Volchaninova Zhenya (Misyus) - one of the heroines of the story “The House with a Mezzanine”, Lydia’s sister, a girl of 17-18 years old, thin and pale, with a large mouth and big eyes. Unlike her sister, Misyus spends her life in idleness and reads a lot. She is friends with the artist, she likes to watch him paint sketches, she talks to him about God, about eternal life, about the miraculous. She ends up becoming attracted to him. After his explanation, the heroine tells everything to Lydia, and she, not wanting this relationship to develop, forces her to leave with her mother the next day.

Volchaninova Lidiya - one of the heroines, a teacher. She comes from a good family, the daughter of a Privy Councilor. She is twenty-four years old, “thin, pale, very beautiful, with a whole head of brown hair on her head, with a small, stubborn mouth.” There is an invariably stern, serious expression on her face. Despite her wealth, she, along with her mother and sister, lives all year round on her estate and spends on herself only the 25 rubles she earns at the zemstvo school, and is proud that she lives at her own expense.

Lidia Volchaninova is a supporter of so-called small causes. She treats men, organizes libraries, and is engaged in educational activities. This heroine speaks only about serious things: about zemstvos, about school libraries, about the need to fight the chairman of the zemstvo government, who has taken the entire county into his hands and takes an active part in zemstvo activities.

Her acquaintance with the artist-storyteller occurs when she comes to the landowner Belokurov, with whom he lives, with a signature sheet to ask for fire victims. She has a tense relationship with the artist. He believes that he is unsympathetic to her: “She did not love me because I am a landscape painter and do not depict people’s needs in my paintings and that, as it seemed to her, I was indifferent to what she believed so strongly in.” When starting a business conversation, she always dryly tells him: “This is not interesting for you,” thereby causing him irritation and a desire to argue and contradict her. She dominates the family and enjoys unquestioned authority. When the narrator declares his love to her sister, Lydia makes sure that Misyu and her mother leave the next day.

Artist - narrator, lives on the estate of the landowner Belokurov. At first he does nothing, living in complete idleness and contemplation, wandering a lot around the surrounding area. The hero meets the Volchaninov family and becomes interested in his younger sister Zhenya (aka Misyus). Thanks to this romantic light hobby, he begins to draw again. He has a tense, almost hostile relationship with his older sister Lydia. He is irritated by her narrowness, constant conversations only about serious things - zemstvo, school libraries, etc. He argues with her, refuting the “theory of small affairs” not only as ineffective, but also harmful, because this kind of interference in the lives of ordinary people, in his opinion, it only creates new needs, a new reason for work. He believes that “the calling of every person in spiritual activity is a constant search for the truth and meaning of life.”

Confronting two “truths” - the Artist and Lydia - Chekhov does not take the side of either of them, since, being absolutized, each becomes an obstacle to the living elements of life. They are colored precisely by human subjectivity, personal motives and moods (the same irritation of the Artist or Lydia’s hostility towards him) introduce distortion even into what is in its own way irrefutable. After the hero confesses his love to Misya and she tells Lydia about this, she, not wanting the further development of their relationship, forces her to go with her mother to her aunt in the Penza province. The artist, in turn, returns to Moscow.

"The House with a Mezzanine" - a story written by Chekhov, tells the story of a love story that intersects with important social issues. The narrator talks about his happiness, about the time when he was in love, and how this love passed. The story begins with a description of the birth of love, and ends with the story of the loss of Misyus.

At the beginning of the story, the hero feels irritated, complains that there is no love in his life, after which he nevertheless meets a girl who becomes the center for him. But in the end the hero still returns to ordinary life, full of boredom and hopelessness. Thus, from the first lines the reader sees how the hero is trying to change his life, but in the end he returns to the same.

If the reader reads the work once, he may not even notice the love that quickly arises and quickly fades away. Love for Misy was only an escape from reality, which the hero was tired of, an escape to family life, warmth and comfort. But at the same time, the author also talks about Misyu’s shortcomings, which means that the hero could not have lived with her for a long time, even if Lida had not interfered with them.

Descriptions of nature and houses sound sad, this suggests that family life is not full of happiness and pleasure.

In addition to this, there are three other lines of failed happiness. The stories of Belokurov and Lida are similar. Lida denies happiness, exalts herself in the district, and Belokurov does not want to feel love - he is lazy. He is used to living with a girl who is wealthy herself. They are all similar to each other in that they do not let go of their happiness so easily, they gradually die spiritually.

The story also raises the problem of lack of independence, the heroes do not manage their lives, they do not think about the role of the people in the life of society, about their relationship with the aristocrats.

Chekhov sought to show people who are not capable of anything: they fail in their personal lives, they do not show interest in what is happening in society.

Option 2

This is one of the most famous stories written at the end of the 19th century. What is the work about? The author brings to public attention personal experiences and a subjective description of the places he has visited. The story is distinctive in that each character has a real prototype, one way or another connected with the life of the pre-revolutionary writer. The first publication took place in the almanac “Russian Thought”. The story was written in Old Russian in 1896.

Plot

The story is addressed to the reader in the first person of the artist who lived on the landowner's estate. The existence of the main character does not seem too burdened with worries. During one of his exercises, he meets a young girl who works as a teacher and is proud that she lives by honest, noble work.

The artist and the girl often had disputes over social issues: the need to build zemstvo institutions, improve the life of peasants. During one of the discussions, they seriously quarrel, which forces the artist to leave the house. But before that, he manages to fall in love with the heroine’s younger sister, and she reciprocates his feelings.

But the need to protect my sister does not sleep. The older sister urgently demands to break off relations with the creator, which she does, tearfully apologizing. This was the final end of the artist’s stay on the estate and he left for the capital. After several years, nostalgia gnaws at him, and he recalls with trepidation the time spent in that cozy nursing home.

History of writing

As noted above, the work has a real background. In particular, letters have been preserved in which this circumstance is clearly visible.

As in many other stories of the writer, much attention is paid to describing the everyday life of the characters, which has traditionally caused discontent among critics. It was argued that the author often loses the plot thread, leaving it to the descriptive part. Chekhov himself countered, saying that this is a feature of his literary style. In this confrontation, I would like, of course, to take the author’s side. Indeed, without interesting verbal portraits, his work would not be so interesting to read.

The author tried with all his might to get away from the classical narrative, which makes it difficult to read the story, so even the most dramatic or philosophical sayings are written in simple language. This is also a plus for the work - it remains attractive for easy reading to this day.

I can only recommend the story for reading. It gives an idea of ​​local life at the end of the 19th century. There is an opportunity to learn about the author’s opinion on local government reforms and the general social situation in the provincial environment.

