Companion to Chekhov

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

This volume o f speciall y commissione d essay s explores th e world o f Anto nChekhov - on e of the most influential an d widely performed dramatist s in therepertoire and the creation, performance an d interpretation o f his work. TheCompanion begins with an examination o f Chekhov's life and his Russia andthe origina l productions o f hi s plays a t the Moscow Ar t Theatre . Later fil mversions an d adaptation s o f Chekhov' s work s ar e analysed , wit h valuabl einsights als o offere d i n actin g Chekho v b y Ia n McKellen , an d directin gChekhov b y Trevo r Nun n an d Leoni d Heifetz . Th e volum e als o provide sessays o n 'specia l topics ' suc h a s Chekho v a s narrativ e writer , Chekho vand women , an d th e Chekho v comedie s an d stories . Ke y plays , suc h a sThe Seagull and The Cherry Orchard receive dedicated chapters while lesserknown work s an d genre s ar e als o brough t t o light . Th e volum e conclude swith appendice s o f primar y sources , list s o f works , illustrations , an d aselected bibliography.



CAMBRIDGE COMPANION S T O LITERATUR EThe Cambridge Companion to Old English

Literatureedited by Malcolm Godden and

Michael LapidgeThe Cambridge Companion to Dante

edited by Rachel JacoffThe Cambridge Chaucer Companionedited by Piero Boitani and Jill Mann

The Cambridge Companion to MedievalEnglish Theatre

edited by Richard BeadleThe Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare

Studiesedited by Stanley Wells

The Cambridge Companion to EnglishRenaissance Drama

edited by A. R. Braunmuller andMichael Hattaway

The Cambridge Companion to English Poetry,Donne to Marvell

edited by Thomas N. CornsThe Cambridge Companion to Milton

edited by Dennis DanielsonThe Cambridge Companion to British

Romanticismedited by Stuart Curra n

The Cambridge Companion to James Joyceedited by Derek Attridge

The Cambridge Companion to Ibsenedited by James McFarlane

The Cambridge Companion to Brechtedited by Peter Thomason and

Glendyr SacksThe Cambridge Companion to Beckett

edited by John PillingThe Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot

edited by A. David MoodyThe Cambridge Companion to Renaissance

Humanismedited by Jill Kraye

The Cambridge Companion to Joseph Conradedited by J. H. Stape

The Cambridge Companion to WilliamFaulkner

edited by Philip M. WeinsteinThe Cambridge Companion to Henry David

Thoreauedited by Joel Myerson

The Cambridge Companion to Edith Whartonedited by Millicent Bell

The Cambridge Companion to AmericanRealism and Naturalismedited by Donald Pizer

The Cambridge Companion to Mark Twainedited by Forrest G. Robinson

The Cambridge Companion to Walt Whitmanedited by Ezra Greenspan

The Cambridge Companion toErnest Hemingway

edited by Scott DonaldsonThe Cambridge Companion to the

Eighteenth-Century Noveledited by John Richett i

The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austenedited by Edward Copeland and Juliet McMasterThe Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson

edited by Greg ClinghamThe Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde

edited by Peter RabyThe Cambridge Companion to Tennessee

Williamsedited by Matthew C. Roudane

The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Milleredited by Christopher Bigsby

The Cambridge Companion to the FrenchNovel: from 1800 to the Present

edited by Timothy UnwinThe Cambridge Companion to the Classic

Russian Noveledited by Malcolm V. Jones and

Robin Feuer MillerThe Cambridge Companion to English

Literature, 1650—1740edited by Steven N. Zwicker

The Cambridge Companion to Eugene O'Neilledited by Michael Manheim

The Cambridge Companion to George BernardShaw

edited by Christopher InnesThe Cambridge Companion to Ezra Pound

edited by Ira B. NadelThe Cambridge Companion to Modernism

edited by Michael LevensonThe Cambridge Companion to American

Women Playwrightsedited by Brenda Murph y

The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Hardyedited by Dale Kramer

The Cambridge Companion to Chekhovedited by Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain


CAMBRIDGE COMPANION S T O CULTUR EThe Cambridge Companion to Modern German The Cambridge Companion to Modern Spanish

Culture Cultureedited by Eva Kolinsky and Wilfried van der Will edite d by David T. GiesThe Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian

Cultureedited by Nicholas Rzhevsky


THE CAMBRIDG ECOMPANION T O

CHEKHOV



THE CAMBRIDG ECOMPANION T O

CHEKHOV

EDITED BY

VERA GOTTLIE BResearch Professor in Drama, Goldsmiths College

AND

PAUL ALLAI NSenior Lecturer in Drama, University of Kent

CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY PRES S


PUBLISHED B Y THE PRES S SYNDICAT E O F TH E UNIVERSIT Y O F CAMBRIDG EThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRES SThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU , U K

40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vie 3207, Australia

Ruiz de Alarcon 13 , 2801 4 Madrid, SpainDock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001 , Sout h Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridg e University Press 2000

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2000Third printing 2004

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeface Sabon 10/13 P1 System 3B2 [CE ]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress cataloging in publication dataThe Cambridge companion to Chekhov / edited by Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain.

p. cm . - (Cambridg e companions to literature)Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN o 521 58117 6 (hardback) - ISB N O 521 58917 7 (paperback)1. Chekhov , Anton Pavlovich, 1860-1904 - Criticism and interpretation.

1. Gottlieb, Vera, 1946- . 11 . Allain, Paul. m . Series.PG3458.Z8C36 200 0

89i.72'3-dc2i 00-05557 8 CI P

ISBN o 521 5811 7 6 hardbackISBN o 521 58917 7 paperback


This book is dedicated to

Stephen SlatterPaul Slatterand Johnny


Chekhov's wa y i s th e wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f tha tRussian democracy, true and humane, which never materialised.

Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate, 198 8


CONTENTS

List of illustrations page xii iAcknowledgements x vNotes on contributors xvi iChronology xx iEditorial notes: transliteration, translation and titles, calendar dates xxv iPreface xxi x

PART i : Chekho v in context i

1 D r Chekhov: a biographical essay (29 January 1860-1 5 July 1904 ) 3ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

2 Chekho v an d his Russia 1 7EMMA POLOTSKAY A

3 Chekho v a t the Moscow Art Theatre 2 9

ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

PART 2: Chekhov in production 4 1

4 Fro m Platonov t o Piano 4 3EDWARD BRAU N

5 Chekhov' s one-ac t plays and the full-length play s 5 7VERA GOTTLIE B

6 Ivanov: th e invention o f a negative dramaturgy 7 0PATRICE PAVI S

7 The Seagull: an adaptation 8 0THOMAS KILRO Y


CONTENTS

8 Note s from a director: Uncle Vanya 9 1LEONID HEIFET Z

9 Note s from a director: Three Sisters 10 1TREVOR NUN N

10 The Cherry Orchard 11 1EDWARD BRAU N

11 Actin g Chekhov:'A frien d t o the actor ' 12 1IAN MCKELLE N

12 Th e scenography o f Chekhov 13 4ARNOLD ARONSO N

13 Chekho v o n screen 14 9PHILIP FRENC H

14 Chekho v o n the Russian stag e 16 2TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

15 Directors ' Chekhov 17 6LAURENCE SENELIC K

Selected glossary 19 1

PART 3: Chekhov the writer 20 1

16 Chekhov' s storie s and the plays 20 3DONALD RAYFIEL D

17 Th e stage representation o f Chekhov's women 21 6CYNTHIA MARS H

18 Chekhov' s comedy 22 8VERA GOTTLIE B

Appendix 1: Chekhov's works: primary sources from the Russian - 23 9variations of English titles from the RussianAppendix 2: Selected stage productions 24 5Appendix 3 : Selected screen versions 2.60Appendix 4: Illustrations 26 3Selected bibliography 2.66Index of works by Chekhov 28 0General index 28 3


ILLUSTRATIONS

1 Mosco w Art Theatre production o f The Three Sisters at BrooklynAcademy of Music, January 1998 . Sets and Costume by Valery Levental,directed by Oleg Yefremov. Photo by Dan Rest. page 3 8

2 Ia n McKellen (Dr Dorn) and Claudie Blakley (Nina) in The Seagull atthe West Yorkshire Playhouse, presented by the West Yorkshire PlayhouseCourtyard Company , Leeds, October 1998 , directed by Jude Kelly,designed by Robert Innes-Hopkins. Photo by Keith Pattison. 13 2

3 The Cherry Orchard, Act One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) ,directed by Andrei Serban, designed by Santa Loquasto, originallyproduced by the New York Shakespeare Festival at the Vivian BeaumontTheatre in New York City. Photo by Alexandra Serban . 14 3

4 The Cherry Orchard, Act One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) ,directed by Andrei Serban, designed by Santa Loquasto, originallyproduced by the New York Shakespeare Festival at the Vivian BeaumontTheatre in New York City. Photo by Alexandra Serban . 14 3

