The current version of the page has not yet been checked

The current version of the page has not yet been reviewed by experienced members and may differ significantly from the one reviewed on February 24, 2019; verification is required.

The story was written based on the impressions of the Second Congress of Russian Doctors in memory of N. I. Pirogov, which was held in Moscow from January 4 to January 11, 1887, in which the writer took part.

During Chekhov's lifetime, the story was translated into English, Bulgarian, German, Serbo-Croatian and Japanese.

Modern criticism noted the relevance of the topic raised in the story. K. K. Arseniev wrote: “In “Enemies” an extraordinary combination of circumstances - one of actors the only son dies, the wife leaves the other at the same time - it does not completely obscure the contrast between two opposite natures, between representatives of two community groups whose hidden hostility is always ready to flare up and break out. Critic G. P. Zader noted: “The story “Enemies” depicts a conflict between a doctor and a patient. This topic is very burning, having a serious public importance. The public now and again complains about the formalism of doctors and their lack of humanity, doctors accuse the public of exploitative encroachments on their work, freedom, etc. ” .

F. E. Paktovsky ranked the story "Enemies" among the works in which the author reveals "the environment, conditions and persons that made the hero powerless and gloomy."

The artistic side of the story received disapproving reviews. The collection At Twilight wrote about the unsuccessful composition of "Enemies": the story was described as "stretched and done".

Many contemporaries considered this story to be one of the the best works Chekhov. I. A. Bunin considered "Enemies" one of Chekhov's perfect works.

In the article "Enemies": Anti-narrative" in the collection "Reading Chekhov" Jackson reveals a multi-layered reading of the story.

The image of a doctor and a person in the work of A.P. Chekhov

I AM GOING TO THE LESSON

Larisa KORCHAGINA,
gymnasium them. N.G. Basov
at VSU,
Voronezh

The image of a doctor and a person in the work of A.P. Chekhov

Classes on the topic are held in the medical profile class.

Goals:

To expand the idea of ​​the writer on the material of his student years and medical practice;

To trace the development of the image of a doctor in some stories;

Develop the ability to highlight the elements of the plot of a work of art;

To promote the formation of positive moral qualities among students on the example of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov.

Course progress

I. Updating the material on issues

1. What do you know about the childhood and youth of A.P. Chekhov? What does his phrase: “As a child, I had no childhood” mean?

2. Interests of a teenage boy Chekhov.

3. The life of a young man after the ruin of his father and the flight of the family to Moscow. How does the saying “Perseverance is better than humility” characterize Chekhov?

4. What can be said about the early work of the writer? What works do you know?

5. Where did Chekhov study? How can one interpret his statement: “Medicine is my lawful wife, and literature is my mistress”?

The article was published with the support of the Medical Center for Reconstructive Surgery and Laser Correction "MC CRC". The list of services provided by the center includes treatment of ingrown toenails, laser treatment of scars, removal of wen and lipomas, treatment of ununited fractures, flat feet, consultations with a pediatric orthopedist, and many others. The availability of modern medical equipment, high qualifications and extensive clinical experience of specialists working in the center, their use of both the latest and traditional methods that have already proven their effectiveness in practice are a guarantee that you will be satisfied with both the proposed level of service and and the outcome of the treatment. We are sure you will recommend this center to your family and friends. WITH detailed information about the services provided in the center, and their cost, you can find on the site rubca.net.

6. Socio-political situation in Russia in the 80–90s XIX years century.

II. introduction teacher

Chekhov the student

The desire to serve the common good must certainly be a need of the soul, a condition for personal happiness.(A.P. Chekhov)

The years of Chekhov's stay at the Moscow University at the Faculty of Medicine were full of studies, work in clinics under the guidance of prominent scientists. Chekhov received excellent marks from Bogdanov, Snegiryov and Sklifosovsky (for the entire time of his studies he had only two “triples”). Conceived future doctor in his student years, the scientific work "The History of Sexual Authority" bears the traces of a passionate passion for Darwin, whose propagandist was Professor Timiryazev. Outlining to his brother a detailed plan of the proposed research work, Chekhov wrote that he wanted to use the techniques of Darwin, which he “terribly like it”. The future doctor expressed solidarity with Timiryazev in the feuilleton "Jugglers", directed against the profanation of science, against slovenliness in the methods of scientific research.

In his last year, Chekhov, a student, develops the topic “Medicine in Russia”, where, collecting materials, he discovers scientific thoroughness and accuracy, systematization skills, and the ability to find a guiding goal.

Respect for science, a keen interest in its achievements do not leave the writer throughout his life. He closely follows the latest discoveries in medicine: “I believe in Koch, and in spermine, and I praise God ...” Being already a well-known writer, Chekhov twice takes part in the rescue "scientifically" magazine "Surgery". An admirer of Pirogov, a student of Zakharyin, Sklifosovsky, Ostroumov, Chekhov will not forgive writers later “treatment of medicine or lack of awareness”.

In his own works ("Name Day", "Seizure" and others), he strove to combine the truth of life and scientific data. “I have no doubt,” Dr. Chekhov wrote in his autobiography, “that my studies in the medical sciences ... greatly expanded the field of observation, enriched me with knowledge.”

What did the future doctor especially remember? When Chekhov was in his second year, the Russian and foreign public celebrated the anniversary of Pirogov, who made an appeal to the youth: “To be, not to seem, is the motto that every citizen who loves his homeland should carry in his heart. Serve the truth - both in the scientific and moral sense of the word. Being human”.

Already in his student years, Chekhov was interested in questions of medical ethics, the image of a practicing doctor, an erudite, a humanist and a social activist, was being formed. He will write later: “Botkin, Zakharyin, Virkhov and Pirogov, smart and gifted people, believe in medicine as in God, because they have grown to the concept of “medicine”.”

In this case, the reverent respect of the future doctor and writer for Pirogov is indicative.

For a long time, the case history of a patient in a nervous clinic written by Chekhov, a fifth-year student, was kept at Moscow University - this is a test work presented to professor-neuropathologist Kozhevnikov. In addition to the remarkable literary merits of this case history (lively presentation, excellent language), it gives an idea of ​​the author as an observant, sensitive person and doctor. Chekhov's fellow student, future neuropathologist, later Professor G.I. Rossolimo, wrote that in the named case history of A.P. Chekhov showed himself to be a smart, intelligent, efficient doctor.

The medical practice of a novice doctor unfolded back in university years when Chekhov worked as a student at the zemstvo doctor Arkhangelsky. According to the memoirs of Arkhangelsky, Chekhov began to visit the hospital, while still a third-year student, “from morning until late in the evening he did work slowly. Along with the usual methods, the student Chekhov attached great importance to influence on the patient's psyche by the doctor and the environment.

The young man's exceptional attention to the sick, conscientious and love relationship Arkhangelsky was led to the case with full confidence in the trainee, and he, relying on the competence, professionalism, and high moral qualities of the novice physician, left him the only practicing doctor in the hospital. The life experience and observations of Chekhov the student owe the appearance of such literary works as "The Fugitive", "Dead Body", "Rural Aesculapius", "Surgery", "Trouble", "For Service" and others. Chekhov's contemporaries noted that he "was jealous of his doctorate," and in his wife's passport, according to I.A. Bunin, wrote: "the doctor's wife."

Thus, the writer's stay at the medical faculty of Moscow University is not just a biographical detail, but a very significant stage in the development of Chekhov's worldview and moral character - a doctor, a writer, and finally, a person who, probably, fully corresponds to the words of Pierre Kruy, a French scientist - bacteriologist of the 20th century: “Medicine is love, otherwise it is worthless.”

In 1884 A.P. Chekhov graduated from the medical faculty of Moscow University, deciding to devote himself to the art of medicine. He began his medical activity near Moscow, in Zvenigorod. He also worked in private practice in Moscow. On his desk, next to an inkwell and a pen, a stethoscope and a doctor's hammer invariably coexisted. Doctor Chekhov's patients could not be called wealthy people, and in Melikhovo, where he practiced as a zemstvo doctor, the main patients were not only local peasants, but also from neighboring villages.

A civil feat (in addition to a trip to Sakhalin Island with an inspection) was the activity of A.P. Chekhov in 1892, when a cholera epidemic raged in central Russia. Doctor Chekhov considered it his duty to organize a medical center and equip it at his own expense. Energetic work with cholera gave good results. Subsequently, Chekhov recalled: “Life was difficult in the summer, but now it seems to me that I have not spent a single summer like this. Despite the cholera turmoil and lack of money, I liked and wanted to live.

Having moved to Yalta due to illness (the writer was already seriously ill with tuberculosis), Anton Pavlovich left medical practice, but continued to be actively interested in the achievements of medicine, read special journals. Medicine has now firmly entered the artistic work of Dr. Chekhov, giving objectivity and accuracy to the prose of the remarkable novelist, a scientifically reliable depiction of various shades of the characters' state of mind: a good or depressed mood, a feeling of anxiety and fear, joy and pleasure ... Thus, in life, and in his work Chekhov always remained a doctor.

III. What is the doctor, the hero of Chekhov's works?

Analysis individual stories method of questioning and conversation.

General introduction(teacher's word). Doctors in the stories of A.P. Chekhov - these are workers, faithful to the Hippocratic oath, selflessly struggling with human ailments, suffering, and sometimes with the limitations of the mind and heart. Such is Dr. Starchenko (“On Affairs of the Service”), who goes to a terrible blizzard to fulfill his official duty, only now, unfortunately, he will not save anyone: a person commits suicide, and the doctor leaves only for an autopsy.

Such is the intern Korolyov, who came instead of a professor ("A case from practice") to the daughter of Mrs. Lyalikova, the owner of the factory.