Analysis of the story House with a Mezzanine

In the story “House with a Mezzanine,” Anton Pavlovich Chekhov tells us about the failed love of an artist and a girl with the interesting name Misyus. The writer also touches on ideological disputes that concern quite important issues of the whole society. These questions have been of concern for quite a long time, and many writers have touched on this topic along with the theme of love. No matter how much people argue about the order, conditions, and position of the people, nothing changes. The only thing is that the spores change color every time.

The artist talks about himself, about his happiness, about being in love. All this happened once, but he still remembers the feeling of happiness, which, like falling in love, is gone. The author not only presents us with the hero’s story, but also tries to convey to us the state in which he was and what he feels now. It is important for Chekhov that the reader feels what was going on in the narrator’s soul before falling in love and during it, as well as about his state now that he has lost Misya forever.

The artist describes his condition in such a way that before meeting love, he felt lonely, unnecessary, and dissatisfied with everyone. And now, having felt love for a girl, from a worthless, irritated person, he becomes loving, feeling his need. And over time, when everything ends, the hero again returns to that state of uselessness and loneliness as it seems to him.

The love in the story is so fleeting that it can be completely ignored or mistaken for a slight infatuation. Perhaps this was the case for Misyus. For the main character, the girl was a lifeline in his lonely life. Having met her, he perked up a little and felt a taste for life. Of course, for him, as a creative person, quiet family happiness would soon become boring and then he would have to look for a new hobby that would give impetus to inspiration, the fact is that over time the girl’s shortcomings would be noticeable. Sooner or later they would begin to irritate the hero both as a person and as an artist.

It is a pity that our hero could not comprehend even fleeting family happiness. Throughout the story there is a sad theme of unfulfilled dreams. And like many Czech writers, he calls on natural phenomena to emphasize melancholy and hopelessness.

In his story “The House with a Mezzanine,” Chekhov wanted to say that no one is to blame for the worthless existence of people. They themselves abandon their happiness, extinguish the flame of their love, while blaming the other side for everything. No matter how much the heroes of the story argue, they are quite strong opponents who do not want to concede to each other in anything.

Several interesting essays

• The image and characteristics of Marusya in the story In Bad Society by Korolenko, essay

  When I read Korolenko’s story In Bad Society, I was very touched by the description of the unfortunate girl Marusya. Marusya is an unhappy four-year-old child who does not know her mother’s affection, does not have a warm bed, and is always suffering from hunger.

• The main characters of the fairy tale The Ugly Duckling

  Fairy tale by G.H. Andersen's The Ugly Duckling tells the story of how the once ugly protagonist turned into a beautiful swan. The author contrasts a bright personality with the world of ordinary people

• Essay on the proverb: Away is good, but home is better

  Actually, I was convinced of the truthfulness of this phrase... Many people told me that it’s better at home. But I always didn’t really believe it. How can this be? You go on a visit, they greet you there, feed you delicious food, entertain you...

• Kindness in Kuprin's story The Wonderful Doctor essay

  Love for people, mercy and kindness - A.I. Kuprin considered these qualities to be the main ones in a person. Extending a helping hand to someone in trouble, not turning away from someone else’s grief - this is the height of humanism in the writer’s opinion. And only the endless kindness of the soul

• Essay based on the work of Makar Chudra by Gorky

  The work belongs to the author’s early work, which explains the spirit of romanticism that permeates every page. And the main characters here are gypsies

Having entered literature in the early 80s of the 19th century with humorous stories (“Letter to a learned neighbor”, “Death of an Official”, “Thick and Thin”, “Chameleon”, etc.), by the mid-1880s the writer changed the character of his creativity, enhances the psychological depth in the depiction of heroes, moves from funny characters to complex, contradictory ones.

A special Chekhov style of storytelling is emerging, which is also characteristic of the story “The House with a Mezzanine.”

The history of the creation of the story “House with a Mezzanine”.

In the fall of 1889, A. Chekhov's sister Maria introduces him to a young gymnasium teacher, her friend Lika Mizinova, a beautiful, charming, intelligent girl. Lika becomes a frequent guest in the Chekhovs' house.

In the summer of 1891, the whole family vacationed in Aleksin, where Lika was invited. On the way to Aleksin, the girl meets the owner of the Bogimovo estate in Kaluga province, E.D. Bylim-Kolosovsky. He, in turn, having learned that his beloved writer Chekhov lives at his dacha in Aleksin, invites him to his estate for the summer. Anton Pavlovich accepts the invitation. It is Bogimov’s summer of 1891 that is the basis of the story, at the beginning of which the Bylim-Kolosovsky estate is presented to the reader and in which some of the features of the owner of the estate are transferred to Belokurov.

Questions for analyzing the story “House with a Mezzanine.”

— How does the narrator characterize the landowner Belokurov? What can you say about the author's point of view?

“I lived on the estate of the landowner Belokurov, a young man who got up very early, walked around in a jacket, drank beer in the evenings and kept complaining to me that he did not find sympathy anywhere or in anyone...” He always said “boring, sluggish and long , with a clear desire to appear smart and progressive... he talked about how hard you have to work when you want to become an exemplary farmer. And I thought: what a heavy and lazy fellow he is... he worked just as he said - slowly, always being late, missing deadlines. I had little faith in his efficiency, because the letters that I instructed him to send to the post office, he carried around in his pocket for weeks on end...”

The narrator gives a direct description of Belokurov as a man and landowner who is unable to manage a household. Pyotr Petrovich is young, but does nothing, does not serve in the zemstvo, but only talks about his efficiency. He is lazy and weak-willed; Lyubov Ivanovna, who lived with him in the outbuilding, “... was ten years older than him and ruled him strictly, so that when he left home, he had to ask her permission...”

— What is Belokurov’s estate like? What epithet is repeated in his description? What state of the narrator colors the story? What idea is the author conveying?

The narrator does not give a detailed description of Belokurov’s estate: “... He lived in an outbuilding, and I lived in an old manor house.” The description of the interior reveals the emotional state of the artist. He feels uncomfortable in the empty “huge hall with columns” because “... even in calm weather something hummed in the old Amosov stoves, and during a thunderstorm the whole house shook and seemed to be cracking into pieces, and it was a little scary, especially at night , when all ten large windows were suddenly illuminated by lightning...”

In the description of the interior, in the artist’s expression of its internal state, the idea of ​​the fading of the noble estate is conveyed (it is no coincidence that the epithet “old” is repeated twice). Exploring Chekhov's narrative style, Yu.V. Mann says that the type of Chekhov's narrative can be judged by the way the landscape and interior are presented; the author retells the state of his character, uniting with him in a common feeling...

— What is the Volchaninov estate? What role does the landscape play?

“I accidentally wandered into some unfamiliar estate. The sun was already hiding. and on
The evening shadows stretched across the blooming rye. Two rows of old, closely planted, very tall fir trees stood like two solid walls, forming a gloomy, beautiful alley. I easily climbed over the fence and walked along this alley... Then I turned onto a long linden alley. And here, too, desolation and old age... To the right in the old orchard, reluctantly, an oriole sang in a weak voice, must
be an old lady too. But now the lindens are over.