5 Mode l for Ivanov, designer David Borovsky, director Oleg Yefremov,Moscow Art Theatre, 1976 . Photo: Arnold Aronson 26 3

6 Mode l for The Seagull, designer Valery Levental, director Oleg Yefremov,Moscow Art Theatre, 1980 . Photo: Arnold Aronson 26 4

7 The Seagull, designer Josef Svoboda , director Otomar Krejca, Tyl Theatre,Prague, 1984 . From the Czech Theatre Institute: catalogue In Search ofLight, 1995 . Reproduced courtesy of Arnold Aronson. 26 4

8 The Seagull, Act 1 , designer Yannis Kokkos, Theatre de Chaillot, Paris,1984. Credit, courtesy of Yannis Kokkos.'Impressionism was the aesthetic starting point for The Seagull. I did not want


ILLUSTRATIONS

to work in the outdated, stereotypical cameo style which is associated withChekhov and which would have drowned the design in nostalgia . . . Thedesign for The Seagull comes from two sources: first, French Impressionism- thoug h more realistic, like the Russian painter Levitan, a friend ofChekhov; and on the other hand, the colored light compositions made ofgrains of primary colors as in the first color photographs.' - YannisKokkos. 26 5

Illustrations courtesy of Arnold Aronson, Laurence Senelick, Yannis Kokkos,the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Czech Theatre Institute Catalogue: InSearch of Light, 1995.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors would like to express particular appreciatio n to the following :Sergei Volnyets for wor k don e o n the translation o f the Russian chapters ;to Tatiana Shakh-Azizova, friend an d colleague, for her work as 'unofficial 'Moscow coordinato r an d advisor ; D r Valentin a Ryapolova , whos e hel pincluded concret e advic e o n th e nuance s o f translation ; t o Alexande rAkhtyrsky fo r hi s hel p i n man y differen t ye t essentia l ways ; Professo rEdward Brau n fo r actin g a s a crucia l advisor , criti c an d significantly ,translator; t o Arnol d Aronso n an d Laurenc e Senelic k fo r thei r hel p ove rand above their contributions a s writers, in obtaining some of the illustra-tions; t o Mora g Derb y o f th e Roya l Nationa l Theatre ; th e Britis h Fil mInstitute (BFI) ; th e Wes t Yorkshir e Playhouse ; th e Theatr e Museum ,London; to Hilary Wilson, Administrator o f the Drama Department, Gold -smiths College; Elizabeth Goldsmith; and most of all to Joanna Labon, andto Iren e Slatte r o f th e Russia n Department , Universit y o f Durha m fo rsupport and help.

The Commissioning Editor, Dr Victoria Cooper of Cambridge UniversityPress, deserve s specia l gratitud e fo r he r characteristi c flexibility, an dunfailing sense of humour combined with invaluable critical judgement, andfor makin g a potentiall y comple x editoria l jo b no t onl y a s painles s a spossible, but positively enjoyable. We are also indebted to Audrey Cotterellfor her copy-editing advice, for her patience and for her help with this book,and t o Michell e Williams , o f th e Productio n Departmen t o f Cambridg eUniversity Press, for her tolerance, patience, and positive assistance.

The Britis h Counci l gav e financial and practica l suppor t i n fundin g aBritish-'Soviet' Theatr e Conference , hel d a t Goldsmith s Colleg e i n Ma y1992, a t which som e o f the contributors first made a commitment t o thi svolume, in particular Anatoly Smeliansky and Tatiana Shakh-Azizova.

Professor Ver a Gottlieb is glad to acknowledge the invaluable assistanc eof th e Britis h Academ y fo r th e awar d o f a Researc h Fellowship , whic henabled her to work in Moscow on the preparation of this volume.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Vera Gottlie b woul d als o lik e t o expres s dee p appreciatio n t o Georg eHamilton, Adria n Tookman , Davi d Lipkin , Andre w Platt , an d thei rrespective teams at the Royal Free Hospital, London, including Phyl Morris-Vincent, Kate Jones, Leslie Mattin, Mila Constant and the Community teamof BP4. Without them, and many others , it may not have been possible topersonally fulfi l thi s commitment , bu t Professo r Te d Braun, a s friend an dcolleague, my friend an d siste r Irene Slatte r ( a Russian specialist) , and DrVictoria Cooper, with Dr Paul Allain, would have ensured its completion.


NOTES O N CONTRIBUTOR S

PAUL ALLAI N i s Senior Lecturer in Drama a t the University o f Kent, Canterbury .He collaborated with the Gardzienice Theatre Association extensively from 198 9to 1993 , touring in Britain, Japan and the Ukraine, and is author of Gardzienice:Polish Theatre in Transition, 1997. He has worked as Movement Director a t theRoyal Shakespeare Compan y and the Royal National Theatr e i n London. He iswriting a monograph on Tadashi Suzuki for Methuen.

ARNOLD ARONSO N i s Chai r o f th e Theatr e Divisio n a t Columbi a Universit yin Ne w York . H e i s autho r o f The History and Theory of EnvironmentalScenography and American Set Design, 1981, and serve d a s editor o f TheatreDesign and Technology magazine from 197 8 to 1988. He has written extensivelyon scenograph y a s wel l a s avant-gard e theatr e an d hi s article s hav e bee npublished i n a wide variet y o f journals , referenc e books , an d anthologies . H eis currentl y preparin g American Avant-Garde Theatre fo r publicatio n b yRoutledge.

EDWARD BRAU N i s Emeritus Professor o f Drama and a Senior Research Fellow atthe University of Bristol. His compilation of Meyerhold's writings, Meyerhold onTheatre, was published in 1969, and his critical study, The Theatre of Meyerhold,in 1979 . This was followed i n 198 2 by his analysis o f modern theatr e practice ,The Director and the Stage. Since the n h e ha s publishe d widel y o n Russia ntheatre, including in 1995 a reappraisal of Meyerhold's work entitled Meyerhold:A Revolution in Theatre. He has also published a number of articles on televisiondrama, an d hi s current researc h i s concerned wit h representations o f histor y indrama.

ALEXANDER p . CHUDAKOV , D S (Philology) i s Senior Research Associate a t theInstitute o f World Literature an d Professo r a t the Gorky Institute o f Literature ,Moscow, an d autho r o f severa l work s includin g The World of Words andThings: from Pushkin to Tolstoy, 1982 ; Chekhov's World: Emergence andAffirmance, 1986, and Chekhov's Poetics, Moscow, 1987.



PHILIP FRENC H wa s for thirt y years a BBC radio producer an d has been dramacritic of The New Statesman, principa l boo k critic of The Financial Times and aregular contributor to numerous journals, most notably The Observer, where hehas writte n a weekl y fil m colum n sinc e 1978 . Hi s book s includ e The MovieMoguls, 1971 ; Westerns, 1977; Three Honest Men: Edmund Wilson, LionelTrilling, F.R. Leavis, 1980; Malle on Malle, 1993 and The Faber Book of MovieVerse, 1994 .

VERA GOTTLIE B i s Researc h Professo r i n th e Dram a Department , Goldsmith sCollege, University of London. Publications include Chekhov and the Vaudeville,1982; Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia, 1984; 'Thatcher' sTheatre - o r Afte r Equus', 1989 . Sh e ha s worke d a s script s adviso r an dconsultant fo r th e RSC , fo r Channe l 4 an d i n Ne w York . Fo r Magn a Cart aProductions, she co-directed an d wrote with Rober t Gordo n Red Earth, Hamp-stead, London , 1984 ; Waterloo Road, Young Vi c Studio , London , 1986 ; sh eadapted/translated A Chekhov Quartet, New End Theatre, London and ChekhovFestival, Yalt a an d Moscow , 1990 , subsequently publishe d 1996 . She co-editedTheatre in a Cool Climate, 1999 .

LEONID Y . HEIFETZ , People' s Artist o f Russia , i s a theatre directo r an d teacher .He i s a Professo r a t th e Russia n Academ y o f Theatr e Arts , an d Chai r o f th eDepartment o f Directin g a t th e Shchuki n Dram a School . H e wa s Residen tDirector a t th e Centra l Sovie t Arm y Theatr e (CSTA) , no w th e Russia n Arm yTheatre (RAT) , fro m 196 3 t o 197 0 (returnin g ther e a s Chie f Director ,1986-94). H e wa s als o Residen t Directo r a t th e Mal y Theatre , Mosco w(1970-86) an d a t th e MA T from 198 6 t o 1988 . His best-know n production sinclude The Death of Ivan the Terrible by Alexe i K . Tolstoy , 1966 ; BeforeSunrise by Gerhar t Hauptmann , 1972 ; Fiesco's Plot b y Schiller , 1977 , an dShakespeare's King Lear, 1979 , all at the Maly Theatre. He is also renowned fo rhis productio n o f Dmitr y Merezhovsky' s Pavel I, 1989 , a s wel l a s Chekhov' sUncle Vanya, The Cherry Orchard and Three Sisters, directed both in Russia andabroad.

