failure with the coffin business so that he can continue with his pattern of constant complaining of loss. He seems to wallow in his losses and his sadness. It certainly has become comfortable to him so that he can't make a move to try another profession or something more uplifting. I was not sure that this was clear to me but since he was working with wood, did he make his own violin. I thought he had. There would have been a better and more rewarding line of work or even doing that and then working on barges or any number of things he surmises about sitting on the bank later in the story. Even the fact that he lives day and night with the symbol of death right in his one room house says much. Good thought - that the river does represent life whereas the coffins represent death and loss. Death is loss to those who are left behind. I think this whole story is about loss and the sense of loss and how loss can control ones life. Not only is the child a loss to Yahov and his wife, but Yahov's opportunities in life have been lost and he is a lost soul. He lost his wife's love by not paying any close attention to her. He lost much more than monetary values. He lost his whole sense of what is important in his life. On the bank he realises that he lost all his potenial opportunities to make his life worthwhile.

I think Yakov has every reason to improve his situation. Neither the dismal surroundings or the unsatisfying profession seem like an incentive to continue living that way. Nor do I think he's only living this way out of habit. His wife longs to die from the life that Yakov leads; and, at the end, Yakov does too. I think we're still left asking why they don't simply change.

I do think partly it is out of habit and out of a state of iertia that has set into his existence and taken it over. He has repressed so much feeling and desire that he now cannot move out of his hopeless state. I don't think that change can be simple in any man's life. It takes will and obviously Yahov did not have the incentive or drive to exercise his will to change...quite sad.

That's a good observation. I hadn't actually picked up on that, but it's more evidence of Yakov's repression.

Yes, Chekov did seem to make a point of this about the children's coffins and the loss. I had not though much about it on first reading but then knowing of his lost child I could link the connection and see where Chekov was leading us. It obviously did mean something to Yahov with the remark he always made about the children's coffins.

His fixation of wealth is certainly tied to his unhappiness. That isn't why he's mad at Rothschild for. Near the bottom of the passage you quoted we can see where they become enemies.

That is a good word - fixation - by now that is exactly what this money thing is - a fixation. I actually know someone who sustained a lot of personal loss with parents who were alcoholics and they lost their house when he was in high school, later he married and lost his wife to another man, again he married and the marriage went bad, so he lost half his house; now he represses many of his feelings and oddly enough he is much like Yahov always talking about his losses monetarily. He seems to have transferred his losses into a sense of money and a definite fixation with money. It is a sort of disease really. Because of feeling so totally insecure this man feel money can give him security but it never really does. It certainly can't give him back love he has lost. I think it is like this with Yahov. He needs love but he sees the money as a substitute for the emptiness in his life, when actually he had a great part in keeping his life empty by not showing love to others.

What sets Yakov off is the way Rothschild plays his music, not his millions of dollars. Earlier, Chekhov mentions that the conductor takes most of the money. Why is Yakov as furious at him? He's upset with Rothschild because the plaintive music recalls all that Yakov has lost and repressing. At the end of the story, Yakov plays similar music and gives Rothschild his violin to show that he accepts death, loss, and tragedy. He even refers to Yakov in fond language. Money is important to Yakov in the beginning. He might be somewhat envious of his rich musician friend. But, what aggravates Yakov the most is Rothschild's meaningful way of playing the violin.

Ok, I did not quite pick up on what this meant. I can see your point now. However, why did Chekov point out that Rothschild was named after a millionare? I think in Yahov's mind he has a lot of resentment towards the Jew for this reason as well and to the other Jews who are perhaps a little more financially secure than he is. I do think the last gesture on Yakov's part of giving the violin is a way of accepting death, loss and what his life was but beyond that I think it is a final gesture of actually connecting with another human being. Perhaps, too, it is a form of asking for forgiveness from Rothschild. Well, does Yakov cry when he plays the violin or when Rothschild plays. That part was not so clear to me either. I thought it was when Yakov played his sadly.

