Anton Chekhov in school and university teaching in the 2000s−2010s: discussion in the "Chekhov Herald"

Denisov Alexander Yuryevich Postgraduate student; Department of the History of Russian Literature; Lomonosov Moscow State University 1 Kolmogorova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia audenisov@mail.ru

In the 1990s, Russia felt the need for a new coverage of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov (as well as the entire history of Russian literature) in educational literature for students and schoolchildren and in methodological literature for teachers. This was due, firstly, to the collapse of the USSR and the rejection of previous ideological dogmas, and secondly, to the need to take into account the significant achievements of domestic Czech studies in the 1970s-1980s (publication of the PSP, research by Z.S. Paperny, E.A. Polotskaya, A.P. Chudakov, V.B. Kataev, I.N. Sukhoi and others). At the turn of the 1990s‒2000s, several new university and school textbooks on the history of Russian literature with a section on Chekhov appeared at once, as well as several manuals devoted to teaching Chekhov at school.

In 2001, the publishing house of Moscow State University published a textbook on the history of Russian literature in the 1870s-1890s. Edited by V.N. Anoshkina, L.D. Gromova and V.B. Kataev, the chapter on Chekhov was written for him by V.B. Kataev. The emphasis in the chapter is on the global significance and global recognition of Chekhov's work (to understand A.P. Chekhov means "first of all to explain why his work has gained worldwide and increasing recognition" ^{[1, p. 551]}), his "universalism" ^{[1, p. 551]}. V.B. Kataev provides the basic for the researcher Chekhov's literature (PSP, collections "Chekhov in the memoirs of contemporaries", the 68th and 100th volumes of the "Literary Heritage", etc.), as well as for the first time in the textbook indicates the specifics of Soviet Czech studies, its problems and limitations, most clearly manifested in the officially recognized works of V.V. Ermilov ^{[1, p. 552-554]}. The 1970s are characterized by the author of the chapter as a "turning point" associated with the preparation of the PSP, the works of A.P. Chudakov, E.A. Polotskaya, T.K. Shah-Azizova, etc. and supported in the 1980s‒1990s by the research of I.N. Sukhoi, A.S. Sobennikov, R.E. Lapushin and others ^{[1, pp. 554-555]}. In addition, V.B. Kataev identifies some gaps in Czech studies, and also mentions foreign schools of Czech studies p^{[1, pp. 554-555]}. Thus, for the first time, a post-Soviet student received, firstly, a brief overview of the history of the formation and development of Czech studies from its inception at the end of the XIX century to the end of the XX century, and secondly, an idea of the latest research and the current state of the science of life and creativity of A.P. Chekhov. When analyzing early humorous stories, V.B. Kataev seems to be inclined to the sociologizing interpretation characteristic of the Soviet period and writes that the stories "Unter Prishibeev" and "Chameleon" can serve as "examples of social satire of the time of Alexander III" ^{[1, pp. 566-567]}, however, further goes beyond the narrowly sociological interpretation, noting that that in "The Death of an Official", "Chameleon", "Unter Prishibeev" the author "considers another kind of stereotype, pattern of thinking and behavior" ^{[1, p. 567]}. V.B. Kataev relies on his own concept, proposed for the first time in Chekhov's Prose: Problems of Interpretation (1979), when he writes, that "the falsity of ideas that seem to their bearers to be absolutely true will be shown by Chekhov in most of his works" ^{[1, p. 567]} and that "the diversity of the world in Chekhov's early works is the diversity of various types of awareness of the world and orientation in it understood and captured by the writer" ^{[1, p. 568]}. Sociologizing, in the spirit of Soviet Czech studies, can be considered V.B. Kataev's interpretation of the play "Ivanov", in which, according to the author of the chapter, A.P. Chekhov "responds to a situation directly prompted by the era of the 80s. <...