How to Read a Play- Learning through a Discussion on 'The Proposal'- a Play by Anton Chekhov

Hello Friends... 

Sure, we all are doing well... Be careful, we must stay fit and shouldn't fall ill getting our studies affected. We shall eat and drink healthy, exercise regularly, and won't avoid our domestic and social responsibilities. And whatever time we get for ourselves at the end of the day, we must study hard for most of the time, so that we learn to think... and learn. We simply cannot afford to stop thinking, for we are learners, and we are the chosen ones who got the scope to learn... 

Let's learn to think first...

How to Read a Drama

Here we meet together for the first time to read a play, or a drama. Often they say that theatre is the best place to enjoy a play or a drama, and that footlight (light used at the theatres to illumine the stage) enhances the experience more than the candlelight. It's not that I totally disagree with them; but you know, reading a play/drama also has got its own merits. 

The Advantages of Reading over Watching

To watch a drama being enacted in a theatre, you need to match your free time with the rigid time of the show/production, you need to buy the tickets which are mostly more expensive than the script, and then you get to experience the interpretation of the production house only. Now it is true that we do have some experimental production houses who care to incorporate your perception and interpretation of the play as well into their production, but certainly their numbers are too few to count, and are outnumbered by the old school proscenium theatres who enact the same interpretation everytime they stage their production of a play. 

On the other hand, if we attempt to read the same play instead of watching it getting enacted, we don't have to match our free time with anybody else's schedule. Time management turns out to be really flexible then, as we can take up the book whenever we are free, and can get involved into other chores when it is needed, only to get back to our reading as we get free again. We remain free to interpret the text on our own, and certainly this is a cheaper option. 

Now please don't get me wrong. I am not advocating in favour of a particular option. I know that both the ways we are discussing here have their own advantages as well as disadvantages. One way might suit you more than the other, and you need to discover that out on your own. You might even discover that both the ways have got their own advantages and you might like to explore both the ways to enjoy a play. I personally prefer to explore both the ways to enjoy a play if I have enough time and scope.

Drama- A Special Form of Narrative

How do you think a drama or a play is different from the other popular literary forms like a novel or a story? Don't you think that it is more direct a narrative in the sense that the readers or the spectators here can witness the action more directly then being informed from a third person narrator. This difference is actually brought into effect by the specific technique adopted here- where we get to listen to the characters interacting with each other directly. Obviously we might have on-stage characters narrating some off-stage events herein as well, but that never turns out to be primary. The only literary form that comes close to drama in this particular aspect is cinema, or a movie. A movie is a much edited and revised end product whereas a drama is comparatively more like an impromptu performance, when enacted. I am pretty sure that even if you have not been able to experience a drama being enacted till now in your life, you must have watched a considerable number of movies. Using your experience of watching a movie, you can very well attempt to understand how it might feel to watch a drama being enacted on stage.

Liberty to Interpret Independently

But reading a drama is different from watching the same. You enjoy more liberty to interpret the text as a reader than a spectator. And you enjoy more freedom to interpret a play as you read it than as you read a novel or a story, for in a drama you mostly get to witness and interpret the course of action on your own with the other narrative voices being much less dominant than as we find in novels, or stories, or even in narrative poems.

Characters

On-stage And Off-stage Characters

The characters involved are perhaps the most essential elements of a drama. Can you even think of a play without a character involved? They may be on-stage characters, that is to say, they appear on the stage, or, we can actually get to witness them interacting with others in front of us. We might have off-stage characters as well in a drama. We don't get to see them or listen to them directly, but their roles get referred to by the other characters on stage.

Major And Minor Characters

Depending upon the significance of the roles they play, they can be counted either as major or minor characters. I am sure I need not explain this anymore, smart students as you are.

Flat And Round Characters

Depending upon their growth along the length of the play and complexity, characters can also be considered as flat or round. Flat characters are rather simplistic characters who do not tend to grow or change at all. On the other hand, round characters are quite complex as they grow and evolve along the course of action.

The Factors of Space And Time

The characters in a play interact with each other in a defined space and in a definite time which in reality constitutes the action of the play. So now you know that apart from the characters, the space and the time are the two other most important elements of a play.

Plausibility

Plausibility is another factor or element essential to count the success of a play. Readers or spectators must be made to believe the way the characters interact together in the stipulated space and time to set the ball of action rolling.

The Major Functions

The course of action in a play is set into motion through four major different functions. If we study a drama closely, we are sure to discover the exposure where the different characters are introduced to us, the complication where the different characters interact together to add to the complicacy of the situation or the plot, the crisis where the complication reaches its peak, and finally the revelation where the crisis is sorted out for a solution or a settlement. In a text, these four functions can be presented in a linear fashion, or in an overlapping complicated fashion as well.

The Structure

I feel it will be beneficial for you all to know a bit about the structure of a play or a drama. All the classical plays used to be divided into five acts which used to get further divided into scenes. Different acts basically mark the change of place, where as different scenes just mark the change of time. Ideally, in the classical plays, the first act corresponded with the expository function, the second and third dealt with the crisis, the fourth marked the complication, where is the fifth act corresponded with the revelation.

One-act Plays,- A Necessity of the Present Time

I'm quite sure that you need nobody to tell you that these classical plays used to be quite lengthy and voluminous with all their five acts which further included multiple scenes each. However, since the modern period, men are running short in time and don't have time enough to read or to watch a play of five acts being enacted. Hence now we do have one act plays which incorporate all the four functions mentioned above but do not entertain any change of place and hence stays limited to a single act. Since the action in such plays revolve around a single place, we have lesser number of characters being involved in the course of action, reducing the length, and therefore the time of the plays considerably.

Hands on

Well, by now, as I do feel, we have discussed plenty about the literary form that we refer to as drama to begin our journey with. Shall we now actually start reading a one act play, The Proposal by Anton Chekhov,  translated into English by Julius West from the original Russian to find out if we can carry on the discussion we have already begun?

THE PROPOSAL

Anton Chekov

The Title

Like any other literary text, plays also have titles to get referred to. What does this particular title tell you about the text? Would you like to think about the most commonly associated connotation of the word?

Chekov's original title, if translated literally in English, would read as 'A Marriage Proposal'. It was Julius West who chose 'The Proposal' as the title for the text when he translated. It might be an interesting opportunity for you to study how the meaning gets differently expressed in different communities, isn't it?

CHARACTERS

 STEPAN STEPANOVITCH CHUBUKOV, a landowner

     NATALYA STEPANOVNA, his daughter, twenty-five years old

    IVAN VASSILEVITCH LOMOV, a neighbour of Chubukov, a large and hearty, but very suspicious landowner

The List of Characters

In a written text, the title of a play is generally followed by a list of the characters involved. You don't get this in a theatre though. When you are out there to watch a play being enacted, you are introduced to the characters in the due course of the action and you are also supposed to study these characters on your own without any external cue. Here in the list of the characters, you have the characters described physically, socially, as well as by their individual traits. However, it is not that all the dramatists or playwrights draw the list the same way. You may come across many plays where you have the list referring only to the characters and not to their individual traits. It actually depends on the intention of the playwrights,- how far they want us to interpret the characters and the course of action on our own.

Have you noted how less the characters are in number here in this one act play? Yes, we have just three characters. This is a very special characteristic of one act plays.