Yakov is most upset with himself. He even welcomes his own death. Do you think that Yakov has changed any during the story, though? If he didn't contact an illness, would he have lived a better life? Or, is he still stuck?

Yes, I agree. I think he changed slightly, but it is just a small awakening or a moment in his life when he sees what might have been. I don't know if he would have reformed his ways, if he would not have died. This may be pesimistic, but I think by then at his age, it was too late to mend his ways and be truly different.

This may be where the violin becomes beautiful rather than annoying to Yakov. He begins to use it as a method of grieving.

Wow, I did not see beauty in the violin yet but maybe you are right. I had not thought of it that way. It is a nice thought. He may now be getting in touch with his emotions on some level and the result is a sense of beauty. I thought the violin was soothing him or distracting him from his wive's dying.

Oh, that is a good point. You're right when he hears his wife is going to die he goes straight for his pocketbook. He can only think about loss in terms of money because his real loss is to painful to look at.

Yes, and I was even outraged when he measured her while she stood in their house, in order to start her coffin on days he had no work. If I was his wife I would be glad to die too. The woman was a prisoner of her husbands locked in grief.

In my next post I will post more of the story to discuss if it is ok with you. I also want to progress to the ending in the Lawrence thread, also if you are done responding to my last post. Let's finish it up and go onto a new L story.

[Janine]

I seem to be alone in here. Oh well, I will continue...

"Yakov!" Marfa called unexpectedly. "I am dying."

He looked round at his wife. Her face was rosy with fever, unusually bright and joyful-looking. Bronze, accustomed to seeing her face always pale, timid, and unhappy-looking, was bewildered. It looked as if she really were dying and were glad that she was going away for ever from that hut, from the coffins, and from Yakov. . . . And she gazed at the ceiling and moved her lips, and her expression was one of happiness, as though she saw death as her deliverer and were whispering with him.

It was daybreak; from the windows one could see the flush of dawn. Looking at the old woman, Yakov for some reason reflected that he had not once in his life been affectionate to her, had had no feeling for her, had never once thought to buy her a kerchief, or to bring her home some dainty from a wedding, but had done nothing but shout at her, scold her for his losses, shake his fists at her; it is true he had never actually beaten her, but he had frightened her, and at such times she had always been numb with terror. Why, he had forbidden her to drink tea because they spent too much without that, and she drank only hot water. And he understood why she had such a strange, joyful face now, and he was overcome with dread.

I think these passages clearly state that Yakov "had not once in his life been affectionate to her, had had no feeling for her, had never once thought to buy her a kerchief, or to bring her home some dainty from a wedding, but had done nothing but shout at her, scold her for his losses, shake his fists at her..." and goes onto say"...true he had never actually beaten her, but he had frightened her, and at such times she had always been numb with terror." So there is that word 'losses' again...always 'his losses', not that she shares any part of this loss of his. In fact Yakov does not share anything at all with her. He seems to blame her for his losses, when he lashes out at her and 'scolds her for his losses'. Why does he direct his anger and frustration at the poor woman? Does he only do this after the child dies or even before? It seems to me this has been a pattern of his entire life - looking only at loss and never at life's blessings.

[Quark]

I seem to be alone in here. Oh well, I will continue...




I think these passages clearly state that Yakov "had not once in his life been affectionate to her, had had no feeling for her, had never once thought to buy her a kerchief, or to bring her home some dainty from a wedding, but had done nothing but shout at her, scold her for his losses, shake his fists at her..." and goes onto say"...true he had never actually beaten her, but he had frightened her, and at such times she had always been numb with terror." So there is that word 'losses' again...always 'his losses', not that she shares any part of this loss of his. In fact Yakov does not share anything at all with her. He seems to blame her for his losses, when he lashes out at her and 'scolds her for his losses'. Why does he direct his anger and frustration at the poor woman? Does he only do this after the child dies or even before? It seems to me this has been a pattern of his entire life - looking only at loss and never at life's blessings.