> As the hero of his play, Chekhov believed, the entire Russian intelligent society from the "excitement" of the previous two decades came in the 80s to "fatigue", the loss of previous beliefs" ^{[1, p. 578]}. The "Man in a Case" is also interpreted narrowly sociologically, in which, according to the author of the chapter, the writer gives "a brief, accurate, satirical, sometimes grotesque description of the life of the entire Russian intelligentsia and Russia in general in the just ended reign of Alexander III" ^{[1, p. 587]}. Partly, sociologization is also characteristic of V.B. Kataev's interpretation of the Cherry Orchard, in which, according to the researcher, the playwright "fixed the state of Russian society when only one step remained from universal separation, listening only to oneself to the final disintegration and universal hostility" ^{[1, p. 611]}, i.e. the main idea The author of the chapter considers the plays to be a premonition, an expectation of social cataclysms. Interestingly, the comparison of "Boring History" with "Faust", which is important for V.B. Kataev's concept of Chekhov as the author of the world, is interesting: "a scientist who has reached the heights of his science is disappointed in his life" ^{[1, p. 581]}; "Chekhov put the spiritual quest of his contemporary among the spiritual quest of mankind" ^{[1, p. 581]}. The decision of the author of the chapter (and the editor of the textbook) is controversial to include in the list of recommended literature the biography of A.P. Chekhov, written by D. Rayfield (“Anton Chekhov — A Life”, 1997), the shortcomings of which were written by V.B. Kataev himself and other researchers. In general, V.B. Kataev managed to present the life and work of A.P. Chekhov adequately to the new, post-Soviet, socio-cultural situation, despite some attraction in the interpretation of Chekhov's work to the sociologization characteristic of Soviet Czech studies.

In the same year 2001, a textbook for universities on the history of Russian literature of the XI‒XIX centuries was published, edited by V.I. Korovin and N.I. Yakushin, addressed to students of non-humanitarian specialties; P.N. Dolzhenkov wrote a chapter on Chekhov for him. The analysis of A.P. Chekhov's works in this chapter is sometimes replaced by their retelling: this is what happens with the "Boring story", "Ward No. 6", "A case from practice". In our opinion, when the author of the chapter writes that in Chekhov's art world, "happiness and joy are short–lived, and most often they are an impossible dream. Twilight moods, languor in the shackles of life, incessant quiet suffering – this is almost the very essence of life"; that Chekhov's "dullness, vulgarity, rudeness, hostility, absurdity are the unchangeable attributes of life, its original characteristics. <...> such is life" ^{[3, p. 554]}, he only reproduces the most common points of lifetime criticism skeptical of A.P. Chekhov. In fact, the artistic world of A.P. Chekhov is more diverse and complex, P.N. Dolzhenkov himself further notes that "even in the most gloomy works of the writer there is always at least a faint ray of hope that another life is possible, and a dream about it. No matter how hard life is, it still does not consist only of vulgarity, boredom, suffering and evil" ^{[3, p. 554]}. Unfortunately, the publication is not provided with references to the mentioned and cited literature, and the student, after reading that "one should agree with L.Ya. Ginzburg's opinion that the writer embodied in them the consciousness and worldview of his era" ^{[3, p. 555]} does not know where to look for this idea from L.Ya. Ginzburg. The author of the chapter refers to the concept of his teacher V.B. Kataev, noting the most important "epistemological problems" in the work of A.P. Chekhov ^{[3, p. 557]}. It should be noted that sometimes in the chapter there is a false identification of the worldview of A.P. Chekhov-a man and an idea in the artistic world of Chekhov-a writer, for example: "Freedom, justice, objectivity, skepticism towards all the "common ideas" existing in his time and the search for the "real truth" unknown to people — these are the cornerstones of Chekhov's worldview and creativity" ^{[3, p. 560]}. Interpreting the story "The Man in the Case", P.N. Dolzhenkov conducts a hidden polemic with V.B. Kataev (and with official Soviet interpretations of this work): The author of the chapter agrees that the era of reaction "played a big role in the formation of the "man in the case", but insists that this image is "much broader than the reflection of the reaction, which by the time the story was written was already behind" ^{[3, p. 