Marxism amongst Russian Intellectuals in the Early 1890`s as Depicted through Three Years` Characters - USD Repository

Gratis

0
0
96
9 months ago
Preview
Full text
(1)PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI MARXISM AMONGST RUSSIAN INTELLECTUALS IN THE EARLY 1890'S AS DEPICTED THROUGH THREE YEARS' CHARACTERS AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters By SITA MAGFIRA Student number: 084214108 ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY 2014 i

(2) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(3) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(4) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI MOTTO "Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." The Fox in The Little Prince "If there is any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us, not in you nor me, but just this little space in between. If there 's any kind of magic in this world, it must be in the attempt of understanding someone sharing something. " Celine to Jesse in Before Sunrise There is no hurry. We shall get there some day. Pooh in Winnie the Pooh IV

(5) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI for mama. om. papa. v

(6) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(7) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(8) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Procrastination was in the air when I wrote this thesis. That is why I should say thank you to everyone (especially my mother) who always reminds me to finish this thesis. I also thank Universe for giving me the spirit against the procrastination and the little girl in me who prefer to play rather than to finish the study. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for Sanata Dharma University, especially for the English Letter Department. I thank her for becoming a pleasant study place for years. I give my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. F.X. Siswadi, M.A., for the correction and guidance during the process of finishing the thesis. For my co-advisor, A.B. Sri Mulyani M.A., Ph.D., I would like to thank for the priceless corrections and evaluations. I will never forget the lesson from all my friends, every inspiring individual, who I cannot mention one by one. Thanks to Umi, Yuke, and Uniph who let me borrowed their laptops to finish this thesis since mine is broken. May Universe bless you all! I thank Suluh Pamuji for becoming my partner in dealing with things in daily life. The last but not the least, I should say thanks to my Pisces friend. Half of this thesis writing process was done to make me forget that he is swimming in my mind. Sita Magfira viii

(9) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE .................................................................................. APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................ ACCEPTANCE PAGE ................................................................... MOTTO PAGE ............................................................................... DEDICATION PAGE ................................………………………. LEMBAR PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN KARYA………………. LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH …… ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………… TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................. Page i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix ABSTRACT ..................................................................................... ABSTRAK ..................................................................................... CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................... A. Background of the Study ..................................................... B. Problem Formulation ........................................................... C. Objectives of the Study.............................…………............ D. Definition of Terms .............................................................. xi xii 1 1 6 6 7 CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW..............…………......... A. Review of Related Studies............................……..........…... B. Review of Related Theories................................................... 1. Theories on Characters..................................................... 2. Theory on Characterization…………………………….. 3. Theory on Literature and Society………………………. C. Review on Marxism amongst 1890's Russian Intellectuals… 1. Theory on Social Class…………………………………. 2. Theory on Exploitation…………………………………. 3. Theory on Art…………………………………………… D. Theoretical Framework……………………………………... CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY………………………………… A. Object of the Study…………………………………………. B. Approach of the Study……………………………………… C. Method of the Study………………………………………... CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS………………………………………... A. Description of the Characters………………………………. 1. Round and the Flat Characters…………………………. 2. Major and Minor Characters…………………………… B. Marxism amongst 1890's Russian Intellectuals as Depicted through in the Early 1890's……………………………….... 1. The Intellectuals……………………………………….. 10 10 13 13 16 18 20 25 26 27 29 31 31 32 33 35 35 36 40 ix 43 53

(10) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 2. The Social Classes……………………………………. 3. The Exploitation…………………………………........ 4. The Art……………………………………………....... CONCLUSION…………………………………………………… Bibliography………………………………………………………. Appendix…………………………………………………………... x 54 66 72 77 xiii xv

(11) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI ABSTRACT SITA MAGFIRA. Marxism amongst Russian Intellectuals in the Early 1890's as Depicted through Three Years' Characters. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letter, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2014. It is hard to talk about Russia without talking about its history of communism. The reason is that it was in Russia the first communist government, as the result of the revolution, established. Seeing Marxism as the starting point of communism, this research focuses on Marxism. In Russia, Marxism got its peak of popularity amongs the intellectuals in 1894. For Three Years was written by Chekhov (a Russian author) in 1895, this research argues that Three Years depicts Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. Examining Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals, this research focuses on Three Years' characters which are characterized as intellectuals. Those characters are Laptev, Yulia, Yatsev, and Kostya. There are two main problems formulated in this research. The first is how the characters (intellectuals) are described in the story. The second is how those characters represent Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. The writer used socio-cultural -historical approach in analyzing the formulated problems by doing several steps. The first step was conducting a close reading on the novel and formulating the problems based on the topic. The second step was collecting data and theories. The writer used library research in this study to get references which are necessary. The data are taken from books, articles, other related studies, encyclopedias, and internet. The next step was analyzing the work by applying those data. The last step was drawing the conclusion of the whole analysis. Three Years' characters can be seen as the representative of Marxism amongst Russian intellectual in the early 1890's. Their characteristics as a round and flat characters represent the situation of the capitalistic and the noncapitalistic system in Russia at that time. Their characteristics as major and minor characters represent the capitalist and non-capitalist power in Russian society at that time. Moreover, their characteristics in terms of social classes, exploitation, and art are closely related to the ideas of Marxism. xi

(12) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI ABSTRAK SITA MAGFIRA. Marxism amongst Russian Intellectuals in the Early 1890's as Depicted through Three Years' Characters. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2014. Sulit untuk tidak mengaitkan Rusia dengan komunisme. Alasannya, pemerintahan komunis pertama kali hadir di Rusia sebagai hasil dari revolusi. Memandang Marxisme sebagai titik tolak komunisme, penelitian ini fokus pada Marxisme. Di Rusia, Marxisme mengalami puncak popularitasnya di kalangan intelektual Rusia pada 1894. Sebab Three Years ditulis oleh Anton Chckhov (pcnulis Rusia) pada 1895, penelitian ini memandang bahwa Three Years menggambarkan Marxisme di kalangan intelektual Rusia pada awal era 1890an. Sebab mengkaji Marxisme di kalangan intelektual, penelitian ini fokus pada karakter-karakter dalam Three Years, khususnya yang didcskripsikan scbagai intelektual. Karakter-karakter itu adalah Laptev, Yulia, Yattsev, dan Kostya. Terdapat dua rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Permasalahan pertama adalah baguimunu kurakter-kurukter (para intclcktual) tcrscbut didcskripsikan dalam ccrita. Pcrmasalahan kedua adalah bagaimana mereka merepresentasikan Marxisme di kalangan intelektual Rusia pada awal era 1890an. Penulis menggunakan pendekatan sosial-kultural-historis untuk menganalisa permasalahan-permasalahan di atas dengan mengambil beberapa langkah. Pertama, membaca karya sastra tersebut dengan seksama dan merumuskan masalah berdasarkan isu yang ada. Kedua, mencari data pendukung dari beberapa buku, artikel, penelitian, ensiklopedia, dan internet. Berikutnya, menganalisa karya sastra tersebut dengan mengaplikasikan data temuan. Terakhir, menarik kesimpulan setelah semua rumusan masalah terjawab. Karakter-karakter dalam Three Years merepresentasikan Marxisme di kalangan intelektual Rusia pada awal era 1890an. Karakteristik mereka sebagai tokoh yang bulat dan datar merepresentasikan sistem kapitalisme dan sistem non-kapitalisme di Rusia pada waktu itu. Karateristik mereka sebagai tokoh utama dan figuran merepresentasikan kekuasaan kapitalisme dan nonkapitalisme di Rusia pada waktu itu. Selain itu, karakteristik mereka terkait kelas sosial, eksploitasi, dan seni sangat erat hubungannya dengan ide-ide dalam Marxisme. xii

(13) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of The Study It is hard to talk about Russia without talking about its history of communism. The reason is because it was m Russia the first communist government, as the result of the revolution, established. According to Modern Russia, Russian revolution which brought communist government is an important event in world history as can be seen from the quotation below. The most important event of the twentieth century was the Russian revolution. In November 1917, Communism ceased to be a theory; it became the means of governing one of the world's largest states. (Robottom, 1969: i) Although Desember 1991 was the time of communism's downfall in Russia (with the replacement of United of Soviet Socialist Republic by the Commonwealth of Independent States as its symbol), until today the effect of communism remains there. Steven Rosefielde in Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower stated that despite today's Russia is more open than under communism, its part of economic, government, and society are quite the same as ones under communism: Economic liberty has been greatly expanded. People are making headway transforming paper civil rights into realities, and democratic institutions are being built despite the persistence of political authoritarianism. But the deadhandof the past hasn't completely withered. Russia has "modernized" itself by adopting most of the trappings of the West, but it has not become westernized. Its consumers still aren't economically sovereign, its government isn't democratically responsive to the electorate, and Russian society is blatantly unjust (2005: 1-2). It is important to add that currently a Russia newspaper published an article reported that 60 percent of Russian believed communism as a good system. 1

(14) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI (http://rbth.ru/news/20 1311 0/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_ as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html). The report is the result of a survey done to about 1,000 Russian aged from 18 to 60 years old. The report supports Rosefielde's statement that the effect of communism remains in Russia. In An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, Wilczynski states that communism is another name for Marxism. On the other hand, Tom Bottomore, in his A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, differentiates communism and Marxism by saying that communism is the aim of Marxism. Though there are different opinions on seeing communism and Marxism, one can still learn that both are connected. It is important to declare that the writer of this research, just like Bottomore, separates the definition between communism and Marxism. The writer of this research sees communism as the aim of Marxism. Moreover, that perception (communism is the aim of Marxism) becomes the reason of why this research focuses on Marxism rather than communism. According to the writer of the research, it is impot1ant to study something that enables communism to exist, which is Marxism itself. In other words, in the writer opinion, it is significant to examine the process of establishing communism with Marxism as its starting point. The writer of this research also considers not to discuss Leninism and Stalinism (two other 'ism's that popular in Russia and commonly known have a strong relation with Marxism) for both are the interpretation of Marxism. In the writer's opinion, it is necessary to get a good understanding about the basic, which is Marxism, before going to the interpretations. 2

(15) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Before going further, the writer needs to state that though the trial of using Marxism to create a communist government did not success, such as what happened in Russia, it is still important to study Marxism. Living in today's capitalistic world with all of its consequences, for example: the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer, the exploitation of nature to obtain more profit, the alienation of human (as the illustration: human make things that they cannot buy once those things are in the store), and so on, Marxism gets its signifance as a criticism on this capitalistic world. As a criticism, Marxism leads people to think about the possibility of a new world where, for example, there are equality for mankind, preservation of nature, and human can afford things they made. In his introduction for The Steppe and Other Stories, David Campbell informs that Marxism got its peak of popularity among Russian intellectuals in 1894. Based on that information, the writer thinks that it is significant to study about Marxism among them. It is because Russian intellectuals had a noteworthy position in making way for Marxism revolution as one can learn from the quotation below. To some extent the theme of the Russian revolution is the bridging of this gap between the universities and the peasants, the combination, as in some chemical formula, of the intellectuals an the masses, and this was the point where the revolution became really explosive (Moorehead, 1958: 31) Russian intellectuals made the way to the Russian revolution became easier because they analyzed what had to be done in order to make the revolution. Moreover, some of important people in Russian revolution such as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, can be considered as intellectuals. 3

(16) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Literary works often have connection with history. It reports and represents history. Using that perspective, the writer uses Chekhov's Three Years as a historical report of Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals. Three Years is chosen by determining several reasons. First, Three Years was published in 1985, only one year after Marxism got its peak of popularity among Russian intellectuals in 1894. The writer assumes that Three Years captured the event. The assumption comes without no reasons. Lived in 19th century, Chekhov saw the development of Russia. He caught the social development in Russia and wrote them in his works (20 12: 2). That might be the reason why most (if not all) of his works used Russia as the setting. Virginia Woolf in her essay "The Russian Point of View" tells about Chekhov 's awareness of the social condition. Chekhov is aware of the evils and injustices of the social state; the c.ondition of the pca::;anl::; appeals him the reformer's zeal it; nul his-thut is not the signal for us to stop. The mind interests him enormously; he is a most subtle and delicate analyst ofhuman relations. (Woolf, 1953: 181) Chekhov's attention to the social condition is also recognized by Josef Melnik. In his essay "The Hope of 1905", Melnik states "I dedicate this work to the memory of Anton Chekhov because he has mourned, like few others, the . wretchedness and servility of Russian life" (Kohn. ed., 1957: 167). As a good photographer of Russia's social condition, Chekhov might depict the moment when Marxism became popular amongst the intellectuals. Moreover, Chekhov himself was one of Russian intellectuals so he was in the best position in describing the situation via his works. The nineteenth century of Russian intellectuals 'defined itself by agitating for social reform. Its members. lntellegently, were critical thinkers who regretted the political state of their country under tsarism' (Chamberlaim, 4

(17) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 2004: 3). They raised awareness of the Russia's economic and political backwardness, under-development and the plight of its rural population throughout the century; Chekhov participated in this work. (Whyman, 2011: 10) Second reason for choosing Three Years exists in the work itself. The writer sees that Chekhov reports the moment of Marxism's popularity amongst Russian Intellectuals in the early 1890's through Three Years' characters. Many of Three Years' characters are intellectuals. Laptev, one of the characters, for example, is a merchant who inherits a factory from his father. Before inheriting that factory, Laptev studied in Moscow. He used to fight the exploitative ways operated in the factory. Once he became the leader of the factory, he tried his best to make the situation better. Another example is Kostya, an orphan boy who grew up in Laptev's family then became a lawyer in Moscow. In one of his dialogues, his perception that a work of art has a value only if dealing with serious social problem can be seen. In his book entitled Anton Chekhov, Rose Whyman tells "Chekhov discussed attitudes to art by means of a debate on avant-garde art and utilitarian art between his characters in Three Years." (2011: 11). Those lines are connected to Kostya's perception on art. Utilitarian art, which means art for the sake of something, is a concept of art that often discussed by marxist. In this research, the writer traces the history of Marxism in the circle of Russian intellectuals, especially in the early of 1890s. The writer wants to find out how Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals at that time was by tracing the history. In this research, the writer decides to focus on the theories those generally produced and discussed by Russian Marxist intellectuals at that time and 5