You think Yakov is unhappy because he's pessimistic? That's a third argument to consider. Originally, I had assumed the beginning of Yakov's misery was his daughter's death and his subsequent repression. That was argument A. Almost directly after that--really I didn't have much time to enjoy my theory--you came up with reading B: Yakov is unhappy because he's selfish and obsessed with money. I thought this out, adjusted my reading to make room for the new ideas. I was content after that. Now, you invent argument C: Yakov is overly negative and close-minded. I can see this in Yakov's personality; it's one of his least attractive qualities. Yakov doesn't just experience setbacks. He revels in them. Long tirades about lost cash follow episodes of depression and anger. Yakov certainly doesn't see the positive in his life. In fact, part of his realization at the end is the hope that's left in his life. But, I wonder whether his pessimism is a cause or a symptom of his unhappiness.

I ask that question not knowing if their is an answer. Chekhov, himself, wrote to his publisher, "You confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist". He meant that the artist displays reality without prescribing remedies for its faults. In "Rothschild's Fiddle", Yakov is the problem. Or to put it better, the question is: why is Yakov like Yakov? And, we've come up with three words synonymous with Yakov--repression, selfishness, and pessimism--but we don't know what causes these characteristics in Yakov. We don't know why Yakov is like Yakov. Perhaps, Chekhov was only accurately stating the question and not solving it.

[Janine]

You think Yakov is unhappy because he's pessimistic? That's a third argument to consider. Originally, I had assumed the beginning of Yakov's misery was his daughter's death and his subsequent repression. That was argument A. Almost directly after that--really I didn't have much time to enjoy my theory--you came up with reading B: Yakov is unhappy because he's selfish and obsessed with money. I thought this out, adjusted my reading to make room for the new ideas. I was content after that. Now, you invent argument C: Yakov is overly negative and close-minded. I can see this in Yakov's personality; it's one of his least attractive qualities. Yakov doesn't just experience setbacks. He revels in them. Long tirades about lost cash follow episodes of depression and anger. Yakov certainly doesn't see the positive in his life. In fact, part of his realization at the end is the hope that's left in his life. But, I wonder whether his pessimism is a cause or a symptom of his unhappiness.

Oh Quark, sorry to cause you such grief - you know with theory C. I have to confess to you that reading your post when I got to C. I burst out laughing ...please forgive me...You did not have to adjust your reading again did you?
I do believe that Yakov is pessimistic as a major fault in his makeup, and not as a result of his child's death. I do believe the pessimism is what has caused him to be as he remains; inert and hopeless; he can't move past the pain of his life. His attitude has direly restricted any bit of happiness he might have had. He does revel in his losses and railing about them. He wallows in his own misery and lot in life but he does nothing to change it or help his situation. Instead he complains and keeps adding up those losses.

I ask that question not knowing if their is an answer. Chekhov, himself, wrote to his publisher, "You confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist". He meant that the artist displays reality without prescribing remedies for its faults. In "Rothschild's Fiddle", Yakov is the problem. Or to put it better, the question is: why is Yakov like Yakov? And, we've come up with three words synonymous with Yakov--repression, selfishness, and pessimism--but we don't know what causes these characteristics in Yakov. We don't know why Yakov is like Yakov. Perhaps, Chekhov was only accurately stating the question and not solving it.

You know it is funny, but I read something in one of my books that Lawrence wrote, something like 'if you understand a story completely then it is spoiled/finished'. I have a zillion L books, so I will try to find the exact quote. It is a good one and may apply here to. I don't think Chekov has given us the information or not enough information to accurately make a judgement on just what caused Yakov's problems or his pessimism. Obviously Chekov did not want to render to us, his readers, this information. I really like what he told his publisher, and I agree with that idea. I think Lawrence would have agreed with that to some extent. Interesting that when you are studying various authors, you see some similarities and sometimes contrasts and opposite views. Makes it all so interesting, doesn't it?

Tomorrow I will try to post some more things I noticed about the story.