Analysis of the story "Case from practice" on the issues

1. What do we learn about the intern Korolev?

He is a Muscovite, “he did not know the village, and the word “factory” in his imagination associates such concepts as “the impenetrable ignorance of workers, squabbles, vodka, insects ...””

2. What does he see as he drives through the streets?

The workers shyly avoid the carriage, in their faces and gait - "physical uncleanness, drunkenness, nervousness, confusion." This means that these people are “sick” both mentally and physically. The patient - the daughter of the factory owner - suffers from palpitations, but the doctor does not find anything "acute" - the nervous attack has passed, the heart is normal.

3. How is the queen behaving? How does his mood change?

Seeing an ugly girl sobbing, the doctor is imbued with sympathy for this sufferer, whom her mother, sparing no means, treats all her life; wealth did not give these people happiness, joy and health. Moreover, they are separated and lonely.

4. What does the doctor do, what means does he use?

Korolev wants to calm the girl not with medicines, but with “a simple, affectionate word.” He sees that no medicines will help where love, compassion, warmth of the soul are needed; moreover, he understands the deep loneliness of this “healed” girl, and with the lengthy speeches of the governess, who considers herself an expert in medicine, Korolev “became bored”.

turning point in the development of the action, the doctor’s overnight stay in a strange place becomes, although Korolev really did not want this: at home, in Moscow, there is a lot of work, a family is waiting, but, sighing, he stayed.

5. What can be said about the Queen as a person?

This is a professional, an excellent specialist; he has a keen sense of the injustice of the existing order: “One and a half to two thousand factory workers work without rest, in an unhealthy environment ... tavern sober up from this nightmare...” The philosophical warehouse of the rational mind immediately tells the doctor the truth: no one, except the governess, is happy here; the mistress and her daughter are unhappy and doomed. An acute feeling of trouble, an unhealthy situation around draws in the mind of the intern the image of a devil factory - a terrible monster that absorbs human life: "The main thing for whom everything is done here is the devil."

Climax of the story- the doctor's dialogue with Lisa, the daughter of the factory owner.

6. How does the girl perceive the Queen?

She saw many doctors, but it was to him that she was filled with confidence, and Korolev, smart and kind, now sees not an ugly, overripe girl, but an equal interlocutor with high intelligence and clean gentle soul. Both understand: Lizanka should leave this “devilish” place, because wealth, if you give him your soul and heart, will destroy: “You never know where a good, smart person can go.” The words of the doctor sound like a blessing: “You are a nice, interesting person.”

7. The meaning of the connection.

Seeing Korolev off, Liza “looked at him sadly and intelligently.” Now, not like yesterday, church bells, larks sing: I want to believe that life will be bright and joyful, like this spring morning.

Analysis of the story "The Jumper"

Dictionary:

dissector- a specialist pathologist who performs an autopsy of corpses in order to establish a post-mortem diagnosis;

resident- an attending physician in a hospital, clinic, and so on, working under the direction of the head of the department.

Introduction by the teacher. The story is based on the antithesis: Dymov Osip Stepanovich and Olga Ivanovna, as well as her circle of friends (“celebrities”).

A.P. Chekhov, being true to himself, talks about the real in the ordinary, everyday course of life. The goal of the writer is to discover in an ordinary person that which makes him full of high spirituality. Everyday life acts for the artist of the word as a kind of measure of the actions of heroes who strive to live in the rays of “great” people, while the author is in no hurry to first resort to moral exposure. Something else is much more important: the heroes have to go through the drama of lost illusions, and it is more important for the writer to discover before them the bitterness of the loss of his whole life, which we see in the story "The Jumper".

Analysis of the story by questions

1. What do we know about Dymov?

“... A simple, very ordinary and unremarkable person” - such is the hero from the words of his wife, Olga Ivanovna. The characterization that was voiced in the plot will become the leitmotif of the story, a kind of “thesis”, which will be argued, expanded in meaning and supplemented.

Dymov serves in two hospitals: as an intern in one, as a dissector in another; private practice is “insignificant” - “500 rubles a year”. He is tall and broad-shouldered. Olga Ivanovna at the wedding publicly talks about Dymov's heroic deed in the hustle and bustle of everyday life: “When the poor father fell ill, Dymov spent whole days and nights on duty near his bed. How much self-sacrifice!”

2. Psychological character of the doctor.

He says “good-naturedly and naively smiling.” His “simplicity, common sense and good nature” lead Olga Ivanovna to “tenderness and delight”, and Chekhov constantly focuses on the words “meek”, “meek”, “with a good-natured meek smile”.

3. How are things going for Dymov in the service? He is always busy, working from morning to evening. But how the hero endures trials one after another: he contracted erysipelas, cut two fingers during the autopsy. Smiling, Dymov justifies devotion, sacrificial dedication to his beloved work with the following words: “I get carried away ... and become absent-minded.”

4. What can be said about Olga Ivanovna and the range of her interests?

This is a sweet, charming woman who does everything, as the author notes, “with talent”. She especially loved to meet celebrities: artists, singers, poets, actors... “She idolized famous people, was proud of them... saw them in a dream... longed for them and could not quench her thirst.” All of them prophesied for her a brilliant creative future as a “great artist”, but an interesting detail is the opinion of a professional, artist Ryabovsky, about Olga Ivanovna’s painting: “The cloud is screaming. The foreground is chewed up... And your hut is choking on something and squeaking plaintively. And, in general, not bad". Here it is, “the vulgarity of a vulgar person,” as Gogol said. This word "not bad" likes to pronounce the head of the Turkin family, Ivan Petrovich, a very “talented” person, in the story “Ionych”.

5. Who is the most brilliant and famous?

This, of course, is the artist Ryabovsky, a very handsome young man; I wonder if he sold his last picture for 500 rubles, and above Chekhov notes that Dymov's private practice was “insignificant, 500 rubles a year”! This means that Dymov served sacrificially in a state hospital, not striving for personal enrichment by increasing private practice.

It is with Ryabovsky that Olga Ivanovna connects her brilliant future as an artist, and the usual adultery will come out of this. On a quiet July night, next to the heroine is “a genius, God's chosen one”, and she considers all the past with the wedding, with Dymov “small, insignificant, unnecessary”. “For him, a simple and ordinary person, the happiness that he has already received is enough,” says Olga Ivanovna. On the second of September, instead of “god,” we see a tired man, irritated by rainy weather and an affair with this woman, he is “out of sorts and depressed”; Olga Ivanovna sees “disgust and annoyance” in his eyes.

6. How does he live at this time while his wife travels along the Volga, Dymov?

The meaning of his life is work. He only, the author notes, “meekly and childishly plaintively” asks his wife to come home in letters, and constantly sending her 75 rubles each, and when she owed the artists, she sent 100. Dymov meets her beloved with a “broad, meek, happy smile” , gently offering her to “eat hazel grouse”.

7. What is the behavior of Dymov, who learned about the betrayal?

He, as if he had an unclean conscience, “could not look his wife in the eyes, did not smile joyfully when meeting her”; in order not to be alone, he often brought Comrade Korostelev. Colleagues conduct their own medical dialogue: about the condition of the diaphragm, heart failure, neuritis... The psychological drama in the hero's soul is illustrated by his sighs and desire, when Korostelev sits down at the piano, to listen to "something sad."

It seemed that nothing had changed: as before, Dymov offered treats to “extraordinary people”, as before, Olga Ivanovna returned home late, illustrating to everyone the love-hate relationship with Ryabovsky. Chekhov notices about Dymov: he went to bed at three in the morning, got up at eight in the morning.

8. What changes in the service did Dymov have?

Having defended his dissertation, he expected from his wife with a “blissful, radiant face” complicity, a shared joy of success; he was ready to forgive her everything, but... she was afraid of being late for the theater and did not say anything.)

9. What can you say about the climax of the story?

Epithet “worst day” shows in superlatives the highest point in the development of all events: Dymov had a headache, he ... did not go to the hospital and lay all the time in his office; Olga Ivanovna, as usual, went to Ryabovsky to show the sketch - this was just a pretext.

The quality of the heroine’s painting is evidenced by the review of the artist who selects the rhyme: “Still life ... first grade ... resort ... damn ... port ...” Note that the woman never remembered her husband - she was possessed by hatred and sharp desire for revenge, since in the workshop she saw a brown skirt flashed behind big picture: she has a rival! Returning home late in the evening, Olga Ivanovna, without changing clothes, rushed to compose a “hard, cold” letter to Ryabovsky.

To the call of her husband, the heroine replies: “What do you want?”, Not knowing that a disaster has happened: he has been ill with diphtheria for three days. Only now, feeling fear and horror, looking at herself in the mirror, she "seemed terrible and disgusting." “She felt sorry for Dymov to the point of pain, his boundless love for her, his young life ... she remembered her usual, meek, submissive smile.”

10. In the eighth chapter comes the denouement. What is the drama of the heroine? How does the author recreate the image of an extraordinary doctor and person?

The tragic image of the martyr already emerges from the words of Korostelev: “Those who climb on the rampage must be brought to justice. Do you know why he got infected? On Tuesday, he sucked out diphtheritic membranes from the boy through a tube. Why?”

The capricious, spoiled woman suddenly understood what she read in the eyes of Korostelev: “She is the main, real villain, diphtheria is only her accomplice.” A.P. Chekhov, reinforcing the gradation of epithets, creates the appearance of an almost saint: “A silent, uncomplaining, incomprehensible creature, depersonalized by its meekness, spineless, weak from excessive kindness, suffered deafly somewhere on its sofa and did not complain.”