(18) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI effected their way of thinking and acting. The reason for focussing on theories is because this research deal with intellectuals and theory is closely related to intellectuals. By using their thinking ability and expertise on several matters, intellectuals can discuss or even produce theories as well as those theories can effect their way of thinking and/or acting. Later, the writer shows how that moment is depicted in Three Years' characters. Hopefully, the writer's reading on this case can give meaningful information about Marxism amongst Russian intellectual. In addition, the writer also hopes this research supports the idea that literary works cannot be separated from the social situation in where it was written. B. Problem Formulation To make the analysis well organized, two problems are formulated into following questions: I. How are Three Years' some selected characters described? 2. How do Three Years' some selected characters represent marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's? C. Objectives of the Study Through this research, the writer answers the questions in the problem formulation. Since there are two questions in the problem formulation, the objectives of the study are divided into two parts also. First, the writer tries to find out how Chekhov's arranged Three Years' characters. The writer chooses to examine characters rather than other instrinsic elements with spesific reason. Since the writer wants to get the picture of 6

(19) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals at that time, the writer considers to analyze an intrinsic element that refers to quite the same thing with the word intellectuals. Characters is the answer. It is because characters in fiction, though not all of them, are human being as intellectuals are also human being. Second, the writer tries to reveal Chekhov's caption of Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals through his characters. The writer tries to find out about Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals. The writer collects historical data to find out about that. It is important to collect historical data in order to get comprehensive understanding on Marxism in the Russian intellectuals at that time. Hopefully, those objectives can encourage and can be used as references for other students who are interested in doing further researches on the same topic. When those two objectives have been reached, the result helps the writer to find out that there is correlation between fiction and fact; that there is correlation between Three Years and Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals. D. Definition of Terms 1. Marxism Marxism is a set of ideas and a method based on Karl Marx's ideas and his closest collaborator, Frederick Engels. It is a set of ideas and a method to change the unequal, unjust, and exploitative nature of the capitalist world (Bottomore, 2001: 348). The way of changing the capitalist world, according to Marxism, might be in the form of political up to the cultural struggle which promote resistance to capitalism. The political struggle might be in form of making a revolutionary party while the cultural struggle might be in the form of art which 7

(20) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI seek to improve the social condition. The successful strugle to change capitalistic world, according to marxism, will bring communist society. 2. Intellectuals Intellectual are well educated people who enjoy activities in which they have to think seriously about things (Hornby, 2010: 781). Hornby's can be classified as a general definiton of intellectual. Meanwhile, a definition of intellectuals which is related to Marxism comes from Gramsci in his The Prison Notehooks: Volume I. In one page of the book, while discussing the role of intellectuals in a revolutionary organisation, Gramsci explicitly mentions the definition of intellectuals as quoted below. There is no organisation without intellectuals ... in other words without the existence of a group of people specialised in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas (2011: 644). In other words, intellectuals, according to Gramsci, are those who have ability in conceptual and/or philosophical elaboration of ideas. Elaboration of ideas itself refers to the act of producing and/or developing ideas. By considering those two definitions, the term intellectuals that will be used in this research refers to "well educated people who able in conceptual and/or philosophical elabration of ideas". This research deals with Russian intellectuals in the early 1890s. 3. Capitalist Capitalist refers to class that has means of production (capital) and employers of wage labor ( 1981: 78). Persons are capitalist if they occupy the position with regard to the persons engaged in the process of production. Their 8

(21) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI position is also expressed in things, in this case, their capital. (20 12: 14-15). 4. Non-Capitalist The non-capitalist refers to the class that has no means of production and no employers of wage labor (1981: 78). The non-capitalist is divided into two: the middle class and the proletariat. While the proletariat is dependant to the capitalist in a very technical work (for example, working in the capitalist's factory as a shoe-maker), the middle is modem wage-laborers. In the growth of capitalism, middle class refers to the professionals, civil servants, and white-collar workers. The chief characteristic that differentiated the proletariat and the middle class is the possession of significant human capital. The middle class is working based on their proficiency and intelligence meanwhile (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/class.php). 9 the proletariat are not

(22) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW This chapter is divided into four parts. The first is the review on some studies conducted on the works of Anton Chekhov and the position of the present study among those critical writings. The second part is the review on related theories. It is the description of theories used as the knife to surge the works. The third part is the review on the marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890s. It supports the analysis of this study since socio-cultural-historical approach is applied in this study. The last part is the theoretical framework. It is the explanation of the contribution of the theories reviewed in solving the problems fonnulated in this study. A. Review of The Related Studies There are few studies related to Three Years. It is because Chekhov is wellknown for his plays and short stories while Three Years is a novella (short novel). There are three studies that the v;riter chooses in this part. Two of them are studies on Three Years while another one is a study on Chekhov's The Cherry Orchad. The first two studies are chosen, of course, because both are study on Three Years. On the other hand, the last one is included here because it is a study on the representation of Russian social condition through the characters which is closely related to this research. The first study belongs to Vladimir Yennilov. In general, he studies the relation between Chekhov's biographical background and Chekhov's works. In his "The Great Worker; What Is Talent?", Yennilov relates one of Three Years' 10

(23) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI characters, Laptev, with Chekhov as seen from this quotation below. Alexei Laptev, one of the characters in Three Years, expresses Chekhov's constant awareness of the difficulties encountered by a man of the people finding his path in life. As Laptev said, "I simply cannot adapt myself to life, become its master... All this ... I explain by the fact that i was born a slave, the grandson of a serf. Many obscure folk like us fall by the wayside in the struggle to get into the right path." (1957: 149). Yermilov states that Laptev, as an intellectual, faced the same thing as Chek:hov faced. That same thing is the awareness of finding his path in life. To support his statement, Yermilov attaches Chekhov's letter to his friend, Lazarev-Gruzinksy. In the letter, Chekhov considered himself as a bourgeois gentleman since he was born in a merchant family. However, Chekhov understood that such people cannot endure that status for such a long time. Therefore, he tried to find his own way. From the letter, people can learn Chekhov's awareness that similar to Laptev's awareness. Yennilov also states that there is another similarity between Chekhov and Laptev. The similarity is the fact that both were born in a merchant family. The second study is Savely Senderovich's. Entitled "Chekhov 's Last Testament", Senderovich's study states that Chek:hov's Three Years shows an association between literature and social condition in Russia, such as the condition of its countryside. Senderovich shows the association between literature and the condition of Russia's countryside which is revealed in Three Years by telling that one of Three Years 'characters wrote novels about the condition of land owning in Russia. "Three Years' character's novels described only the countryside and gentry estates (2009: 18). Moreover, Senderovich also states that Three Years shows Chekhov's unhappiness of being famous without being understood. 11

(24) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI The standard public discourse was situated in the socio-economic sphere, and a writer was expected to expose relevant problems. This sphere wasn't alien to Chekhov, a keen observer of social life, but his task was to go deeper, into the existential problems of human life, and that was what the public turned a deaf ear to (2006: 24). In Three Years, according to Senderovich, Chekhov put his comment on how misleading the concentration in art can be. Senderovich uses the scene where Yulia and Laptev watched and perceived painting as his argumentation. In that scene, Yulia overjoyed the picture for being looked live and real. However, Yulia was far from understanding (2006: 26). According to Senderovich, Yulia represents the misleading of concentration in art. The last study belongs to Sherly Lomban, a student of Sanata Dhanna English Letters Department year 1999. In her undergraduate thesis The Representation of the Russian Social Condition In the Nineteenth Century Through the Characters in Anton Chekhov s The Cherry Orchad, Lomban examines how Russian social condition in the nineteenth century revealed through the characters in Chekhov's The Cherry Orchad. It can be seen from quotation below. The Cherry Orchard is a play that centers on the complications with major changes in the entire society. The recent freedom of the serfs and the decaying power of the aristocracy are two more general aspects of Russian social condition in the nineteenth century which affects the play (2006: 37) In her research, Lomban describes the social condition of Russian in the nineteenth century. According to Lomban, The Cherry Orchad 's characters represent the social condition. As an example, she describes that in Russia cencus of 1897, there were several categories of social classes in Russia. They were hereditary nobility, the upper classes in the towns, the poorer classes of the towns, 12

(25) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI peasants, and the urban classes. Then she describes how one of the characters in The Cherry Orchad, named Lopahin, represents the existence of one of those social classes. Lomban considers Lopahin as a representation of hereditary nobility. According to Lomban, Lopahin differentiated himself from the upper classes as the hereditary nobility also differentiated themselves from upper classes in nineteenth century of Russian society. Lopahin's first speech in the act one is important because it immediately introduces Russia's newfound class nobility... Lopahin, born as a serf, is now a wealthy, well-dressed landowner. Lopahin notes difference between himself, a nouveau rich, and aristocratic members of the upper class (2006: 38). Having the reviews from Yermilov, Senderovich, and Lomban, the writer of this research needs to write this research deeper. Although both Yennilov and Senderovich also examine Three Years, especially its characters, but their topics, as mentioned above, are different from the writer's. Moreover, although Lomban tries to show the representation of the Russian social condition through Chekhov's work, this research is different from Lomban's. It is because this research only focusses on the condition of marxism amongst Russian intellectual as depicted in Three Years' characters. By considering those studies above, the writer believes that this research will bring new perspective on studying Chekhov's Three Years since this research's topic has never been studied before. B. Review of Related Theories 1. Theories on Characters Abrams in A Glossary of Literary Terms defines characters as "The persons represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the 13

(26) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI reader as possessing particular moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities (2008: 42)." In short, based on Abrams' definition, it can be said that characters are persons in literary works. According to Abrams, the reader can interpret characters by inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive ways of saying it (the dialogues) and from what they do (the actions). E.M. Forster in The Aspect of the Novel supports Abrams's idea about characters as the persons in literary works. Forster states that actors in a story are usually human. That is why a character can be mentioned as people. Although, in some stories, the characters are animal, the author still uses that quality of human being as the characteristcs of the animals (2002: 46). Harvey (2002: 30) states that what human being seen in others is only what we are able to see and this ability then form for other part of our character. This ability, in Harvey's opinion, is used by authors to create fictional character. Authors put the tacts of people around them and through their imagination creating a fictional character. However, differences between people in the real world and in the created world of the author's work exist (Forster, 2002: 44). Forster, still in The Aspect of the Novel, also introduces two tem1s to distingush characters in a literary works, specifically in novel. Those two terms are round character and flat character. Round characters is complex in temperament and motivation and is represented with subtle peculiarity. For example, round characters are able to shift their point of view towards the same thing along the story. Since round characters are able to make up their mind, they might have intemal conflict in the story. On the other hand, flat character is built 14

(27) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI around a single idea or quality and is represented without much individualizing detail. Forster also states that flat characters are not in themselves as big achievements as round ones. However, he mentions that flat characters have advantages. First, they are easily recognized by the reader's emotional eyes whenever they come in. Second, they are easily remembered by the the reader afterwards since they were not changed by circumstances, which gives them in retrospect a comforting quality and preserves them when the book that produced them may decay (2002: 49). In short, round characters are those who develop (through their changing) from the beginning until the end of the story while flat characters are those who do not. Next, Forster gives a clue to differentiate tlat character and round character. The test of a round character is whether it is capable of surprising in a convincing way. If it never surprises, it is flat. If it does not convience, it is a flat pretending to be round. And by using it sometimes alone, more often in combination with the other kind, the novelist achieves his task of acclimatization and harmonizes the human race with the other aspects of his work. (2002: 55) From that qoutation above, one can learn that it is possible to find a combination of flat character and round character in characters on the literary works. One can also understand that it is possible to confuse between flat character and round character since the author might create a flat character like a round character. Moreover, there is another classification of characters. Based on the importance, the characters are divided into two kinds: major and minor characters. Major character is the main focus in a literary work as stated by Henkle in Reading the Novels: An Introduction to the Techniques of Interpreting Fiction. 15

(28) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI "Major character has a fullest attention for the readers; if we understand them, we presumably understand the focal experiences of the novel... the major characters in a novel perform a key structural function" ( 1977: 92). Henkle said it is because upon the major characters we (as the readers) build expectation and desires that makes them play a key structural function. Henkle also states that whether a novel is effective or not it "depends upon the ability of major character to express and dramatize the human issues of the book" (1977: 92). On the contrary, minor character is character with limited function in the literary works. Mostly, minor character works as the partner of the major characters, whether as the major character's friend or enemy, to improve the story and to fulfill the context of the story. The minor characters are presented in limited ways in which the major characters are not. In general, minor characters are less complex, less intense, and present what is often only one side of the experience (Henkle, 1977: 95-97). 2. Theory on Characterization According to M.J. Murphy, characterization IS the presentation of the characters' personalities including their attitudes, appearance, motives, and actions, which are created to be life like. Murphy in Understanding Unseen: An Introduction of English Poet1y and the English Novel for Overseas Student states that there are nine ways of characterization, of presenting the characters. a. Personal Description The author characterizes the character by describing the character's appearances 16

(29) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI in details such as the character's face, skin, eyes, hair, clothes, and so on. b. Character as Seen by Another One can analyzed a character through other characters' sight and opinion on the character. c. Speech The author gives us an insight into certain character through what that person says. Whenever that character speaks, whenever the character is in a conversation with another, whenever the character puts forward an opinion, and so. The point is readers will understand certain character through that character's own words. d. Past Life In examining a character, it is important for the reader to note characters' past life. The reason is, by letting the reader learns something about a character's past life, the author can give us a clue to events that have helped to shape a person's character. This can be done by givmg direct comment through the person's thought, through the person's conversations, or through the medium of another person. e. Conversation of Others Reader can also understand a character by examining the conversation of other characters and the things they say about the character. People do talk about other people and the things they say often come with clues about the character of the person they talked about. f. Reaction Reader will know what kind of person a character 17 IS by exammmg how the

(30) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI character reacts to various situations and events. g. Direct Comment The author might give comments and descriptions on character directly. h. Thoughts The author can give us direct knowledge of what a character is thinking about, of what is in a character's mind.By using this way, the author can tell the reader what different characters are thinking about. i. Mannerism The author can describe certain character's mannerism, habits, or idiosyncrasies which may tell us something, whether positive or negative, about the character (1972: 161-173). The writer thinks that the characters in Three Years can be analyzed by using Murphy's theory of characterization. However, this research uses only eight from those nine ways of characeterization in the analysis. Those eight ways are characters as seen by another, speech, past life, conversation of others, reactions, direct comments, thoughts, and mannerism. So, personal description is not being used in the analysis. The personal description is excluded because the writer of this research thinks it is not necessary to answer the questions of this research. C. Theory on Literature and Society Elizabeth Langland in Society in the Novel defines society m a wider sense, not merely peoples and their classes but also their costums, b'eliefs and values, their institution -legal, religious, cultural-and their physical environment. When it comes to the novels, Langland states that society also can 18