Can you tell me about the place of action from these characters? Study carefully who they are.

The scene is laid at CHUBUKOV’s country-house

A drawing-room in CHUBUKOV’S house.

The Setting

list of the characters get followed by the setting of a play. Here normally we have the stage described as per the intention of the playwright. In this text, we do have a very brief setting. That is to say, the playwright has let the production houses to set the stage as they think it to be fit. We might come across very detailed directions  to set the stage as well where the dramatists do not leave anything to the imagination of the production houses. Readers are expected to visualise the setting on their own.

When we watch a production, we get to see and learn about the setting only when the curtain arises and the stage is illuminated for the first time.

Now you know the place. It is a country house, and must belong to a countryside. I am quite sure some among you have been able to make this out from the fact that the characters were land owners and their family.

[LOMOV enters, wearing a dress-jacket and white gloves. CHUBUKOV rises to meet him.]

Stage-direction

These bit of instructions are known as the stage directions. They are normally put within brackets. Stage directions are basically instructions of the playwright for the directors of the play. It also helps the readers to understand and visualise the movement of the characters on the stage.

The Action And Interpretation

The action begins as the curtain rises on the stage, or as we find Lomov entering. Can you tell me who is the host and who is the guest here?

Well, the play is set at Chubukov's country house. So he must be the host. That makes Lomov the guest. He is wearing a dress jacket and white gloves. Do you feel it's quite common for country people to dress so formally when they visit their neighbours? If not, what might be the reasons behind such a formal way of dressing up?

Chubukov rises to greet Lomov. He must be a very courteous person, don't you feel so? Or is it that you feel him too to be overtly formal? Let's find out...

CHUBUKOV. My dear fellow, whom do I see! Ivan Vassilevitch! I am extremely glad! [Squeezes his hand] Now this is a surprise, my darling... How are you?

So, it was an unexpected visit, right? Chubukov was not expecting Lomov to pay a visit at his place in any way.

Please do not forget to note that we can have stage directions at any point in the play. Yes, you might come across them even in the middle of an utterance.

Have you noted how we get introduced with characters on stage when we watch a play being enacted instead of reading the text? The moment a character greets the other as Ivan Vassilevitch we come to identify the later character by his name.

Chubukov seems to be more happy than surprised to have Lomov at his place. Would you mind counting the expressions that indicate his happiness in this particular utterance?

LOMOV. Thank you. And how may you be getting on?

Lomov sounds very courteous and polite, doesn't he?

CHUBUKOV. We just get along somehow, my angel, to your prayers, and so on. Sit down, please do.... Now, you know, you shouldn’t forget all about your neighbours, my darling. My dear fellow, why are you so formal in your get-up? Evening dress, gloves, and so on. Can you be going anywhere, my treasure?

Chubukov is also no less humble, particularly when he responds back to tell how he is doing, but surely he is extra jubilant and energetic. Have you noted how he speaks remarkably more than the other character?

Now, what do you particularly think about the the enquiry made by Chubukov? Do you think he has encroached upon the private space of the other character? It is certainly a relative aspect. Urban folks may feel offended if anybody turns out to be so direct about their dress. Country folks might have a different perspective on this. But surely now we know that at least for these people, visiting neighbours being dressed so formally was not a very common thing.

LOMOV. No, I’ve come only to see you, honoured Stepan Stepanovitch.

CHUBUKOV. Then why are you in evening dress, my precious? As if you’re paying a New Year’s Eve visit!

Have you ever thought that the way you dress might have troubled somebody else like this? Certainly the way we dress carry some connotations and meaning.

LOMOV. Well, you see, it’s like this. [Takes his arm] I’ve come to you, honoured Stepan Stepanovitch, to trouble you with a request. Not once or twice have I already had the privilege of applying to you for help, and you have always, so to speak... I must ask your pardon, I am getting excited. I shall drink some water, honoured Stepan Stepanovitch. [Drinks.]

Surely he seems to be quite nervous, right? Maybe the fact that he has come with a request makes him anxious. Can you visualise him,- anxious, restless, and trying desperately for words to express himself? Do you feel that he might also feel to scratch his scalp, or clench his fist, or even stammer apart from taking Chubukov's arm to hold (and/or shake) and drinking water? That's the liberty you enjoy as a reader of a play. You might very well incorporate these activities on the part of this particular character when you will be directing this play.

And, don't forget to arrange for some drinking water in the setting while you direct the play. Even though you have the liberty here to ready the stage as you think it fit, you must not forget that there will be a time when your character is supposed to drink some water on his own on stage.

CHUBUKOV. [Aside] He’s come to borrow money! Shan’t give him any! [Aloud] What is it, my beauty?

Do I see you to chuckle? Of course its satisfying to get characters revealed like this. Now we know that though Chubukov was showering Lomov with affectionate greetings every now and then earlier, he was actually pretending. And, I am afraid, he is still pretending.

LOMOV. You see, Honour Stepanitch... I beg pardon, Stepan Honouritch... I mean, I’m awfully excited, as you will please notice.... In short, you alone can help me, though I don’t deserve it, of course... and haven’t any right to count on your assistance....

Can you think of any good reason for Lomov to get so much excited? He stammers and stutters, says a lot this time, but fails to convey the prime message, don't you think so?

Why do you think Lomov says that he hasn't any right to count on Chubukov's assistance? Do you feel that we might need to look into the history of their interaction together?

CHUBUKOV. Oh, don’t go round and round it, darling! Spit it out! Well?

Are you feeling as impatient as Chubukov himself?

LOMOV. One moment... this very minute. The fact is, I’ve come to ask the hand of your daughter, Natalya Stepanovna, in marriage.

CHUBUKOV. [Joyfully] By Jove! Ivan Vassilevitch! Say it again—I didn’t hear it all!

So lomov has come with the proposal to marry Chubukov's daughter. Do you agree to count this particular reason to be so tormenting that forced Lomov to lose his composure? Would you care to think about your own social background? How common it is for a young man to approach a person to ask for his daughter's hand in marriage? How marriages get set up in your society? 

Can you sense the excitement of Chubukov of now? Are you by any chance shocked to find that Chubukov is extremely happy about this proposal though he wasn't ready a minute earlier to help Lomov by lending him some money. How do you feel about this person who seems to be pleased to get his daughter married with someone whom he is not actually ready to help if needed though he continues to pretend that he cares for him?

Or, do you think he is being ironical?

LOMOV. I have the honour to ask...

CHUBUKOV. [Interrupting] My dear fellow... I’m so glad, and so on.... Yes, indeed, and all that sort of thing. [Embraces and kisses LOMOV] I’ve been hoping for it for a long time. It’s been my continual desire. [Sheds a tear] And I’ve always loved you, my angel, as if you were my own son. May God give you both His help and His love and so on, and I did so much hope... What am I behaving in this idiotic way for? I’m off my balance with joy, absolutely off my balance! Oh, with all my soul... I’ll go and call Natasha, and all that.

You should take your own time to go through the dialogue again, if required. This is one of the other benefits of reading a drama. Had you been watching this play being enacted on stage, there would have been no way to rewind the course of action and listen to the character once again.

Do you feel Chubukov is being honest about his feelings? Does he seem to be a hypocrite to you?