I walked past a white house with a terrace and a mezzanine, and in front of me suddenly unfolded a view of the manor’s courtyard and a wide pond with a bathhouse, with a crowd of green willows, with a village on the other side, with a tall narrow bell tower on which a cross burned, reflecting the setting sun. For a moment I felt the charm of something familiar, very familiar, as if I had already seen this same panorama once in childhood.”

A house with a mezzanine is a symbol of a noble estate. And although the Volchaninovs feel the breath of life, at the same time, “old spruces”, “desolation and old age”, an old oriole - all this suggests that the nobility is losing its position in public life. The evening landscape accompanying the hero's meeting with the girls, the comparison of reality with a dream, foreshadow a sad development of events.

— What do the artist and Belokurov say about the Volchaninovs, about relationships in the family? How is the idea of ​​the typicality of life in a noble estate carried out?

Belokurov notes that this is a “wonderful, intelligent family.” The artist feels comfortable in the Volchaninovs’ house, in which “they said “you” to the servants, and ... everything breathed with decency ... “.

The family has developed a trusting relationship, so Zhenya tells the artist: “We have no secrets from each other, I must now tell everything to my mother and sister...”.

Ekaterina Pavlovna and Zhenya live in idleness. They are the closest, “adored each other... always prayed together, and both equally believed and understood each other well, even when they were silent...”, the artist says that Ekaterina Pavlovna “... was in awe of her eldest daughter. Lida never caressed, she spoke only about serious things; She lived her own special life, and for her mother and sister she was the same sacred, slightly mysterious person as for the sailors the admiral, who always sits in his cabin...” Because of her convictions, Lida works, does charity work, and is proud of the fact that she “lives at her own expense.”

The ambiguity of the attitude towards Lida is removed by comparing her with the admiral, as well as by the fact that her mother is worried about her: “School, first aid kits, books - all this is good, but why extremes? After all, she is already twenty-four years old, it’s time to think seriously about herself. You won’t see how life goes by with books and first aid kits... You need to get married...”

The artist’s story about how days pass in Shchelkovka testifies to the idle life of its inhabitants: they play croquet and tennis, drink tea, and have long dinners. The typicality of the life of this noble family is confirmed by the generalization: “For me, a carefree person looking for an excuse for his idleness, these festive mornings in our estates have always been unusually attractive.”

The ambiguity of this positive assessment is removed by the following reasoning: “... when everyone is so nicely dressed and cheerful and when you know that all these healthy, well-fed, beautiful people will do nothing all day, then you want your whole life to be like this...”.

Yu.V. Mann notes: “Neutralization of categoricality is a constant Chekhovian technique”

— How is the relationship between the artist and Lydia?

The artist understands that he is not sympathetic to Lydia: “She did not like me because I am a landscape painter and in my paintings I do not depict people’s needs...”. He talks about Lida’s appearance like this: “thin, pale, very beautiful, with a whole shock of brown hair on her head, with a small stubborn mouth, had a stern expression and barely paid attention to me...”.

This psychological portrait reveals the girl’s character traits, which will be revealed later. And here is another description of the girl: “Lida had just returned from somewhere and, standing near the porch with a whip in her hands, slender, beautiful, illuminated by the sun, she was giving orders to the worker...”.

— How does the narrator characterize himself, how does he reveal his feelings for Zhenya?

The artist is dissatisfied with himself and believes that his life “has passed so quickly and uninterestingly.” He calls himself a “strange man” because “he has been tormented since his youth by envy ... lack of faith in his work,” constantly emphasizes his idleness and says with bitterness: “... I am always poor, I am a tramp.” But he is a talented artist. Ekaterina Pavlovna knows and praises his landscapes, which she saw at an exhibition in Moscow, and Zhenya also likes his work.

He tells Lydia that he leads an idle life because in an unfairly structured society the people are oppressed and under such conditions the life of an artist has no meaning, and the more talented he is, the stranger and more incomprehensible his role is, since in reality it turns out that he works... maintaining the existing order. And he adds: “I don’t want to work and I won’t...”

In ideological disputes with Lydia, the artist expresses utopian ideas characteristic of socialists: the liberation of man from labor, universal equality, the establishment of a healthy lifestyle, when there will be no need for pharmacies or hospitals, the liberation of man from the fear of death and even from death itself. He does not recognize the “theory of small affairs”, which completely absorbed Lydia, but he also does not say how his ideas can be realized, although it becomes clear that this requires a radical change in the social structure.

The heroes did not hear or understand each other. The author does not accept any of the positions in the ideological disputes of the heroes, leaving the right of choice to the reader. But at the same time, it becomes clear that living life with its eternal values ​​is more significant than any one-sided theoretical ideas about it and disputes.

The topic of ideological disputes remains open. The artist analyzes his feelings for Zhenya in an internal monologue: “I loved Zhenya. I must have loved
her for meeting and seeing me off, for looking at me tenderly and with admiration. How touchingly beautiful were her pale face, her thin neck, her thin arms, her weakness, her idleness, her books. What about the mind? I suspected she had a remarkable mind, I was admired by the breadth of her views, perhaps because she thought differently than the strict, beautiful Lida, who did not love me.

Zhenya liked me as an artist, I won her heart with my talent, and I passionately wanted to write only for her, and I dreamed of her as my little queen, who, together with me, would own these trees, fields, fog, dawn, this nature, wonderful, charming, but among which I still felt hopelessly lonely and unnecessary.”

It is impossible not to notice that in this monologue “... in the very characteristics of experiences and especially their motives, the author allows variability...”.

The hero is not entirely sure of his feeling: “should be”, “maybe”. He thinks that he loves Zhenya because she loved him, but the strict, beautiful Lida did not love him. But at the same time, one feels an unexpected, timid and reverent feeling for Zhenya, which constitutes the poetic charm of the story. Love is born, hope for the artist’s creative renaissance grows, the landscape contributes to the growth of anxiety and evokes a feeling of inevitable drama.

0 / 5. 0

“The House with a Mezzanine” is one of the most famous stories by the master of short prose Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. The work was published in 1896. It describes the love feeling that arose between a bored artist and a young landowner’s daughter, and also touches on socially important issues of the plight of the Russian peasantry and possible ways to change the current state of affairs.

There are 5 main characters in the story “The House with a Mezzanine”:

• Artist(he is also the narrator) is a bored intellectual who came to the village to unwind from the bustle of the city, but in fact continued to be bored, mope and lead an idle lifestyle;
• Belokurov- a landowner, a friend of the Artist, the narrator came to his estate to stay;
• Ekaterina Pavlovna Volchaninova- landowner, neighbor of Belokurov;
• Lida– Volchaninova’s eldest daughter, a beauty, an activist, an ardent fighter for change, an adherent of the “small deeds” method;
• Zhenya(for family Misyus) – Volchaninova’s youngest daughter, a dreamy, cheerful, open person, the subject of the Artist’s ardent passion.