THOMAS KILRO Y i s a playwright an d novelist . Hi s version o f The Seagull wasproduced a t the Royal Cour t in 198 1 in a notable production b y Max Stafford -Clark. He has been awarded the Guardian Fiction Prize and Heinemann Award.His most recent play , The Secret Fall of Constance Wilde, was presented a t theAbbey Theatre as part of the 1997 Dublin Theatre Festival, and is opening at theBarbican Centre , London , i n Septembe r 2000 . H e i s a Fello w o f th e Roya lSociety of Literature.

CYNTHIA MARS H i s Senio r Lecture r i n Russia n i n th e Departmen t o f Slavoni cStudies, University o f Nottingham . Sh e has published severa l book s on Russianliterature an d theatre , includin g M.A.Voloshin: Artist-Poet, 1983 , an d File on



Gorky, 1993, and many articles. She is currently writing a study of Gorky's plays,and workin g o n a projec t t o investigat e th e impac t o f Russia n theatr e o n th eBritish repertoire. She has directed most of Chekhov's plays, in both English andRussian.

IAN MCKELLE N i s on e o f Britain' s leadin g film , televisio n an d stag e actors , an dhighly experience d i n playing Chekhov . Hi s notabl e fil m part s includ e th e titl erole in Richard III, which he co-wrote and co-produced, and most recently JamesWhale i n Gods and Monsters. He ha s worked extensivel y a t th e Roya l Shake -speare Company and the Royal National Theatre as well as with leading regionaltheatres. He toured with Prospect Theatre for severa l years and then co-founde dthe Actors ' Compan y i n 1972 . H e i s a membe r o f th e Boar d o f th e Roya lNational Theatre , was knighted i n 199 1 and has received numerous awards fo rhis acting.

TREVOR NUN N becam e th e younges t Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya l Shakespear eCompany i n 1968 , directin g a hos t o f majo r production s includin g NicholasNickleby (winne r o f five Tony Awards) an d the musical , Les Miserables, befor eleaving the RSC in 1986 . Subsequent production s hav e included Cats, StarlightExpress, Porgy and Bess and Arcadia. He ha s worked extensivel y i n televisio nand film . H e succeede d Si r Richar d Eyr e a s Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya lNational Theatre.

PATRICE PAVI S i s Professor o f Theatre Studie s a t th e University o f Paris , Saint-Denis, Arts Composante , Theatre . He is editor an d commentator o n Chekhov' splays for the edition Le Livre de Poche. Amongst many other articles and books,he is author of Performance Analysis, and of the Dictionary of the Theatre, 1998 .He has written introduction s t o La Mouette, Oncle Vania, Les Trois Soeurs, a swell as translated La Cerisaie with Elena Zahradnikova, fo r Le Livre de Poche.In addition h e has written a contemporary version o f The Seagull (M(o)uettes),1999.

EMMA A . POLOTSKAYA , D S (Philology) work s a t th e Gork y Institut e o f WorldLiterature, Moscow . Sinc e 195 5 sh e ha s writte n an d publishe d a numbe r o fbooks and essays on Chekhov. She is an authority on Chekhov's bibliography andtextual analysis . Amongst othe r titles , she is author o f Chekhov: The Evolutionof Aesthetic Thought, 1979, and Chekhov's Characters, 1983 . She was a memberof the prestigious editorial board for the academic edition of Chekhov's CollectedWorks and Letters in 30 Volumes, 1974-83 . Sh e ha s taugh t a t th e Literar yInstitute in Moscow since 1957.

DONALD RAYFIEL D wa s educated a t Dulwich Colleg e an d a t Cambridge . He isProfessor o f Russia n an d Georgia n a t Quee n Mar y an d Westfiel d College ,University o f London . H e ha s writte n a numbe r o f monograph s o n Chekhov ,



including Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art, 1975, as well as a biography of theexplorer Przhevalsky and a history of Georgian literature. He is currently editingfor publication the diaries of Alexey Suvorin, Chekhov's publisher.

LAURENCE SENELIC K i s Fletche r Professo r o f Dram a an d Orator y a t Tuft sUniversity and Honorary Curato r of Russian Drama and Theatre at the HarvardTheatre Collection. His many books include The Chekhov Theatre: A Century ofthe Plays in Performance, 1997 ; Anton Chekhov, 1985; Mikhail Shchepkin: HisLife and Art, 1984 , and Gordon Craig's Moscow 'Hamlet', 1982. Among worksedited ar e Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, 1981;Russian Satiric Comedy, 1983, and National Theatre in Europe 1746-1900,1991.

TATIANA K . sHAKH-AZizoV A work s a t th e Stat e Institut e o f Art s Studies ,Moscow, and is the author o f Chekhov and West European Drama of his Time,1966, and of numerous essay s o n the treatment o f Chekhov' s theatr e o n stageand screen. She has worked on several series of television and radio programmeson Chekhov's plays. Other work includes chapters in The History of the RussianTheatre in 7 volumes, Moscow , 1977-87 , an d essay s o n twentieth-centur ytheatre and the inter-relationships o f theatres. She is also a regular theatre criti cwhose numerou s article s includ e severa l o n the International Chekho v Theatr eFestivals in Moscow between 1992 and 1998.

ANATOLY SMELIANSKY , Docto r o f Arts , i s Associat e Artisti c Directo r o f theMoscow Ar t Theatre , 1980- , Associat e Hea d o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr eSchool, 1987- , an d Visitin g Professo r o f th e Carnegi e Mello n University /Moscow Ar t Theatre Schoo l MF A in Acting Program , 1994- . H e has writtenmany article s o n Stanislavsky , Bulgako v an d Chekhov . Hi s book s includ e 7sComrade Bulgakov Dead ?, 1993, and The Russian Theatre after Stalin, 1999, aswell as a book on Stanislavsky to be published by Cambridge University Press.


CHRONOLOGY

i860 (2 9 January) Anton Pavlovich Chekhov born in Taganrog, aport in the Crimea (an inlet of the Sea of Azov, itself an inlet ofthe Black Sea), 600 miles south of Moscow.1Grandfather, a former serf , liberated with the emancipation of1861. Anton was the third son of shop-owner Pavel YegorovichChekhov and Yevgeniya Yakovlevna Chekhova .

1868 Attend s Taganrog Grammar School (for Boys) after briefl yattending the Greek school.

1873 Create s comic sketches for performance a t home. Shows earlyinterest in theatre. Sees local productions of Hamlet and Russianclassics, Gogol's The Government Inspector and Griboyedov'sWoe from Wit (also translated as Wit Works Woe).

1875 Begin s his own humorous magazine Stammerer (Zaika) forcirculation within the family, of comic sketches of Taganrog life.

1876 Fathe r declared bankrupt. Family leaves for Moscow andChekhov left alone in Taganrog to complete schooling. Worksas tutor.

1877 Firs t visit to Moscow, where his family is in hardship. He has toreturn to Taganrog to finish schooling.

1878 Write s full-length untitle d play subsequently known asFatherlessness, then Platonov, which was neither performed norpublished in his lifetime. Writes two vaudevilles which werealso unpublished.


CHRONOLOGY

1879 Begin s regular submission of short stories to the humorousmagazine Dragonfly. Moves to Moscow permanently andassumes father's place as head of family. Enrols at School ofMedicine, Moscow University, in August.

1880 Firs t sketch published in Dragonfly. 'Letter from the DonLandowner Stepan Vladimirovitch N. to His LearnedNeighbour Dr Frederik'. More pieces accepted under variouspseudonyms, such as 'Antosha Chekhonte ' or 'My Brother'sBrother'. Meets landscape painter Isaac Levitan, who becomes aclose friend .

18 81 Sara h Bernhardt performs in Moscow. Chekhov considers heracting 'artificial' .

1882 Increasingl y dependent on writing to support family, whilecontinuing with medical studies.

1883 Write s many pieces for popular magazine Splinters (Oskolki).

1884 Publicatio n of first book of selected pieces, Tales of Melpomene.Has now published more than 200 pieces. Graduates inmedicine. Shows first symptoms of tuberculosis.

1885-86 Mor e than 10 0 new short stories, many for St PetersburgGazette (Peterburgskaya gazeta). First story published under hisown name, and first in New Time (Novoye vremya). Aninfluential lette r from established novelist Grigorovichencourages him to take writing more seriously. First collectionof selected tales is published, Motley Tales (1886). In the sameyear he meets A.S. Suvorin, owner of New Time, which is thebeginning of a long friendship with Suvorin as his publisher. It isa friendship no t without serious differences ove r politics, suchas over the Dreyfus Case .

1887 Secon d book of selected stories published, In the Twilight. Firs tpublication of vaudeville, Swan Song. Initial version of Ivanovwritten at request of owner of the privately owned KorshTheatre, Moscow. Ivanov premiered there, 19 November, tomixed reception.