564]}. The key theme of this story, according to the researcher, is the fear of life, which "is often unconscious, is one of the most important driving forces of human behavior and orientation in the world in Chekhov's prose" ^{[3, p. 566]}. Instead of a narrowly sociological interpretation, P.N. Dolzhenkov focuses on A.P. Chekhov's interest in how people (characters) think and act in connection with certain experiences. The author of the chapter analyzes Chekhov's dramaturgy in the most detail, offering both very interesting and original observations (for example, about the symbolism of "Uncle Vanya": "The situation of "life going to no one knows what", the whole horror of which lies in the fact that all the best in us, all human lives go to no one knows what, into a gaping void by the name of Professor Serebryakov, is the universal situation of the play, and Serebryakov begins to be perceived as a symbolic figure, as a symbol of a world unknown to man" ^{[3, pp. 579-580]}), as well as those who are difficult to agree with either due to the lack of examples from the text (the statement that in "Three Sisters", "creating an image life is suffering, Chekhov implicitly uses even images of Dante's hell" ^{[3, p. 581]}), or because of their contradiction to what is known about Chekhov's poetics (the statement that in the same "Three Sisters" the playwright "asserts the vital position of his heroines as the only worthy person in life-suffering. It can be characterized as courageous stoicism" ^{[3, p. 581]}; P.N. Dolzhenkov himself further adds that Chekhov "never has unambiguity" ^{[3, p. 581]}). P.N. Dolzhenkov's interpretation of the "Cherry Orchard" can also be considered polemical in relation to V.B. Kataev's analysis and to Soviet Czech studies in general, the content of which, as the author of the chapter notes, cannot be reduced only to the "inexorable historical process of the development of capitalism in Russia", as is customary ^{[3, p. 582]}. As the researcher notes, by the time the play was created, "socially, comedy ... was not very relevant, nor was it news for literature" ^{[3, p. 582]}. However, the author of the chapter does not offer a sufficiently clear and detailed other interpretation of the play. The researcher claims that "The Cherry Orchard" presents "frivolous, confused, poorly aware of what is happening and what they are doing, childlike people" who are "depicted against the background of a vast world and an inexorable, devouring time" and "pretend to be the masters of this world, to remake it according to their ideas" ^{[3, p. 582]}. Do Ranevskaya and Gaev "pretend to be the masters of this world, to remake it according to their ideas"? Despite some controversial provisions, the chapter on Chekhov, written by P.N. Dolzhenkov, even more than the work of V.B. Kataev, offers a new, different view of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov, which is characteristic of the Soviet period.

In 2003, a textbook on the history of Russian literature of the XIX century was published for grades 10 of the humanities with a chapter on Chekhov prepared by R.B. Akhmetshin. An important feature that distinguishes this textbook from many others is that the questions for reflection offered at the end of each paragraph do not imply a retelling (generalization) of what has just been read, as is customary in such publications, but really reflection: there are no direct answers to these questions in the text of the chapter. Some questions are very difficult, they assume a high level of philological training and just a high cultural level of the student, for example: "In your opinion, what is the main advantage of a short story? What visual possibilities does the desire for laconism open up?" ^{[4, p. 401]}; "How does the attitude to memory allow us to distribute the images of heroes in the character system [in The Seagull]? ^{[4, p. 413]}; "Imagine that the story "I want to sleep" is written based on real events. How can Chekhov's skill as a psychologist be characterized? How successful, in your opinion, is the penetration into the consciousness of the girl Varka?" ^{[4, p. 401]}. There are some inaccuracies in the presentation of A.P. Chekhov's biography: the author of the chapter writes that the first signs of consumption appeared in 1888 ^{[4, p. 413]}, however, the first hemoptysis occurred four years earlier, as Chekhov wrote in letters in December 