The main character writes watercolors, he is an artist. True, art has hardly inspired him for a long time. Nothing excites the main character, no persistent emotion or strong experience resonates in his soul. To change the situation, he goes to the village to visit his friend, the landowner Belokurov. The latter does not lead a more active lifestyle. He spends all his time on his estate. Due to his idle lifestyle, his speech acquired a kind of drawling character. Belokurov is even too lazy to get married; he is quite content with his partner, who, according to the narrator, is more like a fat goose.

However, Belokurov is not tormented by such a life; he is quite happy in his blissful idleness. But for our Artist, idleness is painful. It's like he's doomed to do nothing. Existence in the village began to merge into one long, long day. But one day the guest met the Volchaninov girls, and everything changed.

There were two of them. Both are very beautiful, but each in their own way. The eldest, Lida, was thin, fair-skinned, stately, with a shock of thick brown hair spread over her shoulders. This beauty was dissonant with a thin, stubborn mouth and a stern expression on her face. The second, Zhenya (at home they called her by the cheerful nickname Misyus, that’s what little Zhenya called the French governess), thin, miniature, like a doll, large-mouthed, big-eyed. It was these open, sincere eyes that delighted the Artist. Misyus followed the stranger with an enthusiastic, curious gaze, while Lida barely glanced at the man.

Soon the Volchaninov neighbors invited the Artist to visit. During the first visit, it became clear who was boss in the house. Already from the threshold, Lida’s loud voice could be heard, giving some orders. Mother Ekaterina Pavlovna was timid in front of her daughter, but Missy, like a child, agreed with any authoritative decision of her older sister.

From the very first visit, love arose between the Artist and the charming Missy. It was as if he had woken up after a long sleep. This little white-skinned fairy awakened him to life. But the more the Artist became attached to his younger sister, the more intense his relationship with his elder sister became.

Lida Volchaninova was a member of the zemstvo, an ardent fighter for active reforms. She initiated the opening of pharmacies, libraries, and schools for the poor peasantry. “True, we are not saving humanity. But we do what we can, and we are right.” The key “and we are right” best characterizes the self-confident Lida. Lack of flexibility, self-criticism, and the ability to listen leads Lida to a long and, alas, fruitless ideological polemic with the Artist.

“She didn’t like me,” the Artist noted. “She didn’t like me because I was a landscape painter and didn’t depict people’s needs in my paintings, and because, as it seemed to her, I was indifferent to what she believed so strongly in.”

With each new dispute, the gap between Lida and the Artist widened. In the end, the domineering sister sent the youngest, first to another province, and then abroad. Misyu could not resist Lida's will, and the Artist turned out to be too inert to save his love.

Main idea

In the story “The House with a Mezzanine” two plot layers can be distinguished: love and ideological lines. If we talk about the love line, here Chekhov first of all emphasized how often people do not value their happiness. Anton Pavlovich wrote: “... people look past it so easily, they miss life, they themselves give up happiness.”

And here you need to look beyond the love story of Misyus and the Artist, because in essence “House with a Mezzanine” is a story about three failed happinesses. The happiness of the Artist and Misyus did not work out, the landowner Belokurov vegetates in the wilderness, and the active Lida, who decided to put her life in the service of the people, also abandons personal happiness for the sake of an idea that has completely taken possession of her.

The ideological line can be traced mainly in the disputes between Lida and the Artist. It is a mistake to attribute to the author the side of one of the characters (traditionally, Chekhov is identified with the narrator). The author did not set out to discredit the theory of “small things”; he only showed two types of a person’s attitude towards life. So, Lida is convinced that we need to start small: open pharmacies, libraries, schools. An intelligent person simply cannot sit idly by when there is poverty, illiteracy, and death all around. According to the Artist, all these “first aid kits and libraries” will not change the situation. This is just a deception, a semblance of activity. When someone sits on a chain, it will not become easier for him if this chain is painted with different colors. At the same time, the Artist does not offer any specific plan of action. He, like most idle philosophers, is too lazy to take on the challenge of changing the destinies of the people.

And, finally, the main thing is that an idea (whatever it may be) should not have power over a person and cannot run counter to his interests and the interests of those around him. So, Lida became obsessed with her “small affairs”, providing help to distant “others”, she did not notice that she had become a tyrant for her loved ones.

Analysis of the work

The story “The House with a Mezzanine” is built in the form of a memory of the past. A house with a mezzanine is a symbol of that cozy, long-gone, irreversible, but unforgotten past, which is so pleasant to remember. For the narrator, not only the inhabitants of the estate, but also the house itself was a living being. With what tenderness he speaks about him, calls him “sweet”, “naive”, “old”, “it seemed that through the windows of his mezzanine the house looked through his eyes and understood everything.” This house has old Amos stoves, old spruce trees grow around it, and an old oriole starts singing on the branches. In this memory house, time has stopped, an entire way of life has left and will never return.

Title of the work

Mezzanine (in architecture) - superstructure, half-tier; the superstructure over the porch, front doors, and the middle part of a residential building often has a balcony.

The composition of the story is circular. We meet the narrator when he is lonely, frustrated and indifferent to life. Lightning-fast love for Misyus revives his vitality, becomes a salvation from loneliness, and long-awaited hope appears in life. After the novel ends, the Artist is not tormented for a long time; the usual melancholy and indifference again take possession of him.

"House with a Mezzanine": hero and idea in Chekhov's world

Unlike "The Black Monk," this Chekhov story was never called "mysterious." All those who have written about him proceed from general premises and rely on similar observations. But - such is the objective complexity of Chekhov’s “transparent” poetics - a certain unity at the “input” nevertheless leads to significant differences at the “output”. * “House with a Mezzanine” is associated with the “theme of simplicity” (G. P. Berdnikov), defined as a story about failed love (B. F. Egorov, V. B. Kataev), connected to the consideration of the problem of small benefits and big deeds, internal rightness and hypocrisy, dogmatism and eternal quest (A. A. Belkin). The range of answers about the essence of the author’s position is equally wide: from the debunking of Lida (G. P. Berdnikov) to the idea of ​​“equal distribution” of Chekhov’s position associated with the concept of V. B. Kataev (“equal distribution does not allow us to see in the story the intention to blame one side and the other justify") and B.F. Egorov’s confessions about the lack of agreement and ambiguity of the text. Thus, the problems of the relationship between the hero and the idea in Chekhov’s world and the specifics of the author’s position are again objectively in the spotlight. However, they, of course, also include other aspects of Chekhov’s poetics (detail, leitmotif, principle of contrast and counterpoint), which will also be discussed.