I am sure you haven't missed the way we have got the third character introduced in this play, she is still off the stage, as for now.

LOMOV. [Greatly moved] Honoured Stepan Stepanovitch, do you think I may count on her consent?

CHUBUKOV. Why, of course, my darling, and... as if she won’t consent! She’s in love; egad, she’s like a love-sick cat, and so on.... Shan’t be long! [Exit.]

No wonder Lomov is greatly moved. He has already secured the father's consent for the marriage. Natasha's consent is also equally important, as it seems to me. How it works in your community? We have communities where the bride and/or the groom in question aren't even asked for their consent. And there are communities where the parents/elders/communities are not supposed to interfere in the process of the children's marriage. How would you like to get a marriage arranged?

Chubukov has declared Natasha to be in love like a love sick cat. Would you like to comment upon the appropriateness of such a comment?

By the way, now that Chubukov has left the stage we have just Lomov here. Do you wonder how a single character on stage can make the ball of action get rolled forward? Let's find out.

LOMOV. It’s cold... I’m trembling all over, just as if I’d got an examination before me. The great thing is, I must have my mind made up. If I give myself time to think, to hesitate, to talk a lot, to look for an ideal, or for real love, then I’ll never get married.... Brr!... It’s cold! Natalya Stepanovna is an excellent housekeeper, not bad-looking, well-educated.... What more do I want? But I’m getting a noise in my ears from excitement. [Drinks] And it’s impossible for me not to marry.... In the first place, I’m already 35—a critical age, so to speak. In the second place, I ought to lead a quiet and regular life.... I suffer from palpitations, I’m excitable and always getting awfully upset.... At this very moment my lips are trembling, and there’s a twitch in my right eyebrow.... But the very worst of all is the way I sleep. I no sooner get into bed and begin to go off when suddenly something in my left side—gives a pull, and I can feel it in my shoulder and head.... I jump up like a lunatic, walk about a bit, and lie down again, but as soon as I begin to get off to sleep there’s another pull! And this may happen twenty times....

Do you feel that this section deserves a second reading? Go for it then. I'll wait for you...

This is what we refer to as a soliloquy- an utterance where the speaker speaks to himself, or thinks aloud. This is a very useful technique employed in drama to let the audience get a glimpse of the mind of the character involved. And this is how we can even have the course of action getting rolled even with a single character on stage.

Often we get this confused with a monologue. In a monologue, a character speaks out not to him/herself, but to some other passive listener(s) who would not respond back actively with words.

Soliloquy is a very important tool in the sense that it helps a character to get revealed. How do you find the character now? Do you feel we have now got some clue to his socio cultural history or background?

Is he sick? How serious can his illness be? Psychiatrists might tend to believe that Lomov is hypochondriac. To know a bit more, if you are interested, you may click here.

Why do people marry at all? Do you have anything to say about the prime objectives behind marriages?

Marriage, the smallest form of the social institutions that we have among us, is primarily meant for reproduction, that is to say, propagation of race. Other reasons, be it political, economic, emotional, or any other ideal, they consider to be the secondary ones. I don't disagree with them, but would be eager to listen to you in case you have a different opinion.

Why do you think Lomov is considering getting married? Is he in love with Natasha? Has he made up his mind about this? Why he might be still dwindling? What are the reasons that might have been holding him back? And what might be the reasons that are compelling him to get married? 

Why Lomov finds Natalya to be his prospective bride? How do you feel about the way Lomov judges and weighs her for marriage? Do you have the feel that his perspective might be that of a typical male in some particular community? Or is it his society that is defining his perspective?

[NATALYA STEPANOVNA comes in.]

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Well, there! It’s you, and papa said, “Go; there’s a merchant come for his goods.” How do you do, Ivan Vassilevitch!

LOMOV. How do you do, honoured Natalya Stepanovna?

Do you find Natalya madly in love with Lomov, like a love sick cat as described by Chubukov? Is her way of greeting Lomov warm enough for a lover to receive his or her beloved, or decent enough for a neighbour to receive another at his or her place?

Is there really any reason for Chubukov to refer to Lomov as a merchant who has come for his goods? Do you find his comment useful in getting an insight into Chubukov's notion of marriage? How respectful it might be to treat Nataliya as goods?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. You must excuse my apron and négligé... we’re shelling peas for drying. Why haven’t you been here for such a long time? Sit down. [They seat themselves] Won’t you have some lunch?

LOMOV. No, thank you, I’ve had some already.

Isn't it interesting to find out about the characters' way of living, their professions, and the way they receive others at their places from the way they exchange words with others? Though we didn't actually get to to see the characters on stage as we have been reading this play, now we have more data than before to visualise them as per our own reading. Earlier we just had the information that they are the country men but now we know for sure that Chubukov's family deals in farming.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Then smoke.... Here are  the matches.... The weather is splendid now, but yesterday it was so wet that the workmen didn’t do anything all day. How much hay have you stacked? Just think, I felt greedy and had a whole field cut, and now I’m not at all pleased about it because I’m afraid my hay may rot. I ought to have waited a bit. But what’s this? Why, you’re in evening dress! Well, I never! Are you going to a ball, or what?—though I must say you look better. Tell me, why are you got up like that?

Do you come from a farming family? If not, you might find this conversation quite interesting for it reveals the challenges a farming family normally has to face. The situation has changed much for them today as we have gained much more control over gaining information on natural factors like rainfall, wind speed, cloud cover etc.

I'm sure you have noted that Natalya is also surprised to find Lomov in evening dress. So Chubukov reacting similarly was not anything singular, right? Does it confirm our previous point of view on this?

Is it very likely for one who is mad in love like a love sick cat to overlook such a pompous attire for this long?

LOMOV. [Excited] You see, honoured Natalya Stepanovna... the fact is, I’ve made up my mind to ask you to hear me out.... Of course you’ll be surprised and perhaps even angry, but a... [Aside] It’s awfully cold!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What’s the matter? [Pause] Well?

We must agree that Lomov is being in no way less courteous to Natalya. And he is being quite nervous in dealing with Natalya as he was with Chubukov, right? Why do you think the cold was bothering Lomov in particular?

It is to be remembered that whatever is told aside by a character on stage is meant for the audience, or the readers, and not for the other characters on stage. This is how we get an additional glimpse into the mind of the character in question.

LOMOV. I shall try to be brief. You must know, honoured Natalya Stepanovna, that I have long, since my childhood, in fact, had the privilege of knowing your family. My late aunt and her husband, from whom, as you know, I inherited my land, always had the greatest respect for your father and your late mother. The Lomovs and the Chubukovs have always had the most friendly, and I might almost say the most affectionate, regard for each other. And, as you know, my land is a near neighbour of yours. You will remember that my Oxen Meadows touch your birchwoods.

Do you too feel that Lomov attempting to be brief is just an irony?

Isn't it interesting the way more and more characters get introduced to us as other characters refer to them? It is certainly a very effective technique to let us know about the background of the characters involved, negotiating the long past just within moments.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Excuse my interrupting you. You say, “my Oxen Meadows....” But are they yours?

LOMOV. Yes, mine.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What are you talking about? Oxen Meadows are ours, not yours!

LOMOV. No, mine, honoured Natalya Stepanovna.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Well, I never knew that before. How do you make that out?