1884 (N.A. Leikin dated December 10, P.A. Sergeenko dated December 17); about the Chekhov family: "... five children, and Anton was always the only hope and comfort for parents" ^{[4, p. 402]} ‒ there were six children in the family (Alexander, Nikolai, Anton, Ivan, Maria, Mikhail). As in the chapter written by P.N. Dolzhenkov, in the text of R.B. Akhmetshin, some of A.P. Chekhov's works are only retold ("Death of an Official", "Fat and Thin", "Malefactor", stories of the "little trilogy") or mentioned ("Chameleon", "Unter Prishibeev"). In the paragraph "Formation of style", the author expresses some general judgments about the style of A.P. Chekhov, but practically does not support them with concrete examples, which is why they may remain "abstractions" for the student ("impressionism", "naturalism" by Chekhov, etc.) ^{[4, pp. 424-428]}. It is not entirely clear why, in the opinion of the author of the chapter, the story "The Student" can be understood as "evidence of the author's complete indifference to the characters and ideas depicted, although the author himself mentioned it as proof of his deep interest in the depicted, interest in life, etc." ^{[4, p. 429]}. If P.N. Dolzhenkov considered the main theme of the "little trilogy" to be a person's fear of life, then R.B. Akhmetshin, also moving away from a narrow sociological interpretation, calls the "leitmotif of the "little trilogy" "the feeling of a ruined life" ^{[4, p. 436]}. However, partly the author's interpretation of the chapter of "Ward No. 6" tends to sociologize, in which, in his opinion, the author "poses the problem of social structure and shows that a society negligently treating sick people is really vicious – but decomposing" ^{[4, p. 443]}. This is true, but isn't the philosophical ("epistemological") problematic of the story more important? As well as V.B. Kataev, R.B. Akhmetshin emphasizes the rootedness of Chekhov's heritage in world culture, speaking about the influence of Chekhov's way of depicting madness on the modernist "depiction of the absurdity of "normal" human life (Kafka, Beckett, etc.)" ^{[4, p. 446]}; a separate paragraph is also devoted to "Chekhov and the new drama" (G. Ibsen, A. Strindberg, B. Brecht). In our opinion, when the author of the chapter writes about A.P. Chekhov's skepticism ("Dr. Chekhov knew that the disease erodes a person's physical and mental strength and its treatment requires isolation. Prolonged illnesses and pains deprive a person of freedom and therefore are an injustice of nature. However, this contradiction is insoluble and becomes one of the foundations of Chekhov's skepticism" ^{[4, p. 447]}), the same thing happens as sometimes with P.N. Dolzhenkov, the indistinguishability of the personality (worldview) of the author with the possible idea of a particular work of art. The appeal of the author of the chapter, who is not a physician, to medical terminology when analyzing the image of Lida Volchaninova ("House with a mezzanine"), who "apparently compensates for a certain disorder of neurotic origin with her social activity ..." ^{[4, p. 449]}, seems controversial. Like P.N. Dolzhenkov, R.B. is the most detailed and comprehensive. Akhmetshin analyzes Chekhov's dramaturgy ("The Seagull", "Three Sisters", "The Cherry Orchard"). As for the analysis of the "Three Sisters", the only contentious statement seems to us that in this play "only Natasha and Salty achieve their goals" ^{[4, p. 483]}": Salty does not and cannot receive Irina's love, which, apparently, he needed. Regarding the Cherry Orchard, we cannot agree with the statement of the author of the chapter that "the loss of a sense of reality ... makes the characters aware, they draw more or less consistent conclusions from this" [Akhmetshin, 2003: 490]. Everything that the actors do in the finale of the comedy, in our opinion, is more a reaction to new circumstances than a conscious, active action, an act. After the text of the chapter, the topics of the abstracts are proposed, the purpose and recommended plan are described for each, and a small list of references is proposed. The chapter concludes with an extensive (21 items) list of recommended literature, with each item provided with an author's annotation. The text written by R.B. Akhmetshin, offers students a really deep dive into the biography and work of A.P. Chekhov, but also requires in-depth knowledge and in-depth interest from those.