(31) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI be revealed through human relationships, through characters' patterned interaction and their common expectations of one another (1984: 6). Using the argument that "the writer's need to create a society consonant with the formal ends of the work itself (1984: ix)" as her starting point, Langland sees society is performing a precise function in novels. That precise function of society is as an element in a structure that is, at least in part, self-referential. By stating that society is a self-referential structure, Langland wants to say that the author describes the society of his work based on the society in the real life. Therefore, Langland emphasizes that studies of society must acknowledge society as a concept and a construct in fiction (1984: 4) as she writes "If society is a concept and construct in art, it is also a concept and construct in life. (1984: 5). However, it is important to note that society, as a concept and construct in art, according to Langland, never simply replicates a world outside. Society in novels does not depend on points of absolute fidelity to an outside world in details of custume, setting, and locality because a novel's society does not aim at faithful mirror of any concrete, existent thing (1984: 5) Furthermore, Langland states that the intersection of art and society is important. However, it may be impossible to reach absolute literary realism. The reason is, in the literary works (Langland specifically refers to the novels), the author selects, arranges, and organizes the element of the society. What the author does, according to Langland, has a meaning. The depiction and meaning in a literary work is not simply a mechanical reproduction of something "out there" (society); literature is free to produce its own meaning (1984: 5-6). Rather than simply stating that the relationship between the society in the 19

(32) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI fiction and the society in the real world (human's everyday life) is a mimetic one, Langland argues that their relationship is an evaluative one. People, according to Langland, read a literary work not for fidelity to the worlds that they have experienced. People read for gathering a perspective through the autonomy of art. That autonomy of art is its ability to generate terms for evaluation independent of, yet connected, an existent world (1984: ix). C. Review on Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's Before reviewing marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's, the writer thinks that it is important to give a short review on modem capitalist and industrial economy in Russia. It is because Marxism, as the writer stated in the first chapter, exists to fight capitalism. So, in this part, the writer presents review on modem capitalist and industrial economy in order to give a clear background on the growth of Marxism in Russia, specifically amongst its intellectuals in the early 1890's. In Basic HistOfy of Modem Russia: Political, Cultural, and Social Trends, Hans Kohn writes that modem capitalist and industrial economy was brought to Russia under the autocracy of Alexander III. At the first time, the purpose is in order to make the modernization of the military establishment possible. Kohn mentiones that the great progress of the modem capitalist and industrial economy in Russia was the building of railroads. Meanwhile, the first step of modem capitalist and industrial economy in Russia was taken in 1880's with the introducing modem labour as its sign. Still according to Kohn, another important person in the industrialization of Russia was Sergei Witte, a specialist of railway 20

(33) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI transportation that later became the minister of ways of communication then the minister of finance (1957: 52-53). Russian industralization under Witte was top-heavy. Heavy industry was favored by the governmnet in every way, but light industry lagged behind and consumer goods were therefore very expensive and inaccessible to the masses... All these developments helped to create for the first time an active middle class and especially an industrial proletariat in Russia (Kohn, 1957: 54). The Russian industrialization then brought bad effects. First, the burden of taxation fell heaviest on the peasantry. They had to pay a very high rate of interest, much more they could economically afford. Second, famine happened in Russia in 1891. Third, driven by their misery, many peasants migrated to the city and thus provided a supply of cheap labor. At the same time, the factory laws were not enforced, and the condition of the labor were miserable (1957: 53-54). Russian revolutionary movement growth with those situations as its background. In 1883 (which is also the year of Karl Marx's death), the first major Marxist figure arrived in the Russian scene (1958: 41 ).The figure, later called the father of Russian Marxism, is George Plekhanov. Plekhanov started his activities that related to marxism since 1883 by founded a party called the Liberation of Labour (the first marxist group in Russian history) which its principal object was to apply marxism systematically to the Russian scene (1957: 55). Alan Moorehead in The Russian Revolution even considers Plekhanov as the one who dominated Russian marxist movement for more than twenty years and acted as the teacher of some important people in left scene of Russia such as Lenin and Trotsky. "During most of that time not Lenin nor Trotsky nor any of the others would have dreamed of challenging his intellectual superiority. They sat at his feet, eager to pay 21

(34) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI homage and to learn (1958: 41)." It was in 1891, year of famine, Plekhanov's idea got Russian public's attention. "The famine marked a fundamental turning point in Russian public life ... The viewpoint of Plekhanov and his associates had become the viewpoint of all Russian intellectuals (Wolfe, 1964: 104 ). The spread of Plekhanov's idea continued for years later. In his introduction for The Steppe and Other Stories, David Campbell informs that marxism got its peak of popularity among Russian intellectuals in 1894. Kohn states that in 1895 Plekhanov's disciples began to carry marxist propaganda into factories and workshop. Kohn also mentions that St. Petersburg and Moscow as the two towns where the idea of marxism growth, specifically amongst the intellectuals. St. Petersburg and Moscow became the central towns of the spread of marxism since both were universities towns and industrial towns (1957: 19-57). This research of course sees Marxism is different from leninism and stalinism, two 'ism' those emerged in Russia as the interpretations of marxism. There are several reasons on seeing they are difterent. First, leninism and stalinism did not existed in 1890s. Second, there are different perspectives among th.;m on how to reach communist society. Their different perspectives are be explained in this paragraph. Marxism believes that communist society could only evolve out of the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism. It believes that the future of the communist society depends on the workers that have revolutionary consciousness. Those points are explained in quotation below: 22

(35) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI The working class was supposed to develop a sense of class solidarity and a revolutionary consciousness due to increasing poverty because of machines replacing workers. These circumstances would also result in a ·decrease in profits, resulting in a concentration of capital where less and less businesses would survive and so the Capitalist enemy would become of antagonism increasingly targeted and a focus (http ://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism-Leninism). In Russia, Lenin interpreted Marxism and introduced Leninism. Lenin perceived that the workers in the industrialized nations, including Russia, were not developing the revolutionary consciousness that Marx foresaw. According to him, the imperialist powers had temporarily circumvented the process Marx envisioned, by exporting capital and products to their colonies and, in tum, claiming the wealth and raw materials of these colonies. That condition caused the postpone of revolutionary ambition among workers since the capitalist could provide its workers with enough benefits and keep them satisfied. Lenin argued proletariat party as the way to create communist society in that situation as quoted below: Lenin insisted that only a "vanguard party" of the proletariat needed to foster the necessary revolutionary consciousness to overthrow the Capitalists. Lenin also advocating extending the target population for such revolutionary fervor to include peasants and the Russian soldiers involved in a seemingly hopeless war in Europe. In order to do this, they would need to use any means necessary to seize power and establish the proletarian dictatorship (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism-Leninism). In contrary to those two ism, stalisnism believed that a communist society can be achieved within a single country. From that belief, there were two political main projects of stalinism. First, the workers' movement must adapt itself to whatever is in the best interests of that focus at any given moment. For example, if they should build socialism in one country, they must focus on it. Second, the 23

(36) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI idea of revolution in "stages" -that the "national-democratic revolution" must be completed before the socialist revolution takes place. In short, Stalinism is the politics of the bureaucracy that hovers over a workers' state. Therefore, stalisnism runs contrary Marxism to and Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism). In this research, writer tries to find some signs of marxism amongst Russian intellectuals at that time by tracing the history. Those signs are in the form of theories which generally produced and/or discussed by Russian marxist intellectuals at that time as well as theories which generally influenced those intellectuals' way of thinking and/or acting. Dealing with theories, the writer thinks it is important to list works of Marx (and Engels as his collaborator) which had been pusblished in Russia until the early of 1890's. There were two giant works of Marx (and Engels as his collaborator) which had been published in Russia until the early of 1890's: Capital I (1872) and The Communist Manifesto (1882). It is important to underline that the Russian edition of Capital I was the fastest selling. 3.000 copies were sold in Russia in one year. As the comparison, the Gem1any edition took five years to sell 1.000 copies (http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/capital/author/karlmarx/firstedition/sortbyll /). That fact is a proof on how monumental was Marx's works in Russia and how potential the idea behind the works in influencing Russians, especially the intellectuals. Moreover, at that time, there was Plekhanov as the father of marxism in Russia. Since Plekhanov published some works, the writer of this research thinks that his works, as theories, influenced the intellectuals. In 24

(37) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI some points listed below, the writer will give description on theories related to Marxism. However, the writer only describes theories that related to Three Years. 1. Theory on Social Class The concept of class has a central importance in marxist theory, though neither Marx nor Engels ever expounded it in a systematic form. In their Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels write that 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle'. Since the concept of class has a central importance in marxist theory, Jozef Wilczynski in An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism defines class as a basic concept tor a large social group, indicating its relation to the means of productions, thus reflecting its source and level of income and its manner to the social system in force ( 1981: 78). Marx states that 'the real constitution of society, which by no means consists only of the class of workers and the class of the indutrial capitalist.' In other words, Marx states that the members of a social class consist of persons who share the same relation to certain persons. In order lo gel better understanding, this is the illustration: the textile factory workers and the shoe factory workers are in a same social class because they bear the same relation to certain persons which are the owners of the factory (capitalists) that control their work in the factory. Similarly, the owners of the textile and the shoe factory (capitalists) are in a same social class because they occupy a common position with regard to the persons engaged in the process of production, which position is also expressed in things, in this case, capital. One thing to remember, it is the possesion of property 25

(38) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI (capital) as a means of production that determines the classification of people in certain society. Those who have means of production will be classified as the upper class, those who do not have any means of production will be placed in the lower class (2012: 14-15). However, in his later publication Marx refers explicitly to the growth of the middle class by saying that middle class is a phenomenon of the development of capitalism (1991: 85) as stated below. What Ricardo forgets to emphasize is the continual increase in number in middle class ... situated midway between the workers on the one side and the capitalists and the landowners on the other... (who) rest with all their weight upon the working basis and at the same time increase the social security and power of the upper ( 1991: 85) Moreover, Marx mentions that the middle class will increase in size and the working class will make up a constantly diminishing proportion of the total population. According to Marx, the interests of the middle class and the workers were fundamentally opposed since while increasing the power of the upper class (capitalists), the middle class decrease the power of the workers (200 I: 7). 2. Theory on Exploitation Exploitation was used by Marx in two senses. The first is about using an object for its being for its potential benefits. The examples are the exploitation of natural resources, of a political situation, or of moral hypocrisy ( 1991: 182) In relation to the traffic of children, working-class parents have assumed characteristics that are trully revolting and throughly like slave-dealing. But the pharisaical capitalist... denounces this bestiality which he himself creates, perpetuates and exploits (1991: 183) In that sense, exploitation is useful as a part of Marx's critical assault on capitalism. 26

(39) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI On the other hand, exploitation has another meaning. In any society in which the forces of production have developed beyond the minimum needed for the survival of the population, exploitation becomes the foundation of class society. Exploitation occurs when one section of the population produces a surplus whose use is controlled by another section. Classes in marxist theory exist only in relation too each other and that ::elation tum upon the form of exploitation. Under capitalism, exploitation takes the fom1 of the extraction of surplus values by the class of industrial capitalist form the working class (1991: 183). Marxism, of course, against it. 3. Theory on Art Art is one topic that often discussed by Russian intellectuals at that time. In relation to marxism, according to Marxism and Art (1979), Plekhanov's formulation in art have an important implication for the history of art. That formulation states that art is the solution of a set of problems which arise from the historical mode of production. Marxism and Art also informs that Plekhanov's Art and Social Life heavily influenced an entire generation of Russian marxist. Even from him, still according to Marxism and Art, the fundamental marxist text on art was constitued. In it, Plekhanov describes the social conditions which give rise to "art for art's sake" on the one hand, and to the "utilitarian" approach on the other. These were the aesthetic categories of central concern to Russian revolutionaries (Solomon, 1979: 122). The method of describing the social conditions accords fully with Marx's insistence that the products of the mind are be explained by cleavages within 27

(40) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI society. For Plekhanov, art anses from life and presents itself as an object of analysis and understanding. As the consequence of this approach, Plekhanov prescribes nothing for art of the artist. He supports his idea by quoted Chemyshevsky's opinion on art for art's sake as below. Art for the art's sake -such an idea is as strange now-a-days as "wealth for the wealth's sake", "science for science's sake", and so on. All human being should serve a useful purpose for man, if they are not to be empty, frivolous occupations (1979: 128). To against the idea of a thing for that thing's sake, Chemyshevsky, as quoted by Plekhanov states that wealth, for example, exists so that man may use it. Science, again as an example, exists in order to be man's guide. According to him. art also exists for the same purpose. It exists to serve some essential purpose and not be an idle amusement (1979: 12g). Therefore, he tavours the utilttanan vtew of art (1979: 121-122). Furthermore, Plekhanov says that society is not made for the artist, but the artist for the society. So, art must promote the development of human consciousness and the improvement of social order. The so called utilitarian view on art has the significance of judgement on the phenomena of life. The utilitarian view on art has constant accompaniement of glad readiness to participate in social struggles. It arises and becomes stronger whenever a mutual sympathy exists between the individuals more or less activity interested in artistic creation and some considerable part of society (1979: 139). 28

(41) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI D. Theoretical Framework This part explains the contribution of each theory which is presented to solve the problem formulations. Mainly, there are three mains groups of theory in this research. The first one is theory on characters. The second one is theory on characterization. The third one is theory on literature and society. To support the theory of literature and sociey, some theories related to marxism are also aplied to specifically solve the second problem formulation. Theories that related to marxism are chosen hy examing the historical context of marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. The writer thinks that the characteristic of those Russian marxist intellectua: might he in the fonn of theories which were geuetally pwJuceJ anJ/or discussed by them as well as which we.re able to influence their way of thinking and/or acting. Firstly, some theories of characters are used in this research. Those theories are used to examine Three Years' some selected characters. The purpose is to understand how those characters are represented. Secondly, in order to tind out how 1hree Years' some selected characters are described, the writer also uses the theory on characterization. By using both, the theory of characters and the theory of characterization, the writer wants to get a fully understanding on Three Years characters in order to answer the first problem formulation. Thirdly, in order to support the idea that literature and society are connected, the writer uses theory on literature and society. Moreover, to show that it is true that literature and society are connected the writer shows how some 29

(42) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI theories related to marxism that generally produced and/or discussed as well as effected the way of thinking and/or acting of the Russia intellectuals around the early 1890's can be seen in Three Years through its characters. That is the answer the second problem formulation of this research. Finally, at the end of the analysis, it leads us to the answers the problem formulation. After that, the writer jumps into a conclusion that Three Years' characters depicted Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. 30