LOMOV. How? I’m speaking of those Oxen Meadows which are wedged in between your birchwoods and the Burnt Marsh.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Yes, yes.... They’re ours.

LOMOV. No, you’re mistaken, honoured Natalya Stepanovna, they’re mine.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Just think, Ivan Vassilevitch! How long have they been yours?

LOMOV. How long? As long as I can remember.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Really, you won’t get me to believe that!

I do have the feel that the course of the action has already started to get complicated. What about you?

Is it, in any way, desirable to get into such an disagreement when Lomov is looking forward to marry Natalya? He seems to be quite unfortunate to me in this regard...

It would be a nice challenge for us the readers to trace the change of intonation of the characters on stage, right? Who between the two characters seem to be more irritated than the other? 

LOMOV. But you can see from the documents, honoured Natalya Stepanovna. Oxen Meadows, it’s true, were once the subject of dispute, but now everybody knows that they are mine. There’s nothing to argue about. You see, my aunt’s grandmother gave the free use of these Meadows in perpetuity to the peasants of your father’s grandfather, in return for which they were to make bricks for her. The peasants belonging to your father’s grandfather had the free use of the Meadows for forty years, and had got into the habit of regarding them as their own, when it happened that...

Now we have more bits of family history, right? You have not missed the bit of social history thouh, right? Isn't it interesting that one could actually have bricks made by in exchange of the free use of some meadows?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. No, it isn’t at all like that! Both my grandfather and great-grandfather reckoned that their land extended to Burnt Marsh—which means that Oxen Meadows were ours. I don’t see what there is to argue about. It’s simply silly!

LOMOV. I’ll show you the documents, Natalya Stepanovna!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. No, you’re simply joking, or making fun of me.... What a surprise! We’ve had the land for nearly three hundred years, and then we’re suddenly told that it isn’t ours! Ivan Vassilevitch, I can hardly believe my own ears.... These Meadows aren’t worth much to me. They only come to five dessiatins [Note: 13.5 acres], and are worth perhaps 300 roubles [Note: £30.], but I can’t stand unfairness. Say what you will, but I can’t stand unfairness.

Why Natalya is not asking Lomov to show the documents? Why instead, she is being so fussy about her morality in comparison to others immorality? Don't you think that such disputes are better resolved by documentary proofs instead of meaningless quarrels and fuss?

LOMOV. Hear me out, I implore you! The peasants of your father’s grandfather, as I have already had the honour of explaining to you, used to bake bricks for my aunt’s grandmother. Now my aunt’s grandmother, wishing to make them a pleasant...

Why doesn't he just come back to produce the documents?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I can’t make head or tail of all this about aunts and grandfathers and grandmothers! The Meadows are ours, and that’s all.

LOMOV. Mine.

Can you make head or tail of all these meaningless exchanges? If they have a dispute over the possession of a piece of land, they just need to check the records. Or is it that here we have a community who enjoys their share of property if only they are powerful enough to usurp it?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Ours! You can go on proving it for two days on end, you can go and put on fifteen dress-jackets, but I tell you they’re ours, ours, ours! I don’t want anything of yours and I don’t want to give up anything of mine. So there!

She can spit fire, right? We are to find out if she fights to protect hers, or to usurp others. By the way, do you think that this trait of Natalya adds to her credentials for being the wife of Lomov? How Lomov might have been feeling towards her now?

LOMOV. Natalya Ivanovna, I don’t want the Meadows, but I am acting on principle. If you like, I’ll make you a present of them.

Hear him now... This leaves two moralists on the stage, fighting for their principles. Weird, isn't it?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I can make you a present of them myself, because they’re mine! Your behaviour, Ivan Vassilevitch, is strange, to say the least! Up to this we have always thought of you as a good neighbour, a friend: last year we lent you our threshing-machine, although on that account we had to put off our own threshing till November, but you behave to us as if we were gipsies. Giving me my own land, indeed! No, really, that’s not at all neighbourly! In my opinion, it’s even impudent, if you want to know....

Here we are left with no other choice but to admit the fact that we have learnt, or been reminded of a good lesson. We can give away only the things we possess, right?

Is it very polite to remind a person of some help that s/he received from our end previously?

But again, you might very well say that we never attempt to be polite or civil during quarrels...

But, what's wrong with gypsies, by the way? Shouldn't we be neighbourly enough with everyone else?

LOMOV. Then you make out that I’m a land-grabber? Madam, never in my life have I grabbed anybody else’s land, and I shan’t allow anybody to accuse me of having done so.... [Quickly steps to the carafe and drinks more water] Oxen Meadows are mine!

Why Lomov is reacting so much at the hint of being considered as a land grabber? Is land grabbing a recurrent issue with the community? Is it a practice adopted by a person whenever s/he turns out to be more powerful than the other, and despised by when s/he turns out to be the weaker? Is it therefore a disrespectful term for most of the people for most of the time to get accused with?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It’s not true, they’re ours!

LOMOV. Mine!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It’s not true! I’ll prove it! I’ll send my mowers out to the Meadows this very day!

Is that a way of proving the ownership of a property?

LOMOV. What?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. My mowers will be there this very day!

LOMOV. I’ll give it to them in the neck!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. You dare!

LOMOV. [Clutches at his heart] Oxen Meadows are mine! You understand? Mine!

Is he going to get a heart attack? Why does he clutch at his heart? Was the heat of the argument too much for him?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Please don’t shout! You can shout yourself hoarse in your own house, but here I must ask you to restrain yourself!

LOMOV. If it wasn’t, madam, for this awful, excruciating palpitation, if my whole inside wasn’t upset, I’d talk to you in a different way! [Yells] Oxen Meadows are mine!

He is suffering from some pain right now. Otherwise, he would have talked in a different way. Do you think he would have talked in a polite, civil way otherwise? Is he yelling out of suffering, or strategically,- to win over the argument?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Ours!

LOMOV. Mine!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Ours!

LOMOV. Mine!

[Enter CHUBUKOV.]

CHUBUKOV. What’s the matter? What are you shouting at?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Papa, please tell to this gentleman who owns Oxen Meadows, we or he?

CHUBUKOV. [To LOMOV] Darling, the Meadows are ours!

Did he got prompted by his own daughter? Would you like to place yourself in Chubukov's position? How do you think you would have reacted to see the wooer of your daughter and your daughter quarrelling their best when you would have preferred them to get married? Wouldn't you have been surprised if you were asked to refer to the ownership of some property at such a situation? Do you feel Chubukov was at all surprised when he was asked to inform Lomov about the ownership of Oxen Meadows?

LOMOV. But, please, Stepan Stepanitch, how can they be yours? Do be a reasonable man! My aunt’s grandmother gave the Meadows for the temporary and free use of your grandfather’s peasants. The peasants used the land for forty years and got as accustomed to it as if it was their own, when it happened that...

Is it reasonable for Lomov to repeat the same story again and again without citing any documentary evidence?

CHUBUKOV. Excuse me, my precious.... You forget just this, that the peasants didn’t pay your grandmother and all that, because the Meadows were in dispute, and so on. And now everybody knows that they’re ours. It means that you haven’t seen the plan.