* (See: Sobolev P.V. From observations on the composition of A.P. Chekhov’s story “House with a Mezzanine” // Uchen. zap. Leningr. ped. in-ta. 1958. T. 170. P. 231-252; Paperny 3. S. A. P. Chekhov. M. I960. pp. 138-151; Nazarenko V. Lida, Zhenya and Czech scholars... //Question. lit. 1963. No. 11. P. 124-141; Berdnikov G. P. A. P. Chekhov: Ideological and creative quests. M. 1970. P. 363-370; Belkin A. A. “House with a mezzanine” // Belkin A. A. Reading Dostoevsky and Chekhov. M. 1973. S. 230-264; Egorov B. F. The structure of the story “House with a Mezzanine” // In Chekhov’s creative laboratory. M. 1974. S. 253-269; Tsilevich L. M. The plot of Chekhov's story. Riga. 1976. pp. 147-160; Kataev V.B. Chekhov's prose: problems of interpretation. M. 1979. pp. 226-238; etc.)

It is obvious that in "The House with a Mezzanine" there are two storylines: a "love plot" and an "ideological dispute"; A. A. Belkin defined them in his time, L. M. Tsilevich holds a similar opinion, and other researchers proceed from it, without always formulating it directly. Since the first storyline does not boil down to the artist’s love, but also includes his relationship with Lida, Belokurov, and a story about his lifestyle, it would be more accurately described as everyday. Thus, the constructive basis of the story is the relationship between everyday and ideological plots. * The first forms the plot basis of “The House with a Mezzanine”, the second grows on it, concentrating mainly in the third chapter. Let us first turn to the “ideological” plot in order to then find out how it is linked to the basis of the plot and included in the overall structure of the story.

* (For brevity, this word is sometimes used in the sense of “plot line,” although we proceed from the monologue of the plot in a literary work.)

The conflict between the main characters is clearly outlined at the beginning of the second chapter. Here, in the indirect speech of the narrator, a descriptive “silent” scene is given, which is then “voiced” and translated into dialogue: “She didn’t like me. She didn’t like me because I’m a landscape painter and don’t depict people’s needs in my paintings and that I , as it seemed to her, was indifferent to what she so strongly believed in... Outwardly, she did not in any way express her dislike for me, but I felt it and, sitting on the lower step of the terrace, felt irritated and said that I should treat men “not being a doctor means deceiving them and that it is easy to be a benefactor when you have two thousand dessiatines” (9.178).

And this dialogue, this ideological dispute, occupies the entire third chapter of the story, becoming its culmination. The positions of the parties are indicated very clearly. The heroine passionately and persistently protects hospitals, first aid kits, libraries - what she does every day. “In a dispute with the artist,” writes E. A. Polotskaya, commenting on the story in an academic collection of works, “Lida Volchaninova puts forward arguments that any zemstvo doctor or teacher who has found his calling in helping the rural poor has addressed” (9.493). This twenty-three-year-old girl is a devoted ideologist of “small things.” “The position of the artist is more difficult to determine,” continues E. A. Polotskaya. And further he refers to F.I. Evnin and V.B. Kataev, who compared some of the artist’s judgments with the views of the late Tolstoy in the treatise “So what should we do?” and the article "On Hunger". These parallels are important, but, as in the case of the sources of Kovrin's delirium in The Black Monk, they are probably not the only ones. The ideal of overcoming social barriers, a universal division of labor and a joint struggle against the main enemy of man - death, is strikingly reminiscent... of the philosophical and religious utopia of N. F. Fedorov, not yet made public, but known in the 90s in retellings and lists, which, between By the way, at this time Tolstoy also sympathized. * In this case, for Chekhov, too, a certain type, a way of philosophizing, is probably important, and not its specific prototype.

* (See, for example: Fedorov N. F. Works. M. 1982. pp. 373-374. - In comparison with Tolstoy, everything is also not so simple. After all, the hero’s ironic mention of “books with pitiful instructions and jokes” can also be correlated with Tolstoy’s activities in the 80s and 90s.)

If we consider the dispute between the characters in the third chapter of “The House with a Mezzanine” in isolation, the artist seems to obviously lose in it. His hysterical: “And I don’t want to work and won’t... Nothing is needed, let the earth fall into tartar!” - looks much more vulnerable than the heroine’s confident judgment: “It’s easier to deny hospitals and schools than to treat and teach” (9.187).

However, it is important to separate the personal position of those arguing from the system of ideas that they preach. In the story, a pragmatist and a dreamer collide. Lida insists: something needs to be done Now. The artist offers a different picture of the “common cause”; he openly philosophizes And dreams. He denies not so much real medical centers and schools, but the hope for them as a way to solve all problems. He speaks from the position of utopia, knowing this very well himself. But poor Anna died today, “and if there had been a medical center nearby, she would have remained alive” - such an argument of the heroine may seem murderous, her opponent - a person almost consciously justifying social injustice. “It’s not important that Anna died...” But what could be more important?

But this statement is not at all as heartless and selfish as it may seem. After all, the artist’s utopia (like Fedorov’s!) includes faith: death for him ends only earthly existence. “She spoke to me about God, about eternal life, about the miraculous,” conversations with Zhenya are described in the chapter preceding the ideological duel. “And I, who did not admit that I and my imagination would perish forever after death, answered: “Yes, people are immortal,” “yes, eternal life awaits us”” (9.180). It is precisely and only for this reason that it does not matter to him that Anna died, but it is important and essential that Anna, the Moors and Pelagia live their earthly lives better, have time to think about the soul and engage in spiritual activities.

The ideological dispute in the third chapter remains unfinished not only because the disputants failed to convince each other. “Everyone in the village is sleeping... Both the innkeeper and the horse thieves are sleeping peacefully, and we, decent people, irritate each other and argue” (9.188). It is paradoxically oriented in relation to the position of the author. “This is perhaps the first time in the history of art when a writer’s beliefs are given to people of directly opposite directions. This has never happened before, but you can’t figure it out,” wrote A. A. Belkin. * Here we immediately habitually recall the words that are so popular today after the works of M. M. Bakhtin about the dialogical approach of Chekhov to his characters, analytical coverage of different points of view, ambivalence, etc. V. B. Kataev gravitates towards such a solution to the problem in his article and a book about Chekhov. ** The question, however, deserves to be returned to it again, because the logic of the connection between the hero and the idea in Chekhov’s world is truly unusual and at the same time very fundamental.

* (Belkin A. A. Decree. Op. pp. 252-253.)

** (See: Kataev V.B. 1) Hero and idea in the world of Chekhov // Vesti. Moscow un-ta. 1968. No. 6. P. 35-47; 2) Chekhov's prose: problems of interpretation.)