(43) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter is divided into three sections. First is the object of the study in which the writer tells about the literary work which is used in the study. The second section focusses on the approach which is used to examine the literary work. The third section is about method of the study. That section concerns on the steps the writer takes in completing the study. A. Object of the Study The object of this study is a novella (short novel) by one of Russia greatest authors, Anton Chekhov. The novella is entitled Three Years. Three Years was first published in 1895 at Russia. It is written in Russian language. This research uses the English version of Three Years. The version was published by Foreign Language Publishing House in 1958. The translator of this edition is Rose Prokofieva. Rose Prokofieva is well-known as a translator of Russian works. Besides Three Years, she is also the translator for other authors' works, such as Nikolai Nosov's Jufly Family aml Figuuwva's Diary uf Schuul Teacher. From some articles, the writer of this research also learns that Prokofieva did a lot of translations for the Foreign Language Publishing House. In May 30 and June 13, 26 2010, Three Years was articulated into a play performance entitled The Three Years. The duration of the play was 2 hour and 15 minutes. It is directed by Sergei Zhenovach. The play performance was held in Theatre Art Studio Moscow as a part of annual Chekhov's International Theatre Festival. In directing The Three Years, Zhenovach followed the author's text and 31

(44) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI used it as the key means of expression. However, there were several differences between the play and the novella, such as in the play Laptev wanted to build hospital ward while in the novella he wanted to build doss-house. Three Years within its 140 pages that are divided into 17 chapters is a story which tells the life of Laptev, the main character, and his relatives. In the story, Chekhov, through his characters, talks about many things, such as social cl2sses, exploitation, and art which are closely related to theories of Marxism. For example, in one part of the story, Yulia, one of the characters, said that art should have something to do with human's life. That concept of art is closely related to theories of Marxism on art. Reading Three Years, the writer has a personal opinion that Three Years, through its characters, represents Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. B. Approach of the Study The research uses socio-cultural-historical approach to analyse Chekhov's Three Years. The approach helps the writer on analysing the object of the study. By using the approach, the writer wants to get a better understanding on Chekhov's Three Years. The socio-cultural-historical approach is an approach to analyze the relation between certain literary works and the social history of certain time and place in where they were written. The reason of why it is necessary to investigate the relation between certain literary works and the social history is very well explained by Mary Rohrberger and Samuel H. Woods in their Reading and Writing about Literature as quoted below. No one, of course, can deny the assertion: first, that literature is not created in vacuum, and second, that literature embodies ideas significant to the 32

(45) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI culture that produced it (1971: 9). It is because of a work of art is created under certain social-cultural-historical situation and it necessarily reflects that situation. Moreover, both Rohrberger and Woods argues that the best way, even the only way according to them, to understand the literary work is seeing the literary work in reference to the certain time and place where it was produced. The argumentation might be considered as a support on using the socio-cultural-historical approach for the analysing literary work. By reading Chekhov's Three Years, the writer jumps into an assumption that the work, specifically by examining the characters, is written in similarities to the condition of a certain place and time. The condition refers to Marxism (which was very popular at that time) amongst Russian intellectuals. Meanwhile, the place and time refer to Russia in the early 1890's. So, this approach is suitable to analyse Chekhov's Three Years. C. Method of the Study This research is a library research. According to the writer, library research method is appropriate to be used since the data to support the analysis are collected from books and articles. This research uses two kinds of resources: primary resource and secondary resources. The primary resource is the novel itself: Three Years. The secondary resources are divided into three categories. The first ones are books to analyze the characters, such as Abrams' A Glossary of Literary Terms, Forster's The Aspect of the Novel, Henkle's Reading the Novels: An Introduction to the Techniques of Interpreting Fiction, and Murphy's 33

(46) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Understanding Unseen: An Introduction of English Poetry and the English Novel for Overseas Student. The second ones are books to analyze marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's, such as Basic History of Modern Russia: Political, Cultural, and Social Trends, The Russian Revolution, Marxism and Art, An Eclyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, Communist Manifesto, Capital I, and so on. The third ones are books to analyze the relation between literary work and the socio-cultural-historical context at certain time, such as Society in the Novels and Reading and Writing about Literature. Articles from the internet are also being used in this research. There are several steps that the writer does in completing this research. First, the writer read the novel for many times in order to understand the topic that would be suitable. Taking notes and underlining some significant parts are important. By doing this step, the writer can get not only further information but also deeper understanding about the novel. Second, the writer chooses the topic and formulates problem formulations which might be helpful for the analysis. The writer also needs to gather secondary resources in this part. The secondary resources are in form of books and articles under the same topic and theories related to the research. Then, the approach of the research is chosen. Next, the writer gathers related theories and related data for the research. After that, the writer analyzes the work by applying those related theories and data. The last step is drawing the conclusion. The conclusion is presented after the writer of this research answering all the questions in the problem formulation. 34

(47) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS This chapter is devided into two sub-chapters. Each sub-chapter is the answer for the problem formulation. The first sub-chapter is the writer's analysis on Three Years' characters. The second sub-chapter is the writer's analysis on how those characters depict Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. A. The Descriptions of the Characters This sub-chapter applies two theories on characters as described in the review of the related theories part. As Abrams' definition, characters refer to the persons represented in a narrative works. In this case, the characters are people in Three Years. In the beginning of the analysis, the writer needs to say that some selected characters which are discussed in this study refer to the intellectuals. There are four characters in Three Years that suit the definition of intellectuals. They are Alexei Fyodorovich as known as Laptev, Yulia Sergeyevna, Ivan Gavrilych Yartsev, and Kotsya Kochevoi. Further explanation about why the writer classifies them as intellectuals is elaborated. Back to the application of theories on characters, below is the writer's analysis based on the theory. The writer divides the analysis of the characters based on types of the characters. In the review of the related theories, there are two main theories of character's types (round-flat and major-minor). The writer of this research analyses the characters based on those two main types of the characters. This division is elaborated in the second sub-chapter of the analysis as 35

(48) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI the representation of the power of capitalist and its system of working. 1. Round and Flat Characters Forster's theory on characters tells about two types of characters: round characters and flat characters. Round characters are those who develop (through their changing) from the beginning until the end of the story while flat characters are those who do not. Based on that theory, the writer classifies Alexei Fyodorovich as known as Laptev and Yulia Sergeyevna as round characters while Ivan Gavrilych Yartsev and Kotsya Kochevoi as flat characters. It is the reason of classifying Laptev as round character. The writer finds Laptev's change along the story. This quotation represents Laptev's change. He went to the warehouse every day now and tried his best to change things: he forbade the flogging of apprentices and the swindling of customers; he flew into a rage when he caught the clerks foisting old, unsalable goods on some provincial customer as the latest thing on the market (Chekhov, 1958:; 133). From the quotation, it can be seen that Laptev went to the warehouse every day and managed the warehouse. The writer considers that as a big change in Laptev. It is because Laptev did not want to manage the warehouse in the beginning of the story. However, the situation that he faced (his father went blind and his brother went mad) changed him. In the end of the story, he took the responsibility to manage the warehouse. That fact leads the writer to think that Laptev is a round character because according to Forster "round character has the ability of surprising in a convincing way or not" (2002: 55). Moreover, in other part of Three Years, it can be seen that Laptev is a person with internal conflict as can be seen from the quotation below. 36

(49) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI "As for me, I cannot understand myself at all. I am constantly tom between black despair and utter indifference. I am timid, I have no confidence in myself, my conscience is cowardly, and I am utterly incapable of adapting myself to life and becoming the master of my own destiny." (Chekhov, 1958: 114) The quotation shows that Laptev's difficulty in understanding himself. He also felt incapability of adapting himself to life and becoming the master of his own destiny. In the writer's opinion, having difficulty in understanding your own self is part of internal conflict and, according to Forster's theory, having an internal conflict is one of round characters' characteristics. In the ending part of the story, Laptev's thought about changing was revealed as can be seen from the quotation below ... he thought, "And what a great many changes there have been these three years. To think that one might have been these three years. To think that one might have to live for another thirteen, or perhaps thirty years. And who can tell what may happen by then. Well, we can only wait and see." (Chekhov, 1958: 139) That quotation shows that there are some changing that happened for three years and his awareness that some things might also change for some years later. The quotation also supp01ts the idea that Laptev is a round character. Yulia Sergeyevna, just like Laptev, also changed along the story. Here is the part of Three Years that supports the idea that Yulia is a round character. But now, she was impatient for the service to end, and coming out of church she only hoped the beggars would not ask her for alms -it would be nuisance to have stop and search in her pockets, besides she did not carry copper coin in her pockets now, only rubles. (Chekhov, 1958: 96) In comparison to "often while out walking she would discover to her dismay that she had no kopek with her" (Chekhov, I 958: 39) that also described Yulia, it is clearly seen that the quotation above shows Yulia's changing in term of her 37

(50) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI economy status. As stated before, one of round character's characteristic is his/her change along the story. Since Yulia suits that characteristic, the writer thinks it is appropriate to classify her as a round character. Moreover, Yulia also suits another characteristic of the round character. That characteristic is having internal conflict as can be seen from the quotation below. "Tell me, Alexei, why have I stopped praying? What has happened to my faith? Ah, why have you talked so much about religion in my presence! You have upset me, you and your friends. I do not pray anymore." (Chekhov, 1958: 127) Through Yulia 's speech, the writer learns about her confusion in terms of religious. Her confusion implicitly exists in her question and statement "What was happened to my faith? You have upset me, you and your friends. I do not pray anymore." According to the writer, Yulia 's question represents her internal conflict. She wondered what had happened to her so she did no pray anymore. It is important to inform that she used to pray in her past life. Yulia 's question shows her worry about that internal state in herself as well as her statement ("I do not pray anymore") infmms that she is no longer the religious Yulia. According to the writer, those things above are enough to be the reason for classifying Yulia as a round character. She suits the characteristic of round character as stated by Forster "round characters are able to make up their mind; they might have internal conflict in the story" (2002: 44). Unlike Laptev and Yulia, Yartesv and Kotsya are flat characters. The reason is simply because the writer finds out that they're not changed by the circumstance of the story. Both Yartsev and Kotsya 's characteristic never surprise 38

(51) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI the writer. They also have stable qualities from the beginning until the end of the story. Both Yartsev and Kostya also have no internal conflicts along the story. Some descriptions of Yartsev which shows him as a flat character are explained as follows. Yarstev was introduced as a scientiest. From the beginning until the end of the story, the quality exists in Yartsev. He worked as scientist until the end of the story as can be seen from Yartsev's speech in the latter part of Three Years "She will be believes that my life will be more orderly if she lives with me and that under her influence i shall become a great scientist." (Chekhov, 1958: 117) Another example to prove Yartsev as a flat character is his stability in terms of social class. Unlike Yulia, Yartsev belongs to the non-capitalist class from the beginning until the end of the story. Yartsev also rejected the exploitation from the beginning until the end of the story. In short, the writer of this research can say that no shifting can be found in Laptev. Moreover, unlike Laptev and Yulia, Yartsev has no internal conflict. When he wanted to write some historical plays, for example, he was assured to write the play without any doubt (Chekhov, 1958: 10l5). The writer of this research finds out none ofYartsev's internal conflict in the story. As an example, unlike Laptev who got the internal conflict from his love life, Yartsev got no internal conflict from his love life. Part of Three Years which supports the idea is "It is already too late for me to think of true love. As a matter of fact, a woman like Polina Nikolayevna is a godsend to me and no doubt I shall live peacefully with her to a ripe old age" (Chekhov, 1958: 117). Another flat character is Kostya. Just like in Laptev, none shifting can be found in Kostya. He belongs to the non-capitalist class from the beginning until 39

(52) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI the end of the story. Although he was adopted by the Laptevs, he got none of the Laptevs inheritance. He also worked as a lawyer and does not join to work in the Laptevs' warehouse (Chekhov, 1958: 68). Another characteristic of Kostya that supports the idea of him as a flat character is his view of art. In the beginning, Kostya was characterized as a person who supports the utilitarian view of art (Chekhov, 1958; 81 ). In the end of the story, Kostya still had that characteristic. Chekhov even wrote that Kostya created artworks with utilitarian view of art as the spirit. That can be seen from Kostya 's characteristic as a writer of novels using social problems as their themes (Chekhov, 1958: 76-77) and as a photographer using the same problems as his theme (Chekhov, 1958: 121 ). The writer of this research also finds none of Kostya 's internal problem in Three Years. As an example, he got no internal conflict as the result of his relationship with other characters in Three Years. 2. Major and Minor Characters On major and minor characters, Henkle argues that the classification made by considering the importance of the characters in the story. Major character is the main focus in the literary work. It is major character's ability in attracting reader's attention that turns them as the focus in the literary wotks. By considering Henkle's theory on major character, the writer of this research (who also becomes the reader of Three Years) believes that Laptev is the major character in Three Years. The writer thinks Laptev is the major character because Laptev get the writer's attention since the beginning of the story. By understanding Laptev, the writer understands what the major thing that Three Years tells. Argumentations 40

(53) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI This is how Chekhov introduced Yartsev for the very first time in Three Years. " .. .I went to the university and met Yartsev who persuaded me to leave home. That Yartsev has done me a great deal of good. I say," Laptev said, laughing with pleasure, "let's go and pay him a visit now. He is one of the finest people i know! He will be delighted to see us!" (Chekhov, 1958: 57) Yartsev's first appearance in the story was through Laptev's conversation with Yulia about him. The conversation happened after Laptev and Yulia's visit to the warehouse in their first coming to Moscow as husband and wife. Their coming was long time after Laptev went to the university. From Laptev's and Yulia's conversation, the fact that Yartsev is Laptev's best-friend for years can be seen. So, it can be said that Yartsev plays the role as Laptev's partner in term of friendship. The last but not the least person in minor characters group is Kostya. Kostya was introduced as an orphan man that adopted by Laptev's family. Kostya's father used to be a regular visitor of the Laptev's family asking for sugar and tea. One day, Kostya's father died because of vodka. He left Kostya as an oprhan boy. Laptev's sister (who was engaged at that time) took care of Kostya until Laptev's father knew and Kostya was adopted by the family. The family not only gave him home but also school. Kostya became both Laptev's brother and best friend. "The boy, thanks heavens, studied hard and did quite well. Now he is a lawyer in Moscow, a friend of Alyosha's, and as well-educated as he. It is a good thing we took the poor boy I and gave him a home ... " (Chekhov, 1958: 68) That is part of Nina (Laptev's sister) conversation with her daughter. "The boy" in Nina's speech refers to Kostya while "Aloysha" is Laptev's special name given by Nina. From that quotation, it is clearly seen that Kostya plays the role as Laptev's 42

