After the publication of "The Black Monk" several Chekhov's correspondents wrote to him to express delight and gratitude, among them journalist Mikhail Menshikov, children's writer (and the owner of the Babkino estate) Maria Kiselyova and Ivan Gorbunov-Posadov. "I've read your Black Monk and all but lost my mind myself," the clergyman Father Sergiy (S.A. Petrov) wrote to Chekhov on 8 May 1897. Gavrila Rusanov, Lev Tolstoy's friend and long-time correspondent, on 14 February informed Chekhov of how fond the latter was of the story ("It's wonder, just wonder!" he said).[12] Yet, the contemporary critical reviews, which concentrated mostly on discussing technical details of the hero's madness, deeply dissatisfied Chekhov. The writer Sergey Semyonov who met Chekhov at the Posrednik Publisher's offices in late 1894, remembered: "A.P. was walking across the cabinet talking about the Black Monk's general idea and how it's been completely misunderstood."[13]
"The Black Monk provides a deep and insightful depiction of a psychic ailment... The figures of the fanatical landlord-gardener and his over-sensitive, attractive daughter... are painted very expressively. The fatal misunderstanding between the sick and the healthy leads to horribly senseless tragedy," wrote Sergey Andreyevsky, reviewing 'the Novellas and Stories collection for Novoye Vremya.[14] Alexander Skabichevsky (in Novosti i Birzhevaya Gazeta) too saw the story as nothing but a "rather curious description of the process of man going mad", from which "the reader cannot extract no conclusion, no idea".[15] "This might have been unintentional, but it looks as if what Chekhov had meant here was that... strong aspirations and true noble passions are the province only of those prone to chasing spectral shadows," suggested D.M., the Russkiye Vedomosti reviewer.[16] Yuri Govorukha-Otrok, labeling Kovrin as 'a new day Poprishchin', regarded the story as belonging to the 'fantastic' genre, and, as such, not an impressive effort.[17]
Nikolai Mikhaylovsky in his 1900 article "Literature and Life. Some Things on Chekhov" argued that, far from being a mere psychiatric etude, The Black Monk was a serious statement, providing another sign of the author's changing his mindset. But he criticized Chekhov for being too untoward in expressing his own position as to Kovrin's dilemma. "Who is this Black Monk: a benevolent spirit consoling tired men with dreams and delusions about them being 'the chosen ones'... or, on the contrary, an evil genius who with vile flattery entices them into the world of madness, grief... and finally, death?" he poised the question.[18]
V.Albov considered the story as a signifier for Chekhov's search for what he termed as the 'guiding idea'. "Only the lofty ideal makes life meaningful, gives it purpose, making it joyful and happy. This may be any dream you like, even madman's delirium, but it still is better than this depressing reality," he wrote in 1903.[19] Fyodor Batyushkov seemed to support such view. "Now we begin to understand why Chekhov has always insisted upon the subjective, relativistic nature of all human norms; they are but steps for something high and distant, which our conscious mind can only guess at," he opined in his 1903 essay "About Chekhov".[20]
Chekhov's French translator Jules Legras[note 1] thought such a plotline would suit rather a novel, than novella. "[Potentially] it amounts to a vast novel about a highly educated, nervously agitated Russian man," he wrote to Chekhov on 9 June 1895. Legras considered the story's second part to be more of a sketch, especially next to the 'well-painted' first one. To become a novelist, though, according to Legras, Checkov would need to "considerably change [his] maniere, stop being content with using these concise, finely chiseled phrases", to such great effect, "become more involved with what's going on", and "love the life" rather remain its "cruel observer".[3]