Now for the second time, we get it admitted on the stage that there had been some sort of dispute over the ownership of the said property in the past. And the way everybody claims their ownership of the property to be a known fact hints that probably they don't have the system of getting their property recorded and registered. Maybe they preferred to hold their property by the might of their power. Is this custom practiced to avoid paying the taxes? The way these people refer to plans and proofs but never actually show up any on the table implies they have none.

LOMOV. I’ll prove to you that they’re mine!

CHUBUKOV. You won’t prove it, my darling.

LOMOV. I shall!

CHUBUKOV. Dear one, why yell like that? You won’t prove anything just by yelling. I don’t want anything of yours, and don’t intend to give up what I have. Why should I? And you know, my beloved, that if you propose to go on arguing about it, I’d much sooner give up the meadows to the peasants than to you. There!

Now, the course of quarrelling hints at another interesting strategy. We often tend to invite third parties when we are convinced that we are going to lose the battle, so that our enemies also get deprived. If Chubukov gets deprived of the property due to the advancement of Lomov, he would try his best to ensure that Lomov also doesn't get to enjoy the meadows by involving the peasants who must be a strong and powerful party to get hold of the property.

Do you still remember that Lomov actually came to Chubukov's house in order to propose to marry his daughter?

LOMOV. I don’t understand! How have you the right to give away somebody else’s property?

CHUBUKOV. You may take it that I know whether I have the right or not. Because, young man, I’m not used to being spoken to in that tone of voice, and so on: I, young man, am twice your age, and ask you to speak to me without agitating yourself, and all that.

Really! Can you believe that this very man was so delighted at the prospect of having Lomov as his son-in-law that he even kissed Lomov before he left the stage earlier? Maybe we now have this for sure that no one here on stage is attempting to settle the issue rationally, rather all of them seem to have more trust in their ability to be fiercer than the other.

Chubukov, being double the age of Lomov, demands Lomov to act without agitation, or in other words, with respect. If seniority demands respect, don't you feel that seniority also have the responsibility to be more composed and rational? Do we find Chubukov being composed and rational enough? Is respect given, or earned?

LOMOV. No, you just think I’m a fool and want to have me on! You call my land yours, and then you want me to talk to you calmly and politely! Good neighbours don’t behave like that, Stepan Stepanitch! You’re not a neighbour, you’re a grabber!

CHUBUKOV. What’s that? What did you say?

Surely they have land grabbers in their society, don't you feel so? At the same time, it seems they all hate the idea of being identified as grabbers, though they all desire to grab others whenever they can.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Papa, send the mowers out to the Meadows at once!

Do we sense the violence of land mafias? Is this a civil way to settle some civil dispute?

CHUBUKOV. What did you say, sir?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Oxen Meadows are ours, and I shan’t give them up, shan’t give them up, shan’t give them up!

LOMOV. We’ll see! I’ll have the matter taken to court, and then I’ll show you!

I don't have the feel that Lomov really intends to settle the dispute legally. If he had the needed documents to prove his ownership, he would not have wasted his time here shouting himself hoarse. And I don't think Chubukov's family has the records either. Maybe, in this community, they just enjoy a piece of land as long as they can occupy it by the sheer power of their muscle. Let me know if you agree with me.

CHUBUKOV. To court? You can take it to court, and all that! You can! I know you; you’re just on the look-out for a chance to go to court, and all that.... You pettifogger! All your people were like that! All of them!

Can it be true that even the slightest hint of getting the issue settled at some legal court may irk some party? What might be the good reasons for Chubukov to get irritated over the fact? Maybe Lomov and all his family were cheat lawyers. But is it really plausible that everyone associated in a court would be a cheat? Why taking the case to a court doesn't sound logical to him?

And, isn't it unfair to accuse all the people of Lomov like that? Can you deny that it sounds really improbable to have a family where all the people are cheat?

LOMOV. Never mind about my people! The Lomovs have all been honourable people, and not one has ever been tried for embezzlement, like your grandfather!

CHUBUKOV. You Lomovs have had lunacy in your family, all of you!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. All, all, all!

CHUBUKOV. Your grandfather was a drunkard, and your younger aunt, Nastasya Mihailovna, ran away with an architect, and so on.

LOMOV. And your mother was hump-backed. [Clutches at his heart] Something pulling in my side.... My head.... Help! Water!

CHUBUKOV. Your father was a guzzling gambler!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. And there haven’t been many backbiters to equal your aunt!

Both the parties seem to be behaving equally without any honour. This particular portion reveals the dark secrets of each others, and may trigger laughter. How do you react to this episode? Do you find this funny? Or do you turn grave as you discover how you behave disrespectfully when you get engaged in bitter fights and lose all your rationality and stoop much lower than that is demanded by civility?

LOMOV. My left foot has gone to sleep.... You’re an intriguer.... Oh, my heart!... And it’s an open secret that before the last elections you bri... I can see stars.... Where’s my hat?

What can be wrong with Lomov? Is he really sick, or just excited? Or is it that he is faking being sick to get a better grasp over the situation?

However, now we know that the Chubukovs deal with both social and political power there. Though, as they are accused to have bribed the officials to win the elections, it seems they are not very popular with the common people. Could it be that they are not so popular to win elections by themselves because they actually grab others' properties?

How powerful do you think Lomov is socially and politically, as we find him confronting the Chubukovs face to face? Or, how aspirant he might have been, aiming to marry Natalya earlier? Do you think he might still be ready to marry Natalya, if he gets the chance?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It’s low! It’s dishonest! It’s mean!

CHUBUKOV. And you’re just a malicious, double-faced intriguer! Yes!

LOMOV. Here’s my hat.... My heart!... Which way? Where’s the door? Oh!... I think I’m dying.... My foot’s quite numb.... [Goes to the door.]

CHUBUKOV. [Following him] And don’t set foot in my house again!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Take it to court! We’ll see!

[LOMOV staggers out.]

Shall we pause for a while, now? Lomov has left Chubukov's place. He seemed to be sick, but Chubukovs were not concerned. Are we to take Lomov's illness seriously, for we know that he has got a long list of illness to report. We have also been considering the possibility of him being a hypochondriac. And moreover, he yelled no less than the others in spite of weak heart and limbs, right?

Both the parties accused each other for being non-neighbourly? What is your opinion about it?

Where do you think the course of action might lead us to? Do you have any idea? You must have realised that there should be more complicacies on our way before it turns to get resolved. Or do you think that we might get the situation resolved in some way from this very point? Would you like to explain how?

CHUBUKOV. Devil take him! [Walks about in excitement.]

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What a rascal! What trust can one have in one’s neighbours after that!

Do they allude to Christianity any way? How would you like to rate them as true Christians?

CHUBUKOV. The villain! The scarecrow!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. The monster! First he takes our land and then he has the impudence to abuse us.

CHUBUKOV. And that blind hen, yes, that turnip-ghost has the confounded cheek to make a proposal, and so on! What? A proposal!

A reaction, at last! At least Chubukov seems to have lost interest in the possibility of the marriage.

By the way, aren't the curse words quite interesting? Yes, they are typical to a farming family. Would you like to recall how Captain Haddock's curse words revealed his identity?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What proposal?

Natalya surely took the metaphor of a merchant coming for his goods literally. Chubukov should have been more careful to deliver the message.