(54) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI partner in term of friendship and family. From all explanations above, the writer believes that it is true to classify Laptev as major character and the rest as minor characters. The reason is because all the minor characters are described as Laptev's partners, such as his lovers and his best friends. Those minor characters' existence also improves the story in where Laptev acted as the central. It is because Laptev's relationship with them brought complexity to the story so the story improves. B. Marxism amongst Russian Intellectuals in the Early 1890's as Depicted through Three Years' Characters. In Society in the Novel, Langland states that the author of literary work describes the society of his work based on the society in the real life. Moreover, she says that society can be revealed through characters in the novel. Using Langland's theory as the starting point, the writer of this research tries to examine Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's through Three Years· characters. According to the writer of this research, Marxism is a part of Russian society at that time because Marxism existed in the society and even changed the society. As written before, it was in 1891 (the year of famine), Plekhanov's idea got Russian public's attention and became the viewpoint of all Russian intellectual. Plekhanov himself is the father of Marxism in Russia. In his introduction for The Steppe and Other Stories, David Campbell infonns that Marxism got its peak of popularity among Russian intellectuals in 1894. The writer of this research thinks that Chekhov depicts that moment through Three Years' characters. Moreover, Three Years' characters (Laptev, Yulia, Yarstev, 43

(55) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI and Kostya) are intellectuals. The reason for classifying them as intellectuals is their characteristics that fit the definition of intellectuals. All of them are welleducated and all of them are able in elaborating conceptual ideas as can be seen from the explanation below. In this sub-chapter, the writer of this research uses Murphy's theory of characterization to analyze those four characters in Three Years. 1. The Intellectuals The reasons for classifying Laptev as one of the intellectuals m Three Years can be seen from the quotation below. The boys had been fortunate enough to go to the school, but Nina had remained uneducated, had barely learned to write, and she read nothing but historical novels. (Chekhov, 1958: 12) The quotation belongs to the direct comment according to Murphy's theory of characterization. The word 'boys' refers to Laptev and his brother. From the quotation, it is clearly seen that Laptev is one of the boys that fortunately went to the school. Moreover, Laptev did not only go to school but also went to the university. The information about Laptev went to the university can be seen from the quotation below. She asked herself whether she had done right in refusing Laptev just because she did not like his appearance... Laptev, after all, was a Moscovite, he had graduated from University, and spoke French; he lived in the capital where there were a great many clever and remarkable people... (Chekhov, 1958: 31) The quotation belongs to character as seen by another according to Murphy's theory of characterization. In this case, it is about Laptev as seen by Yulia Sergeyevna. From Yulia's sight on Laptev, the writer knows that Laptev studied in the university and had graduated. Laptev also spoke French; an ability that didn't 44

(56) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI belong to everybody in Russia at that time. Another reason for classifying Laptev as an intellectual will be quoted and explained below. After dinner, having nothing better to do, they went to the library. They talked about the decadents, about the "Maid of Orleans," and Kostya recited a long monologue from the play in what he believed to be perfect imitation ofYermolova. (Chekhov, 1958: 77) The quotation belongs to reaction according to Murpy's theory of characterization. The writer of this research considers the quotation as reaction because Chekhov gives a clue about certain character by letting people knows how the character reacts toward various situation and events. The situation in the quotation is the time after having dinner. The word 'they' in the quotation above refers to 'Laptev and his friends'. From the quotation, the writer learns that having nothing to do, instead of doing anything else, Laptev and his friends chose to go to the library. Later, in the library they talked about the decadents, about low standards of moral in some aspects of life. They also talked about "Maid of Orleans''. "Maid of Orleans" itself is the given name for Joan of Arc, one of the patron saints of France. Joan of Arc tried to rescue France. The name "Maid of Orleans" was given because when she appeared in Orleans, under siege by the English, she immediately began to inspire the dispirited French troops with her bravery under fire. Within nine days of her arrival Orleans had been liberated, and Joan knelt down and prayed for the souls of her fallen enemies (http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/france/a/Joan-Of-Arc.htm). In short, their reaction (Laptev's reaction too since he belongs to them) to nothing-to-do moment was doing the discussion about those themes and elaborating the conceptual ideas 45

(57) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI of those themes. Laptev's passion m discussing and elaborating the conceptual ideas of some topics also can be seen from the quotation below. They talked about death, about the immortality of the soul, of how good it would be if one really could come to life again and fly to Mars or someplace where one could be idle and happy for ever, and moreover, where one would be free to live the life of the spirit. (Chekhov, 1958: 114) The quotation belongs to direct comment according to Murphy's theory of characterization. 'They' in that quotation refers to Laptev and Yartsev. As explicitly stated in the quotation, they talked about death, about the immortality of the soul and about any possibility of coming to life again. It is important to note that death is one of big discourse in philosophy. One branch of philosophy which is metaphysic always deals with the discourse of death. So, it is possible to conclude that Laptev and Yartsev's discussion was a philosophical one. From the quotation and explanation, the writer thinks that it is possible to draw a conclusion that Laptev, once again, is an intellectual. It is because Laptev suits the definition of intellectual. He is one of people who able in conceptual and/or philosophical elaboration of ideas. Meanwhile, the writer of this research classifies Yulia Sergeyevna as an intellectual because of her characteristics that suit the definition of intellectuals. From the beginning of Three Years, the writer knows Yulia as an educated girl who lived in the small town. The writer knows that knowledge from Laptev's letter to Kostya. In his letter, Laptev told Kostya that he's in love with Yulia. As a person in love, Laptev tried to describe Yulia in his letter to Kostya. The writer finds that Laptev's description informs that Yulia is an intellectual as quoted 46

(58) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI below. She is a provincial girl, but she was educated in Moscow and she loves our Moscow, dresses in the Moscow fashion, and for that too I love her, I love her, love her (Chekhov, 1958: 20). There is also another part of Three Years that supports Yulia as an intellectual. That is part of Nina Fyodorovna's conversation with Laptev after Laptev told her about his marriage proposal to Yulia. Below is that part. "Of course any woman could love you, you are kind and clever, but Yulia is a lady, she was educated in an exclusive school, and kindness and brain are not enough. She is young, but you are not so young anymore, Alyosha, nor are you handsome." (Chekhov, 1958: 38) Studying those two quotations by using Murphy's theory, the writer considers them as character as seen by another. The first one is Yulia as seen by Laptev while the second one is Yulia as seen by Nina. The first quotation informs that Yulia was educated in Moscow while the second one tells that she went to an exclusive school. Although, it is not clear whether she went to university (like Laptev) or not, both quotation still give information that Yulia got proper education. The writer thinks that it is possible to categorize her as a intellectual because she is well-educated as the quotations told. That description suits the definition of intellectual. The second qualification of intellectual is the ability in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas. The writer considers that Yulia had the ability. Therefore, it is appropriate to classify her as intellectual. Here is the part of Three Years that shows her ability in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas. "I quite agree with you, Kostya," said Yulia Sergeyevna. "One writer describes a lovers' tryst, another writes about infidelity, a third tell of lovers reunited. Is there nothing else to write about? There are so many sick, unhappy, poverty-stricken people who must be revolted when they 47

(59) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI read such things." (Chekhov, 1958: 82) That is Yulia's speech when she had a discussion about art with Laptev, Kostya, and Yartsev. Yulia, as can be seen from the quotation, supported Kostya's idea about art. The idea is that art should have something to do with people's daily life. Her statement, especially the "there are so many sick, unhappy, poverty-stricken people who must be revolted when they read such things" one, was her elaboration of the conceptual idea about art. Considering all the things above, the writer thinks that it is reasonable to classify Yulia Sergeyevna as an intellectual. Another character who belongs to the intellectuals is Yartsev. The reason for classifying him as an intellectual will be explained below. Yartsev was introduced in the story as Laptev's best friend. They met each other in the university and they became friends for years even after graduated from university. Both of them had graduated from the philological department. The information that he went to the university and met Laptev there explicitly showed that Yarstev was as well-educated as Laptev. Moreover, there are some parts of Three Years which support Yartsev as an intellectual. One of them will be quoted and explained below. He had graduated from the philological department together with Laptev, had afterward taken up natural sciences and now had a degree in chemistry. He did not hope for a Chair in chemistry and did not even work in laboratory but taught physics and natural history in a trade school and two women's grammar schools ... Besides chemistry, he studied sociology and Russian history on his own and contributed brief items to the newspapers and magazines which he signed with initial Y. Whenever he talked about botany or zoology he sounded like a historian, and when he dealt with some historical problem one could have taken him for a natural scientist (Chekhov, 1958: 79-80). According to Murphy's theory, the quotation belongs to direct comment. 'He' in 48

(60) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI that quotation refers to Yartsev. There are some facts in the quotation that support Yartsev as intellectual. First, he had graduated from the philological department then studied natural sciences and got a degree in chemistry. Second, he taught physics and natural history in three schools. Third, he studied sociology and Russian history on his own. Fourth, he contributed some pieces to the newspaper and magazines. Fifth, he was able to see the connection between the natural science and social science because "when he talked about botany or zoology he sounded like a historian" and vice versa. By considering all those facts, it is easy to draw a conclusion that Yarstev was a very well-educated person. Moreover, he was able to elaborate the conceptual ideas since he is a writer. Both of them suit the definition of intellectual. Other parts of Three Years which shows that Yartsev is an intellectual will be quoted and explained below. "What if i really do write a historical play," said Yartsev. "But without the Lyapunova and the Godunovs, you know, something fresh from the Yaroslav or Monomach period. T detest all Russian historical plays, except Pimen's monologue. Historical sources or even Russian history books make everything about Russia seem extraordinarily talented and fascinating, but when i see a historical play Russian life begins to strike me as fatuous, unhealthy and unoriginal." (Chekhov, 1958: 108) "I am a chemist, I think in terms of chemistry and shall die a chemist," he went on. "But I am insatiable, I am afraid I shall die before I have had my fill; chemistry is not enough for me, I must take up Russian history, the history of arts, pedagogic, music ... My head is crammed so full of ideas that it is ready to burst, and I can feel it throbbing." (Chekhov, 1958: 115) Using Murphy's theory, those quotations belong to speech. It is from Yartsev's own speech the writer jumps to the conclusion that he is an intellectual. In the first quotation, there is some important information that supports Yartsev as an 49

(61) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI that quotation refers to Yartsev. There are some facts in the quotation that support Yartsev as intellectual. First, he had graduated from the philological department then studied natural sciences and got a degree in chemistry. Second, he taught physics and natural history in three schools. Third, he studied sociology and Russian history on his own. Fourth, he contributed some pieces to the newspaper and magazines. Fifth, he was able to see the connection between the natural science and social science because "when he talked about botany or zoology he sounded like a historian" and vice versa. By considering all those facts, it is easy to draw a conclusion that Yarstev was a very well-educated person. Moreover, he was able to elaborate the conceptual ideas since he is a writer. Both of them suit the definition of intellectuaL Other parts of Three Years which shows that Yartsev is an intellectual will be quoted and explained below. "What if i really do write a historical play," said Yartsev. "But without the Lyapunova and the Godunovs, you know, something fresh from the Yaroslav or Monomach period. T detest all Russian historical plays, except Pimen 's monologue. Historical sources or even Russian history books make everything about Russia seem extraordinarily talented and fascinating, but when i see a historical play Russian life begins to strike me as fatuous, unhealthy and unoriginal." (Chekhov, 1958: 108) "I am a chemist, I think in terms of chemistry and shall die a chemist," he went on. "But I am insatiable, I am afraid I shall die before I have had my fill; chemistry is not enough for me, I must take up Russian history, the history of arts, pedagogic, music ... My head is crammed so full of ideas that it is ready to burst, and I can feel it throbbing." (Chekhov, 1958: 115) Using Murphy's theory, those quotations belong to speech. It is from Yartsev's own speech the writer jumps to the conclusion that he is an intellectual. In the first quotation, there is some important information that supports Yartsev as an 49

(62) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI intellectual. First, Yartsev stated his will to write a historical play. In writing a historical play, one not only needs knowledge about the history but also ability in elaborating the conceptual ideas into a literary work. His will might show his awareness that he had both knowledge about history (subject that he learnt on his own as the former quotation informed) and the ability to elaborate the conceptual ideas into the literary work. Second, Yarstev said a statement on historical play and Russian life. Every statement is the result of studying and thinking about certain subject. When Yartsev came with statements on historical play and Russian life, it means that he was studying and thinking about those subjects for a certain period of time. Studying and thinking might be one way of elaborating conceptual ideas. Furthermore, second quotation also gtves some information to support Yartsev as intellectual. First, Yartsev claimed himself as a chemist. Second, he stated that he wants to take up some other subjects which are history, history of arts, pedagogic, and music. He also stated that he has many ideas. Since intellectual is well-educated person who able in conceptual and/or philosophical elaboration of ideas. Yartsev can be classified as intellectual. He suits that definition. There is one more character that belongs to the intellectual. He is Kostya. Chekhov characterized Kostya as an orphan boy who was grown up in Laptev's family (Laptev and his sister took care of him). Kostya got a chance to go to the school. Therefore, he was a well-educated person as can be seen from this quotation: "The boy, thank heavens, studied hard and did quite well. Now he is a 50

(63) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI lawyer in Moscow, a friend of Aloysha, and as well-educated as he." (Chekhov, 1958: 68) That quotation is part of Nina Fyodorovna's speech to her daughter. Using Murphy's theory, that can be classified as character as seen by another. In this case, it is Kostya as seen by Nina. The phrase 'little boy' in the quotation refers to Kostya. Nina's speech proves that Kostya went to school. Moreover, the quotation also informs that Kostya is as well educated as Aloysha (special name for Laptev from Nina). Since the writer knows that Laptev went to the university, the writer thinks that is the implicit way of telling that Kostya also went to the university. Other additional information is about Kostya's job. He worked as a lawyer. That additional information makes the writer jumps to the conclusion that Kostya was studied law in the university before becoming a lawyer. Figuring out all those things, the writer thinks it is appropriate to classify Kostya as an intellectual since it is clearly seen that he was a well-educated person. Another part of Three Years that support the idea about Kostya as an intellectual will be quoted and explained below. After dinner, having nothing better to do, they went to the library. They talked about the decadents, about the "Maid of Orleans," and Kostya recited a long monologue from the play in what he believed to be perfect imitation ofYermolova. (Chekhov, 1958: 77) The quotation belongs to reaction according to Murphy's theory of characterization. The quotation belongs to reaction because the author give a clue about a person's character by letting the reader knows how that person reacts to various situations and events. The situation in the first quotation is the time of after having dinner. The word 'they' in quotation refers to the group of people which Kostya is one of them. From the quotation, the writer learns that having 51