When the last moments of Dymov's life come, Korostelev seems to lift the veil of “ordinary”, “ordinary”, unremarkable modest doctor: “He is dying because he sacrificed himself ... What a loss for science! This... was a great, extraordinary man! What gifts! He was such a scientist that you can’t find with fire now!” Korostelyov's excited monologue reveals Dymov's moral qualities: “And what moral strength! Good, clean loving soul- not a person, but glass! Embittered, Korostelev utters: “... He worked like an ox, day and night, no one spared him ... the future professor had to look for a practice for himself and worked on translations at night to pay for these ... vile rags!” Now, for Olga Ivanovna, an epiphany sets in: she did not see the “future celebrity” in her husband as a “great man”. She imagines a “mockery” even in the surrounding objects: “The walls, the ceiling, the lamp ... blinked mockingly: “I missed it! I missed it!” The finale confirms the farcical drama, when, bending over the deceased, the heroine calls him: “Dymov! Dymov! Dymov!” In that "same" we hear Olga Ivanovna's coquettishly capricious impatience towards her husband, who does not understand that everything is lost.

Analysis of the story "Enemies"

Introductory speech of the teacher. The story reflects the questions raised at the Second Congress of Russian Doctors in memory of N.I. Pirogov, held in Moscow in January 1887. The work mentions the thirteenth volume of the Code of Laws Russian Empire”, which included medical charters, where one of the articles said: “The first duty of every doctor is: to be philanthropic and in any case ready to provide active assistance to people of all ranks who are obsessed with diseases ... every doctor who has not left practice , operator, and the like, is obliged, at the invitation of the sick, to appear to give them help. I.A. Bunin considered "Enemies" one of the most perfect works of A.P. Chekhov.

Questions for conversation

1. The system of images in the story.

Zemsky doctor Kirilov, whose only son has just died, and a visitor, the rich man Abogin, that is, the alignment of forces already at the very beginning indicates the presence of a social conflict, which is subsequently realized in an acute form; thus, the composition is based on the antithesis.

2. How does the action develop in the story?

The “sharp” plot immediately introduces the essence of what happened: at the climax (the only son Andrei died of diphtheria), a bell rang in the doctor’s apartment. It seems that at such a moment for Kirilov there can be no contact with life.

3. What can be said about the appearance of the visitor?

His dominant psychological state- terrible excitement. Chekhov, citing a comparison, emphasizes: “As if frightened by a fire or a mad dog.” In addition, the color scheme is important: “white muffler”, “an extremely pale face, so pale that it seemed to become lighter in the hallway.”

Jerky, short, incoherent phrases, an abundance of dots (“traces on tiptoe of bygone words”, according to Vl. Nabokov) complete the picture of the peak of nervous tension. The antithesis in the behavior of the characters is obvious: the doctor is indifferent, apathetic, even “mechanistic”: life has frozen for him, has lost its meaning; everything around now does not matter. The verbosity and hype of Abogin's behavior show the inability of the visitor to understand the fullness of the doctor's grief: “An amazingly unhappy day ... what an unkind hour I got to!” He also has grief: his wife became seriously ill, and suddenly.

4. Compare Chekhov's image of the doctor and Abogin.

Apathy, like drowsiness, “dazedness”, bewilderment of the unfortunate father, who fought for the life of his son for many hours, are complemented by “dead” peace: the struggle ended in the victory of death, and the mother, frozen by the child’s bed, seemed to be petrified on her knees. The author emphasizes that in the position of the mother, “in general tetanus”, in the indifference of the father’s face, there was no repulsive horror of death, but “there was something attracting, touching the heart ... elusive the beauty of human grief". The oxymoron emphasizes the nobility of the behavior of these people in their terrible loss: they do not scream, do not curse the invisible, do not reproach anyone; husband and wife are united in their silent suffering. It is no coincidence that Chekhov's statement here: "... The highest expression of happiness or unhappiness is silence." So the author gradually reveals the whole tragedy of the life of the spouses, the “crown” of which was the death of his son.

The doctor is 44 years old, “he is already gray and looks like an old man; his faded sick wife is 35 years old”; It is explicitly stated that they will never have children again. Already now it can be assumed that the life of the spouses in the Zemstvo was hard, full of hardships. It is no coincidence that Abogin's remark that there are no others besides this doctor. Returning to the hall, Kirilov sees a visitor, confident in the doctor's duty to provide assistance. It is here that the doctor mentions the thirteenth code of laws of the Russian Empire: "... You have the right to drag me by the scruff of the neck ... but I am not fit." How indifferent and “empty” Kirilov is, how hot, verbose and noisy Abogin is. Sympathizing with the grief of the doctor, he is somewhat theatrical, proclaiming high speeches about the sacrifice "in the name of philanthropy" in his demand. Flowery loud phrases irritate the unfortunate father and spouse, but when sincerity and tenderness sound in the tone of the petitioner's voice, humanity and the desire to help win, and the doctor, faithful to his high calling, agrees to go.

5. What do you think is the role of the landscape in the story? Are there direct author's ratings? What color is dominant?

The epithet “nondescript” characterizes hospital buildings, and this picture of dullness and pallor is complemented by thick darkness. The world of nature reacts with an alarming cry of crows, as if they know about the grief of the doctor and Abogin. The author, drawing a red crescent (in folklore, red is the color of illness, grief, suffering), directly speaks of general hopelessness, illness: , nor the red crescent.”

6. The functions of the portrait are intended to toughen the social and psychological antithesis in characterizing the characters. How do we see them?

In bright light, the doctor and Abogin were able to see each other. The doctor is “tall, round-shouldered”, with an ugly face. There is something sharp, unkind and stern in his appearance; the author emphasizes “a sluggish, indifferent look, an uncombed head, gray hair, pale gray skin color” - all this speaks of need, “deprivation, fatigue of life and people”.

Abogin is “a thick, solid blond ... dressed elegantly in the latest fashion.” The "zoological" motif in the doctor's portrait - an aquiline nose - is opposed by "something noble, lion-like" in the guise of Abogin. “Even pallor and children's fear”, as the author emphasizes, “did not detract from satiety, health and aplomb, which his whole figure breathed”. It is interesting that in the living room the doctor caught a glimpse of a bright red lampshade, but noticed a stuffed wolf, “as solid and well-fed as Abogin himself.”

7. How does the behavior of the characters change in the climax?

Having learned about his wife's betrayal and flight, Abogin, even more reminiscent of a lion, loses the expression of satiety and subtle grace: he curses his wife in a wild rage, emphasizing the insult on the word “deceived”. Like Kirilov, the rich man is verbose, the palette of insulting epithets is inexhaustible; moreover, Abogin, pouring out his soul to the doctor, is sure that he is obliged to listen to him. Kirilov is also changing: curiosity lit up on his indifferent face; rising, he asked about the patient. Before us there is a “conversation of the deaf”: Abogin shouts, splashing out rage, about his own; the doctor, as if waking up, is indignant that he is “forced to play the role of a sham thing in some vulgar comedy!”

Abogin, completely "not hearing" Kirilov, "reveals" his soul to a stranger, seeking sympathy from him. The author, as an involuntary witness, is on the side of Abogin and on the side of the doctor, who could sympathize with the rich man. Could! But Kirilov, being offended, is filled with indignation and anger: jumping up, he rudely raps out every word, hating this “fat capon”: “Why did you bring me here? What do I have in common with your novels? Do not dare to mock the personality! I am a doctor, you consider doctors and workers in general, who do not smell of perfume and prostitution, your lackeys... Who gave you the right to mock other people's grief?”

Amazed by the doctor's rudeness, Abogin calls himself "unfortunate", but he contemptuously insults the well-fed gentleman and boldly throws "two pieces of paper" on the floor - money for the visit. So two, in general, good man become enemies.

8. Why is the writer mourning? Whose side is he on?

A.P. Chekhov sympathizes with both; he is sorry that people, forgetting about mercy, patience, mutual support, lose the best that is in the soul.

“The selfishness of the unfortunate has affected both. The unfortunate are selfish, evil, unfair, cruel and less than fools are able to understand each other. Misfortune does not unite, but separates people.”

While waiting for the carriages, the heroes “changed” again: Abogin gained a sense of satiety and subtle grace; he, like a lion, stomped around the living room, plotting something; the doctor, on the other hand, looked at the rich man “with that deep, somewhat cynical and ugly contempt, with which only grief and deprivation are able to look when they see satiety and grace.”

9. What happens at the intersection?

Along the ring composition, the heroes are again accompanied by Red Crescent, but it became “much darker,” as the writer notes. Abogin's carriage with red lights overtook the doctor... he was on his way to "do stupid things". It's not hard to imagine a range of "nonsense" because Chekhov ends the sentence with an ellipsis. A terrible thing can happen, more than one soul will perish; in a fit of hatred and a thirst for revenge, a person is capable of anything...

But what about Kirilov? Here, too, hatred has won: the author uses the word "contempt" to emphasize the state of mind of the offended doctor. But the soul must be cleansed, filled with sympathy, pity and love! All the way the doctor thought not about his wife, not about his dead son! “His thoughts were unjust and inhumanly cruel.” This is what happens when we let hatred and the desire for revenge enter our hearts. The doctor's tormented heart hurts again, but now it hurts with contempt.

What is the opinion of A.P. Chekhov?

It seems that it is in the words: “Time will pass, Kirilov’s grief will also pass, but this ... conviction is unworthy human heart, will not pass...”

This means that it is necessary to cultivate worthy convictions that are inherent not only to the doctor, but also to each of us. I would like to paraphrase the article of the statute of the thirteenth volume of the “Code of Laws ...”: “The first duty of everyone is to be philanthropic ...”

IV. What qualities, according to A.P. Chekhov, should a doctor have?

This is, first of all, a professional, a person of high intelligence, unique capacity for work and interest in his work, whose life is self-sacrifice in the name of science; this is a man generous soul and a heart of gold, this is a real intellectual.