CHRONOLOGY

1888 Stor y 'The Steppe' published in the serious journal NorthernHerald (Severny vestnik). Plays Swan Song premiered at KorshTheatre, 19 February, and The Bear, written in February, stagedin October. Begins work on The Wood-Demon (considered bymost critics to have developed into Uncle Vanya). Writesone-act farce The Proposal. Receives Pushkin Prize for 'In theTwilight'. First meeting with Stanislavsky.

1889 Favourabl e reception of revised Ivanov, at the ImperialAlexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburg, 31 January. Writes andpublishes stories including 'The Princess', 'A Dreary Story', andthe one-act plays The Wedding and A Tragic Role. Works onThe Wood-Demon: first draft rejected by the AlexandrinskyTheatre; revised version performed a t another private theatre,the Abramov Theatre, Moscow, on 27 December andunanimously condemned. Taken off after first performance.Brother Nikolai dies of tuberculosis.

1890 'Gusev ' published. Leaves Moscow on 21 April and travelsacross Siberia by train, horse-drawn vehicle and river-boat, toinvestigate conditions on penal island of Sakhalin: compilescensus there. Returns to Moscow in early December via HongKong, Singapore and Ceylon.

1891 'Th e Duel' and 'Peasant Women' published in New Time.Writes 'The Grasshopper' and completes the one-act play TheAnniversary (Jubilee). Six-week tour of Western Europe withA.S. Suvorin. Helps with medical relief of famine victims inCentral and South-East Russia.

1892-3 Twenty-on e stories published, including 'Ward No. 6' (1892).Buys small estate, Melikhovo, fifty miles south of Moscow, andthe family moves there in March 1892 . Opens clinic andpractises medicine for local peasants while continuing to write.

1893-4 Non-fictiona l work The Island of Sakhalin is completed andappears serially in Russian Thought (Russkaya mysl), leading tosome penal reform.

1894 Write s 'The Black Monk'. Publishes another collection of selectedstories, Stories and Tales. Travels again to Western Europe.


CHRONOLOGY

1895 'Thre e Years' published, and appears in book form. Writes'Ariadne', 'The Murder', 'Anna Round the Neck'. Beginswriting The Seagull in the autumn. First meeting with LevNikolayevich Tolstoy.

1896 Revise s The Seagull for premiere at the Imperial AlexandrinskyTheatre, St. Petersburg, 17 October. Extremely hostile receptiondevastates him.

1897 'Peasants ' published. Publishes Uncle Vanya but refuses toallow performance unti l 1899. Undertakes work for nationalcensus. In March he has haemorrhage of the lungs and isdiagnosed with tuberculosis. Visits Europe in August, forconvalescence, and spends winter in southern France.

1898 Tonytch' , 'A Man in a Case', 'Concerning Love' and'Gooseberries' published. Supports Zola over Dreyfus Caseduring the trial, resulting in near break with Suvorin.Nemirovich-Danchenko persuades a reluctant Chekhov to lethim produce The Seagull at the new People's Art Theatre (laterMoscow Art Theatre). Leaves France for Russia in early May.Attends Moscow Art Theatre rehearsals of The Seagull,September. Meets the actress Olga Knipper (later to be his wife),but leaves almost immediately for the Crimea before winter.Successful firs t performance o f The Seagull by Moscow ArtTheatre (MAT), 17 December, establishes Chekhov as aplaywright. The fiasco of the first production (1896) hadresulted in Chekhov's unwillingness to risk another publicperformance. Stanislavsky did not want to take the play but waspersuaded by co-founder o f MAT Nemirovich-Danchenko. Inspite of some interpretative misunderstandings (whichcharacterised all MAT productions of his plays) the productionwas a success. Meets Gorky in Yalta, where he buys land tobuild a house. Father, Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov, dies.

1899 'Lad y with a Little Dog' and two short sketches, 'The NewVilla' and 'On Official Business' , are published. Begins writingThree Sisters. Completes contract with A. F. Marx, publisher,for Complete Edition of Works. Premiere of Uncle Vanya atMAT, 26 October, is moderate success. Chekhov confined toYalta for health reasons and unable to attend. Olga Knipper


CHRONOLOGY

visits Melikhovo, which he sells in June. Moves to Yalta with hismother and sister Masha.

1900 Complete s 'In the Ravine'. First two volumes of the MarxEdition of Chekhov's Works appear . MAT Company visitsSevastopol and Yalta and he sees Uncle Vanya for first time.Reads first draft o f Three Sisters to MAT in November. Beginscourting Olga Knipper.

1901 Premier e of Three Sisters, MAT, 31 January, with Olga Knipperas Masha, has moderate success. Ten of the eleven volumes ofMarx Edition published by the end of 1901. Chekhov marriesOlga Knipper, 25 May, in quiet ceremony in Moscow.

1902 Complete s 'The Bishop' and begins work on The CherryOrchard. His strength noticeably declines in the winter.

1903 Complete s 'The Bride' and works on final volume of MarxEdition. Finishes first draft o f The Cherry Orchard, 26September, but undertakes second and third drafts, both onlycompleted by 12 October. Arrives Moscow in early December,for MAT rehearsals of The Cherry Orchard. Disagrees over thecasting and interpretation, with Stanislavsky advocating itsserious nature above its comic elements.

1904 Premier e of The Cherry Orchard, MAT, 17 January, proves asuccess. Chekhov attends during third act. Leaves forBadenweiler 'to take the waters' in the Black Forest with OlgaKnipper, where he dies of tuberculosis on 15 July. After a drink,his last words to Knipper are: 'It's a long time since I drankchampagne'. Confusion o f funeral procession as his coffin istransported in a railway wagon labelled 'Fresh Oysters'. Buriedbeside his father in Moscow.

NOTEEven in Chekhov's lifetime, Taganrog was beginning to be superseded as a tradecentre b y Rostov-on-Don, give n the developmen t o f the railways in the 1870 s(see chapter 1 0 in thi s volume). The growin g por t o f Odessa , directl y o n theBlack Sea, also superseded Taganrog's position as a trade centre.


EDITORIAL NOTE S

Transliteration

The editor s too k th e decisio n not t o standardis e th e variou s system s o ftransliteration use d b y contributors fro m Russia , fro m th e United States ,France, the Iris h Republi c an d the UK. In the cas e o f thi s volume , wherethere ar e differen t scholarl y approaches , varie d angles , emphase s an dpriorities, one contributor ma y need one of the four system s of translitera-tion (America n Librar y o f Congress , Systems , i , n , in , iv ) whil e anothe rmay requir e eithe r a differen t syste m - o r non e a t all , a s i n th e cas e o fchapters 9 an d 11 , for instance . We have therefor e lef t eac h contributo rfree t o choose the transliteration syste m tha t suit s him o r her best , rathe rthan enforce consistency of any one system.

Translation an d title s

In man y instances , Russian-speakin g contributor s hav e translate d thei rown excerpts from th e plays or stories . Where contributors hav e relied onEnglish translation s o f Chekhov , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Volumes,translated an d edited by Ronald Hingley, Oxford, 1965-8 0 (vols . I - III th eplays; vols IV-IX , selecte d storie s o f 1888-1904) , i s for genera l referenc e(quoted by permission of Oxford University Press). For that reason we haveretained, for reference purposes, Hingley's translation of Chekhov's act andscene divisions which Chekho v discontinue d fo r th e las t fou r majo r play se.g. Act Four, Scene IV.

The fou r volume s o f storie s translate d b y Ronal d Wilk s fo r Penguin ,have als o bee n used (b y permission o f Pengui n Book s Ltd.) . The title s ofstories an d play s i n Englis h ar e thos e use d b y Ronal d Hingle y i n TheOxford Chekhov, and Ronald Wilks ' Penguin editions o f selecte d stories .(See Appendix 1. )


EDITORIAL NOTE S

Russian-speaking contributors have used material from the following:

Collected Works, Letters, 1944-51, Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobraniesochinenii i pisem A.P. Chekhova, v zoi tomakh, edite d S . D. Balukhatyand others, Moscow, 1944-51 .

Collected Works, Letters 1960-64, Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobraniesochinenii i pisem v izi tomakh, edite d b y V.V . Yermilov an d others ,Moscow, 1960-4.

Unless otherwis e specified , th e reference s t o Works and Letters are fromthe most recent and comprehensive collection:

Chekhov, Anton, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 3oi tomakh, 1974-83, (Chekhov, Anton, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes,Moscow 1974-83) , edite d b y N . F . Belchiko v an d others , Moscow ,1974-83.

Chekhov v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov (Chekhov in the Memoirs ofhis Contemporaries), edited by N. I. Brodsky and others, Moscow, 1954.

For non-Russia n readers , th e editor s woul d lik e t o emphasis e th ecentrality t o English-languag e Chekho v studie s o f Ronal d Hingley' s TheOxford Chekhov (above), and A New Life of Chekhov, London, 1976.

For further sourc e material see Selected bibliography.