[Janine]

Wow, Quasimodo just sent me a link to a great Chekov site. I have been reading all about the author and I am fascinated. I think now I will be anxious to read more of his work and even some of his plays. Thanks, Quasi!I read the whole biography - fascinating. He died same as Lawrence - Tuberculosis and he lived in France part of the time for health reasons, Lawrence died in France, too. Lawrence lived in Italy for a good part of the time - warmer climates for each of them. Lawrence denied his illness and kept on writing tons of work and so did Chekov - both in denial most of their lives, interesting....parallels I could see in their biographies.
This article points out that 'Rothschild's Violin' is one of the later works of Chekov. I will post the link tomorrow and quote some points from it that apply to this short story particularly, in my opinion. It was a long article and now I am tired out. Going to call it a night...been a long day.

Be back tomorrow to discuss more of the story.
Hey, Quark, do you know what the next short story will be? I have the book only for a few more days from the library and would like to read it.

[Quark]

Wow, Quasimodo just sent me a link to a great Chekov site. I have been reading all about the author and I am fascinated. I think now I will be anxious to read more of his work and even some of his plays. Thanks, Quasi!I read the whole biography - fascinating. He died same as Lawrence - Tuberculosis and he lived in France part of the time for health reasons, Lawrence died in France, too. Lawrence lived in Italy for a good part of the time - warmer climates for each of them. Lawrence denied his illness and kept on writing tons of work and so did Chekov - both in denial most of their lives, interesting....parallels I could see in their biographies.
This article points out that 'Rothschild's Violin' is one of the later works of Chekov. I will post the link tomorrow and quote some points from it that apply to this short story particularly, in my opinion. It was a long article and now I am tired out. Going to call it a night...been a long day.

The site sounds great, but are you keeping it to yourself? Where is it? I still have access to my university's library. I haven't had to resort to the internet yet, but I will have to shortly. It would be good to have a website like that; what's the URL?

Hey, Quark, do you know what the next short story will be?

I thought we might read one of the more famous stories like "The Lady with the Dog". It's a love story with several ambiguities which should be fun to talk about. I think it's a little longer, but still under twenty pages; good read. We can start talking about that story as soon as you want. And, when we start, we don't have to stop discussing this story. Until we get some more activity on this thread, I don't see any reason to set timelines or reading lists when it's only the two of us. Read whenever you get time, and post when you think of something to say. And, if you want to say anything about another story that we haven't officially read yet, feel free to. I've read most of them already so I should know what you're referring to.

I have the book only for a few more days from the library and would like to read it.

Definetly renew that book.

[Quark]

After rereading the story, I think I've made some sense of this. That is to say that I reconstructed Yakov's past and decided what in his personality is a cause and what is an effect. I think I can say what are the real experiences Yakov has had and what are just symbols. I think we can say that Yakov was always selfish, money-driven, and close-minded. We know that he mistreated and neglected his poor wife from the beginning. Yakov constantly reminds himself that he "never" showed affection for her. We receive no impression that Yakov ever held a job that he enjoyed. Most likely, he was always a greedy coffin maker. But, he may not have been completely miserable. I don't think his sad situation dawned on him until he lost his daughter. Then, he realizes all the life that he has never lived--all the happiness he could have had. That is what makes him truly miserable. He then repressed all the knowledge connected with his lost child. It is too painful to look at the life that he could have lived. So, instead of a direct confrontation with the bleak truth, Yakov prefers to prolong the uncomfortable--but bearable--life of ignorance. But, now that he's looked into the truth, he can't remain totally benighted in his greedy pursuits. His repression is an imperfect defensive tool. The sense of loss comes back to Yakov over and over again in different forms. He finally has his great epiphany at the end because his wife brought up the original symbol of loss--the lost child--that was too painful to be contemplated.

In other words, Yakov's original unhappiness are the losses he suffers from his own selfishness. His dead child becomes a powerful symbol for this later in his life. Finally, his pessimism is the symptom of his repression of the lost child.

That's the best I can do right now. What do you think?

Oh, and I posted some responses to your other questions above.