The best university teachers of Chekhov were reflected in his literary works and in the image of a young scientist, an ascetic, a modest and “great man” - doctor Dymov (“The Jumper”), and in the images of patriot scientists (an obituary about Przhevalsky), and in the book “ Sakhalin". A.P. Chekhov wrote about such people: “Their ideology, noble ambition, which is based on the honor of the motherland and science, their perseverance ... striving for the intended goal, wealth of knowledge and diligence ... their fanatical faith in science make them associates in the eyes of the people, personifying the highest moral force.

From the editor. A very interesting conversation about doctors in Chekhov's work, proposed by L. Korchagina, will, in our opinion, be incomplete without referring to the story "Ionych" (the theme of human rebirth under the influence of the environment) and the play "Uncle Vanya".

Enemies of humanity

At 24:00 local time, the lights were on in the apartment on Karl Marl Street. However, it burned only for the inhabitants of this apartment, because the window was hung with a large piece of dense black cloth, and from the street it would never have been possible to guess that there, in the room, there was a meeting of a secret organization.

Finally, there is no surveillance for us, - a thin, exhausted man muttered, closing the door of the apartment and locking it with a variety of different locks. Having dealt with a good dozen locks - mortise, secret, padlock, with and without a secret, patented from thieves, from the police and even from tax extortionists, he went to the table.

So, the meeting of the secret society for the salvation of mankind will be considered open. On the agenda is a report by Professor Dobbins on the perversions of progress.

He paused, took a sip from a bottle of Coca-Cola, helpfully brought to him by assistant and secretary William Huxley, and without any preface began his speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen! He didn't seem to mind that there was no one else in the room between them and Huxley. - Progress, of course, is not a bad thing. But some people, without any doubt, are latent sadists with an abnormal psyche, very dangerous for society, they pervert the noble tread of the great Progress. There are no words to convey what damage, moral and physical, they inflict with their inventions! And we will angrily expose them, so that the innocent souls of those who fell into their snares would grumble and escape from the captivity of perverted ideas. And our society, ladies and gentlemen, is firmly convinced that not all lost souls are lost for us... for us, and for progress! But these hardheaded people, these greatest criminals - they imagine themselves to be the saviors of mankind! There are no words to convey the depth of all these delusions!

Professor Dobbins paused and took another sip from the bottle. His burning gaze of the prophet was directed into the distance. Somewhere out there, behind thick stone walls, millions and billions of deceived people day by day walked the path of vice, without even realizing it. And only Professor Dobbins understood this and began to instruct the innocent on the true path. But the mentees did not even want to understand that they were being instructed, and met the noble intentions of the professor with ridicule. The secret enemies of mankind, about whom he had just spoken with such passion, plotted against him, spread the most incredible rumors and dirty gossip about him. They were very dangerous opponents, and this unequal struggle cost the professor a lot of work and gray hair. He was trafficked, he was punished, but he did not give up. Not discouraged, and not lowering his hands in impotence, he continued to fight, and this speech became the crown of his activity.

Our struggle must end in victory, sooner or later, and I and my comrades-in-arms believe in it!

To the thunderous applause of Willy Huxley, the professor picked up a bottle of Coca-Cola from the table, went to the door, then, with a majestic wave of his hand, turned to face the window, but at the same time the bottle caught on the door frame and to the sound of broken glass brown liquid splashed on the sleeve of the professor's jacket. In his hand he had one bottom left.

It doesn't matter ... - the professor's mood remained magnificent. Now let's move on to the second point of our program.

Willy, Dobbins's only but attentive listener, quickly scooped up the pieces under the cupboard with his foot and rubbed the spilled liquid on the floor with his sole. He, too, was not embarrassed that the brilliant speech of his leader was crowned with such an unpleasant number. He understood the importance of the task in which he took part, and there was no room in his soul for experiencing the petty troubles and difficulties that inevitably accompany every great undertaking.

And now ... - the professor repeated, shaking off the remnants of the drink from his sleeve, but suddenly stopped and froze. Willie, in obedience to his warning gesture, turned off the light in a moment, according to a long-established habit. Everything happened so fast that the uninitiated would not understand anything. A second later, Dobbins was peering out the window into the street, carefully pulling back the edge of the curtain, and Willie, hunched over in three deaths, looked through the keyhole into the dimly lit corridor of the fifth floor of the house where the professor's apartment was located.

What the professor saw through the window frightened him. On the street near the entrance of the house a black car stopped. A dark figure emerged from it. There was a flicker of the dim flame of a lit cigarette, and Dobbins noticed that the stranger was looking directly at the windows of the fifth floor. He convulsively lowered the edge of the curtain, but then pulled it back. The man, for some reason strongly staggering, was already heading for the entrance.

Willy, it's them! the professor hissed loudly. - To arms! We've been tracked down!

He grabbed a kitchen knife with a wooden handle from the pocket of his shabby jacket, and bumping into the chairs in the dark, rushed to the door. His silent assistant, in the meantime, coped with the locks. The professor quietly opened the door and cautiously peered out. After making sure that there was no one on their landing yet, the professor gave a sign, and both of them, in the same socks, flew up the stairs to the upper landing and stopped at the entrance to the attic. Meanwhile, quiet footsteps were heard more and more clearly. The man walked slowly up the stairs, stopping often to listen. The professor tightened his grip on the knife in his hand.

Suddenly, the door on the fifth floor opened abruptly.

Finally showed up! - venomously said an angry female voice. - Can you say again that you were late at work? Or playing cards with Billy Clinton? I can't find my place here! Not at work, not at Clinton's... but he went after the girls! Quickly say the name of that whore you were with!

The man bleated something plaintively, after which some furious fuss was heard, the door slammed shut, and it became relatively quiet, apart from the sounds of reprisals that continued to be heard from behind the closed door.

After sitting at the entrance to the attic, just in case, for another five minutes, the professor realized that this time the danger had passed. He quietly ordered a retreat. Locking the door behind him, he regained his cheerful mood.

We're lucky this time, Huxley! - he said. - So, we will continue our meeting, which we had to interrupt for a while. The second question on the agenda is the technical destruction of the diabolical inventions of the enemies of mankind.

The professor bowed pictorially and continued.

The enemies of mankind are not asleep, ladies and gentlemen! They are becoming more and more active, inventing new and improving their old ungodly devices, which are rightly cursed by the most advanced and progressive people. Here Dobbins looked benevolently at his pupil. The student's face expressed complete devotion to the professor and a readiness to curse not only some diabolical inventions, but everything that the professor points to. - We cannot pass by such a glaring fact, and we do not pass! Ladies and Gentlemen! At the moment, I personally have already destroyed twenty-seven ungodly inventions of hell!

Bravo, professor! - Enthusiastic Huxley rose from his chair and began to applaud vigorously. The professor smiled modestly.

No applause needed, gentlemen! I did what I had to do, and my true friend and student William Huxley! He started clapping too.

For several minutes they stood and applauded each other. The professor finished first.

So, confirming my devotion to our society, I swear from now on and as long as I breathe, always destroy these diabolical inventions, these fiends of hell, and always guide the unfortunate misguided souls on the true path! - and suddenly changing his tone from pathetic to dry and businesslike, he continued:

Huxley, get the instrument ready. We must move from words to deeds. Today we will once again prove to the enemies of humanity that we are still alive and fighting!

With these words, he stuck a mustache on himself in front of the mirror and put on round dark glasses, then pulled out two violin cases from behind the sofa, and opening them, checked the contents. The cases were completed as follows: axes, screwdrivers, wire cutters, pliers, crowbars and hammers. In total there was one name in each case. Dobbins handed one of them to Huxley, and took the other himself. Then they left the apartment, went down the stairs, and stalked along the dark street.

IN HOT PURSUIT

<...>In "Enemies" an extraordinary combination of circumstances - one of the characters' only son dies, the other's wife leaves at the same time - does not completely obscure the contrast between two opposite natures, between representatives of two social groups, whose hidden hostility is always ready to flare up and break out outside<...>

From the article: Arseniev K.K. Fictionists of recent times // Bulletin of Europe. 1887. No. 12. S. 770.

<...>"Enemies" is an excellent description of the two moral types of our intelligentsia, well-fed and hungry, dissolute and embittered.<...>

From Art.: 1.<Кигн В.Л.>Conversations about literature. A.P. Chekhov // Books of the Week. 1891. No. 5. S. 211.

<...>The story "Enemies" depicts a conflict between a doctor and a patient. This topic is very burning, having a serious social significance. The public now and then complains about the formalism of doctors and their lack of humanity, doctors accuse the public of exploitative encroachments on their work, freedom, etc.<...>

From the article: Zadera G.P. Medical figures in the works of A.P. Chekhov // Monthly. lit. and popul.-scientific. supplement to the journal. "Niva". 1903. No. 10. Stlb. 308.