Calendar date s

Dates befor e Octobe r 191 7 conform t o th e old-styl e Julian calendar . No tall contributors, however, have followed this system of dating.



PREFACE

Editing a collectio n o f essay s o n a write r a s internationall y renowned ,complex and productive a s Chekhov must , inevitably , resul t in some hardchoices. W e knew , however , tha t thes e choice s woul d defin e themselve sgiven three essentia l prerequisite s wit h which w e began. First , we wantedthe boo k t o includ e contribution s fro m professiona l practitioner s o fChekhov's work in the theatre, namely actors , directors, designers, writersand critics, since it is from practic e that much of theory arises - o r may betested. Second , th e momentou s change s i n Russi a (an d thu s Easter nEurope) startin g wit h th e Gorbache v er a hav e enable d u s t o tak e ful ladvantage o f contributions from som e of Russia's leading Chekhov specia-lists, whether practitioners or academics (a 'division' not recognised by ourRussian colleagues) : the director , Leoni d Heifetz ; th e literar y manage r o fthe Mosco w Ar t Theatre , Anatol y Smeliansky ; th e leadin g critic , Tatian aShakh-Azizova, an d th e theatr e historian s an d Chekho v scholars , Alex -ander Chudako v an d Emm a Polotskaya . Eac h bring s a particular percep -tion t o th e subjec t a t a tim e whe n histor y i s bein g redefine d an dreevaluated, whether political , social or theatre history. Finally, we wantedthe book to offe r th e reader a s much insight a s possible into othe r aspect sof Chekhov' s work , althoug h th e emphasis o f the collection a s a whole ison Chekhov and production. Thus the many screen versions o f Chekhov' sworks - fa r mor e than o f such contemporaries a s Ibsen, Strindberg , Wildeor Sha w or , later , Brech t - ar e analyse d b y on e o f Britain' s leadin g fil mcritics: Philip French, who reviews films o f the plays and also some of thestories. Equally , Chekhov' s shor t stories , althoug h seemingly confined t oonly on e chapte r b y Donald Rayfield , ar e als o discusse d b y severa l othe rcontributors, particularl y Alexande r Chudakov , Emm a Polotskay a an dCynthia Marsh , an d ar e referre d t o b y other s wher e th e dramati c an dliterary Chekhovian themes become inseparable in content, although not inmedium or genre.

Writing about Chekhov with the historical perspectives o f 1999 has cast


PREFACE

an unusual ligh t o n the importance , treatmen t an d approac h t o Chekho vthroughout th e twentiet h century , s o w e woul d hop e tha t th e volum eprovides th e studen t o f Chekho v wit h differen t viewpoint s fro m thos e ofprevious collections.

It i s evident , too , fro m th e wor k o f al l ou r contributors, o f whateve rnationality (Russian , American, British, Irish or French) that some chaptershave th e en d o f thi s centur y and th e comin g millenniu m a s a n implici tsubtext, with a sense of time and movemen t whic h would obviousl y havebeen lackin g eithe r fift y year s ag o or , fo r differen t reasons , durin g th eperiod o f th e Col d War . Thi s collectio n i s inevitabl y informe d b y th e'symbol' o f 1989 : th e collaps e o f th e Berli n Wall , an d al l tha t ha ssubsequently followed ove r the last ten years.

However divers e th e approaches , personalitie s an d specialism s o f ou rcontributors, they all share an expertise in Chekhov's work - difference s i ninterpretations arise not only through the normal variations of reading, butalso through the diverse perspectives of their relationship to his work. ThusIan McKellen bring s to the subjec t th e perspective o f a great British acto rwho ha s playe d man y Chekhovia n roles ; director s lik e Trevo r Nun n an dLeonid Heifetz approac h the plays from anothe r angle in which sometimesminute detai l from a production alternates with broad brushstrokes . In hischapter o n The Seagull, th e writer Thomas Kilroy debates the relationshipbetween the original play and his own version, se t in Ireland, which raisesmany ne w an d importan t issues . Likewise , th e scenographe r Arnol dAronson draw s the reader i n to the vital are a o f visua l interpretation an dthe staging of many of the plays. No less significant ar e the chapters by thetheatre scholars and historians, Laurence Senelick (author of a major stud yof the plays in performance), Edward Braun and Patrice Pavis. It is relevantto thei r perception s tha t som e hav e themselve s create d viabl e productio ntexts: Edwar d Brau n translate d a n innovator y versio n o f The CherryOrchard for th e Britis h directo r Pete r Gill , whil e Patric e Pavi s i s bot hscholar an d commentato r o f al l Chekhov' s majo r play s i n Frenc h - a nimportant aspec t o f Pavis ' wor k whic h i s no t alway s generall y know noutside France , but the popular an d accessibl e Le Livre de Poche editionsof the plays are introduced by Pavis.

Further aspect s are provided b y the major academi c critics and Slavists:Donald Rayfield writes directly about the short stories, yet brings them intoa natura l relationshi p wit h th e dramati c works ; whil e Cynthi a Marsh ,another Slavis t scholar, explores what may be seen as a particular 'female '(as distinct from 'feminist' ) critiqu e of Chekhov's work. Alexander Chuda -kov's biography o f Chekhov provides some material either littl e known orpreviously under-emphasised outsid e Russia, while both Emma Polotskaya


PREFACE

and Tatian a Shakh-Azizov a offe r th e non-Russia n reade r o r spectato rsignificant ne w perspective s an d insights . Al l o f th e contributor s hav e i ncommon thei r shared interes t in , affection for , an d specialis t knowledge ofChekhov's work.

Emanating from thi s is a basic and essential humanism which is neededall the more given the vacuum o f ideas o r even ideals with which we facenot onl y th e en d o f a decade , an d th e en d o f a centur y - wit h reaso ndescribed as 'the century of barbarism' - bu t also the new millennium. It ishard t o imagin e tha t Chekhov' s literar y an d dramati c work s woul d o rcould attrac t th e interes t an d respec t o f thos e wh o d o no t plac e huma nneeds and human right s a s a central par t o f their individua l prioritie s an dbeliefs - surel y on e explanatio n o f th e paucit y o f Chekho v production sduring the Stalinist period. Shakh-Azizova quote s the Soviet novelist VasilyGrossman, in whose Life and Fate one of the character s says : 'Chekhov' sway i s th e wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f th e Russia ndemocracy, tru e an d humane , whic h neve r too k shape. ' An d i n thei rrespective chapters , bot h Trevo r Nun n an d Ia n McKelle n emphasis e th e'egalitarian' proces s o f Chekhov in production: a collective an d ensemble-forming proces s in which Chekhov is - i n McKellen's words - ' a friend t othe actor' , requirin g a s muc h o f a seemingl y 'small ' role , lik e Charlott aIvanovna in The Cherry Orchard as of Ranevskaya or Lopakhin: 'Chekhovappeals t o m e [a s a n actor ] becaus e yo u canno t realis e th e pla y i nproduction unless ever y par t ha s bee n worke d o n fully' . I n thi s way ,Chekhov's philosophy , hi s dramati c form , an d th e process of productio nare al l inextricabl y boun d u p wit h th e egalitarian , th e human e an d th edemocratic. His plays simply could not flourish under any dictatorship - o rpolitical an d socia l syste m i n whic h ordinar y peopl e (th e subject s o f hi sstories as much as of his plays) are not perceived as important, and withinwhom some elements of potency potentially reside.

Thus even if a performer o r a reader or spectator is more concerned withform, Chekhov's plays are almost inevitably going to invite the interest andconcern o f the humanist - o f those attracted b y his deep understanding ofhuman being s an d psychology ; o f ou r plac e i n relatio n t o a socia l an deconomic context, and the metaphysical determinants of life, death, nature,the seasons , the passag e o f tim e an d ou r plac e i n th e writte n an d a s yetunwritten history of human kind. Chekhov was as much aware of the needto hav e financial sufficienc y i f on e i s no t t o b e 'dispossessed ' an d s o'disempowered' a s h e wa s awar e o f th e nee d t o liv e usefully , t o mak e acontribution to life - no t a judgemental or loaded issue in the works, but aninherent valu e syste m which i s often articulate d b y the characters . This isnot t o say , however , tha t Chekho v himsel f ma y b e associate d wit h an y


PREFACE

particular characte r - i n fact , hi s objectivit y an d detachmen t provoke dmuch criticis m durin g hi s lifetime , an d ma y stil l lea d t o interpretativ emisunderstandings. Hi s objectivity , however , i s no t a denia l o f commit -ment. T o this end , h e avoid s th e sentimenta l o r melodramati c or deliber-ately utilise s the m t o deflat e an d expose . I t i s her e tha t on e finds th egreatest controvers y attache d t o hi s plays , dependin g o n th e epoc h an d'culture' which 'reads' him: his work has been seen as tragic, gloomy, heavyor, to put it in the terms of one of the earliest books on him: as 'the voice oftwilight Russia' . Bu t wit h suc h a n interpretatio n th e directo r ha s t o g oagainst th e form o f hi s wor k - an d ignor e th e vita l rol e o f th e comed ywhich enable s Chekhov' s ton e t o remai n non-judgemental , detache d an dreserved. The interpretation o f a 'gloomy' Chekhov requires a slow pace ofaction, as in the Pitoeff Company' s Pari s production o f Uncle Vanya, overthirty year s ago , in which th e first page o f th e scrip t laste d nearl y fifteenminutes. The yawns and silences of Astrov and Marina were echoed by theaudience.