(64) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI nothing to do, instead of doing anything else, Kostya and his friends chose to go to the library. Later, in the library they talked about the decadents, about low standards of moral in some aspects of life. They also talked about "Maid of Orleans". "Maid of Orleans" itself is the given name for Joan of Arc, one of the patron saints of France. Joan of Arc tried to rescue France. The name "Maid of Orleans" was given because when she appeared in Orleans, under siege by the English, she immediately began to inspire the dispirited French troops with her bravery under fire. Within nine days of her arrival Orleans had been liberated, and Joan knelt down and prayed for the souls of her fallen enemies (http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/france/a/Joan-Of-Arc.htm). In short, their reaction (Kostya 's reaction too since he belongs to them) to nothing-to-do moment was doing the discussion about the decadents and the "Maid of Orleans" and elaborating the conceptual ideas of those themes. That reaction really suits the definition of intellectuals. In this research, the writer tries to find some signs of Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals at that time by tracing the history. Those signs are in the fonn of theories which generally produced and/or discussed by Russian Marxist intellectuals at that time as well as theories which generally influenced those intellectuals' way of thinking and/or acting. Dealing with theories, the writer thinks it is important to list works of Marx (and Engels as his collaborator) which had been published in Russia until the early of 1890's. The writer lists two giant works of Marx (and Engels as his collaborator) which had been published in Russia until the early 1890's. They are Capital I (1872) and The Communist 52

(65) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Manifesto (1882). Not to forget that Plekhanov himself also had published some books about Marxism until the early of 1890's. In examining Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's, the writer of this research examines how those Marxism theories appear in Three Years through its characters. 2. The Social Classes In this part, the writer tries to figure out how Chekhov characterizes those intellectuals in terms of their social classes. Of course, Murphy's theory is applied in order to know their characterization in terms of social classes. It is important to state that the writer separates the intellectuals into two different social classes. Those social classes are the capitalist and the non-capitalist, specifically the middle class. The differences between those social classes are based on their means of production. Capitalist refers to class that has the means of the production (the capital) and employers of wage labour so this class is rich. On the other hand, middle class refers to the class between the capitalist and the proletariat (the class of modem wage-labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour-power to the capitalist in order to live). In the growth of capitalism (Marx states that middle class is a phenomenon of the development of the capitalism), middle class refers to the professionals, civil servants, and white collar workers. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle class is the possession of significant human capital, which IS working based on their proficiency (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/class.php). 53 and intelligence

(66) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI The Capitalist a. Alexei Fyodorovich as known as Laptev Chekhov introduces Laptev as a son of a wealthy merchant. His father was the owner of a wholesale drapery business as well as he was the member of that firm. Part of Three Years that describes Laptev as a rich person and the member of his father's firm can be seen from this quotation: "She knew Laptev only slightly. .. He was a rich man, member of the well-known Moscow finn of Fyodor Laptev and Sons." (Chekhov, 1958: 27) 'She' in the quotation refers to Yulia Sergeyevna. Using Murphy's theory, that quotation belongs to character as seen by another. The quotation is Laptev as seen by Yulia. Laptev himself also understood that he's member of the capitalist class as can be seen from his speech "Fyodor and I are rich, our father is a capitalist, a millionaire, so people must fight us!" (Chekhov, 1958: 85) There are some other parts of Three Years that show Laptev as a rich person. The part shows that Laptev's family has lots of capital and employers of wage labour are two of them. That part will be quoted and explained below. The Laptevs in Moscow were in the wholesale drapery business, dealing in braid, tape, trimming crochet cotton, buttons, and similar merchandise. Their sales amounted to two million rubles a year, what the net profit was nobody knew except the old man. His sons and the salesmen estimated it at some three hundred thousand (Chekhov, 1958: 43). According to Murphy's theory, the quotation belongs to direct comment. By reading that quotation, one can understand it is true that the Laptevs was the owner of a wholesale drapery business as the writer stated before. The quotation also informs the profit of the Laptevs' business. Two million rubles a year was 54

(67) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI very much money at that time (19th century). The quotation shows how much capital the Laptevs had (both money and the means of production). Moreover, there is a phrase 'the salesmen' in that quotation. The presence of that phrase shows that Laptev's family had employers of wage labour. Considering all the things above, the writer thinks it IS appropriate to classify Laptev as a capitalist. In summary, his characteristic in Three Years supports the classification. He had the capital (means of production and money) and employers of wage labour. Those things brought his wealth. b. Yulia Sergeyevna Yulia Sergeyevna is a unique character in terms of social classes. The reason is in her social class' change. In the beginning of Three Years, Chekhov describes her as member of middle class family. Her father was a doctor, a professional. She went to the exclusive school in Moscow for years. It was her father who fulfilled her daily needs for 21 years before Laptev married her. Here is part of Three Years that supports the idea about Yulia Sergeyevna as a middle class woman. She was still treated as an adolescent, she had no money of her own, and often while out walking she would discover to her dismay that she had not a kopek with her. Her father face her small sums for clothes and books, not more than a hundred rubles a year... Moreover he bought house through the mutual credit society and let them to tenants who did not pay their rent regularly (Chekhov, 1958: 39-40). According to Murphy's theory, the quotation belongs to the direct comment. From the quotations, the writer learns something. First, that Yulia had no money of her own which means that she's unemployment. However, her father was able in giving her money though not in a big amount. Second, the writer learns about how 55

(68) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Yulia's father got the house. He did not use cash but credit to buy the house. The quotation, according to the writer, supports the idea about Yulia came from noncapitalist family, specifically she came from the middle class family. She had no job but still got money, though not much, from her father who is a doctor, a professional. Moreover, her father got their house by using mutual credit society. Using mutual credit is very common for the middle class people. It is because to buy expensive thing, such as house, by using cash money is quite hard for them. They still have other needs to be fulfilled to. That is why they choose to buy things by using credit. However, it is possible for them to buy it by using credit since they have fixed income. As an example, Yulia's father had fixed income from his profession as a doctor so he can pay the credit monthly. After her marriage with Laptev, the writer considers Yulia as a capitalist since all of Laptev's wealth became hers too. Part of Three Years which shows Yulia 's change of social class from the middle class into capitalist will be quoted below. Yulia sat beside the old man and he told her that it was not good to live separately, that they all ought to live together in one house, for partition and discord always led to ruin. "I made money, and my children spend it," he said. "Now you must live here in this house and help me. I am old. It is time for me to rest." (Chekhov, 1958: 55) The quotation belongs to the direct comment according to Murphy's theory. That conversation happened between Yulia and Laptev's father. It is clear that Laptev's father took Yulia as his own daughter since he said that Yulia must live together with him in his house. The writer interprets that part as an implicit way of saying 'this house is yours'. As the house might be Yulia's, other wealth of the Laptevs 56

(69) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI might be hers too. Other parts of Three Years that support the idea about the change ofYulia's social class will be quoted and explained below. " ... During the day she is afraid to remain alone with me even for five minutes and so she seeks amusement, society. With me she feels frightened and ashamed." "But not ashamed to take your money?" "That's stupid, Polina!" Laptev cried. "She takes money from me because it is all the same to her whether she has money or not..." (Chekhov, 1958: 64) Coming out of the church she only hoped the beggars would not ask her for alms -it will be nuisance to have stop and search in her pockets, besides she did not carry copper coins in her pockets now, only rubles (Chekhov, 1958: 96). Before explaining the quotations, let the writer classifies them based on Murphy's theory. The first quotation belongs to conversation of others while the second quotation belongs to direct comment. The first quotation is part of Polina and Laptev's conversation. From their conversation, writer learns it is true that Yulia takes money from Laptev and Laptev has no problems with that condition. Meanwhile, the second quotation shows how different Yulia 's finance condition before and after marriage with Laptev. Take a look on the line "besides she did not carry copper coin in her pocket now, only mbles" and compare it with the line in quotation before "often while out walking she would discover to her dismay that she had not a kopek with her" (Chekhov, 1958: 39). The line from page 39 represents Yulia's finance before marriage with Laptev. The line cleariy shows that sometimes while went out she did not bring even a kopek with her. In contrary, after marriage she brought mbles in her pocket. It is important to note that mbles and kopek is Russian currency. One ruble is divided into 100 kopeks (http://www.xe.com/currency/mb-russian-ruble?r= 1). 57

(70) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI As additional information, the writer thinks it is important to remember that later in story Laptev became the owner of his family business. Since Yulia was Laptev's legal wife until the end of the story and the quotation above showed that Laptev's wealth was Yulia's too, the writer thinks it is appropriate to classify Yulia as capitalist as Laptev. The Non-Capitalist The non-capitalist here specifically refers to the middle class. a. Ivan Gavrilych Yartsev The writer of this research classifies Yartsev as the non-capitalist class. It is because of his job that based on his skill and intelligence. According to the theory of class, Yartsev can be classified as a middle class. Graduated from the philological department, he had afterward taken up natural science and had a degree in chemistry. He also studied sociology and Russian history by his own. As stated before, using his skill and intelligence, he gathered money from works that deal with all of the subjects mentioned above. That can be seen from the quotation below which belongs to direct comment according to Murphy's theory. He did not hope for a Chair in chemistry and did not even work in laboratory but taught physics and natural history in a trade school and two women's grammar schools ... He contributed brief items to the newspapers and magazines which he signed with initial Y (Chekhov, 1958: 79-80). Other parts of Three Years that will support the idea that Yartsev was a middle class person will be quoted and explained below. "No, my friends," he declared, tossing is head. "Say what you will, but I cannot understand why you are opposed to love! If I were not busy fifteen hours a day I should most certainly fall in love.'' (Chekhov, 1958: 104) "Where are you going now?" he asked when he returned and gave her the five receipts. "To Yartsev's." "I shall go with you." "He is working. You 58

(71) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI will only disturb him." "No, I won't, i promise you!" he said, looking at her pleadingly. (Chekhov, 1958: 112) According to Murphy's theory, the first quotation belongs to the speech (Yartsev's speech) while the second one belongs to the conversation of others (in this case is conversation between Polina and Laptev). From the first quotation, the writer learns that in order to maintain his life, Yartsev worked hard. The second quotation supports that idea. His works, like the former quotation mentioned, had something to do with his skill and intelligence. As additional argumentations in classifying Yartsev as a middle class, the writer wants to underline the fact that Yartsev went to university. That means that he did not come from the lower class since he's able to pay the tuition fee which the poor one cannot pay (Chekhov, 1958: Ill). Moreover, he also had a flat and a cook to prepare his food as seen from this quotation that belongs to the direct comment. They entered Yartsev's flat through the back door which led into the kitchen where they were met by which they were met by the cook, a neat little old woman with grey curls, who was much embarrassed (Chekhov, 1958: 113). Lower class in Russia at that time could not have a flat. At that time, doss house was very popular in Russia as the place for the poor (Chekhov, 1958: 11 0). Doss house is "a cheap place to stay for people who have no home." (Hornby, 2005: 456). So, having a flat means that Yartsev above the lower class. However, Yartsev still below the upper class (Laptev as the example) since he didn't have his own house. Moreover, Yartsev could pay a cook. The lower class could not pay a cook. However, the presence of his cook had nothing to with Yartsev's job. 59

(72) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI The cook, let say, could not help Yartsev to do his articles for newspaper or magazines. That was different from the presence of Laptev's salesmen and workers in the warehouse. The presence of Laptev's salesmen and workers had something to do with Laptev's job. Their presence brought the profit to Laptev's business. Considering all the things above, it is clearly seen that Yartsev situated between the poor and the rich, between the working class and the capitalist. So, it is appropriate to classify him as a middle class person. b. Kostya Kochevoi One more character that belongs to the middle class is Kostya Kochevoi. According to Murphy's theory, Chekhov's way of describing Kostya can be classified as the past life. Kostya was an orphan boy who grown up in Laptev's family (Laptev and his sister took care of him). He was sent to the schools by Laptev and his sister. He went to the universities and later became a lawyer. By reading Three Years, the writer learns that though Kostya was grown up in Laptev's family, he was not legally adopted by the family. It was Laptev and his sister who spend money (that they got from their father's business which later became Laptev's business) on Kostya because of their generosity. So, Kostya had nothing to do with the Laptevs' wealth legally. Moreover, he did not work in the family business and worked as a lawyer according to his educational background as can be seen from the quotation below. The boy, thank heavens, studied hard and did quite well. Now he is a lawyer in Moscow, a friend of Aloysha 's, and as well-educated as he. It is a good thing we took the poor boy in and gave him a home (Chekhov, 1958: 68). That quotation belongs to character as seen by another, in this case Kostya as seen 60

(73) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI by Nina. That is part of Nina's speech to his daughter. 'Boy' in her speech refers to Kostya. Since Nina said that Kostya was as well educated as Laptev and he worked as a lawyer, the writer argues that Kostya went to the university and studied law. So, Kostya worked as a lawyer is the result of his education. Lawyer, of course, can be classified as professional. Therefore, Kostya suits the definition of the middle class because he worked based on his proficiency and intelligence. Part of Three Years that shows Kostya as a non-capitalist person can be found on page 85. Kostya argued that the working class will fight upon their rights and fight against the capitalist. As his respond to Kostya 's argument, Laptev stated that people should fight him and his family (he mentioned Fyodor and his father). The writer considers that part as character as seen by another, specifically Kostya as seen by Laptev. Laptev's speech "Fyodor and I are rich, our father is a capitalist, a millionaire, hence people must fight us!" (Chekhov, 1958: 85) to Kostya, according to the writer, shows that Laptev saw Kostya as a person from different social class with him. Although Laptev helps Kostya in terms of finance along the story and even their relationship was a lot like family, Laptev's sight shows that Kostya cannot be classified as a capitalist. Considering those characters' social classes, the writer of this research needs to quote Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto. In the first chapter of Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels write "the history of hitherto society is the history of class struggles" (1969: 15). Moreover, they write that oppressor and oppressed (which come from different social classes) stood in constant opposition to one another (1969: 15). In Three Years the awareness of the social classes and 61

(74) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI the fact that people come from different social classes will stood in constant opposition to one another is presented by Laptev. His speech "Fyodor and I are rich, our father is a capitalist, a millionaire, hence people must fight us!" Laptev said, rubbing his forehead. "Fight me -I cannot understand it!" (Chekhov, 1958: 85) shows his awareness about the existence of the social classes, specifically about the division between the capitalist and non-capitalist (because he mentioned that his father is a capitalist). Moreover, he also mentioned about people must fight them (him and his family) because they are capitalist. That part of speech shows his understanding on the capitalist (as the representative of the oppressor) and the non-capitalist (as the representative of the oppressed) is in constant opposition to one another. Therefore, he thinks that people (the non-capitalist) wants to fight them (the capitalist). Laptev's thought on the opposition is related to Marx and Engels' thought as written in Communist Manifesto below. All the classes ... stand face to face with bourgeoisie today... The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class (I 969: 20). The term bourgeoisie used by Marx and Engels above is the synonym for the capitalist in term of marxist theory. The information about bourgeoisie as the synonym for the capitalist also exists in free dictionary. It says that bourgeoisie is a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bourgeois). So, from the quotation above we know it is true that Laptev 's thought is related to the idea of the social classes and its struggle as elaborated by Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto. 62