"CHEKHOV UNDERSTANDS AND GRATS THE BOTH"
(D.S. Merezhkovsky)

<...>A great moral task was set by the young novelist in<...>excellent short story called "Enemies". The theme, as in all the stories of Mr. Chekhov, is uncomplicated. Doctor Kirilov's son has just died of diphtheria. A certain Mr. Abogin, an elegant dandy, rich and handsome, appeared to the doctor almost at the very moment of the child's death, begs Kirilov to immediately go to his wife, who suddenly and seriously fell ill.<...>Upon arrival, it turns out that there is no patient, that Abogin's wife pretended to be seriously ill only in order to somehow fuse her husband and run away with a friend at home during his absence. The unfortunate husband vomits and thrashes about in terrible despair, not even noticing the presence of the doctor, deeply offended by this stupid, tragicomic misunderstanding. Kirilov, not analyzing and not understanding anything, lashes out at poor Abogin, who, in essence, is not to blame for anything.<...>

Everyone has their own personal grief, which separates them, prevents them from understanding each other and makes of these honest, innocent people embittered, mad with rage enemies.<...>“In both, the egoism of the unfortunate was strongly affected. The unfortunate are selfish, evil, unjust, cruel and less than fools are able to understand each other. One can, perhaps, argue with the latter thought, but how simply and abruptly in the most dramatic situation of the characters a very large moral question. Who is right, who is wrong - a doctor, a stern, honest worker, unkind and tough, "hating and despising to the point of pain in his heart" all rich, well-fed, contented people, or Abogin, soft, good-natured, "living in pink twilight and smelling of perfume" ? Here they stand face to face, like embittered enemies, these representatives of two irreconcilably hostile classes, and the egoism of personal grief forever separates them. But the poet is above both, he loves them equally, understands and pities them, both of them are only unfortunate people for him, he forgives one - luxury, contentment, pink twilight; to another - callousness, bitterness, unfair, cruel hatred of the rich. Almost the entire story is written in a strictly objective tone, and yet this artistic objectivity does not in the least exclude the humane feeling that breathes in every line, that feeling that arouses thought and excites the reader’s conscience, perhaps no less than the most striking, militant, political trend.

From the article: Merezhkovsky D.S. An old question about a new talent // Northern Bulletin. 1888. No. 11. (Quoted from: Merezhkovsky D.S. Acropolis: selected literary-critical articles. M .: Kn. Chamber, 1991. S. 32-33).

"THE ARTIST IS COMPLETELY ON KIRILOV'S SIDE"
(V.V. Ermilov)

<...>Along with growth artistic skill Chekhov, the image of the hero of his work, beloved by the writer, that simple, ordinary Russian man, in the name of whom Chekhov lived and worked, in whose name he felt so deeply responsible until the end of his days, deepened more and more.

Moral, social, democratic pathos Chekhov's creativity was hidden either under the cover of light, carefree, sometimes outwardly frivolous humor, or - in stories more late period- in the manner developed by Chekhov of outwardly dispassionate, strictly objective narration.

To get an idea of ​​the essence of Chekhov's artistic method with its external dispassion, and of who was Chekhov's friend, favorite hero and who was his enemy, let's consider one of the stories of 1887 - "Enemies".

It depicts the grief of the zemstvo doctor Kirilov and the grief of the gentleman Abogin. The intersection of two misfortunes constitutes the dramatic knot of the story.<...>

Before us seems to be a completely impartial story about how two cultured people, under the influence of grief, which makes people selfish and incapable of mutual understanding, heavily and undeservedly offended each other. Both sides seem to be in a completely equal position, both heroes have weighty and seemingly equally human causes of grief. If it is already decided which of them is more unfair in a rude quarrel, then, apparently, Kirilov is wrong. He has no reason to blame Abogin for bringing him to participate in a vulgar story. Inviting Kirilov, Abogin was convinced of the most dangerous illness of his wife.

And, however, all this is just a surface, an outer layer of life, just like the obvious wrong, Kirilov's injustice is only an external, only a formal wrong.

The true depth, the true poetic essence of the story, can only be revealed through analysis. artistic concreteness, when analyzing those smallest poetic details, the combination of which forms a work of art.

The poetic essence of the story becomes clear already when comparing two pictures of grief. Here is a picture of Kirilov's grief.

“That repulsive horror that one thinks of when one speaks of death was absent from the bedroom. In the general tetanus, in the pose of a mother, in the indifference of the doctor's face, there lay something attractive, touching the heart, precisely that subtle, barely perceptible beauty of human grief, which will not soon be learned to understand and describe and which, it seems, only music can convey. Beauty was felt even in the gloomy silence; Kirilov and his wife were silent, did not cry, as if, in addition to the severity of the loss, they were also aware of all the lyricism of their situation: as once, in their time, their youth had passed, so now, together with this boy, they were leaving forever into eternity and their right to have children."

And here is a picture of Abogin's grief. He was convinced of the flight of his wife and returned to the living room, where Kirilov was waiting to be taken to the patient.

“Abogin stood at the threshold of this door, but not the one who came out. The expression of satiety and subtle grace disappeared from him, his face, and hands, and posture were distorted by a disgusting expression of either horror or excruciating physical pain.

There is no human beauty in Abogin's grief, no lyricism, no poetry. Music has nothing to do with such grief. And what irony turns into Abogin's musicality!

It immediately becomes clear to us that Kirilov's words that Abogin has no right to misfortune, because the capon who is crushed excess fat, is also “unhappy” - that these words express the deepest, most cherished feelings of the author himself, that the artist is entirely on the side of Kirilov.

beauty human feelings- Kirilov. Abogin's grief only "disgustingly distorted."

Kirilov is ugly, round-shouldered, dressed slovenly. “Something unpleasantly harsh, unkind and stern was expressed by his thick lips like a negro’s, an aquiline nose and a languid, indifferent look. His unkempt head, sunken temples, premature gray hairs on a long, narrow beard through which his chin showed through, pale gray skin color and careless, angular manners - all this, with its callousness, suggested the thought of the experienced need, lack of dole, of fatigue with life and people. Looking at his whole dry figure, it was hard to believe that this man had a wife so that he could cry about a child.

Abogin is handsome. He has the appearance of either an elegant amateur, or freelance artist". “In his posture, in a tightly buttoned frock coat, in his mane and in his face, something noble, leonine was felt ... Even the pallor and childish fear with which he, undressing, looked up the stairs, did not spoil his posture and did not detract from satiety, health and the aplomb that his whole figure breathed.

It is remarkable that it is precisely the resemblance to a lion that exacerbates the impression of vulgarity from Abogin; this resemblance is only superficial, only superficial, and therefore pretentious.

Kirilov and his wife, in their grief, "were silent", "did not cry", while Abogin "continued to scream." And this detail also suggests that Chekhov, with his restraint and aversion to the loud expression of feelings, with all his feelings is on the side of Kirilov.

When Abogin begs Kirilov to go to him, “Abogin was sincere, but wonderful, no matter what phrases he spoke, they all came out of him stilted, soulless, inappropriately flowery and seemed to even offend the air of the doctor’s apartment ...” The words with which tells Abogin about the betrayal of his wife, also inappropriately flowery, well-worn. And we understand that Kirilov, from the point of view of the author himself, had full right to say that these vulgar words offend him.

We see that before us is not a story about how two intelligent person unfairly insulted each other, and the story of how human grief was offended by vulgarity.

This is how the beauty of Abogin is gradually exposed. It turns out to be only external, as well as his musicality. This is not the musicality of nature, the soul, but only "an exercise on double basses and trombones," as Kirilov ironically says. That is why, by the way, Abogin is only an amateur. He could never have become a master, even if he had not sacrificed music for a frivolous lady. As soon as it came to Abogin's vital vital interests, his non-musicality, non-poetry, all his inner emptiness, the insignificance of his whole life, the superficiality of his beauty were revealed with particular clarity.

Only working people have poetry, beauty, music of life. The artist inspires the reader with disgust for external beauty, imaginary poetry. The reader feels that she offends something deeply human, vulgarizes true beauty.

With what penetration Chekhov reveals that the dryness and callousness of people like Kirilov, tired of need and work, are only external callousness and ugliness that hide the true human beauty, while the beauty, nobility of the Abogins is only external tinsel!

So Kirilov's wrongness is only external wrongness. We begin to understand that although Abogin, in inviting Kirilov, was sincerely convinced that he was calling a doctor to the patient, nevertheless, from a great human point of view, Abogin really had no right to involve Kirilov, who was experiencing grief, in a vulgar, ugly the atmosphere of all that insignificant life in which Abogin lives. He had no right to demand a feat from Kirilov.

In the same way, Kirilov is only formally wrong when he reproaches Abogin for insulting him, initiating the "vulgar secrets" of his love. Abogin, of course, does not even suspect that he is insulting Kirilov, he simply and even "friendly" shares his grief with him. And he is not to blame for the fact that vulgarity oozes from his every word: after all, vulgarity forms the very air of his whole life! Yes, of course, Kirilov is "unfair." But what a pitiful rightness of Abogin, which consists in the fact that he is "not to blame" for his vulgarity!

And, of course, it is not at all accidental that Abogin's misfortune turned out to be a farce: one cannot expect anything humanly serious, truly dramatic from the insignificant, empty life of the Abogins with their wives and wives' lovers. To ask Kirilov for a feat in order to open the doors to this miserable life before him - what a profanation of human feelings it really is!

These strokes, as if by chance, thrown in passing: both the hands of a working person burned with carbolic acid, so alien to this elegant living room, and Abogin’s unexpected convergence with the image of a well-fed wolf - all these details reveal the strength of the author’s contempt for parasitism, lordship and the strength of his love for labor to a person.

Remarkable is the contrast between the two fleetingly passing before us female images- Abogin's wife and Kirilov's wife. It seems unexpected that Madame Abogina, with her passions, betrayals, "romantic" flight from her husband to her lover, living such a "stormy" life - turns out, judging by her photograph, a young woman "beautiful, but dry and inexpressive, like nun, face ... "The face of a nun, that is, a person who has renounced living life, by its sharp contrast with such a seemingly living life of this lady, emphasizes the inexpressiveness, emptiness of these passions, their shallow, not very "alive", devoid of real human content, character.<...>

Kirilov's wife bent over her dead son. “On the bed, near the window, lay a boy with open eyes and a surprised expression; he did not move, but open eyes it seemed to grow darker with every moment and go inside the skull. Putting her hands on his torso and hiding her face in the folds of the bed, her mother was kneeling in front of the bed. Like a boy, she did not move, but how much living movement was felt in the curves of her body and in her hands!