In fact, it is difficult to talk about the author's preference for one or another system of ideas. At the ideological level of the plot, Chekhov’s position can be called dialogical, here the “pros” and “cons” are balanced, the debate is not closed. “In Chekhov’s artistic system, in the purely logical sphere of development of an idea, there is no completeness, logical continuity, exhaustion. This development does not give a dogmatically complete result,” A.P. Chudakov accurately notes. * But can the same be said about the everyday plot, about the attitude not to ideas, but to people who profess them? Even an unbiased reading of the story shows that it is not. The reader's sympathies for the narrator and his beloved and dislike for the beautiful, active heroine - no matter what literary scholars claim - are strictly “programmed” in a literary text. **It is important to understand how and why this is done.

* (Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's Poetics. M. 1971. P. 250.)

** (In 1985, in the ninth grade of one of the Leningrad schools (teacher A.V. Sukhikh), an experiment was conducted to test the initial perception of Chekhov's story. Of the 55 completed questionnaires, only one gave preference to the Chekhov heroine: “As I read the story, my attitude towards Lida did not change. I believe that every woman should have such a strong, unshakable character. I don’t know about others, as they read the story Lida I liked her. I was impressed by her passion and attitude to business" (Chekhov's story is understood here almost through the prism of modern debates about the "business woman"). In all other cases, the schoolchildren, of course, felt not equal distribution, but one-directionality of the author's sympathies. Here are two typical answers: “Lida is stupid in her stubbornness, she is not inclined to understand people, because the main thing for her is her beliefs”; "The happiness of Misyus and the artist did not happen because Lida took on too much - to decide other people's destinies. Lida is a terrible person, she is obsessed with her ideas and beliefs, she has power over her mother and sister and will not stop at much to dictate her will.")

The hidden contrast between the Volchaninov sisters is indicated at the very beginning of the story, at the first meeting of the narrator with them. "And at the white stone gate that led from the yard into the field, at the old strong gate with lions, stood two girls. One of them, older, thin, pale, very beautiful, with a whole shock of brown hair on her head, with a small stubborn mouth, had a stern expression and barely paid attention to me; the other one, also thin and pale, with a large mouth and big eyes, looked at me in surprise as I passed by, said something in English, was embarrassed, and it seemed to me that that these two sweet faces have been familiar to me for a long time" (9, 175). As in the development of an ideological plot, this silent plastic scene will subsequently be “voiced” in the story. Almost all the details of the short “double portrait” will gradually turn into leitmotif details, and it is they, as in other Chekhov texts, that will become the main characterizing and evaluative means. The beauty and stubborn forehead of the older sister and the pallor and English language of the younger sister will be played up and used. But as the everyday story develops, one contrasting detail acquires special significance - sight.

At the first meeting, the older sister “barely paid attention” to the stranger, while the younger sister “looked at him in surprise.” The carelessness and disinterest of the gaze, on the one hand, and its intentness and openness, on the other, will gradually turn from external portrait details into internal psychological ones.

Here Lida comes to collect money for fire victims (her second appearance in the story): “Without looking at us, she very seriously and thoroughly told us...” (9.175). Here she was in an argument “she covered herself from me with a newspaper, as if not wanting to listen” (9.184). Finally, at the end of the story, the artist (and the reader) will not see her face at all, only a voice will be heard from behind the closed door (9, 190).

The constant portrait gesture of the younger sister, the exact opposite - a surprised look - is also repeated several times, extended in time. “When I arrived, she saw me, blushed slightly, left the book and with animation, looking into my face with her big eyes, told me about what happened...” (9, 179). As I said, in this case it is no less important than the subject of conversation. A little further: “We picked mushrooms and talked, and when she asked about something, she came forward to see my face” (ibid.). Here again the gesture precedes the dialogue, it is more significant and deeper. “Sad eyes fixed on me” (9, 188) is one of the last impressions of the artist in the scene of declaration of love.

The matter, however, does not come down to just these details. The story contains two detailed comparisons that also require adequate reading. “Lida was never affectionate, she only talked about serious things; she lived her own special life and for her mother and sister she was the same sacred, slightly mysterious person as for the sailors the admiral who always sits in his cabin” (9, 181). The ironic mechanism of this comparison is clear: Lida’s alienation from those around her, even her closest ones, is emphasized. Another comparison at the beginning of the same second chapter turns out to be more complex and deeper. Immediately after the artist’s earlier words about the heroine’s dislike for him and his landscapes, his unexpected memory follows: “I remember when I was driving along the shore of Lake Baikal, I met a Buryat girl, in a shirt and pants made of blue daba, riding a horse; I asked from her, would she sell me her pipe, and while we were talking, she looked with contempt at my European face and at my hat, and in one minute she got tired of talking to me, she whooped and galloped away. And Lida did the same. but she despised the stranger in me" (9, 178). More is said here in the image than in words, by the author - more than by the narrator-artist. In this case, not only the motive of contempt for “non-believers” and strangers is important, which is also constant for Lida (“... it was noticeable from her tone that she considered my reasoning insignificant and despised them,” the narrator notes during the argument - 9, 185), but also that contempt is almost physiological, fatal and thoughtless, based on complete inattention to the arguments of the opposite side. The Buryat woman despises the hero for his European face and hat. But if the hat can be removed, how can the face be changed? Let us also note in this fragment the significant “seemed”: “I, as it seemed to her, was indifferent to what she believed so firmly in.” The narrator, without falling into excuses and embellishment, carefully draws the line between the image that Lida creates and the real state of affairs.

To characterize the black and white world in which the heroine lives, some peripheral characters are also important. In Chekhov's world, in fact, there are no heroes who are outside the main conflict. In the narrow space of a short story and novella, he simply cannot afford this. For all the apparent naturalness, the illusion of a “seen life,” his narrative is strictly conceptual, systematic at all levels to a much greater extent than any of the previous classic novels or even short stories (for example, “Notes of a Hunter”). What place does the image of Belokurov occupy in the development of the plot? Is this character just part of the background, a kind of genre sketch, or is his role in the story more significant? A. A. Belkin and G. P. Berdnikov at one time wrote interestingly about him, without, however, detailing the topic. Meanwhile, the character of this hero seems to be directly related to the main conflict of the everyday plot.

Belokurov constantly walks around in an undershirt and an embroidered shirt, complains that he does not find sympathy from anyone, talks long and tediously about work, philosophizes and... does absolutely nothing. At the end of the story, 6-7 years after the events, the artist meets him unchanged: this is one of the obvious examples of the “man in a case” of advanced ideas. And this character, given in a frankly cartoonish manner, is repeatedly correlated with the main character. The dinner scene in the first chapter is written as if in the manner of “parallel editing”.

Lida: “...she spoke a lot and loudly - perhaps because she was used to speaking at school” (this “loudly” will also be repeated several times in the story).