CHUBUKOV. Why, he came here so as to propose to you.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. To propose? To me? Why didn’t you tell me so before?

CHUBUKOV. So he dresses up in evening clothes. The stuffed sausage! The wizen-faced frump!

Did Chubukov expect that his merchant-metaphor and Lomov's evening clothes would be sufficient for Natalya to realise that Lomov came to propose her?

Don't miss the nature of the curse words anyway...

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. To propose to me? Ah! [Falls into an easy-chair and wails] Bring him back! Back! Ah! Bring him here.

CHUBUKOV. Bring whom here?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Quick, quick! I’m ill! Fetch him! [Hysterics.]

How do you like the fact that Natalya is ready to accept Lomov's proposal? Don't you feel it to be quite awkward for Natalya who was all tooth and nails at Lomov minutes earlier?

Now that Natalya also turns hystric, would she and Lomov make a good match? Who would take care of whom if both of them feel sick at the same time?

CHUBUKOV. What’s that? What’s the matter with you? [Clutches at his head] Oh, unhappy man that I am! I’ll shoot myself! I’ll hang myself! We’ve done for her!

Do you feel to laugh at Chubukov? Don't you feel sympathetic for him? Now, particularly when he feels to commit suicide at his daughter's inconsistent behaviour towards Lomov?

By the way, do you agree that she has been inconsistent? When she was quarelling, she had no idea that Lomov had come as her wooer. Now when she is compelling her father to bring Lomov back even after they almost drove him out together, she has learnt  that Lomov came to propose her. Aren't the two situations completely different? Aren't we supposed to change in our attitude if the circumstances get changed?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I’m dying! Fetch him!

CHUBUKOV. Tfoo! At once. Don’t yell!

[Runs out. A pause. NATALYA STEPANOVNA wails.]

Please be careful to note the movements of the characters coming in and going out.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What have they done to me! Fetch him back! Fetch him! [A pause.]

Are you laughing at her? Or do you feel sympathetic towards her?

[CHUBUKOV runs in.]

CHUBUKOV. He’s coming, and so on, devil take him! Ouf! Talk to him yourself; I don’t want to....

Now as he attempts to get detached from the course of action, do you find him really upset, or humiliated, or both?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. [Wails] Fetch him!

Has she lost the balance of her mind? What do you think?

CHUBUKOV. [Yells] He’s coming, I tell you. Oh, what a burden, Lord, to be the father of a grown-up daughter! I’ll cut my throat! I will, indeed! We cursed him, abused him, drove him out, and it’s all you... you!

Are you ready to assess the burden of being a father to a grown-up daughter? Ok, if you are not sure, try to assess the burden of staying together with somebody as Natalya. Do you think she's being whimsical, or being too selfish? Is she acting on the basis of her instincts, or some mighty compulsion which she can't deny? Does the merchant-goods metaphor ring a bell?

By the way, do you agree that it was all Natalya behind the way Lomov got treated?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. No, it was you!

Do we have a domestic riot now? What happened to their unity when they fought Lomov out earlier? What might be the reasons behind? Do you find Natalya acting like a love-sick cat now?

CHUBUKOV. I tell you it’s not my fault. [LOMOV appears at the door] Now you talk to him yourself [Exit.]

[LOMOV enters, exhausted.]

LOMOV. My heart’s palpitating awfully.... My foot’s gone to sleep.... There’s something keeps pulling in my side.

Why does he return at  all if he still feels sick? Shouldn't he have visited a doctor instead?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Forgive us, Ivan Vassilevitch, we were all a little heated.... I remember now: Oxen Meadows really are yours.

Wao... Is it so simple to get the ownership of a property decided? Why were they quarrelling before? Do you have any say on this?

LOMOV. My heart’s beating awfully.... My Meadows.... My eyebrows are both twitching....

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. The Meadows are yours, yes, yours.... Do sit down.... [They sit] We were wrong....

LOMOV. I did it on principle.... My land is worth little to me, but the principle...

At least he still has got his principle to cling to, lucky him. What happened to Natalya's principle, by the way? Do you feel that the prospect of getting married is more lucrative for Natalya than clinging back to her principles? Do you notice how desperate Natalya is now to win over Lomov? Do you feel her to be more eager than Lomov to get married? Does Lomov get some advantage here being male in this male dominated society?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Yes, the principle, just so.... Now let’s talk of something else.

LOMOV. The more so as I have evidence. My aunt’s grandmother gave the land to your father’s grandfather’s peasants...

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Yes, yes, let that pass.... [Aside] I wish I knew how to get him started.... [Aloud] Are you going to start shooting soon?

LOMOV. I’m thinking of having a go at the blackcock, honoured Natalya Stepanovna, after the harvest. Oh, have you heard? Just think, what a misfortune I’ve had! My dog Guess, whom you know, has gone lame.

Do you think Natalya has got Lomov started in some other direction? Is the crisis over? Have we reached a settlement?

At least for now, we may safely say that at least Natalya has successfully initiated a diversion. Now they are talking about their hunting practices and dogs. Thus, we get another glimpse of the country life in Russia during Chekov's time, right?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What a pity! Why?

LOMOV. I don’t know.... Must have got twisted, or bitten by some other dog.... [Sighs] My very best dog, to say nothing of the expense. I gave Mironov 125 roubles for him.

Isn't it quite gross for Lomov to discuss the price of his dog with Natalya? 

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It was too much, Ivan Vassilevitch.

Maybe country folk are much more liberal than being burdened with meaningless urban sophistication?

LOMOV. I think it was very cheap. He’s a first-rate dog.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Papa gave 85 roubles for his Squeezer, and Squeezer is heaps better than Guess!

LOMOV. Squeezer better than. Guess? What an idea! [Laughs] Squeezer better than Guess!

Do you sense another trouble? Who is/are to blame? Can people act so foolish even to jeopardise their primary concern over this? 

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Of course he’s better! Of course, Squeezer is young, he may develop a bit, but on points and pedigree he’s better than anything that even Volchanetsky has got.

LOMOV. Excuse me, Natalya Stepanovna, but you forget that he is overshot, and an overshot always means the dog is a bad hunter!

I sense Lomov and Natalya have successfully forgotten their earlier crisis, and are back to their spontaneous, natural selves whom we have met a few minutes earlier.

By the way, which of them, do you feel is less impolite than the other? Why?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Overshot, is he? The first time I hear it!

LOMOV. I assure you that his lower jaw is shorter than the upper.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Have you measured?

LOMOV. Yes. He’s all right at following, of course, but if you want him to get hold of anything...

Really!!! Can you imagine anyone measuring somebody else's dog's jaw to verify if it is overshot?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. In the first place, our Squeezer is a thoroughbred animal, the son of Harness and Chisels, while there’s no getting at the pedigree of your dog at all.... He’s old and as ugly as a worn-out cab-horse.

Now comes the question of pedigree. Why do you think it is so unavoidable when it comes to dogs? Do you find this popular practice reasonable at all? And how reasonable and human is it to accuse a dog being old and ugly?