On the works of V.B. Kataev, P.N. Dolzhenkov and R.B. Akhmetshina responded with a review in the Chekhov Bulletin (2003, No. 12), entitled "Reflections of a provincial teacher in the fields of metropolitan textbooks", O.M. Skibin. Indeed, as the author of the article stipulates, the text is not a review in the strict sense (with a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of peer-reviewed publications), but it is a reflection on them. O.M. Skibina fixes the difference between the situation of the early 2000s and the situation of the 1990s: "If ten years ago we faced a problem: where to get a new textbook, now we are in the same mindset: which one should I prefer?" ^{[6, p. 12]}. However, the author of the article is interested not only in educational and methodological manuals, but also, more broadly, in the practice of teaching Chekhov's creativity at university and at school. Trying to answer the question "why students do not like Chekhov," O.M. Skibina notes that Chekhov is "studied on the run all his life" (meaning the lack of academic hours and the location of the topic "the life and work of A.P. Chekhov" at the end of the 10th grade program /course of the history of Russian literature of the 3rd third/second half of the XIX century), which is why he remains "like a classic, but somehow not quite real, at the end of the semester" ^{[6, p. 13]}; and in textbooks there are cliches, cliches: "the search for a long-sought and found formula ends with quoting the well-known, and therefore correct" ^{[6, p. 13]}. Then the author of the article turns to the problem of representing the life and work of A.P. Chekhov in educational literature and notes that the most acute problem for writers "remains the problem of language and methodology: how can I describe what has already been described many times?.." ^{[6, p. 14]}. O.M. Skibina notes the specific, outdated language of textbooks of the previous era, in which Chekhov "either little Tolstoy, or, on the contrary, the great and mighty is a kind of boss, but he wrote small stories. And all because he came up with the formula: "Brevity is the sister of talent" ^{[6, p. 14]}. The author of the article quotes from "a good, in general, textbook by V.I. Kuleshov", which, as she notes, "are corroded by linguistic cliches that ... do not give an opportunity to see and feel Chekhov" ^{[6, p. 14]}. The formulations given by the author of the article are tongue-tied or naive, and therefore ridiculous: "Chekhov paid tribute to entertaining literature"; "What was Chekhov's thought when he decided to visit Sakhalin?"; "The general idea sought by Chekhov led to the people"; "Chekhov resolutely opposed the populist worship of the peasant"; "In the Seagull there is a lot of love, i.e. it is shown how this powerful feeling filled all the characters"; "Chekhov did not live to see the appearance of Gorky's novel "Mother", etc." ^{[6, p. 14]}. Another problem that O.M. Skibina raises is the problem of the availability of good textbooks in provincial schools, universities and libraries: so, according to the author of the article, a good textbook by N.N. Skatov, the section on Chekhov in which was written by G.A. Byaly (revised for the second edition by V.M. Markovich), published "in the time of troubles the time of the "turn of the 1980s-1990s" simply did not reach, at least, the province" ^{[6, pp. 14-15]}. The textbook, the chapter on Chekhov for which P.N. Dolzhenkov wrote, O.M. Skibina generally appreciates highly, however, notes that, probably due to the ambiguity of the textbook's addressee, the author of the chapter took the path of simplifying the material, "along the beaten path of retelling Chekhov's works in boring language full of the same stylistic cliches as his predecessors" ^{[6, p. 15]}. The style in which the chapter is written is mainly criticized. Speaking about the chapter written by V.B. Kataev, O.M. Skibina particularly notes the completeness of the characteristics of the "period of writing" (1884-1888), which in the "old textbooks" was "either not covered or mentioned in passing ... and, in the students' view, Chekhov "fragmentary", having written "Steppe", immediately became Chekhov "of the region serious"" ^{[6, pp. 17-18]}. O.M. Skibina also notes V.B. Kataev's attention to the complex but important connection of A.P. Chekhov's literary work with his medical education and practice ^{[6, p. 18]}. The author of the article also notes "such a small circulation" of this textbook, which "again will not reach provincial philologists and non-philologists" [ibid.]. O.M. Skibin highly appreciates the chapter written by R.B. Akhmetshin, noting only "minor stylistic flaws related more to editorial editing" and again regrets the inaccuracy of new textbooks due to the small circulation ^{[6, pp. 19-20]}.