This picture is imbued with exceptionally deep poetic thought. At the heart of this is the theme movements as expressions of new life. That is why it is said about the deceased: “He did not move,” although it would seem strange to emphasize this in relation to the dead. But this is said because the main thing here lies in the relation of the immobility of the child with the immobility of the mother, in this repetition, the reflection of his immobility - in her motionless posture; the artist shows, by direct assimilation, that this is precisely a repetition, a reflection, a relationship: “Like a boy, she did not move ...”

But immediately after the assimilation comes the opposite: “... But how much living movement was felt in the curves of her body and in her hands!” This opposition, however, does not alienate the mother from the dead child, but, on the contrary, tragically strengthens, deepens their interconnection - namely, the contrast between the dead immobility of the boy and the mother's inner strong, living, passionate movement: this is her potential living movement - as if behind the boy, for forever interrupting the movement of his life so soon cut short; his life, as it were, still continues in his mother; who gave him life, she still continues to live his life: that is why there is so much movement in her whole posture!<...>

The dry, expressionless face of the nun is deathly in comparison with the living image of the mother who lost her child.

The face of the nun of Abogin's wife is, in essence, a comical, satirical touch; he points to the contradiction between the style of life, the claim of the character and his essence - the claim to the "fullness of life" and internal lifelessness. The fact that Abogin has such a wife throws an additional, final light on himself. Here, it turns out, in whose name he "sacrificed everything", abandoned both his career and music, and broke with his relatives. Thus, this "small" touch turns out to be satirical in relation to Abogin as well. His life is entirely devoted to this woman with a dry, expressionless face; this woman is his life. With all the sensitivity, refinement, "artisticness" of Abogin, his life is essentially dry and inexpressive; it is an egoistic, narrow life, closed in a circle of insignificant, meaningless experiences.

All Chekhov's poetry the smallest details, or rather, even hints, not immediately caught in all their significance. The artist's love and hate are not expressed directly and directly in the text: they live under the text, in the undercurrent of the story.

In his subjective consciousness, Chekhov is far from those harsh conclusions that follow from the artistic truth of his story. It seemed to him that the thoughts that the doctor thought about Abogin on the way home were “unfair and inhumanly cruel. He condemned Abogin, and his wife, and Papchinsky, and all those who live in pink twilight and smell of perfume, and all the way he hated them and despised them to the point of pain in his heart. And in his mind formed strong conviction about these people.

This conciliatory element introduced by Chekhov into the story - an element that is objectively completely alien to the entire poetry of the work - could also be partly explained by the "pacifying" influences of Tolstoy's teaching, which Chekhov was experiencing just at that time.<...>

Having painted a sharp, contemptuous portrait of a liberal gentleman, Chekhov immediately, in the most typical liberal-humane spirit, tries to soften his anger and contempt. But, despite this, we understand and deeply feel that the strong conviction that Kirilov has developed about people "living in the twilight and smelling of perfume" is close to Chekhov, that he wholeheartedly sympathizes with this conviction, although it seems to him " unworthy of a human heart." This conviction of Dr. Kirilov remained in the mind of Dr. Chekhov "to the very grave", it became more and more strengthened, became more and more clear and conscious. Time has passed, and Chekhov ceased to consider it necessary to ask for forgiveness from the reader for this conviction, as he asked for forgiveness for the "rude" thoughts of his hero in the finale of the story "Enemies".

The “enemies” testify to such completeness, such an inexhaustible power of love for an ordinary working person, such a depth of democracy, which made Chekhov a writer close and dear to all working, all democratic humanity. In fact: to put your favorite hero in a position where he is clearly wrong, unfair; make it ugly, unpleasant, even repulsive in appearance; to oppose him - to a clear, it would seem, disadvantage for him - his enemy, distinguished by beauty, and grace, and "nobility"; ask for forgiveness for the unfair thoughts of the hero - and with all this, make the reader clearly see behind the unsightly appearance and behind all the “wrongness” of his hero his human nobility, dignity, severe charm, and with the same undoubted obviousness to convince the reader of utter insignificance enemy - for this the genius of Chekhov was needed. And his genius was his truly boundless, boundless love for the common man.

From the book: Ermilov V.V. A.P. Chekhov. M., 1959. S.166 -176.

“IN BOTH THE EGOISM OF THE UNHAPPY WORKERS STRONGLY AFFECTED”
(E.I. Pokusaev)

<...>The story is marked by a deep humanistic thought. In terms of content and tone, it is rather sad and mournful than cheerful or accusatory satirical. The idea-theme of "Enemies" is determined by the words of the author: "Unhappiness does not unite, but separates people, and even where, it would seem, people should be connected by the homogeneity of grief, much more injustice and cruelty is done than in a relatively contented environment."<...>

Previously, none of the researchers studied this story in detail, but in cursory references it was rightly attributed to those that most clearly reveal the humanistic nature of the writer's worldview.

Before us is far from the only example of its kind of research arbitrariness, hiding behind the authority of the famous concept that defined the characteristic feature of Chekhov's creative method as "subtext". We also have an example of methodological self-will, when the idea and the figurative form that embodies it are indissoluble in Chekhov's work are cut, split, attention is focused on the so-called artistic details, which are tried on this way and that and in violation of the logic of the artistic whole, artistic unity, are combined according to the scheme of the analyzing work . As a result, the researcher - to the great annoyance of the reader - seeks to pass off his own pathos, his own understanding of things as the pathos of the work under study and its author.

Let us turn to the artistic concreteness of the story "Enemies" and see if it is such as it is now interpreted. The entire analysis is conducted and directed in such a way as to debunk Abogin, to prove that he offended the doctor's "human grief" with the insignificance and vulgarity of his nature and life.<...>But in Abogin's grief there is not a grain of beauty, lyricism ... The researchers do not seem to notice that I am grief-stricken, that the inconsolable grief of parents who lost their only son is emotionally colored differently, more tragic than the grief of even a passionately loving person whom she left wife. This is so obvious that it is somehow awkward, tactless, to talk at length on this topic.

Something else is important. After all, Abogin has an unimaginable grief, it mowed him down, it is sincere and deeply experienced by him in his own way.

This is how Abogin is portrayed in the scene when the reader first meets him. "He barely restrained - we read in the story - his frequent breathing and spoke quickly, in a trembling voice, and something genuinely sincere, childishly cowardly sounded in his speech." Having learned about the moment at which he arrived with a request to the doctor, Abogin speaks in an imploring voice, understands the whole tragedy of what happened. He “suffered in soul” and, in an impulse to save his wife’s life, asks (Chekhov emphasizes), “like a beggar”: “Now, you say, your son has died, who, if not you, can understand my horror?”<...>

The writer, if he does not emphasize the identity, “homogeneity of grief” of both heroes, which would be, perhaps, psychologically unjustified, then he does not emphasize their difference, and certainly does not humiliate one at the expense of the other. Such a landscape detail in the story is not accidental. Kirilov and Abogin drive to the estate, they drive in silence, each immersed in their thoughts, their experiences, and, as if in the tone of their silent and bitter concentration, something hopeless and sick was felt in nature: “Wherever you look, everywhere nature seemed dark, an infinitely deep and cold pit, from which neither Kirilov, nor Abogin, nor the red crescent can get out.

Chekhov's commentators want to separate the heroes of his story, give one all the author's sympathy, and deprive the other of even the author's indulgence. The writer, on the other hand, brings the characters closer together, since both of them suffer greatly as human beings.

And then, when, according to the logic of the story, the enmity that broke out really swept the heroes into different sides, the artist in the subtext, in the very deep current that accompanies the depicted, makes you feel and understand how sad everything turned out, how cruelly and how unfairly the inhuman beginning triumphed in the lives of these people, humiliating human dignity of both.

In the compositional structure of the story, in addition to episodes of grief, a special place is given to scenes that could conditionally be called scenes of unintentional deception. Abogin is deceived when he finds out that his wife, whom he considered mortally ill, for whose life he was so worried, left with her lover. Kirilov is deceived, having learned that he had no one to treat, that his medical feat was aimless, and even at such a moment when an exhausted wife was left at home alone and in grief. Philippics and the groaning of the wounded Abogin outrage the doctor. There is a duel of mutual insults. In anger, unheard of gross accusations are uttered, rash acts are committed. The intensity of passions is emphasized in the story by the psychological changes that its characters undergo. Abogin's expression of satiety and subtle grace disappears, his face, hands, posture are distorted by an expression of either horror or physical pain. Kirilov is choked with resentment and indignation. “His features,” notes Chekhov, “became even sharper, callous and more unpleasant.”

In Chekhov's subtext, one leitmotif sounds: yes, it happens in life, and it often happens, but it should be different, and it could be different if people did not succumb to the pressure of "the egoism of the unfortunate."

“With tears in his eyes, trembling all over,” Chekhov writes, no matter how much some of his commentators would like the vulgar Abogin to be treated differently, “Abogin sincerely poured out his soul before the doctor.” “Who knows,” Chekhov continues, “if the doctor had listened to him, sympathized with him in a friendly way, perhaps, as often happens, he would have come to terms with his grief without protest, without doing unnecessary stupid things.”

It is strange that researchers who base their conclusions on the subtext of the story do not mention this much significant detail, they simply omit it. And they don’t notice it because this is the author’s “who knows”, this assumption that if the doctor could understand Abogin’s grief, truly human relations would develop between them - all this clearly contradicts the artificial research constructions that we are talking about. Perhaps, accepting such a one-sided, selective method of analyzing the work, one would have to conclude from Chekhov's remark cited above that he is more ready to blame Kirilov than Abogin for the discord that has occurred. After all, it was Kirilov who first started the quarrel. However, Chekhov is by no means inclined to take on prosecutorial duties, and his story is the last thing that resembles an indictment.

