I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Chekhov’s short story titles are the worst. “A Problem,” “A Misfortune,” “The Wife,” “The Party,” “The Student,” “The Huntsman,” “The Bishop,” etc. etc. etc.
Here we have a vaguely interesting title, or at least a title that might possibly indicate something interesting. Certainly it would seem to suggest some kind of meta-narrative; a tale of a writer unable to name a story, perhaps? Or a play on words: Maybe a tale of a sycophant hoping for a royal honor, only to be disappointed? These are very close to stories Chekhov actually wrote (“Hush!” for the former, “The Lion in the Sun” for the latter.)
But the story this weird title is attached to is really just the most traditional of stories. It’s a straightforward parable about human nature. A monk travels to a big city where he sees all manner of devilment. He returns to the monastery and relates what he has seen, and in the morning he discovers that the monastery is empty. Every single one of the simple monks has gone off to experience the devilment themselves.
It’s simple story; it’s short; it’s straightforward. It’s pretty good! It has a twist at the end that I, for one, didn’t see coming. So why in the world couldn’t Chekhov be bothered to give it a proper title? I could postulate one reason or another, but honestly I think it’s just further evidence that Chekhov was lazy about titles, and probably thought that titles were unimportant, for some reason.
Setting aside the vexing issue of Chekhov’s lazy titles, it’s worth noting one quirk in this story: It’s set “in the fifth century.” I can’t think of another Chekhov story that was set in any time except the writer’s present or some recalled past within his lifetime… with the exception, kinda-sorta, below.
READ THIS? READ THAT!
Another tale, if not set in the distant past exactly, but which harkens back to “times of yore,” is “The Head-Gardener’s Story.” That story begins in the third person, but then shifts gears as the narration shifts to that of an old man who recalls a legend told to him by his grandmother. Both “A Story Without a Title” and “The Head-Gardener’s Story” are parables, and both are decently told. They’re not great stories, and they’re certainly not what modern-day readers are probably looking for. But they’re certainly readable, even memorable in their way, and they make decent bookends, one to the other, in the Chekhov library.
A Chekhov Circus 