LOMOV. He is old, but I wouldn’t take five Squeezers for him.... Why, how can you?... Guess is a dog; as for Squeezer, well, it’s too funny to argue.... Anybody you like has a dog as good as Squeezer... you may find them under every bush almost. Twenty-five roubles would be a handsome price to pay for him.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. There’s some demon of contradiction in you to-day, Ivan Vassilevitch. First you pretend that the Meadows are yours; now, that Guess is better than Squeezer. I don’t like people who don’t say what they mean, because you know perfectly well that Squeezer is a hundred times better than your silly Guess. Why do you want to say it isn’t?

I thought the possession of the meadows was already settled. What do you say?

LOMOV. I see, Natalya Stepanovna, that you consider me either blind or a fool. You must realize that Squeezer is overshot!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It’s not true.

LOMOV. He is!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. It’s not true!

LOMOV. Why shout, madam?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Why talk rot? It’s awful! It’s time your Guess was shot, and you compare him with Squeezer!

Don't we feel that the new complication is essentially nothing new, but a repitition of what we have witnessed earlier? Yes, they now argue over their dogs instead of the piece of land they possess, but the way they argue meaninglessly remain the same. Do they argue with a logical approach at all? Or do they just engage themselves in shouting hoarse at each other proving nothing else but their weirdness? Can you explain their attitudes in any way?

LOMOV. Excuse me; I cannot continue this discussion: my heart is palpitating.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I’ve noticed that those hunters argue most who know least.

Can you believe that the lady forcefully sent her father to fetch Lomov back the moment she came to know that Lomov actually came with the proposal to marry her, ignoring how he would feel to do that? Didn't she act as she was deeply in love with Lomov then, leaving us to wonder about her ways of treating Lomov before she was informed about Lomov's intention? And now we have her again, ignoring Lomov complaining about his palpitating heart, bent upon winning the argument over their dogs in her typical way.

LOMOV. Madam, please be silent.... My heart is going to pieces.... [Shouts] Shut up!

Maybe he is under a panic attack now. But I don't believe his seriously sick anyway.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I shan’t shut up until you acknowledge that Squeezer is a hundred times better than your Guess!

LOMOV. A hundred times worse! Be hanged to your Squeezer! His head... eyes... shoulder...

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. There’s no need to hang your silly Guess; he’s half-dead already!

LOMOV. [Weeps] Shut up! My heart’s bursting!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I shan’t shut up.

[Enter CHUBUKOV.]

Now Chubukov is back again. The other two characters have revived their true selves within minutes. How will Chubukov continue? Last time he promised to stay away from his daughters business.

CHUBUKOV. What’s the matter now?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Papa, tell us truly, which is the better dog, our Squeezer or his Guess.

LOMOV. Stepan Stepanovitch, I implore you to tell me just one thing: is your Squeezer overshot or not? Yes or no?

Earlier, Chubukov got provoked only by his own daughter. Now, he has got Lomov as well. Do you think he will be strong willed enough to fight the double provocation?

Somehow, if you ask me, I feel that Chubukov would also show the same spirit as earlier, for we have already noticed the other two characters behaving exactly the same irrational way they have been earlier.

Isn't it interesting, however, to discover that both Natalya and Lomov hopes to win Chubukov in their favour?

CHUBUKOV. And suppose he is? What does it matter? He’s the best dog in the district for all that, and so on.

LOMOV. But isn’t my Guess better? Really, now?

CHUBUKOV. Don’t excite yourself, my precious one.... Allow me.... Your Guess certainly has his good points.... He’s pure-bred, firm on his feet, has well-sprung ribs, and all that. But, my dear man, if you want to know the truth, that dog has two defects: he’s old and he’s short in the muzzle.

LOMOV. Excuse me, my heart.... Let’s take the facts.... You will remember that on the Marusinsky hunt my Guess ran neck-and-neck with the Count’s dog, while your Squeezer was left a whole verst behind.

CHUBUKOV. He got left behind because the Count’s whipper-in hit him with his whip.

Did you miss the brief glimpse into the country life? Seasonal hunting is not just a means to have fun for all, but it's also a way of living and exerting their social power and charisma. It's quite impressive for a countryman if he has a dog to run neck and neck with the count's dog. But for the count, the most prestigious and powerful person of the region, it's a threat to have somebody's dog beating his in a chase, and so, he has to arrange for whippers to whip such unwanted competitive dogs out of the run.

How does it work in your society? Is it different, by any chance?

LOMOV. And with good reason. The dogs are running after a fox, when Squeezer goes and starts worrying a sheep.

Is it that Lomov is being mean to Squeezer just because he dared to challenge the count's dog? Or is it that he is bent on to save the face of the count's face anytime, anywhere,- he being the most powerful person of the region? Do you have any clue?

CHUBUKOV. It’s not true!... My dear fellow, I’m very liable to lose my temper, and so, just because of that, let’s stop arguing. You started because everybody is always jealous of everybody else’s dogs. Yes, we’re all like that! You too, sir, aren’t blameless! You no sooner notice that some dog is better than your Guess than you begin with this, that... and the other... and all that.... I remember everything!

Hear! Hear! Do you recognise any change in his tone? Does he sound wiser than earlier, the way he identifies his own lapses alongwith others'?

LOMOV. I remember too!

CHUBUKOV. [Teasing him] I remember, too.... What do you remember?

Oh no... The old man is back again...

LOMOV. My heart... my foot’s gone to sleep.... I can’t...

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. [Teasing] My heart.... What sort of a hunter are you? You ought to go and lie on the kitchen oven and catch blackbeetles, not go after foxes! My heart!

Can you believe her, teasing Lomov like this? A woman, teasing the person whom she was dying to marry minutes earlier? And how do you feel a woman demeaning the honour of the women in her way of speaking?

CHUBUKOV. Yes really, what sort of a hunter are you, anyway? You ought to sit at home with your palpitations, and not go tracking animals. You could go hunting, but you only go to argue with people and interfere with their dogs and so on. Let’s change the subject in case I lose my temper. You’re not a hunter at all, anyway!

I'm glad he at least didn't abuse the honour of the women in general while singing in the tune of his daughter.

LOMOV. And are you a hunter? You only go hunting to get in with the Count and to intrigue.... Oh, my heart!... You’re an intriguer!

So it seems that the count is certainly important a figure, either to compete with, or to please for, right?

CHUBUKOV. What? I an intriguer? [Shouts] Shut up!

LOMOV. Intriguer!

Why this might be an offensive insult, any idea?

CHUBUKOV. Boy! Pup!

LOMOV. Old rat! Jesuit!

Have you noticed the curse words Lomov used just now? Do they ring a bell in your mind? How would you like to explain the use of 'Jesuit' as a curse word in particular?

CHUBUKOV. Shut up or I’ll shoot you like a partridge! You fool!

LOMOV. Everybody knows that—oh my heart!—your late wife used to beat you.... My feet... temples... sparks.... I fall, I fall!

CHUBUKOV. And you’re under the slipper of your housekeeper!

Do you understand that these attacks are not just personal attacks, but also typically patriarchal in nature? Don't both of them are trying to accuse each other for being submissive to some dominant female? Well, housekeeping jobs are still mostly reserved for the females in most of the societies even today.

LOMOV. There, there, there... my heart’s burst! My shoulder’s come off.... Where is my shoulder? I die. [Falls into an armchair] A doctor! [Faints.]

CHUBUKOV. Boy! Milksop! Fool! I’m sick! [Drinks water] Sick!