Belokurov: “But my Pyotr Petrovich, who from his student days still had the habit of turning every conversation into an argument, spoke boringly, sluggishly and at length, with a clear desire to seem like an intelligent and progressive person.” “But” here not only contrasts the heroes. Despite all the differences between Lida’s inspiration and Belokurov’s phlegm, key definitions unite their speeches: a lot - long.

In the same second chapter there is a scene depicting Lida doing something about which she speaks so “a lot and loudly”: “At this time Lida had just returned from somewhere and, standing near the porch with a whip in her hands, slender, beautiful, illuminated by the sun, she ordered something to the worker. Hurrying and speaking loudly, she received two or three patients, then walked around the rooms with a businesslike, preoccupied look, opening one cupboard, then another, went to the mezzanine; she when we had already eaten the soup" (9.180). The only detail depicting the heroine’s case (she received two or three patients, while hurrying and talking loudly) is drowned in this long panorama in a stream of meaningless actions, business hype, designed for external effect: she returned - she ordered - she walked - she left - they were looking for - they called - came. What follows is a conciliatory comment from the narrator: “For some reason I remember and love all these details...” But it is important only for himself, the image here speaks more than the word, for the author’s characterization of the heroine the compositional “montage” correlation of Lida’s case is essential with Belokurov’s “case”: got up - walked around - drank beer - complained (9, 174); “he worked just as he said - slowly, always late, missing deadlines” (9.177). In the scene of lunch and reception of patients, Belokurov suddenly begins to appear in the businesslike beautiful girl.

There is another frankly “revealing” detail in “The House with a Mezzanine,” which may not be captured by modern perception. The spring carriage in which the heroine comes to collect fire victims also at first looks like an element of description. But literally on the next page he comes into contact with Belokurov’s story that Lida receives only 25 rubles a month and is proud that she lives at her own expense. Two years later, Chekhov would write a story about a real, poverty-stricken zemstvo teacher who lives on twenty-one rubles a month (9,341). And what will he call it? - "On the cart." The heroine’s pride reveals a large amount of hypocrisy or misunderstanding, just as in her service to the cause there is a reliance on external effect.

The degree of “fit” of the heroine to her ideas, the correspondence of word and deed with the help of internal contrast is once again emphasized in the same scene of ideological dispute. Lida’s responsible judgment: “True, we are not saving humanity and, perhaps, we are mistaken in many ways, but we are doing what we can, and we are right. The highest and most sacred task of a cultured person is to serve our neighbors, and we are trying to serve, as much as we can. You don’t like it, but you can’t please everyone,” is accompanied by a short comment: “It’s true, Lida, it’s true,” said her mother, she was always timid in Lida’s presence and, while talking, looked at her anxiously, afraid to say what. something superfluous or inappropriate, and she never contradicted her, but always agreed: it’s true, Lida, it’s true” (9.185).

A person who utters words about serving his neighbors views these neighbors as chess pieces that can be moved in the right direction. The mother, frightened to the point of impossibility, the sister's destroyed happiness - this is what ideas turn into in the real behavior of the heroine.

However, bringing together a ring of such reducing details and comparisons, do we have the right to see the author’s position behind them? After all, we have before us a form of narration from the first person, in which the consciousness of the narrator can make significant adjustments to what is depicted, which in the extreme can lead to a complete discrepancy between his assessments and the position of the author. For Chekhov, it seems, narration from an “anti-hero” and in general a fairy-tale style is uncharacteristic, almost impossible (cf. also “My Life”, “Lights”, “A Boring Story”). Its primary narrator is very close to the author (although, of course, not identical to him), their ethical criteria coincide. The combination of the voice of the author and the hero in one segment of text, noted by L. D. Usmanov, is possible only with such a narrator. *

* (See: Usmanov L. D. 1) The structure of the narrative in Chekhov the fiction writer // Questions of literature and style. Samarkand. 1969. pp. 15-16; 2) Artistic quests in Russian prose of the late 19th century. Tashkent. 1975. pp. 26-28.)

Let's imagine that the heroine is telling this story. We would have seen a “black and white” story about a slacker landscape painter who had an affair with his sister, and she urgently had to be rescued by sending her to her aunt in the Penza province. The artist becomes a narrator because he is able to embrace and understand (try to understand!) different points of view; among all the characters in the story, his view is the broadest and most universal.

His objectivity towards Lida is emphasized in every possible way, even emphasized.

“She was a lively, sincere, convinced girl, and it was interesting to listen to her...” (9, 177).

“This thin, beautiful, invariably stern girl with a small, gracefully outlined mouth...” (9, 178).

“Lida can only fall in love with a Zemstvo citizen who is as passionate as she is about hospitals and schools... Oh, for the sake of such a girl you can not only become a Zemstvo citizen, but even wear out iron shoes, as in a fairy tale” (9, 183).

Even at the end of the story, in the epilogue, the artist does not blame her, maintaining the same objectivity and calm intonation.

The artist says almost nothing about himself. Something flashes in the arguments and conversations of others. But even these few details give an idea of ​​the complex spiritual work, creating an image that differs from the straightforward portrait that the heroine paints.

The symptomatic slip at the beginning of the second chapter was already mentioned earlier: “I, as it seemed to her, was indifferent...” In reality, the situation is different. The interest and personality of the dispute in the third chapter confirms that the origins of the artist’s crisis lie in the area of ​​the same issues that concern Lida. “Doomed by fate to constant idleness...” (9.174). This phrase at the beginning of the story looks mysterious and can only be understood in relation to the ideological line of the plot, where the issue of art is also included in the dispute.

The artist is a landscape painter and probably talented. But he sees the terrible incommensurability and uselessness of art in the atmosphere of “hunger, cold, animal fear, masses of labor” - the village as it was under Rurik, and has remained so to this day. “Not a theorist and certainly not a dogmatist, the hero of “The House with a Mezzanine” is from the breed of those people... who are bored with life and who are “dissatisfied with themselves and with people” and are irritated because life in general is arranged incorrectly and unfairly and in particular the relations of the intelligentsia are false to the people, the place of the artist in society is false,” V. B. Kataev rightly notes. * His refusal to work, his hysterical breakdown is caused not by indifference, but, on the contrary, by a feeling of screaming contradictions of reality. The attempt to return to art (“I felt like writing again”) fades away and, apparently, never returns.

* (Kataev V.B. Chekhov's prose: problems of interpretation. P. 236.)

It is difficult to draw direct analogies in this case, but his rejection of art is reminiscent of the act of Garshinsky Ryabinin from the story “Artists,” a man who preferred direct practical activity to art. But even there, Garsha’s hero “did not succeed” (and after all, he was engaged in the business that Lida is engaged in in Chekhov’s story). Chekhov's hero, enriched by the experience of the time that has passed since the 70s, considers schools to be one of the links in the “great chain” that entangles the people. His refusal to work is connected with this: a position not of complacency, but of despair.