Let's see how the writer himself explains everything that makes up the dramatic knot of the story.

“It seems that never in their lives, even in their delirium, did they say so much unfair, cruel and absurd. In both, the egoism of the unfortunate was strongly affected. The unfortunate are selfish, evil, unjust, cruel and less than fools are able to understand each other.(our italics. - E.P.).

It is somehow difficult for two such positions to coexist side by side: the first, of a learned interpreter: the story reveals the strength of Chekhov's contempt for parasitism, the nobility (this evil embodies Abogin) and the strength of his love for the "small", working man (this is Kirilov); and secondly, the writer: in both (note - in both!) the egoism of the unfortunate was strongly affected.

According to Chekhov, the one and the other sadly equalize in wrong, equalize in their unfair, evil and cruel antics dictated by the egoism of the unfortunate.

Undoubtedly, in addition to this moral and psychological explanation, Chekhov also had in mind a certain social motive that increased the bitterness of the quarrel. But here is how the writer himself speaks of this motive. While waiting for the carriages, Abogin and the doctor were silent. The doctor, writes Chekhov, “looked at Abogin with that deep, somewhat cynical and ugly contempt with which only grief and homelessness can look when they see satiety and grace in front of them.” In an incomprehensible way and this characteristic detail goes unnoticed.

Yes, the text itself and the subtext of Chekhov's story offer resolute resistance to arbitrary interpretations, as soon as researchers have to resort to silence or rhetorically play on "details" artificially snatched from the system of the artistic whole.

But something completely mysterious happens with the interpretation of the final part of the story. The fact is that the finale of "Enemies" was absolutely not in the court of the concept under consideration here and was discarded as "objectively completely alien to the entire poetry of the work."

You should carefully look at the ending of "Enemies" in order to understand the true pathos of the story, and along the way, why some of its commentators resort to such a decisive cutting-off operation.

Kirilov returns to the city, home. “All the way the doctor was thinking not about his wife, not about Andrei, but about Abogin and the people who lived in the house that he had just left. His thoughts were unjust and inhumanly cruel. He condemned Abogin, and his wife, and Papchinsky, and everyone who lives in pink twilight and smells of perfume, and all the way he hated them and despised them to the point of pain in his heart. And in his mind there was a strong conviction about these people.

Time will pass, Kirilov's grief will also pass, but this conviction, unjust, unworthy of the human heart, will not pass and will remain in the doctor's mind to the very grave.

This statement of Chekhov, of course, cannot be left unnoticed. And so the researcher comments on this place dangerous for his conception as follows: “This conciliatory element (however, why is it “conciliatory”? After all, Chekhov directly writes about Kirilov’s unfair and even unworthy of a human heart?!), introduced by Chekhov into the story (why , however, “brought in”?! or Chekhov has already ceased to be Chekhov and, despite his genius, cannot bring the beginning to the end on ten pages of narration!), ... could be partly explained by the “pacifying” influences of Tolstoy’s teaching, which, as once at that time Chekhov experienced (this evasive statement - "partly" - remains without explanation: what, what side of Tolstoy's teaching, in what sense did they influence the author of the story ?!).

So, having painted a sharp, contemptuous portrait of a liberal gentleman, Chekhov immediately, in the most typical liberal-humane spirit, tries to soften his anger and contempt.

What to say about this tirade? Here, every phrase is a stretch and conjecture, every word is an inaccuracy and some kind of upsetting twist.

In the story there is simply a portrait of a Russian gentleman, a bit of an amateur, and his life is shown truthfully, without any special accusatory assignments, as the life of a rich gentleman with habits of comfort and with other sometimes naive and funny, sometimes ugly manners and habits, which in he was rooted in his environment and upbringing.

Nevertheless, Chekhov's main goal was not to compose a pamphlet on Abogin and not to poeticize Kirilov's plebeian hostility to the nobility. The story was written in order to remind again and again the "damned" questions of life: why is it so relatively easy for people to become enemies, adopt unfair, "inhumanly cruel" beliefs, why hearts become so callous, why it happens that random misunderstandings breed enmity in life and alienation? The author of "Enemies" seems to be trying to explore the deep sources of conflicts, to understand the drama of the "little things in life" that are so hostile to the lofty impulses of the human spirit.

These reflections on modern life are determined by the humane Chekhovian dream to finally see a Russian man morally upright, to see his life bright, reasonable, full of work and creativity, to see such a life when grief and misfortune, inevitable in human destinies, will not separate people, but will be able to unite them in trouble with sensitivity and friendliness.<...>

From the article: Pokusaev E.I. On the ideological and artistic concept of A.P. Chekhov "Enemies" // From "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" to "Quiet Don": Sat. Art. L. : Nauka, 1969. S. 183-190.

"KIRILOV IS RIGHT IN EVERYTHING, BUT HE IS NOT JUST"
(V.B. Kataev)

<…>The story ends with the return of the narrator to one of the enemies - Dr. Kirilov.

The unfortunate Abogin has already been removed from the stage - he, without understanding anything, flew around the world to do new stupid things, to protest, to blame someone, again exposing himself to ridicule. And we, the readers (witnesses of the drama), stay with Kirilov, make the way back with him not only home, but much further, until the very end of his days. And now, until the end of this path, the author says, what he did, said, filled with anger, that evening in the house of a man in whom he saw his enemy, will remain a heavy burden on him.

This is what Chekhov wrote his story about, and this can be understood if you read it from beginning to end, without interrupting reading at an arbitrarily chosen point, without passing off the particular as the main thing, without beating one or another place in the hero’s monologue or in description.

In this case, why exactly Kirilov deserves more condemnation than his enemy, why exactly should he be presented with the highest score, and what, in fact, is the fault of this hero for Chekhov?

How to answer these questions?

Let's not forget that it was during these months that Chekhov remarked: Bilibin "does not understand that the originality of the author lies not only in style, but also in the way of thinking, in convictions, etc., in everything exactly in which he is stereotyped, like a woman ”(letter to Al. P. Chekhov dated February 19 or 20, 1887). According to Chekhov, the main thing is to understand the originality of that way of thinking, beliefs that are reflected in the artistic constructions, in the internal connections of the work.

Chekhov is not just a chronicler of an era, not just a social artist or psychologist. He is an original thinker, a philosopher, and this in previous times, and in our days is realized very rarely. And, as usual with Chekhov, help to understand the author's meaning of the work literary connections writer. Let's pay attention to this feature of "Enemies". Although Chekhov writes a realistic story, creates lively characters with a recognizable psychology, and in the manner of description he is clearly impressionistic, behind all this lies a certain predestination, an attraction to a genre that is not quite usual for Chekhov. Essentially, The Enemies (at least in concept, in the plot itself) is a story à thèse. Two positions are taken, extremely pointed and divorced, the most unusual combination of circumstances is considered. "Woe and homelessness", on the one hand, "satiety and grace" - on the other. The tragedy of the loss of a child, the only and last, and a farce about a cleverly fooled husband.

This is a way of proving through extreme arguments, deducing from extreme assumptions. And at the end - a direct author's word, discarding all sorts of allegories, making direct assessments and sentences. The direct authorial voice also sounds in other works written on the eve of "Enemies" and immediately after them ("Nightmare", "Frost", "Houses", etc.), and this does not look like an anomaly in an objective Chekhov's writing. During these years - 1986, 1987 - Chekhov wanted and learned to preach - just as his Taganrog teacher, Fr. Fyodor Pokrovsky, and especially, as did his other great teacher in Russian literature - Leo Tolstoy.

"Enemies" is built as a sermon: a story that explains some provision of the Old or New Testament, and a direct appeal to the reader, listener.

The Gospel of Matthew says: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. We heard what the ancients said: do not kill, whoever kills is subject to judgment. But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother (in vain) is subject to judgment ”(5. 20-22). Last phrase here, as it were, speaks directly of a situation similar to that depicted in "Enemies". Chekhov tells the story of such futile anger and puts it on trial.<...>

Kirilov - the same, according to Matthew, "angry in vain." But - "on the brother" whether? Abogin seems to be a brother, a brother in misfortune. But ... Chekhov sharpens the issue, introduces the moment of social, property, cultural enmity.

Kirilov moves from numbness and indifference at the sight of the grief and suffering of another to anger and hatred towards this other. And the author - the heir to the conquests of the Russian novel - does everything to substantiate these feelings of the hero to the utmost, to justify them.

Satiety is explained in mortal hatred by need, soft and graceful comes with enmity to callous and harsh. The abyss that separates both the two ways of life and the two manners of behavior looks truly insurmountable - everything that finally determined the characters of the enemies.

And what - in spite of this, according to Chekhov, Kirilov should have been above his own grief, rise above the insult inflicted on him, close his eyes to the humiliation of his position?

Yes. As in the Gospel, in the world that Chekhov creates, there is this distinction between two levels, steps of truth. There is an ascent from a lower level to a higher one, what the old authors distinguished as Law and Grace, visible truth, accessible even to the Pharisees, and higher truth, requiring from a person spiritual effort, a feat. As in Matthew: one is the old truth (“thou shalt not kill”) and the other is the new one (“do not be angry with your brother in vain”).

If Chekhov had said only this, "Enemies" would have remained only a passing work for him of the late 80s, when the writer really called for good people not to quarrel with each other (as in Lesh, which was replaced after Sakhalin came harsh "Uncle Vanya"). But there is something enduring in the story that has survived Sakhalin, and is significant today.

Chekhov has his own criterion for distinguishing between these two worlds, two truths. What is it? The answer to this is given in the text of the story itself. Open the last page: on it, in this small space, one word is repeated five times. That word is "injustice". Kirilov is right in everything, but he is not fair - that is the whole point for Chekhov.