This i s a centra l productio n questio n o f al l o f Chekhov' s plays , an dsimilarly foun d i n bot h Beckett' s an d som e o f Pinter' s plays : ho w t oillustrate the boredom or lethargy or aimlessness of the characters withou tsending the audience to sleep? The answer, of course, lies in the pace of theproduction - an d ful l us e o f th e comi c device s whic h remaine d largel yunacknowledged b y Stanislavsk y an d certainl y b y many o f Stanislavsky' sfollowers, particularl y filtered through Le e Strasberg' s reinterpretation s -based a s they were o n the wildly inaccurate English-language translation sof Stanislavsky' s writings . A s severa l contributor s poin t out , whethe rShakh-Azizova, Smeliansky , Brau n o r Senelick , i t ha s onl y bee n ove r th elast twenty-fiv e t o thirt y year s tha t director s hav e riske d innovator yChekhov - directe d by Heifetz an d Nunn, and other radical director s suchas Richard Eyre , Mike Alfreds, Anatol y Efros , Pete r Gill , Otomer Krejca ,Andrei Serban , Yanni s Kokkos , Adolp h Shapiro , Pete r Stein , Giorgi oStrehler, Yur i Lyubimov , Jean Vilar , Ole g Yefremov , and , o f course , Pete rBrook. Thi s radicalis m wa s als o instigate d an d inspire d b y th e varyin gvisual interpretations o f some of world theatre' s leading designer s suc h asValery Levental, Josef Svoboda, David Borovsky, Barkhin, Sofiya Yunovich,Santo Loquasto, Kokkos, Motley, Ashley, Martin-Davies, Pamela Howar d- amongs t many scenographers whose visual interpretation has carried notonly place, space and time, but also image, symbol and metaphor. And overthe centur y ther e hav e bee n differen t approache s t o actin g Chekhov : theperformances by Ian McKellen and many other actors have made it possiblefor the plays to be reconceived - an d rediscovered. This has also happenedthrough differen t version s o f the plays - fro m Trevo r Griffiths ' versio n of


PREFACE

The Cherry Orchard, Thomas Kilroy' s reconception o f The Seagull whichgave i t a completel y ne w dimension , th e innovator y reinterpretatio n b yEfros, or Peter Brook's interpretation of The Cherry Orchard as timeless.

The collectio n attempt s t o rais e som e o f th e centra l question s abou tChekhov's wor k - althoug h th e emphasi s i s primaril y o n th e plays . Thebook fall s into three parts: 'Chekhov in context', 'Chekho v in production 'and 'Chekhov the writer'. And given the diversity of contributors, we hopethat a diversit y o f approache s i s evident : whethe r th e biographical ; th ehistorical, both social and theatrical; the 'woman's perspective', for want ofa bette r description ; th e critical , an d th e production-base d perception s o fdifferent theatr e specialists . Ia n McKelle n sum s u p man y o f th e salien tpoints abou t actin g Chekhov: he is 'hard t o pin down' given 'many , manydifferent style s withi n hi s writing ' an d 's o man y theme s goin g on' . An dalso, a poin t mad e earlier , i t i s th e group , o r emergin g ensemble , whic hmakes the production sinc e 'no one actor i s allowed to run away with theplay'.

Chekhov i s frequently linke d wit h Shakespeare , no t onl y i n Russi a bu tinternationally, a point made by Shakh-Azizova, Heifetz an d Nunn - i f thisvolume fail s t o justif y thi s compariso n i n term s o f importance , constan treinterpretation an d frequency o f performance, the n it can only be throughthe failure o f the editors, and not the contributors. Few editors could havemet wit h suc h sustaine d courtesy , patienc e an d expertis e a s fro m th econtributors o f this volume. Like others in the Cambridge Series , contribu-tors have responded t o faxes , phon e calls , e-mails an d ordinar y letters : inspite o f th e difficultie s o f distanc e an d tim e zones , response s hav e bee nunfailingly swif t an d generous , making the role o f edito r a delightfu l an denjoyable task .

It is , perhaps, unusua l t o mentio n th e Chekho v specialist s whose wor kcould not be included in this volume solely given limitations of space, but itwould be wrong to leave the important work of John Tulloch, for example,or Patric k Miles , Mari a Shevtsova , Harve y Pitche r o r Hara i Golum bamongst others , simply to the bibliography. Thei r influence ma y be felt indifferent part s o f th e book . Equally , thos e whos e hel p ha s ha d a direc tbearing o n th e volum e ar e justl y mentione d i n th e acknowledgements ,though non e ar e responsibl e fo r an y error s - thos e ar e entirel y th eresponsibility of the editors.

June 2000



ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

Dr Chekhov : a biographical essa y(29 January 1860-1 5 July 1904 )

Chekhov wa s a first-generation intellectual : hi s grandfather wa s a forme rserf, his father a small shopkeeper. 'There is peasant blood in me', he wrote(Letters, vol . V, p . 283). 1 But in the history of Russian culture, the name ofChekhov has become synonymous with intelligence, good upbringing - an drefinement. Ho w di d thes e qualitie s com e t o b e acquire d b y a provincia lboy who spen t hi s crucia l formativ e year s u p t o th e ag e o f ninetee n i n asmall Russia n town ? Taganrog , Chekhov' s birthplace , wa s typica l o fRussian provincial towns of the time: taverns, little shops, 'not a single signwithout a spelling mistake' ; oi l lamps , and wasteland s thickl y overgrow nwith weeds . Chekhov' s memories , o f hi s 'green ' year s growin g u p i nTaganrog, are full o f references to puddles and unpaved streets.

Taganrog wa s als o a southern port . Th e secon d floor of th e Chekhovs 'house where Anton spen t his early secondary schoo l years overlooked th eharbour crammed at the height of summer with steamers and sailing ships.One could walk severa l miles along the shore and not see a single Russianship - instead , there were vessels from Turkey, the Greek Archipelago, Italy,Spain: th e San Antonio; th e Sophia, the Ogios Gerasimos, the MovludiBagri. They brought wine from Madeir a an d Asia Minor, lemons, oranges,olive oil from Provence , and spices . Taganrog was the staging post for th esupply o f provisions t o the whole Azov region. By the time Chekhov wasborn thi s trad e ha d alread y passe d it s peak , bu t i t remaine d extremel yactive throughout his schooldays. The streets were filled with the babble offoreign languages . Near the port was a street with coffee-shops, an d whenthe weathe r wa s fine the table s wer e packe d wit h Turks , Greeks , Frenchand English. Pavel Yegorovich Chekhov's stor e was on the ground floor ofa house , an d fo r a time th e first floor housed a casino . Nearby wa s th eLondon Hotel, with a female ban d to entertain the sailors in the evenings.Taganrog was the Russian equivalent of the Mediterranean French ports.

Pavel Chekho v decide d t o give his elder son s a Greek education . Ther ewere si x children : five boy s an d on e girl , Mari a Chekhova . Chekhov' s


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

younger brother , Michael , recalled : 'A t tha t tim e ric h Greek s wer e th ecream o f Taganro g societ y . . . an d fathe r wa s convince d hi s childre nshould follow th e Greek example, and perhaps even complete their educa-tion a t Athen s University.' 2 S o Anton an d hi s brother s wer e sen t t o th eGreek school . Nothing cam e o f this , though the y spen t on e year studyin gunder th e terrifyin g headmaster , Nikola i Vuchina. 3 The y spen t th e whol esummer bathin g i n the sea , swimming long distances . When Chekhov , bythen a well-know n writer , wa s returnin g fro m Sakhali n vi a th e India nOcean, he amused himself b y diving from th e bow of the ship while it wassailing a t full speed , and catching a rope hanging from th e stern . Once hesaw a shark i n the company o f pilot-fish . Thi s episode i s described i n hisstory, 'Gusev ' (1890) . Th e impression s o f a winte r se a wit h it s terribl estorms are reflected in Chekhov's story 'On Christmas Night' (1883).