In connection with the motive of idleness, the most noticeable gap appears between the position of the narrator and the author. “For me, a carefree person looking for an excuse for his constant idleness, these summer holiday mornings in our estates have always been unusually attractive. When the green garden, still wet from dew, is all shining from the sun and seems happy, when near the house there is the smell of mignonette and oleander , young people have just returned from church and are drinking tea in the garden, and when everyone is so nicely dressed and cheerful, and when you know that all these healthy, well-fed, beautiful people will do nothing all day long, then you want your whole life to be like this" (9.179). A. A. Belkin once drew attention to this fragment: “I find it difficult to say what it is: irony? But the hero is so lyrically soulful that the ironically drawn picture seems sweet to him. But to whom is it sweet? Chekhov? The artist? Don’t confuse Chekhov and artist." * Of course, there is “lyrical insight” in it, but there is also an undoubted self-irony of the narrator. After all, a few pages later he will define his ideal in a completely different way: “The calling of every person in spiritual activity is a constant search for the truth and meaning of life” (9.185). And what kind of spiritual activity is there in drinking tea and doing nothing?

* (Belkin A. A. Decree. Op. P. 242.)

This is difficult to prove analytically, but it still seems that here the positions of the narrator and the author diverge to the greatest extent, the author distances himself from his hero in order to get closer to him again in the following pages.

The feeling of the crisis of art as a personal crisis, characteristic of the narrator’s consciousness, allows, in our opinion, to read the ending of the story more accurately. “Why didn’t the hero go for Zhenya to the Penza province so that he could marry her far from Lida?” - A. Skabichevsky was perplexed at one time. There is no hint of any answer in the story itself. But it can be hypothetically assumed. The everyday plot of “The House with a Mezzanine” is associated with a rendez-vous situation, a test of love, highly characteristic of Russian realism. Chekhov refers to her constantly: in the stories “Vera”, “On the Way”, shortly before “The House with a Mezzanine” - in “The Story of an Unknown Man”.

“Vladimir Ivanovich, if you yourself don’t believe in the matter, if you no longer think of returning to it, then why... why did you drag me from St. Petersburg? Why did you promise and why did you arouse crazy hopes in me?..” asks Zinaida Fedorovna of the main one hero. - When all these months I was dreaming out loud, delirious, admiring my plans, rebuilding my life in a new way, then why didn’t you tell me the truth, but kept silent or encouraged me with stories and behaved as if you completely sympathized with me? Why? What was this for?"

“It’s hard to admit your bankruptcy,” the “unknown person” justifies himself. “Yes, I don’t believe it, I’m tired, lost heart... It’s hard to be sincere, terribly hard, and I was silent” (8.205).

Missy, of course, is not Zinaida Fedorovna. She is more simple-minded and less demanding, although she is also concerned about “eternal” questions. “And she listened, believed and did not demand proof” (9.180). I haven’t asked for it yet! But there is something common in the feeling of the heroes. The artist's love is doomed because he has nothing to offer this girl, his house is destroyed, his faith is skepticism and constant self-doubt. Therefore, the loss of his beloved is perceived by him as a tragic inevitability, another blow of fate (remember the initial “doomed by fate”). “A sober, everyday mood took possession of me and I felt ashamed of everything I said at the Volchaninovs, and life continued to become boring” (9.190-191). Therefore, at the end of the story there are not curses and denunciations of someone, but piercing sadness and melancholy: “Misya, where are you?” The question does not imply a specific, “geographical” answer. He's talking about something else. Maybe about a passing life and impossible happiness.

Just as the character of Lida Volchaninova is largely “contracted” to an elusive, inattentive glance, there is a detail in the artist’s description that most clearly conveys his worldview (A. A. Belkin rightly drew attention to it). In the scene of the argument, the characters are conflictingly correlated literally in one phrase: “She looked up at me and smiled mockingly, and I continued, trying to catch your main idea... (italics mine. - I.S.)" (9.184). The main idea is not given as an axiom that does not require proof; work out, get there. The position of an artist is the position of a person intensely peering into life, searching, capable of understanding someone else’s point of view and questioning his own. She is truly dialogical. His relationship with Lida (in the author's perspective) is explained not by different views on the education of peasant children or art, but by much more general reasons.

“The House with a Mezzanine” was not written at all to discredit “small affairs” (Chekhov himself dealt with a lot of them), the story cannot be reduced to a lyrical love story. The internal theme of the story is in contrast two types of attitude to life, which exist beyond the boundaries of ideological dispute: intellectual despotism, turning into everyday despotism, and genuine understanding, penetration into the consciousness of another person. “The gift of penetration” is the main thing that separates Chekhov’s heroes or unites them. * In “The House with a Mezzanine,” Chekhov once again (remember, for example, Doctor Lvov from “Ivanov”) reminded us of the tragic consequences that a collision between a person and an idea leads to. Intellectual despotism and intolerance can be hidden under different masks and nevertheless must be identified and declassified. In a modest, apparently lyrical story, there is a foreshadowing of a problem, the true meaning of which will be revealed only in the movement of history, when, under the cover of lofty words, the most terrible crimes could sometimes be committed. Chekhov states: what is important is not only the idea that the hero professes, not only the measure of his involvement in the idea, but its correlation with the interests of each individual, his personality.

* (Thus, the analysis confirms the subtle remark recently made in passing by E. A. Polotskaya: “If an idea can be equated with an action, then, applying, for example, this position to the “House with a Mezzanine”, in contrast to the artist Lida Volchaninova, instead of contrasting inactivity with active action (as is most often noted) it is easy to see the opposition of two different life positions" (Polotskaya E. A. Chekhov's Poetics: Problems of Study // Chekhov and the Literature of the Peoples of the Soviet Union. Yerevan. 1984. P. 169).)

At the level of everyday plot and ethical assessments, the author’s position is beyond doubt, the emphasis here is very clearly placed, the outline of the plot is complete, despite the open ending. However, the ideological plot remains open, it has its own logic and - ultimately - reveals the complementarity and relative invulnerability of opposing positions. This is the structure of many of Chekhov's novels and short stories ("Lights", "My Life", "A Boring Story"), two plots flow in parallel, one is checked by the other, but the idea is not exhausted by its bearer, but seems to lead an independent existence. The author's position with such a correlation of subjects turns out to be pulsating. The narrative distance between the author and the hero is constantly changing, and one of the tasks of reader activity is to identify the logic of such pulsating changes. Ways to change Chekhov's narrative position is one of the most pressing research problems. *

* (After the completion of this work, a book specially dedicated to Chekhov’s story appeared, many of the conclusions of which are close to the concept outlined: Bogdanov V. A. Labyrinth of Couplings M., 1986.)