So now we have Chubukov complaining about sickness too? Could this be figurative? What do you feel?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. What sort of a hunter are you? You can’t even sit on a horse! [To her father] Papa, what’s the matter with him? Papa! Look, papa! [Screams] Ivan Vassilevitch! He’s dead!

Have she turned a twist again? Why might she behave like this?

CHUBUKOV. I’m sick!... I can’t breathe!... Air!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. He’s dead. [Pulls LOMOV’S sleeve] Ivan Vassilevitch! Ivan Vassilevitch! What have you done to me? He’s dead. [Falls into an armchair] A doctor, a doctor! [Hysterics.]

CHUBUKOV. Oh!... What is it? What’s the matter?

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. [Wails] He’s dead... dead!

CHUBUKOV. Who’s dead? [Looks at LOMOV] So he is! My word! Water! A doctor! [Lifts a tumbler to LOMOV’S mouth] Drink this!... No, he doesn’t drink.... It means he’s dead, and all that.... I’m the most unhappy of men! Why don’t I put a bullet into my brain? Why haven’t I cut my throat yet? What am I waiting for? Give me a knife! Give me a pistol! [LOMOV moves] He seems to be coming round.... Drink some water! That’s right....

What's your reaction now? Do you find Natalya behaving this way funny? Or do you feel sympathetic towards the lady? Do you have any explanation for Natalya behaving so inconsistently?

What do you think about Lomov? Is he seriously ill? Is it ethical enough for him to get married being so sick?

LOMOV. I see stars... mist.... Where am I?

CHUBUKOV. Hurry up and get married and—well, to the devil with you! She’s willing! [He puts LOMOV’S hand into his daughter’s] She’s willing and all that. I give you my blessing and so on. Only leave me in peace!

His daughter, - the devil! Can you imagine the disgust of the father? And he just demands for being left in peace!!! 

Is he exaggerating?

LOMOV. [Getting up] Eh? What? To whom?

CHUBUKOV. She’s willing! Well? Kiss and be damned to you!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. [Wails] He’s alive... Yes, yes, I’m willing....

Who do you think will be the damned one? 

I somehow feel that none of these characters are going to be damned, for they are so alike that they deserve each other. And maybe the rest of the neighbours are going to be the real damned ones when these people get engaged in a marital alliance. They are quite venomous by themselves. Just imagine what can they do to others together.

CHUBUKOV. Kiss each other!

LOMOV. Eh? Kiss whom? [They kiss] Very nice, too. Excuse me, what’s it all about? Oh, now I understand... my heart... stars... I’m happy. Natalya Stepanovna.... [Kisses her hand] My foot’s gone to sleep....

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. I... I’m happy too....

Are you shocked that this marriage seems to be nothing like the ideal ones you have cherished for long?

CHUBUKOV. What a weight off my shoulders.... Ouf!

Or maybe this is just the beginning... Who knows? Earlier he had to deal with Natalya only, and now he has got Lomov as well.

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. But... still you will admit now that Guess is worse than Squeezer.

LOMOV. Better!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Worse!

CHUBUKOV. Well, that’s a way to start your family bliss! Have some champagne!

Do you sense the tone of irony? Well, Chubukov has got some sense of humour...

LOMOV. He’s better!

NATALYA STEPANOVNA. Worse! worse! worse!

CHUBUKOV. [Trying to shout her down] Champagne! Champagne!

Curtain.

I'm dumbstruck. Would you like to drop a comment?

Farce

Wonder what might be the reason/s behind writing this drama? It's not a serious drama for sure. This belongs to the genre we refer to as farce, where we deal with the oddities and absurdities of  life in a ludicrously humorous way. It often goes beyond being probable and realistic, and tends to be quite absurd in that way. The only objective is to make us all aware of our own follies and foibles as we laugh out loud without being bitter, and finally, aim for our correction.

The Plot

The plot is quite simple and straightforward, isn't it? Lomov, who is considering to get married, comes to Chubukov to propose Natalya for marriage. They get engaged in furious feud, but however, get married together as well. The plot is woven around just a winter evening, and therefore achieves the unity of time quite successfully. The unity of place is also achieved at the same time for the core action of the drama never goes beyond Chubukov's living place. For any one act play, unity of time and place is really important. Without this unity of time and place, the play would have turned episodic and loose. But here in this play, we might have felt a bit monotonous at times, but never loosely organised. Don't you agree?

Chekhov, however, skilfully explores this apparently simplistic plot to comment upon the reasons for which people plan, accept, and grant marriages. 

Why do you think Lomov planned to marry? He was already thirty five and sick, and hence, was looking for someone to take care of him. He chose Natalya for she was a great housekeeper and educated- both essential for raising a family, specifically children. Marriages are primarily meant for reproduction and raising the next generation, could you deny that? But does it mean there would be no room to think about love or other emotional aspects when it comes to marriage?

Why does Natalya accept Lomov's proposal so ardently, though moments earlier she actually drove him out of her place? Was it too difficult for her to live by herself, or to wait for some time more till she meets somebody actually eligible, rather than accepting the one whom she found ethically disagreeable? Was it too difficult for a lady to live without a man, no matter how disagreeable he was?

How may we read into Chubukov's intention? It's perhaps easier than reading into Natalya's. He just wanted to live in peace, without the botheration of dealing with the tantrums of grown up daughter. Perhaps by now you have realised why he referred to his own daughter as love sick cat.

Isn't there any commentary other than on the convention of marriage? Surely there are. Don't you get a glimpse into the existing social hierarchy from the social status as enjoyed by the count? Isn't it interesting to see that how people tend to grab other's property to enjoy a more well off life? What do you feel about their social custom of hunting foxes once their harvest is over?

Characterisation

It is the art of characterisation that actually makes the drama a successful comedy. Yes, at times we feel that the characters act in ways which are not plausible. But this awkwardness is the key to success in case of a farce. This exaggerated way of life actually helps the readers/spectators to realise the lapses they nurture in themselves without being aware of them. If the lapses were pointed out straight, that might have turned them bitter, and therefore harder to rectify. But here, they are supposed to laugh out loud at first at the exaggerated ways the characters behave, only to realise later that they themselves are not much different. This self realisation might help us to mend our ways that we need to, for our own sake.

Don't you realise by now how irresponsible is Chubukov as a father? How can a father get his daughter married just to get rid of her? How responsible is he as a neighbour? We have watched him planning not to pay a penny to Lomov apprehending that he must have come for a loan. The facts that he claims Oxen Meadows as his family property without proof, argues about the dogs without rationality, stigmatises Lomov and his family in an uncivil manner show it clear that he is not a responsible social element. Ironically, we depend upon the seniors to lead us by example in these regards. Have you noticed any such trait of irresponsibility in yourself? 

Have you studied Lomov and Natalya closely enough? They were eager to marry each other, not for love or other emotional attachments, but for socio-economic convenience, and they married each other. Did they do justice to themselves and each other? Do you feel Lomov might find a compassionate partner when he is sick, and Natalya a competent partner when she has to protect her property from the other land grabbers, or to grab others', if possible? Do you really feel that they are going to make great parents, if not the ideal ones? Have you ever considered your relationships seriously? What are the basis of the relationships you are involved into? Can we really afford to grow up as hollow and sham as these people? Would you care to ask yourselves?