INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to tlie understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 72-4501 GCWAN, Sonia Kovitz, 1942- CEXOV'S USE OF IRONY IN HIS FICTION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Language and Literature, modem University Microfilms, A XERQXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan (fEXOV'S USE OF IRONY IN HIS FICTION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sonia Kovitz Gotman, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by A d v i s e r ~ V Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have indistinct p rin t. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS PREFACE In this study of Cfexov's fiction I have attempted to trace, to use the metaphor of Henry James, a "figure in the carpet" which has generally been passed over rapidly by critics or often overlooked entirely: the presence of irony. Although my primary intention is to read Cexov in a new way, not to understand irony in a new way, in the course of writing I have had to formulate a more extensive and multi-faceted definition of irony than I found in any one critical source. My method has been to relate Cfexov's use of irony to several important themes in his fiction, all revolving around the central theme of awareness. Cfexov's irony discloses varying levels of perception and blindness in his characters, and brings the careful reader to a penetrating insight. Yet there are many figures in the carpet of Cfexov's fiction, and to examine one closely is to ignore the rest. In the final chapter I have attempted briefly to integrate irony within the larger pattern of Cfexov's fiction as a whole. IX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Professor Frank R. Silbajoris not only for guiding the progress of this dissertation, but even more importantly, for preparing me to write it. As his student I have learned much from his critical method with its remarkable blend of precision and imagination, and from his example as an exceptionally stimulating teacher. I also wish to express my appreciation to the members of my reading committee. At some difficult moments in my writing Professor Jerzy Krzyzanowski helped me immeasurably with some very valuable questions which had to be considered before I could proceed. I wish to thank him for his aid and encouragement. Professor Hongor Oulanoff has played a central role in my process of revision. His extremely careful and apt criticism has helped me to eliminate, on a major scale, imprecise usage and serious over-simplifications in the first draft. I am grateful for his reading, which not only has improved this study, but which has given me an excellent model for future self-criticism in writing. I also wish to thank Professor Leon Twarog, Chairman, for his instrumental role in helping me, in the face of much difficulty, to continue my studies as a graduate student. Ill VITA November 21, 1942 Born - Jacksonville, Illinois 1965 ........... B.A. cum laude. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1966 ........... Phi Beta Kappa 1966-1969 .... National Defense Education Act Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1967 ........... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969/70 ........ National Defense Education Act Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1970/71 ........ Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Russian Literature Nineteenth Century Russian Literature. Professors Jerzy Krzyzanowski, Hongor Oulanoff and Frank R. Silbajoris Soviet Literature. Professor Hongor Oulanoff. Eighteenth Century Literature. Professor Frank R. Silbajoris. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................... i ü VITA ..................................................... iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION..................................... 1 II. "THE MAN IN A SHELL": FEAR........................ 23 III. "GOOSEBERRIES”: HAPPINESS......................... 59 IV. "ABOUT LOVE": ENTRAPMENT............................ 91 V. CONCLUSION......................................... 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................ 163 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Cfexov's stories are filled with many ironies, a feature which has already come to the attention of critics. Winner notes the presence of irony in connection with fifteen of (fexov's stories,^ Poggioli mentions irony repeatedly in his essay on (fexov,^ and John Gassner writes that Cexov was a "master of irony.Mathewson says of "Ward Six" that "the movement of the story may be described as a complex reversal of values made tangible in one enveloping irony: the two sensitive, intelligent men in the community are locked up as mad."^ Joseph L. Conrad comments about "The Man in a Shell" that "with obvious irony, Belikov was buried on a rainy day when all attending the funeral had to wear galoshes and carry umbrellas.Generally in articles on Ôexov there is some passing mention of this or that ironic comment, gesture, turn of events, situation.6 But the topic of irony invariably is raised only to be dropped: once the irony of a particular episode or textual detail has been pointed out, the critic always moves on to other matters. Yet the very frequency with which critics discover irony in Ùexov's fiction is surely an indication of its importance. Critical discussion of Cfexov has generally dealt with his technique of laconicism and understatement, his use of symbolic detail, and with the recurrence of certain themes: mutual misunderstanding, human isolation, sensitivity 1 2 stifled in an environment of banality, the poignancy of missed opportunities and wasted talents. As Mathewson has pointed out, however. Time and the history of Chekhov's reputation have disclosed a number of obstacles to the full confrontation of his work. In a sense neither critics nor readers have fully possessed him, and Chekhov himself offers little help in this regard. He does not provide clear moral guidance in many stories that are clearly about the moral side of human behavior. Readers who cannot tolerate ambivalence tend to "read in" external or irrelevant values. Despite [Chekhov's] contempt for critics, they are almost obliged to rush in to try to guess what he failed to spell out for us.^ Mathewson's own solution to this critical impasse is sound, I think: On the basis of many readings, I have tried to point to what I have come to consider the basic order in the story, the relations of its larger working parts to one another. Knowledge of this aesthetic order, which contains and organizes the other ingredients, is the surest guide to our understanding. The controlling order is made of the most exact balancing of tonalities, in harmony or in discord, or in a movement from one to the other, in the statement, development, and recapitulation of motifs, in the subtle and evocative use of setting.& It it evident that irony also plays a definite role in the "controlling order" of a great many of CTexov's stories, and yet the precise nature of this role has never been made clear. Perhaps this is because irony itself is an oddly elusive concept. "When we try to isolate the ironic as such," writes Northrop Frye, "we find it seems to be simply the attitude of the poet as such, a dispassionate construction of a literary form, with all assertive elements, implied or expressed, eliminated."^ Frye moves directly from "attitude" to "construction of a literary form," so the term irony evidently refers not only to an attitude but to the technique which creates the attitude, i.e. the technique of "eliminating assertive elements." But let us briefly consider two well known ironic techniques. In verbal irony 3 "one meaning is stated and a different, usually antithetical meaning is intended"10 and in dramatic irony "the words or acts of a character in a play carry a meaning unperceived by himself but understood by the audience."11 The use of these techniques assures that expressed assertive elements are eliminated, but it is simply not the case that implied ones are eliminated as well.