(75) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Another part of Three Years that represents the idea of social classes and its struggle can be seen from the quotation below. "Will you kindly tell me when this is going to stop?" she said without giving him her hand and looking at him almost with hostility... "You come here every day. Yartsev is not a merchant, he is a scientist and every minute of his life is precious. You ought to realize that and have a little more tact" (Chekhov, 1958: 116) The quotation is Polina's speech on Laptev and Yartsev (using Murphy's theory can be categorized as characters as seen by others). Polina's speech shows that both Laptev and Yartsev came from different social classes. The cynicism tone in her "will you kindly tell me when this is going to stop?" according to the writer of this research represents what Marx and Engels named as "constant opposition" between the people from different social classes. According to the writer, if Polina did not think about the opposition of the capitalist and the non-capitalist, her cynicism won't exist. Moreover, Polina also emphasized that every minute of Yartsev's life is precious because he is not a merchant. Polina wanted Laptev to realize that. The writer of this research sees Polina 's speech as the way of saying that Yartsev needed much time to collect money or than Laptev who was born as a child of a wealthy merchant. Yartsev was not a capitalist like Laptev. According to the writer of this research, the accentuation makes the idea of the constant opposition and the struggle between social classes (in this context Laptev is the representation of the capitalist while Yartsev is the representation of the noncapitalist) stronger. The way Chekhov represents Three Years' characters (as round and flat characters also as major and minor characters), according to the writer of this 63

(76) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI research, is related to the characters' social classes. The first one is the analysis on the relation between round and flat characters. The characteristics of round characters are their changes and their internal conflict. In Three Years, the round characters are those who belong to the capitalist class. They are Alexei Fyodorovich as known as Laptev and Yulia Sergeyevna. According to the writer cf this research, Chekhov characterizes Laptev and Yulia as round characters with a special intention. In 1890's, the time when Marxism were blooming in Russia, especially among the intellectuals, the Marxist (tenn for those who support Marxism) believed that the industrial capitalistic system can be changed with a more humane system named communism. In the writer of this research's opinion, by characterizing the capitalists (Laptev and Yulia) as the round characters who changed along the story, Chekhov has the same idea of the Marxist in Russia at that time. Chekhov, just like the Marxists in Russia, believes that the industrial capitalistic system can be changed as well as Laptev and Yulia changed by the circumstances along the story. Moreover, another characteristic of round characters is has an internal problem in them. Since the round characters are Laptev and Yulia (the capitalists), the write of this research thinks that Chekhov wants to represent the internal problem of capitalistic system through those characters. The internal problem of the capitalistic system is declared by Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto. What they mean as the internal problem of the capitalistic system is the inability to control its power (1969: 27). The internal problem of the capitalistic system will present economic downturn. The downturn, according to Marx and Engels, is 64

(77) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI really potential in making people against the capitalistic system. Meanwhile, according to the writer of this research, Yartsev and Kostya as the flat characters also related to their social classes. Both Yartsev and Kostya belong to the non-capitalists. Since the characteristics of flat characters are having no change along the story and having no internal conflict, Chekhov tries to depict the non-capitalistic system through them. According to the writer of the research, Chekhov wants to state that the non-capitalistic system is a stable system for living. Moreover, unlike the capitalistic system, it has no internal conflict in itself. By determining Chekhov's way of characterizing and the context of Marxism in Russian intellectuals at that time, the writer of this research thinks that Chekhov is standing in the same position with the Marxist. The way Chek.'Jov represents this four characters as flat and round characters is related to the capitalist and noncapitalist system of working. According to the writer of this research, it is because flat and round characters represents how those characters behave. The second one is the analysis on the relation between major and minor characters and the social classes. The major character in Three Years is Laptev. Laptev belongs to the capitalist. According to the writer of this research, Chekhov's choice for characterizing Laptev as the major character came with specific reason. In the writer's opinion, the reason is the fact that at that time the modern capitalist and industrial economy was brought to Russia. The existence of modern capitalist and industrial economy had a great effect to the society. Characterizing Laptev (the capitalist) as the major character might be Chekhov's way of representing the capitalist and its great effect to Russian society at that 65

(78) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI time. Meanwhile, other characters (Yartsev, Kostya, and Yulia) were characterized as minor characters. Yartsev and Kostya belong to the non-capitalist class. According to the writer of this research, their characterization as the minor characters represents the fact that the non-capitalist class in Russia was having little power in the society. Meanwhile, Yulia, who was changing in term of social class (from the non-capitalist to the capitalist), belongs to the minor character to represent the fact that those who got chance to become capitalist also have a little power in the society (1957: 54). In other words, the major and minor type of the characters represents difference power of the capitalist and the non-capitalist. According to the writer of this research, it is because the major and minor type of the character is related to the power of the character in attracting reader's attention. 3. The Exploitation In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels mention about the proletariat. They explain it as "the class of the wholly property less, who are obliged to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie order to get, in exchange, the means of the subsistence for their suppmi" (1969: 43). They also write that the industrial revolution caused the existence of capitalist and the proletariat. The industrial revolution brought very expensive machines. Only the capitalist could buy the machines. Those machines also altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers. As the result, the capitalist had everything in their hands and nothing 66

(79) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI remained to the workers. This system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth and book-printing, pottery, and the metal industry (1969: 43). Using Marx and Engels' writing as the foundation, it can be said that the Laptevs factory belongs to the capitalist and their workers can be classified as the proletariat. Part of Three Years that shows the Laptevs' factory followed the system as explained by Marx and Engels will be quoted and explained below. The Laptevs in Moscow were in the wholesale drapery business, dealing in braid, tape, trimming crochet cotton, buttons, and similar merchandise. Their sales amounted to two million mbles a year, what the net profit was nobody knew except the old man (Chekhov, 1958: 43). Drapery business itself is the same with cloth. As Marx and Engels state, the system of '·the capitalist had everything in their hand and nothing remained to the workers" spread quickly to other branches of workers, including cloth. So, since the Laptevs' factory was a drapery business, it is appropriate to say that the same system also applied in their factory. It is right to say that in the Laptevs' factory, the workers also got nothing. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels state that the modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great tactory of the industrial capitalist. The Laptevs' factory in Three Years belongs to the industrial capitalist. Moreover, still in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels tell about the situation in the industrial capitalist's factory. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself (1969: 18). 67

(80) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI The same situation is also described in Three Years through Laptev. Using direct comment, Chekhov describes that the workers in the Laptevs' factory were flattering Laptev merely because they were afraid of him (Chekhov, 1958: 49). Moreover, through Laptev, we can also know that his father paid the favourite clerk no more than three thousand a year but he let it be thought that he paid them seven, nothing was expressly forbidden and hence nobody knew what exactly allowed (such as the workers did not marry for fear of displeasing their master and losing their job), the workers lived on the ground floor and in the wing of the master's (Laptev's father) house and shared a room for three or four of them, and if any their happened to come in while they were eating they all stood up (Chekhov, 1958: 49-50). In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels name that way of treating the workers as the exploitation to the workers. Other treats that Laptev's father did to the workers (as informed by Laptev) were permitting the workers to have friend and visiting their friend but the gates were locked at nine o'clock, and every moming the master summoned them one by one then ordered them to breathe in his face in order to make sure that none of them had been drinking (Chekhov, 1958: 49). In short, by considering all those treats, the writer of this research thinks that Laptev's father ti·ied to discipline his workers. The disciplinary suits what Marx and Engels share in their Capital Volume I as quoted below. Since handicraft skill is the foundation of manufacture and since the mechanism of manufacture as a whole possesses no framework, apart from the labourers themselves, capital is constantly compelled to wrestle with the insubordination of the workmen. Hence throughout the whole manufacturing period there runs the complaint of want of discipline among the workmen (1887: 278). 68

(81) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI From the quotation below, it can be seen that there is a reason behind the disciplinary done by the capitalist to the workers. The workers (and their handicraft skill) are the foundation of the manufacture. The disciplinary is needed to maintain their handicraft skill as well as to maintain the profit for the factory. This kind of disciplinary, according to both Marx and Engels, belongs to the exploitation. It is because the purpose of the disciplinary is for the capitalist's profit. Moreover, in term of exploitation, Marx and Engels also mention about the child labours. Below is the part of Capital I about the child labours. To work at a machine, the workman should be taught from childhood, in order that he may learn to adapt his own movements to the uniform and unceasing motion of an automaton. When the machinery, as a whole, forms a system of manifold machines, working simultaneously and in concert, the co-operation based upon it, requires the distribution of various groups ofworkmen among the different kinds ofmachines (1RR7: 2Rl). The purpose of having child labours in the factory can be seen from the quotation above. The purpose is making the child learn to adapt with the system of machinery in the factory. In Three Years, the existence of child labours in the Laptevs' factory can be seen from this quotation: "He knew that boys were still flogged and knocked about here and that when these boys grew up they in tum would maltreat others" (Chekhov, 1958: 46). Another part of Three Years that also informs about the child labours is Laptev's speech to his brother "What you need for your sort of business are dumb, frightened clerks and that's the sort you train by compelling them from the early childhood to bow to you for a crust of bread, and from childhood you teach them to regard you as their benefactor" (Chekhov, 1958: 124). Through Laptev's thought and speech above, we know that the reason 69

(82) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI of having the boys (child labours) in his family's factory is the same with the reason argued by Marx and Engels in Capital I. On the exploitation issue, Marx and Engels think that it is absurd to think that the capitalist will stop the exploitation. Their thought is implicitly stated in their statement "to expect in a well-managed factory any important result from increased attention of the workmen was an absurdity" (1887: 276). In Three Years, it is Laptev who represents the situation that Marx and Engels mention in their Capital I. Laptev tried to make his workers to not consider him as their benefactor (Chekhov, 1958: 13 7). It is important to note that before taking the position as the owner of the factory, Laptev used to reject the factory. The exploitation in the factory was one of his reasons of rejection (Chekhov, 1958: 124). According to the writer of this research, Laptev's attempts were the result of his later rejection towards the exploitation in his family business. However, once he became the owner of the business, he should take the business together with the exploitation in it. As stated by Marx and Engels, it is absurd to expect that the industrial capitalist will stop the exploitation. Laptev, as the representative of the industrial capitalist, could not stop the exploitation at all. He just tried to make everything better than in his father's time. As their response to the exploitation in the industrial capitalist world, Marx and Engels argue a concept named communism. Communism itself is a classless society in which everyone will be treated equally. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels state that the very first attempt of creating the classless society is "to take the control of industry and of all branches of 70

(83) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI production of the hands of mutually competing individuals" (1969: 47). According to Marx and Engels, it is the proletariats that should take the control of the industry by fighting against the capitalist. In order to fight against the capitalist, the proletariats need to unite themselves first. Both Marx and Engels declared the idea of worker union in their "Working men of all countries, Unite!" (1969: 34). This way of thinking is revealed through Three Years' character, specifically through Kostya Kochevoi's speech as quoted below. "It will be a long time before that comes to pass," said Kostya with a little laugh. "A long, long time before Rothschild will consider his vaults of gold absurd, and in the meantime the poor worker has to bend his back and starve. No, sir, that won't do. We must not wait, we must fight. If a cat eats from the same plate as a mouse do you think that means she has seen the error of her ways? Nothing of the kind. She has been forced to do it." (Chekhov, 1958: 85) That is Kostya's response to Yartsev's speech about education will bring the equality for all human beings. Kostya's speech shows his belief about equality would come as the result of fighting against inequality. According to him, equality won't come as a present from the educational process. Kostya used cat and mouse as an analogy of the workers and the master, of the proletariats and the capitalist. By saying the cat eats from the same plate as the mouse is the result of the force, according to the writer of this research, Kostya wanted to say that the workers can eat from the same plate from the master also because of the force, because of their fight. His belief is related to what Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto. 71

(84) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 4. TheArt In Marxism and Art, Maynard Solomon wrote "Plekhanov's Art and Social Life heavily influenced an entire generation of Russian Marxists." (1979: 121 ). In his Art and Social Life, Plekhanov tells that art arises from life and presents itself as an object for analysis and understanding. This way of seeing art is a utilitarian approach on seeing art. The quotation below might bring better understanding on Plekhanov's way of seeing art. Art for art's sake -such as an idea is as strange now-a-days as "wealth for wealth's sake," "science for science's sake," and so on. All human activism should serve a useful purpose for man, if they are not to be empty, frivolous occupations. Wealth exists so that man may use it, science so that she may be man's guide, and art also must serve some essential purpose and not be an idle amusement (Solomon, 1979: 128). The quotation above is a part of Plekhanov's Art and Social L(fe as quoted in Solomon's Marxism and Art. Art for the art's sake is a contrary concept for the utilitarian view of art. The utilitarian view of art believes that all human activism, including art, should serve a useful purpose for man. For Plekhanov himself, the main purpose of art is to "promote the development of human consciousnesses and the improvement of the social order" (Solomon, 1979: 128). Moreover, Plekhanov states that the utilitarian view of art is participating in social struggles, arising and becoming stronger wherever a mutual sympathy exists between the individuals more or less actively interested in artistic creation and some considerable part of the society. The idea of art that shared by Plekhanov can be seen in Three Years through the characters. Those characters are Kostya Kochevoi and Yulia Sergeyevna. Since Kostya Kochevoi and Yulia Sergeyevna are characterized as 72

(85) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI intellectuals, the fact that Plekhanov's idea of art in their characteristic is the representation of Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals. The explanation on how Plekhanov's idea of art is revealed through them will be shared in the later paragraphs. Kostya Kochevoi was described as an intellectual that perceived art should have something to do with human life, specifically in making a better condition of human life. The description can be seen from the quotation below. A work of art is of value only if it treats of some serious social problem," Kostya was saying, glancing sternly at Yartsev. "A work of art which is a protest against serfdom or which expresses its author's indignation at the corruptness of high society is important and valuable. But novels and tales that are full of ohs and ahs, stories about her falling in love with him, and him falling out of love with her -such books, I tell you, are utterly worthless and may they be damned (Chekhov, 1958: 81 ). As mentioned in the previous sub-chapter, the quotation belongs to the speech according to Murphy's theory. What can be learnt from the quotation is Kostya's opinion that art should treat serious social problem, such as corruption. According to Kostya, art can treat serious social problem by protesting those problem. This way of perceiving art is in line with Plekhanov's idea about the main purpose of art: for the improvement of social order. To improve social order, serious social problem must be vanished. Protesting the existence of the serious social problem is one way to make the problem vanishes. Another Plekhanov's utilitarian view of art that can also be seen in Three Years through its character is his perception that art should promote the development of human consciousnesses. The perception was also shared by Kostya in Three Year as can be seen from the quotation below. 73

