Read Chekhov's "The Story of the Gardener Leader" for 200 words.

Chekhov's short story "The Story of the Gardener Leader" tells the precedent of a criminal case. A famous man was found dead in the canyon. Who killed him? Who would kill such a famous person? Later, the novel wrote: "People saw an unemployed man who had been tried many times and was famous for his dissolute life. In the hotel, he took out a snuff bottle and a pocket watch containing wine. These two things belonged to the doctor (the good man who was killed). Everyone exposed him, and he panicked and told an obvious lie. " In the homeless man's home, people also found a bloody shirt and a doctor's The Lancet. It seems that the evidence is conclusive, and this case should be clear. However, during the trial, the judge was still embarrassed to be insane. After repeated consideration, the presiding judge finally acquitted the defendant. His reason is, in his own words: "I can't imagine anyone in the world who dares to kill our friends and doctors!" " People can't get so deep! "

Seeing this, many people feel angry and puzzled. It is simply a case of "the gourd monk sentenced the gourd." The facts of the case are clear and the evidence is conclusive. Why did the judge make such an absurd judgment that completely violated people's common sense and feelings? With such a good subjective desire that "people can't get so deep", can we let this possible criminal get away with it regardless of the dignity of the law, obvious facts, public anger and public opinion? Therefore, when discussing this novel, most students think that the novel exposes the fatuity of judges, the ambiguity of the legal system and the injustice of the law, and criticizes and ridicules the dark reality of the Russian society at that time, which is the confusion between right and wrong and the inversion of good and evil.

However, there are several places worth pondering and thinking about.

How did others react after the presiding judge made a verdict of not guilty? The novel says-

"Yes, there is no such person." Other judges agreed.

"Yes!" The crowd shouted, "Let him go!"

The murderer was released and completely free. No one accused the judge of unfair trial.

If the trial should consider public opinion, then such a judgment is precisely recognized by public opinion. There is no such noise as "people are extremely angry" and "not killing is not enough to anger people" that we are familiar with. Some people say that this shows the ignorance, backwardness and unconsciousness of the Russian people at that time, which is a common irony of Chekhov. I won't say this.

As far as the case itself is concerned, is it possible for the doctor to fall off a cliff and die? In other words, is it possible that the so-called "unemployed people" are not murderers at all, and there has never been any murder at all? The students think it is possible, but it is very unlikely, because there is a lot of evidence to prove that the tramp killed the doctor. The question now is, is this evidence enough to prove murder? Are there any doubts and insufficient evidence here?

I asked the students to look carefully for these doubts and insufficient evidence in the text. Students can't find it at first, or even don't want to find it. On the one hand, it reveals that students don't pay attention to reading the text carefully-there is a problem of reading habits and reading ability. I think it is very important to read the text carefully. On the other hand, students may be subjectively unwilling to look for evidence favorable to homeless people in articles. This is the genius of the author. He misled us from the beginning that it was a murder case, which aroused our inner indignation. He wants to give an explanation to the kind people, severely punish the murderer and return justice. These inflammatory calls for justice are familiar words. So I often think that Chekhov's novels are written for China people, not for China people today. We were expecting a murderer from the beginning, and this "murderer" did appear. Of course, we will not doubt the authenticity of this "murderer", and we are eager to get the punishment we deserve. Now that the murderer has been proved innocent, which means there is no murderer at all, can we not be disappointed? We are indignant that our indignation has not been vented. Are we a little disappointed when it is proved that the driver who was crushed several times made mistakes because of nervousness and panic, rather than subjective malice? When we heard that the case of "My dad is Li Gang" ended in an ordinary traffic accident, were we a little disappointed? Indignation often blurs our vision, and a sense of justice is always a feeling and cannot replace the law.

The law is about evidence, and all doubts must be eliminated before a fair judgment can be made. The case in the novel is full of doubts. For example, a tramp can go directly to the doctor's house to steal property, which is very easy. According to the novel, doctors never close the doors and windows when they go out. For example, he pleaded not guilty, and may have just passed the place where the doctor fell to his death and took the doctor's property. But people just don't believe him, thinking that he is "making up an obvious lie" and only see the doctor's belongings on him. In fact, the bloody shirt may have been stained by the doctor when he was rummaging through his belongings. At this time, people were held hostage by indignation. Fortunately, they are still awake. "Be careful, don't make a mistake. Yes, sometimes the evidence is unreliable! " The judge's acquittal is also based on the idea that people should be trusted more than things. No one accused the judge of unfair trial. These people are not ignorant, but have a high degree of consciousness and confidence in people. This kind of confidence in people, as the article says: "What will not die anyway will definitely have a good influence on them. This kind of self-confidence will cultivate open feelings in our hearts and will always urge us to love and respect everyone, everyone! This is the most important thing. "

If we were here, the judge's decision might attract angry condemnation, or at least "human flesh" to find out what the relationship between the judge and the defendant is. If the result of human flesh is that the judge has nothing to do with the defendant, we may be disappointed that the defendant was acquitted again, which shows how hard and deep the background of this defendant is. This is our habitual imagination. This time, however, we were disappointed: the defendant was just a tramp.

I'm just saying that Chekhov's novels are written for today's China people, and he knows what we think, so he deliberately designed the defendant as "an unemployed man who has been tried many times and is famous for his dissolute life". Will such a person be a good person? This is the imagination of China people. Is it strange that this terrible thing was not done by this man? "Unemployed people", "idle people" and "people who don't know the truth" are words that often appear in negative news, right? There are also sayings like "no proper occupation". These words with obvious subjective colors and these insulting names appear in the serious reports of the mainstream media. Who did it insult? How insulting! It insulted every one of us! Everyone! This is the most deadly.