The criterion of justice/injustice is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, in Chekhov's world. This can be seen in other works, in what he says in his letters.<...>Injustice in the understanding of Chekhov is the inability to understand another, to take his point of view. People are incapable of noticing in the hustle and bustle the enormous anguish of the funny little man"- the cabby Iona Potapov. The confession of unprecedented love is answered with "sturgeon with a smell." In grief, instead of sympathy for each other, they begin to viciously prove their rights, even if justified a thousand times over.

In this general deafness and blindness Chekhov sees the germs of injustice. Embryos, which can then grow into a great misfortune - into the enmity of religions, nations, classes.

And still - last question: Why is Chekhov judging Kirilov? After all, Abogin is also unfair? With his "Enemies" Chekhov entered into literary and social controversy. Another gospel for him was the Russian novel, including the novel by Turgenev. In "Fathers and Sons" is given an image unsurpassed in Russian literature of the irreconcilable clash between the democrat and the aristocrat. The aristocrat Turgenev wanted to show the complete historical superiority of the democrat Bazarov and the historical worthlessness of the aristocratic nobles, the best of them (“if cream is bad, then what about milk?”).

Chekhov in "Enemies" refers to the same situation. But he approaches her from the opposite side than Turgenev. After all, he himself is a raznochinets, the grandson of a serf, a doctor who learned on a penny, who knew "woe and homelessness." It was the resemblance to Bazarov that the artist Repin immediately felt in the young Chekhov. About how harsh the life of such as Kirilov, Dymov, Medvedenko, their author knew firsthand.

For Turgenev, Bazarov was an outsider, albeit an attractive one. Kirilov, like Bazarov, is his own for Chekhov. But precisely because he is his own, Chekhov considers it necessary to present him with the highest demands, he judges him according to the highest score.

This is the essence of the controversy (perhaps not so much with Turgenev as with his epigones): while giving a deliberate, all-justifying superiority to the democrats over the nobles, Russian writers did not speak the objective truth, but only humiliated true democracy, showing condescension towards it, in which it does not needs.

In Chekhov, our Russian democracy declared itself not politically, but morally. And she immediately made such high demands on herself - on herself in the first place - that even today, a hundred years later, few people can handle them. No, not without reason the heroes of Vasily Grossman claim that Chekhov "lifted the failed Russian democracy on his shoulders" ("Life and Fate").

In Chekhov, a raznochinets, who has squeezed out a slave drop by drop, does not demand condescension, pity or sympathy, but demand on the highest account. This is what Chekhov's understanding of justice, Chekhov's morality is: in the highest and strict exactingness towards oneself and one's equals, unforgiveness, first of all, one's own wrong.<…>

From the article: Kataev V.B. "Enemies": interpretation of the era of perestroika // Theatre. 1991. No. 1. (Quoted in: Kataev V.B. The Complexity of Simplicity: Chekhov's Stories and Plays. M.: MGU, 1998. S. 67-77) .

"There is no reason for enmity"
(Z.S. Paperny)

<...>Opening Chekhov's notebook:

“Love, friendship, respect do not bind so much as common hatred for something.”

Hate is a unifying feeling. Purely Chekhov's paradox.<...>

“He left everything for good deeds so that nothing would go to relatives and children whom he hated.”

This is a kind of ABC of hatred, the basics of malice.

“Everything new and useful is hated and despised by the people: they hated and killed doctors during cholera, and they love vodka; by people's love or hatred, one can judge the meaning of what is loved and hated.

End-to-end hatred - from top to bottom.

Chekhov shows not only the bitterness of enmity, but also its senselessness, falsity, its illusory nature. Mutual hostility, hatred, squabbles, insults - in all this one can guess the theme of the absurdity of life, which, growing, passes through all of Chekhov's work.

In 1887, he published the story "Enemies", which more than once attracted the interest of researchers and caused the most diverse, sometimes conflicting assessments.

<...>Half a century ago, in Literaturnaya Gazeta (1940, January 30, No. 6), an article appeared containing an analysis of this story. It was called "On Chekhov's impartiality." Her main thought was that, with all his objectivity, Chekhov condemned the secular veil Abogin and raised high the hard worker doctor Kirilov.

In Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. 1860-1904 "(M., 1953) V.V. Ermilov developed his analysis of the story "Enemies":

“With what penetration Chekhov reveals that the dryness and callousness of people like Kirilov, tired of want and work, are only external callousness and ugliness that hide true human beauty, while the beauty, nobility of the Abogins is only external tinsel!”

At first glance, the critic is right. How is Abogin depicted? Pretty ironic and funny. When he persuaded the doctor to go with him to his (supposedly) sick wife, “Abogin was sincere, but wonderful, no matter what phrases he spoke, they all came out of him stilted, soulless, inappropriately flowery and seemed to even offend both the air of the doctor’s apartment and a woman dying somewhere.

Let's assume that we agree with V.V. Ermilov. But then what about the final phrases of the story, uttered as if from the author (“Time will pass, Kirilov’s grief will also pass, but this conviction is unfair, unworthy of a human heart ...”)?

Yermilov, in essence, simply brushed aside these words.

“This conciliatory element introduced by Chekhov into the story, an element that is objectively completely alien to the entire poetry of the work, could also be partly explained by the “pacifying” influences of Tolstoy’s teaching, which Chekhov was experiencing just at that time.

It must be admitted that, on the whole, Yermilov's article looked quite convincing - Chekhov, indeed, sounded satirical notes about Abogin. I remember when I was writing my book A.P. Chekhov. Essay on Creativity” (Moscow, 1960), I mostly agreed with Yermilov. And it was a mistake.

Let's look at the beginning of the story.

“That repulsive horror that one thinks of when one speaks of death was absent from the bedroom. In the general tetanus, in the pose of a mother, in the indifference of the doctor's face, there was something that attracted, touched the heart, precisely that precise, barely perceptible beauty of human grief, which will not soon be learned to understand and describe and which, it seems, only music can convey. .

Here is an important motif of the story - the poetry of grief, the beauty of silence, when noisy, angry, unfair words, phrases, monologues should not offend silence.

Abogin, having learned about his wife's deceit and betrayal, bursts into an angry monologue. But doesn't Dr. Kirilov do the same thing? He attacked Abogin. For what? Even if he is not a person of his circle, even if there is a lot of ostentation in him, but after all, a blow of fate also fell on Abogin - he was deceived, betrayed by the woman he loved. If he so insistently asked Kirilov to go with him, it was only because he loved his wife and was in a hurry to help her.

In essence, Dr. Kirilov and Abogin are two unfortunate people, they should not be at enmity, there is no reason for this.

The doctor's mistake is that, like Abogin, he began to pronounce a monologue, to broadcast, to denounce, in a word, to do everything that violates Chekhov's commandment "not - recitation."

“In general, the phrase,” says the writer, “no matter how beautiful and deep it is, acts only on the indifferent, but cannot always satisfy those who are happy or not happy; therefore, the highest expression of happiness or unhappiness is silence; lovers understand each other better when they are silent, and the passionate, passionate speech spoken at the grave touches only outsiders, but it seems cold and insignificant to the widow and children of the deceased.

From the article: Paperny Z.S. Enemies // Chekhoviana: Chekhov in CultureXX century. M., 1993. S. 59-62.

Re-read Chekhov's story "Enemies".
Let me remind you the plot:
Doctor Kirilov's only son dies of diphtheria. On the same evening, his neighbor Abogin comes to him and begs to save his wife, who suddenly suffered a heart attack. The doctor is not able to go to the patient, he refuses with all his might. But Abogin, after much persuasion, still takes the doctor to him. There it turns out that there was no heart attack: the wife played the disease in order to escape from the house without interference with her lover. Abogin is stricken with grief and resentment, he turns to the present doctor for support and sympathy. The doctor, in turn, is offended to the core dismissive attitude to his own grief. A quarrel breaks out. Neighbors part as blood enemies.

The main idea of ​​the story is expressed in the paragraph:

Abogin and the doctor stood face to face and in anger continued to inflict undeserved insults on each other. It seems that never in their lives, even in their delirium, have they said so many unfair, cruel and absurd things. In both, the egoism of the unfortunate was strongly affected. The unfortunate are selfish, evil, unfair, cruel and less than fools are able to understand each other. Misfortune does not unite, but separates people, and even where, it would seem, people should be bound by the homogeneity of grief, much more injustice and cruelty are committed than in a relatively contented environment.

All the way the doctor was thinking not about his wife, not about Andrey, but about Abogin and the people who lived in the house he had just left. His thoughts were unjust and inhumanly cruel. He condemned Abogin, and his wife, and Papchinsky, and everyone who lives in pink twilight and smells of perfume, and all the way he hated them and despised them to the point of pain in his heart. And in his mind there was a strong conviction about these people.
Time will pass, Kirilov's grief will also pass, but this conviction unjust, unworthy of a human heart, will not pass and will remain in the mind of the doctor until the very grave.

And here is the actual question:
Chekhov what, indeed calls the death of an only child with the escape of an unfaithful wife, calling grief homogeneous?
Why are the convictions of a person who has lost his child and immediately subjected not only to misunderstanding, but to direct mockery, why does Chekhov call these convictions unfair and unworthy of a human heart?

Something is eluding me, my friends.
And at all.
What did Chekhov want to say here?

Saved

Перечитала рассказ Чехова "Враги". Напомню сюжет: У доктора Кирилова умирает от дифтерита единственный сын. В тот же вечер к нему приезжает его сосед Абогин, и умоляет спасти жену, которую внезапно постиг сердечный приступ. Доктор не в состоянии... !}