(86) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI We aren't talking about giants like Shakespeare or Goethe, we are talking about the hundreds of talented and mediocre writers who would do much more good if they were to leave love alone and devote themselves to bringing knowledge and humane ideas to the masses (Chekhov, 1958: 82). The quotation above belongs to the speech according to Murphy's theory. The quotation shows Kostya's thought about any literary works (because he mentioned the name of Shakespeare and Goethe who are the men of letters) must devote themselves to bring knowledge and humane ideas to the people. Literary works belong to art. So, in order words, Kostya said that art must devote itself to bring knowledge and humane ideas to the people. Bringing knowledge and human ideas to the people, according to the writer of this research, is one way of promoting the development of human consciousness as Plekhanov's perception. Kostya's utilitarian view of art can also be seen from his manner. Kostya created artworks, specifically literary works, which deals with social problems. Writing novels about social problems was Kostya's action in order to bring knowledge and humane ideas to the people. Moreover, Three Years also shows that Kostya learnt photography as can be seen from the quotation "Then come Kostya with his camera. He had taken up photography latterly and took pictures of everybody in the house several times a day" (Chekhov, 1958: 121 ). According to Murphy's theory, this characteristic belongs to manner. As we know, photography belongs to art. The writer of this research thinks that Kostya's choice for taking photography came with specific reason. Since Kostya thought that art should come together with problem in daily life, it was good for him to take photography. It is because photography enabled him to capture reality like it really is. For example, if he wants to talk about poverty, he can take pictures, by using his 74

(87) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI camera, of the poor people (and those pictures will really represent the object). Kostya's attitude suits Plekhanov's idea on the importance of art "the main importance of art lay precisely in its reproduction of life and its passing of judgement on the phenomena of life" (Solomon, 1979: 129). Yulia Sergeyevna is another character that represents Plekhanov's idea of art. Just like Kostya, Yulia was described as the supporter of utilitarian view of art. She argued art should deal with people's life. In her speech that will be quoted later, Yulia also refetTed to literary works as her example of art. Below is Yulia's speech that shows her perception on art. "I quite agree with you, Kostya," said Yulia Sergeyevna. "One writer describes a lovers' tryst, another writes about infidelity, a third tells of lovers reunited. Is there nothing else to write about? There are so many sick, unhappy, poverty-stricken people who must be revolted when they read such things" (Chekhov, 1958: 82) Based on the quotation above, the writer considers that Yulia wanted to say that art, specifically literary works, should talk about other things in life besides love. The existence of "sick, unhappy, and poverty-stricken people" in her speech, according to the writer of this research, is an implicit way of saying that the artists should start to think about those people. Their artworks should treat the problem of those people. Yulia was also described as a person who thinks that art should be as real as reality as can be seen from this quotation: "She believed the sole purpose of art was to make the people and objects on the paintings look real" (Chekhov, 1958: 98). Yulia's perception on the purpose of art suits Plekhanov's perception that art should be a reproduction of life (Solomon, 1979: 129). In reproducing life, it 75

(88) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI means that art should be as realistic as the reality of life that it wants to reproduce. Unlike Kostya and Yulia who represent Plekhanov's idea on art as well as represent marxism amongst Russian intellectual, two others characters, Laptev and Yarstev do not represent the same thing. Both Laptev and Yartsev are the representation of the contrary idea of the utilitarian art: the art for the art's sake. Laptev as a person who agree with 'the art for the art's sake' idea can be seen from his reaction towards Yulia's opinion on art: "Laptev disliked to hear his wife" (Chekhov, 1958: 82). Laptev disliked Yulia's opinion that art should have something to do with social problem. According to him, art has no obligation to do something for solving social problem like what Yulia thinks about art. Art should be for itself and functioned as a pleasure for people (Chekhov, 1958: 9798). Meanwhile, Yartsev also represents the idea of art for the art's sake. According to him, it is not true to say that art should solve social problems because there are many technical literatures (such as literature on law, politics, science, etc) which can be used to solve those problems (Chekhov, 1958: 82). He believed that art, by using literature as the examples, has its right to express everything for its sake or for the artist's sake. Art should not be limited as something that expresses protest on the situation of the social life (Chekhov, 1958: 82). Laptev and Yartsev's objections on the utilitarian view of art also represent the situation at that time. At that time, the polemic between those who pro the utilitarian view of art and those who con the utilitarian view of art was blooming. 76

(89) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Having analysed Anton Chekhov's Three Years, it finally can be concluded that the novella depicts Marxism amongst Russian intellectual in the early 1890's. As presented in the previous chapter, Marxism amongst Russian intellectual in the early 1890's was presented by Three Years' characters. Chekhov describes his characters (Laptev, Yulia, Kostya, and Yartsev) as intellectuals. So, it is appropriate to see them as the representative of the Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's (the time when Chekhov wrote Three Years). Chekhov uses round and t1at characters also major and minor characters as ways of representing Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's. The round characters represent the capitalistic system in Russia at that time as well as the flat characters represent the contrary system. Meanwhile, the major character represents the power of capitalist in Russian society at that time as well as the minor characters represents the non-capitalist's power. Moreover, the writer of this research sees the idea of Marxism is presented in Three Years in terms of social classes, exploitation, and art. Each character, as presented in the previous chapter, has their own position in terms of social classes, exploitation, and art. In terms of social classes, they are divided into the capitalists and the non-capitalists. In terms of exploitation, the characters' opinion on the exploitation is explained. Meanwhile, in terms of art, they are divided into those who pro the utilitarian art and those who pro the concept of art for the art's sake. The capitalists are Laptev and Yulia, the non-capitalist are Kostya and Yartsev. 77

(90) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Those who pro the utilitarian view of art are Yulia and Kostya, those who against are Yartsev and Laptev. In linking Three Years and Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's, the writer of this research traces the history of Marxism in Russia. The important findings that the writer of this research gets are the information that two giant books of Marx (and Engels as his collaborator) which are Communist Manifesto and Capital I had been published in Russia until the early of 1890's. Moreover, the writer also finds one important name in the scene of Russian Marxist: Georgi Plekhanov. Plekhanov also wrote some pieces, especially until the early of 1890's. Considering that all Three Years' characters are intellectuals, the writer compiles theories that related to the social classes, the exploitation, and the art in Communist Manifesto, Capital I, and any of Plekhanov's works which had been published until the early of 1890's. As the result of compiling, the writer finds out that Three Years' characters represent the same idea of those theories. As an example, in terms of social classes, Laptev had the awareness of the social classes and its struggle as elaborated in the Communist Manifesto. On another hand, in tenns of exploitation, Laptev represents the industrial capitalist as explained by Marx and Engels in their Capital I The exploitation in Laptev's factory suits the exploitation that mentioned by Marx and Engels in their Capital I. Meanwhile, the idea of rejecting the exploitation and the idea of shifting the capitalistic system with the communist one are represented by Kostya. Kostya 's opinion that the workers must fight the capitalist in order to be equal with them suits the idea shared by Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto. 78

(91) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Moreover, in terms of art, the idea of utilitarian art that elaborated by Plekhanov in any of his books is represented by Yulia and Kostya. Both of them agreed that art should have something to do with human life, for example art should protest the corruption, the inequality, and so on. This way of perceiving art suits Plekhanov's idea of art. On the contrary, Yartsev and Laptev believe that art exists for the sake of itself. In the previous chapter, their argumentations (Yulia and Kostya 's versus Yartsev and Laptev's) on how art should be is explained. Those argumentations also represent the situation at that time where people with utilitarian view of art and people with the contrary idea of that view liked to argue one another. By seeing all the analysis, it can be concluded that Marxist theories produced and/or discussed by Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's are represented by Three Years ' characters. They are represented by the characters since theories, for the intellectuals, might influence themselves, both in the way of thinking and acting. So, to sum up, the writer of this research declares that Three Years' depicts Marxism amongst Russian intellectuals in the early 1890's through the characters. 79

(92) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms 7th Edition. Boston: Heinle&Thomson Learning, 2008. Bottomore, Tom. A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Chekhov, Anton. The Steppe and Other Stories. London: Eveyman's Library, 1991. Chekhov, Anton. Three Years. Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1958. Forster, E.M. The Aspect of the Novel. London: Penguin Classics, 2002. Henkle, Roger B. Reading the Novels: An Introduction to the Techniques of interpreting Fiction. New York: Harper & Row., 1977. Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English 7117 Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Kohn, Hans. Basic History of Modern Russia: Political, Cultural, and Social Trends. London: Van Nostrand, 1957. Langland, Elizabeth. Society in the Novel. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Lestari, Umi. Madness and Its Power Relation as seen through Plot in Chekhov 's "Ward No.6". Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2012. Lomban, Sherly. The Representation of the Russian Social Condition in the Nineteeth Century through the Characters in Anton Chekhov 's The Cherry Orchad. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2006. Marx, Karl and FrederichEngels. The Communist Manifesto. Moscow: Progress Pub! is hers, 1969. Marx, Karl and Frederich Engels. Capital Volume I. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1887. Marxists.org, Encyclopedia of Marxism, Glossary of Terms, Stalinism. accessed on September 201h, 2013. xiii

(93) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI Moorehead, Allan. The Russian Revolution. New York: Harper&Row, 1958. Murphy, M.J. Understanding Unseen: An Introduction to English Poetry & English Novels for Overseas Students. London: George Allen & Unwind Ltd., 1972. New World Encyclopedia, Marxism Leninism accessed September 20th' 2013. on Robottom, John. Modern Russia. New Jersey: Pretince Hall, 1969. Rosefielde, Steven. Russia in the 21 Century: The Prodigal Superpower. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Russia Beyond the Headlines Newspaper. accessed on October 18th, 2013. Solomon, Maynard. Marxism and Art. Michigan: Wayne State University, 1979. The World's Favorite Currency Site, Russian Ruble, accessed on September 20th, 2013. Wilczynski, Josef. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Yermilov, Vladimir. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov: 1860-1904. Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1957. Whyman, Rose. Anton Chekhov. London: Routledge, 2011. Wilde, Robert. European History, Joan of Arc. accessed on September 20th, 2013. Woolf, Virginia. The Common Reader. Michigan: Harvest book, 1953. xiv

(94) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI APPENDIX Appendix 1: Summary of the Anton Chekhov Three Years The story was begun by the narration told about Alexei Fyodorovich a.k.a Laptev. Laptev was introduced as a university graduate and a son of wealthy merchant in Moscow. In the beginning of the story, Laptev was in the provincial town to take care of his sister. There, he met Yulia Sergeyevna and fell in love with her. Yulia was introduced as educated young woman who is the daughter of a doctor. Since he fell in love with her, Laptev proposed Yulia. Though at first Yulia rejected Laptev's proposal, later she accepted it. After their marriage, both of them moved to Moscow. In Moscow, bolh Laplev and Yulia found a pleasant companion from Laptev's friends: Ivan Gavrilych Yartsev and Kostya Kochevoi. Yartsev was introduced as Laptev's best friend in the university. Unlike Laptev became the owner his father's warehouse, Yartsev worked as a scientist. Meanwhile, Kostya Kochevoi was introduced as an orphan boy who was raised by Laptev and his sister. Kostya got proper education, even went to the university, because of Laptev and his sister's help. Later, Kostya became a lawyer in Moscow who also created artworks (novels and photographs). As friends, Laptev, Yulia, Yartsev, and Kostya liked to gather. When they gathered, they always talked about many subjects. Their different social classes, their xv

(95) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI opinions and their outlooks toward exploitation, also their thoughts and outlooks on art is some of the that they always talked about. Laptev, as a person who came from capitalist class, found himself disagreed with the exploitation occurred in his father's business (which later became his business). However, he could not do anything significant to against the exploitation. As an intellectual and at the same time as a rich person, Laptev was described as an art lover and artworks collector. As a person who liked art and collected artworks, Laptev disliked the idea of utilitarian art (art should have something to do with people's life) which was blooming in Russia at that time. Meanwhile, Yulia was at first introduced as a middle-class woman. However, after her marriage with Laptev, she became a person with the same social class as Laptev. It was because all of Laptev's wealth became hers too. Becoming the part of Laptev's wealth meant that she should deal with the warehouse. From her interaction with Laptevs' warehouse, her opinion and outlook was formed. She rejected the exploitation. As an intellectual, she could understand art. She thought that art should also deal with problems, like exploitation. Art should promote the idea of against the exploitation and other corruptness in life. Yartsev, as a scientist, was not come from capitalist class. He belonged to the middle class. As a well-educated person, Laptev rejected the idea of exploitation. He thought that all human beings should be treated equally. Moreover, just like Laptev and Yulia, Yartsev also enjoyed art. However, he, unlike Laptev, could not artworks. Yarstev's opinion and outlook on art was quite the same with Laptev's. He thought xvi

(96) PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI that art has no obligations to the problems m daily life. He thought that other sciences have the obligations. Kostya, though was raised by Laptev and his sister, came from different social class from Laptev. The reason is that Kostya was not legally adopted by Laptev's family so he had no legal right to their wealth. Kostya was introduced as a person who really rejected exploitation and other corruptness in life. He tried to express his rejection on those things through his artworks (novels and photographs). xvii

(97)

Dokumen baru

Tags

Dokumen yang terkait

Moral lessons revealed through the Alienated Characters in Mitch Albom`s the Time Keeper.
0
0
78
Arab Scholars in Russian Universities (the Nineteenth - Early Twentieth Century)
0
0
21
Feminism as seen through the character of Jessica Brennan in Lyn Andrews` When Daylight Comes - USD Repository
0
0
107
The values feminism as revealed through inge`s character in fremd`s the glass inferno - USD Repository
0
0
91
Characters as a means to convey the message concerning life lesson as seen in charles dickens` little dorrit - USD Repository
0
0
92
Radical feminism as seen through the female characters in Harumi Setoucht`s Beauty in Disarray - USD Repository
0
0
75
The ideas of liberal feminism as reflected through the characterization of Eliza in Bernard Shaw`s Pygmalion - USD Repository
0
0
77
Social criticisms as reflected through characters` life experiences in viramontes` under the feet of Jesus - USD Repository
0
0
80
Japanese cultural westernization in the 1920s as reflected through the main characters in Junichiro Tanizaki`s Naomi - USD Repository
0
0
86
Feminism ideas as reflected through the major character`s reaction toward patriarchal society in Escape by Carolyn Jessop - USD Repository
0
0
118
The ideas of existentialism as revealed through the main character in Paulo Coelho`s The Zahir - USD Repository
0
0
72
A portrait of American urban life in the late 19th century as seen through Dreiser`s Sister Carrie - USD Repository
0
1
64
The social stratification of the Indian society as reflected through the main characters in Desai`s The Inheritance of Loss - USD Repository
0
0
84
Nationalism in Mario Vargas Llosa`s life as reflected through the setting and main conflicts in The Storyteller - USD Repository
0
0
119
Women of Will for Nation Building in Pramoedyas Three Early Novels - USD Repository
0
0
27
Show more