Taganrog wa s a souther n town , surrounde d closel y o n al l side s b y theSteppe. Anton an d his brothers spen t thei r summe r holidays i n the villageof Knyazh i wit h thei r grandfather , a stewar d o n th e estat e o f Countes sPlatova. Th e villag e wa s fort y mile s fro m th e tow n an d th e journe y i n abullock cart took more than a day. At night they camped out on the Steppe,under the stars. After si x years a t grammar school , Anton spent a summeron th e estat e o f th e parent s o f hi s privat e pupil , Pety a Kravtsov . Tha tsummer, th e Taganro g studen t an d 'tutor ' becam e a skille d sho t an d a nexcellent horseman. Many years later, in 1898 , Chekhov wrote: 'I love theDon Steppe . At on e time i t wa s lik e hom e t o m e an d I knew ever y littl egully' (Letters, vol. vn, p. 322). The Steppe landscapes are described in hisearliest storie s ('29t h June ' an d 'Th e Mistress ' (1882)) , an d i n hi s firstmajor work , th e story 'Th e Steppe ' (1888) . From childhood experienc e ofthe Steppe , natur e becam e a par t o f hi s ver y being . Durin g hi s tri p t oSiberia in 1890, he took delight in studying nature at close quarters, and inhis letters he describes with rapture how for a whole month he watched thesunrise fro m beginnin g t o end . H e wa s acutel y awar e o f hi s bon d wit hnature; his moods reacted t o the changes in the weather lik e a barometer .The influence tha t nature exerts on the human psyche is reflected i n storiessuch a s 'The Student ' (1894 ) an d 'Th e Murder ' (1895) . So trees, flowers,clouds, dog s an d wolve s fee l an d thin k lik e people , a s demonstrate d i n'Agafia', 'Rusty ' ('Kashtanka') , 'Patch ' ('Beloloby' , 1895 ) an d 'Terror'(1892). The y grieve , rejoice , worr y an d fee l sad . Man y Russia n writer shave portrayed natur e an d animals . Perhaps th e works o f Serge i Aksakovor Mikhai l Prishvin 4 wil l surviv e t o becom e uniqu e evidenc e o f ho w ou rplanet used t o be , an d wha t amazin g creature s live d o n it . Bu t fo r th epresent, we are more concerned with the experience of Chekhov who wrotenot abou t th e solitary lif e o f man a t on e with natur e an d the bird s o f the


Dr Chekhov: a biographical essay

air, but about the everyday encounters of modern civilised man pursuing anurban existence , livin g in a flat or a suburban dacha . Bot h i n hi s writin gand i n hi s persona l life , Chekho v offere d u s example s t o follo w i n ou rdealings with our fellow creatures.

The theatre i n Taganrog was far fro m typica l o f the Russian provincia lstage. Ho w man y o f th e smalle r theatre s coul d b e regularl y visite d b ytouring Italia n oper a companies ? O r b y Sarasate, 5 o r Liszt' s pupil , LauraCarer. Tommaso Salvini sang the title role in Otello. The repertoire featuredoperettas b y Suppe , Lehar , Lecoc q an d Offenbach . Perhap s thes e othe raspects o f Taganrog served only to accentuate 'th e lethargy an d boredom 'of day-to-day reality.

On 23 August 1868 Anton Chekhov entered the preparatory class of thegrammar school , wher e h e wa s t o stud y fo r th e nex t eleve n year s (h erepeated th e third an d fifth years). It was a classical grammar schoo l an dspecial significance wa s ascribed to the study of classical languages. At thegraduation examinations , Chekho v go t to p grade s i n Germa n an d Scrip -ture. In his earlier year s the young Anton was hindered b y having to helphis father i n the shop afte r school , working there until late a t night. But ifthe work a t the shop - unde r the sign 'Tea, Coffee an d Other Groceries ' -did not hel p Chekho v make progress a t school , i t certainly helpe d hi m inhis creative writing . The sho p sol d a variety o f goods , including oil , fish,flour, tobacco , buttons, coffee, knives , confectionery, candles , spades, shoepolish, an d herrings . I t provide d no t onl y a n educatio n i n objects , bu t i talso served as an animated lexicon . A shop in the provinces was a kind ofclub where people went not only to buy things, but also to drink a glass ofvodka o r wine . I t wa s frequented b y cooks, sho p assistants , th e wive s ofofficials, policemen , cab-drivers , fishermen, teachers, schoo l students , an dsailors. They al l talked, s o from hi s early childhood Anto n listene d t o thelanguage of people of the most varied occupations. Later critics were to beamazed by Chekhov's knowledge of nautical terms, the language of timbermerchants or of haberdashery assistants.

From early childhood Chekho v was kept busy with domesti c chores: heshopped, cleane d th e flat, fetche d wate r fro m th e wel l an d eve n di d th elaundry. Household dutie s are exhausting in their monotony, in the mean-ingless repetitio n da y afte r da y o f th e sam e tasks , an d suc h dutie s ar eespecially burdensome for a young person. And not only for a young person- Chekho v would show later in his writing how anyone who lives only in thematerial world and lacks the ability to resist it becomes completely stifled bythe everyday, and then the spiritual gives way completely to the material. Indescribing this situation, Chekhov understood this not merely as a detachedobserver but knew it from personal experience.


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

No less forcibly, Chekho v was exposed fro m earl y childhood to the ful lforce o f the Churc h Slavoni c language throug h compulsor y churc h atten -dance, singing i n the church choir , religious ritual s a t home an d studyin gthe Bible. But all this 'brought A. P. into contact with the beautiful ancien tlanguage of Church Slavonic , never allowing him to forget it , as happenedwith th e grea t majorit y o f Russia n intellectuals , an d nurturin g i n him a nacute feelin g fo r th e simpl e vernacula r tongue'. 6 Thu s thi s childhood ,divided by the airless store and the open sea, the corridors o f the grammarschool an d th e endles s Steppe , betwee n th e narro w milie u o f th e pett yclerks an d th e fre e an d eas y natura l lif e o f th e countr y people , offere d avivid contras t betwee n natur e an d th e materia l worl d whic h promise d t ofoster an artist with a most unconventional aesthetic perception of life.

Chekhov's fathe r wen t bankrup t an d wa s facin g prison , s o he an d th efamily moved to Moscow. Anton spent the period from 187 6 to 1879 alonein Taganrog, making a living as a tutor whils t managing to send money tohis parents. It was a time of solitude during which his character took shape.

In 1879, he joined the Faculty of Medicine at Moscow University, wherehis lecturer s wer e suc h eminen t medica l scientist s a s Grigor y Zakharyin ,Aleksei Ostroumo v an d Nikola i Sklifasovsky . Earl y on , h e becam e ac -quainted with the theories of Charles Darwin, which he continued to studyafter graduating : 'I' m readin g Darwin . What a treat! I simply ador e him '(Letters, vol. 1, p. 213). Studyin g th e natura l science s 'exerte d a colossa linfluence o n the whole framewor k o f hi s thinking. Fo r him , the truth s o fthe natural science s radiated a poetic light and it was such truths a s these,rather than socio-political doctrines, which shaped his fundamental percep -tion o f lif e a s i t is , an d a s i t should be , an d o f man' s place.' 7 Thi s i sconfirmed b y Chekhov, who in 1899, wrote in his autobiography: 'There isno doubt that my study of medicine strongly affected m y work in literature'(Works, vol. xvi, p. 271).

Even a s a first-year student , Chekho v wa s alread y contributin g shor tstories t o comi c magazine s (hi s first story appeare d i n The Dragonfly in1880, bu t hi s mai n publishe r wa s th e magazin e Fragments). It wa s no tuntypical for writer s to start their careers in popular publications: this wastrue o f Nikola i Nekrasov , Leoni d Andreyev , Mar k Twai n an d Ernes tHemingway, to name but a few. But none of them published as many comicstories, sketches , spoo f advertisements , scene s o r anecdote s a s di dChekhov. It is widely believed that this involvement with comic magazinesdistracted Chekho v from seriou s literary work. But it was not as simple asthat. Comi c magazine s offere d freedo m o f form : ther e wer e onl y tw orequirements - humou r an d conciseness . Nothin g else , whethe r plot ,composition, techniqu e o r style , was bound b y any literary rules . None of



these publications belonged to any 'established' literary school or style. Thesmall press was by its very nature eclectic. Authors were free to write in anymanner, invent new techniques, modify the old conventions and experimentwith new forms.