As we can see, in the early 2000s, the problem of creating an adequate description of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov in the educational literature was partially solved - new textbooks, albeit very different, appeared, but their very appearance could not radically change the practice of teaching.

In 2006, the first one was organized by the collective efforts of Czech scholars (then it will be held regularly) Summer school "Reading Chekhov" for literature teachers. Classes for 18 teachers of urban and rural schools were conducted by Czechologists R.B. Akhmetshin, L.E. Bushkanets, Yu.V. Domansky, O.M. Skibina, L.I. Sobolev. In an article in the Chekhov Bulletin (2006, No. 19), I.E. Gitovich described this first experience in detail. She begins the article by stating that by the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, A.P. Chekhov "fell out of the circle of active reading. However, not only he, but also the entire Russian classics of the nineteenth century" ^{[10, p. 117]}. As we can see, a private topic – Chekhov's teaching at school – is connected here with the broader theme of the existence of classical Russian literature in modern Russian society. Another topic of concern to I.E. Gitovich is the connection between scientific Czech studies and school studies: the researcher wonders whether the school needs – "and whether those philological truths that we [Czech scholars] extract bit by bit to the best of our abilities, or are we destined to remain something like a medieval order?" ^{[10, p. 119]}. Before the start of the Summer School, teachers were asked to fill out an introductory anonymous questionnaire with questions concerning the teaching of A.P. Chekhov at school. As I.E. Gitovich notes, the answers were "sustained in the style of cliches of educational and methodological manuals forty to thirty years ago" ^{[10, p. 120]}. This led the researcher to the conclusion that teachers and students, "as a rule, share the language that makes up the concepts and ideas available to both. They have a different language" ^{[10, p. 122]}. The language of school teachers and Czech scholars also turned out to be different: as the author of the article writes, teachers were waiting for "methodological samples that can be effortlessly transferred to their classroom", Czech scholars counted on "the willingness of listeners to professional dialogue and at least some commonality of professional language" ^{[10, p. 126]}. Nevertheless, the Summer School was held, and after it, I.E. Gitovich collected and presented feedback from the lecturers in the article. The leitmotivs of these reviews, if summarized, are as follows: 1) the situation with the teaching of A.P. Chekhov's creativity (and, more broadly, literature) at school is directly related to the "cultural state", the cultural level of society, and the solution of a particular problem is possible only by solving a general problem; 2) there is a significant gap between scientific Czech studies and the study of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov at school, a reduction in which, again, is possible only in the case of an increase in the general level of school education, as well as a strengthening in society of the demand for a scientific picture of the world (including literature).

In 2015, the fifth Summer School "Reading Chekhov" was held, in the same year an article about it by L.E. Bushkanets was published in the Chekhov Bulletin (No. 31). Many of the theses of the article repeat what was already stated earlier by O.M. Skibina and I.E. Gitovich: the lack of time to study the work of A.P. Chekhov, the prevalence of cliches and cliches about the writer among teachers. It is curious that the author of the article notes that Chekhov's work "does not seem to correspond to the tasks of school literary education, which is inevitably based on normative moral and aesthetic ideas, needs formulations convenient for the teacher's word, for essays and exams" ^{[11, p. 92]}. (This refers to the absence of explicit didactics and an explicit author's assessment of what is described in Chekhov's works). The topic of the gap between academic and school Czech studies also reappears: literary studies "dramatically moved forward from what it was in its mass version a few decades ago," Czech studies "began to radically destroy sugary or sociologized, simplified ideas about the writer. And "ermilovshchina" is reborn by itself in school, like a phoenix from the ashes!" ^{[11, p. 93]}. The article ends with the appeal: "... just as literary criticism should not exist without school – otherwise our discoveries are needed only by ourselves – so the school subject should not develop without the movement of modern thought about literature, without fresh discoveries, finally" ^{[11, p. 95]}.

In 2018, in the final collection of articles by I.E. Gitovich, "The result as new problems. Articles and reviews from different years about A.P. Chekhov, his time, environment and Czech studies" her article "On the problems of reading and "School literature" was published, which became the final statement of the researcher on this topic. I.E. Gitovich begins with a statement that had already been expressed earlier by her and other participants in the discussion, that that "school Chekhov, like school Pushkin and school Bulgakov, is only part of the general question of what should be done with literature in school" ^{[12, p. 359]}. In our opinion, this can be considered an intermediate result of the discussion about Chekhov in the post-Soviet school and post-Soviet universities. The most important role of the linguistic (cultural) factor in this problem is again emphasized: the modern child "from infancy was thrown into a fundamentally different language than the one that was familiar to the elders. <...> today's student comes to reading classics with a completely different sensory experience than before... with the experience of other games, with a different vocabulary… <...> between him [the student] and the classics, which he should study at school, there is a main obstacle – the difference in languages. <...> This is where any conversation about the fate of school literature should begin. Every teacher needs to think seriously about how to overcome this difference in languages. It is unlikely that the methodological manuals that he is guided by can help here" ^{[12, pp. 362-363]}. It seems that in the late 2010s, this problem began to be felt as even more acute than in the early and mid-2000s. The widespread use of the Internet in the late 2000s - 2010s reinforced the intergenerational cultural (in particular linguistic) gap. The instant availability of almost any information and the unification of educational programs (the introduction of the Federal State Educational Standard and unified work programs in literature) have led to the fact that "living as if in a free world, today's average student during his school years not only does not have time to grow up to his questions, but he learns not to ask them at all. But school and the surrounding life accustom him to other people's answers to other people's questions" ^{[12, p. 362]}. Once again, the opinion is expressed that "a verbal teacher first of all needs to honestly reflect on his own reading experience and competently use this reflection in personal methodological strategies," since the problem of school literature is "the problem not only of a student who does not want to study it, but also of a teacher who has forgotten or also does not know how to read it" ^{[12, p. 364]}. And again, the conclusion that was already voiced earlier is that, unfortunately, none of us can give children a different environment, a different reality. It will change when the general culture of society rises" ^{[12, p. 370]}. Russian Russian language and literature are not isolated from each other, as two independent subjects, but within the framework of a single course of Russian literature, which I.E. Gitovich sees as a possible way out (at least partially) of the crisis.

The active discussion that began in the Chekhov Bulletin in the early 2000s on the problem of teaching Chekhov's creativity in post-Soviet schools and post-Soviet universities shows that with the change in the socio‒cultural situation from the turn of the 1990s-2000s to the end of the 2010s, the challenges that the university was trying to answer also changed among them is the community of Czech scholars. In the early 2000s, the appearance of new textbooks (not perfect in everything, but still generally fulfilling the task of creating an adequate time representation of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov) at the same time was accompanied by the problem of their inaccessibility, especially in the provinces; the widespread use of the Internet by the end of the 2000s ‒ early 2010s partially solved This problem, however, was created by a new one: the inaccessibility of high-quality information as the main problem was replaced by a decrease in the level of reading culture and critical thinking among schoolchildren/students and, often, among teachers/teachers. The decrease in the general cultural level leads to a widening gap between academic literary studies and school practice and an intensification of the intergenerational cultural gap, attempts by Czech scholars to influence the school study of Chekhov and Russian literature in general face the problem of unpopularity, lack of demand for scientific humanitarian knowledge in society.