Chekhov realised this very early on. Like any great talent, he knew howto tur n an y circumstance s t o hi s ow n advantage . H e wa s foreve r experi -menting wit h ne w styles , assumin g ne w noms de plumes, explorin g eve rchanging areas of life. If one looks at stories he wrote in the first five yearsof his career, it is difficult t o discover a social stratum, profession o r tradethat i s not represente d amongs t hi s characters . Ther e ar e peasant s an dlandowners, shop assistants and merchants, sextons and priests, policemenand tramps , detective s an d thieves , schoolteacher s an d students , medica lorderlies an d doctors , civi l servant s o f al l ranks , soldier s an d generals ,coquettes an d princesses , reporter s an d writers , conductor s an d singers ,actors, prompters, impresarios, artists , cashiers, bankers, lawyers, hunters,tavern-keepers, street-cleaners . Fro m th e beginning , Chekho v wa s a ninnovator who limited himself to no one area of subject matter , a writer ofuniversal socia l an d stylisti c range . Ye t fo r th e reade r ther e exis t tw oChekhovs sid e b y side : th e on e wh o wrot e 'Fa t an d Thin ' (1883) , ' AChameleon' (1884) , 'A Horse's Name' (1885), 'The Complaints Book'; andthe othe r famou s fo r ' A Drear y Story ' (1889) , 'Th e Artist' s Story ' (Che -khov's title is 'The House with the Mezzanine' (1896)), and 'A Lady with aLittle Dog ' (1899) . Wha t coul d thes e 'two ' author s possibl y hav e i ncommon? Certainl y tha t wa s hi s contemporaries ' view . I n 1897 , th eprominent critic Nikolai Mikhailovsky wrote: 'It is difficult t o see anythingin commo n betwee n 'Peasants ' (1897 ) an d Tvanov ' (1887-89) , betwee n'The Steppe' , 'War d Numbe r 6 ' (1892) , 'Th e Blac k Monk ' (1894) , an dvaudevilles lik e The Bear (1888), o r the numerou s comi c stories.' 8 But inreality they are closely linked: Chekhov's 'humorous ' past had a significantbearing on the evolution of his innovative creative thought. His early workscontain the first sketches , the silhouettes, of his future acclaime d characters:Bugrov in 'A Living Chattel ' (1882 ) foreshadows Lopakhi n in The CherryOrchard (1904), while other characters prefigure thos e in the later works,such as Toporkov in 'Belated Blossom' (1882) , 'Ionytch ' (1898 ) (Hingley' stitle is 'Doctor Startsev'); the lathe operator Petrov in 'Sorrow' (1885) - an dthe coffin-maker Yako v in 'Rothschild's Violin' (1894), and many others.

Many of the artistic principles, explored by Chekhov in his first five yearsas a writer , remaine d constan t fo r th e res t o f hi s career . Ther e wer epreliminary expositions o f the situation, no excursions into the characters'past, or similar introductions to the narrative - i t always began instantly. Itis the characters who create the action, and there is no explanation or, more


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

accurately, exposition, as to the causes of these actions. As Chekhov wrote:'Characters must be introduced in the middle of a conversation s o that thereader ha s th e impressio n the y hav e bee n talking fo r som e time ' (Works,vol. rv, p. 359). The avoidance o f extended authoria l comment , a s well asthe famou s Chekhovia n evocatio n o f landscape , ar e als o traceabl e t o hi searly work. Equally, many of the distinctive features o f his dramatic workshave th e sam e 'humorous ' genealogy , suc h a s rando m o r meaningles sremarks throug h mutua l misunderstandings , an d s o on . Thus , i t i s not acharacter's biograph y o r som e universal 'problem ' tha t furnishe s th e basi sof a comic story, but invariably som e quite specific everyday disagreemen tor situation. For example, a character finds himself in the wrong place (thehen-house instea d o f th e dacha) , o r i s mistake n fo r somebod y els e ( aswindler is taken for a doctor). Such mishaps occur all the time in everydaylife and a comic story cannot exis t in isolation from them . No matter howprofound o r sharply satirical the content may be (in, for example, 'Fat andThin', 'Th e Deat h o f a Clerk ' (1883) , ' A Chameleon ' (1884) , hi s comi cstories are always developed out of an entirely concrete situation.

In his late prose, Chekhov focussed on more complex socio-psychologicalproblems, bu t agai n the y were never mad e explici t o r centra l t o the plot .The plo t neve r revolve d aroun d suc h a problem , a s i s th e cas e wit hDostoyevsky. Or aroun d a character's life-stor y a s in Turgenev o r Gonch -arov. A s wit h th e earlie r works , th e basi s o f th e narrativ e i s alway sfurnished b y some particular circumstance s o f everyday life . I t could evenbe sai d tha t ever y proble m i s resolve d agains t a particula r backgroun ddrawn from everyday life. But that is not quite accurate: everyday life is notthe background , th e backdrop to the scene ; it lies a t the very heart o f theplot, i s interwove n wit h it . Th e her o o f a comi c stor y i s steepe d i n th ematerial world . H e canno t exis t o r b e presente d outsid e thi s world . I nChekhov's storie s h e i s depicte d i n a bathhouse , a hospital , a railwa ycarriage, a horse-drawn tram . He i s depicted whil e fishing - o r retrievin gorange peel from a decanter.

Circumstantial detai l permeates Chekhov' s late prose as much as it doeshis comi c stories . Character s meditat e an d philosophis e whil e bathing ,riding in a carriage or doing the rounds at a clinic, breaking off to deal withsome mundane trifle or other.

Every characte r i n th e comi c stories , whethe r a clerk , telegraphist ,reporter, acto r wit h a provincia l company , o r gues t i n som e chea p hotel ,invariably has some problem to dea l with: how to ge t to a dacha, how toget t o slee p whe n th e next-doo r o r upstair s neighbour s ar e playin g th epiano o r wailing abou t ho w to retrieve thei r ow n new boots in return fo rthe worn-out ones that they took by mistake. Perhaps such characters help



to revea l th e tigh t bond s betwee n peopl e an d th e object s tha t surroun dthem and so lead Chekhov to the conclusion that everyone is bound by hisor her material environment and can never break free from it , and that thisis the onl y way to portra y people . Chekhov' s comi c sketche s alway s takesome fragmen t o f life , wit h n o beginnin g o r end , an d simpl y offe r i t fo rinspection. And don't his later works follow the same pattern, beginning 'inthe middle ' an d endin g 'wit h nothing' ? Th e ne w artisti c worl d tha tChekhov created , th e worl d o f 'Th e Duel ' (1891) , 'Th e Hous e wit h aMezzanine', 'Th e Bishop ' (1902) , give s n o indicatio n o f it s humorou santecedents, but even so, the debt is considerable.

In Moscow the Chekhovs lived in poverty (sometimes with all six adultsand childre n cramme d int o on e room) . Fo r th e summer s the y wen t t oVoskresensk, outside Moscow (now called Istra), where Chekhov's brotherIvan wa s principa l o f a schoo l an d ha d a flat. Fo r thre e summer s(1885-87), Chekho v an d the family staye d i n the village o f Babkino , no tfar fro m Voskresensk , wher e Chekho v worke d i n th e loca l clinic . Hi simpressions o f lif e an d natur e i n th e countrysid e aroun d Mosco w ar ereflected i n many o f hi s shor t stories , such a s 'Th e Conspirator' , ' A DeadBody' (1885), 'Children' (1889), or 'The Kiss' (1887).

February 188 6 wa s a landmark i n Chekhov' s literar y career : hi s wor kbegan to be published i n one of the most prestigious an d popular Russia nnewspapers, Novoye vremya (New Time). Th e offer , unrestricte d b yvolume an d terms , cam e fro m th e owne r an d managin g editor , Alexe ySuvorin. Within two months Novoye vremya had published 'Offic e fo r theDead', 'Th e Enemies ' (1887) , 'Agafia' , ' A Nightmare' (1886) , 'Easter Eve '(1886) - al l ranked amongs t Chekhov' s bes t shor t stories. 9 'The five shortstories, published in Novoye vremya caused a commotion in St. Petersburg'(Works, vol . I, p. 242). The eminent write r Dimitr i Grigorovic h wrot e t ocongratulate him. There were material benefit s too : the money for the firststory from Novoye vremya was more money than he could earn in a monthfrom th e journa l Fragments. 1886 wa s th e yea r o f Chekhov' s greates tproductivity: he wrote more than a hundred works, and his first collection,entitled Motley Tales, appeared i n print . Prio r t o this , h e ha d onl y on esmall collection o f si x stories published i n 1884 , which appeare d unde r apseudonym.10 Then in 1887 Chekhov wrote his first play, Ivanov.

Chekhov's collaboration with Novoye vremya continued through the late18 80s t o th e earl y 1890s , strengthenin g hi s friendshi p wit h Suvorin, 11

whose aestheti c view s h e value d ver y highly . For hi s part , Suvori n love dChekhov an d alway s helpe d hi m i n hard times . The 33 7 surviving letter sChekhov wrot e t o Suvori n ove r th e perio d 1886-190 3 ar e th e mos tfascinating o f al l hi s epistolary writings . In 189 1 and 189 4 the y travelle d


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

abroad together. Suvorin published the first short story collection, At Dusk(1887), an d i t wa s partl y du e t o Suvorin' s enthusiasti c backin g tha t th ebook wa s awarde d th e Pushkin Prize . It wa s als o Suvori n wh o publishe dShort Stories (1888) , Gloomy People (1890) , Motley Tales (1891) an dPlays (1897), all of which were then reprinted severa l times. A rift i n theirrelations occurre d afte r th e Dreyfus Case , on which Suvorin' s pape r too kan extreme nationalist stand. 12

The late 1880 s an d earl y 1890 s sa w a blossoming o f Chekhov' s talent .New collections o f his stories appeared , an d he was awarded th e PushkinPrize, as noted above . His vaudevilles The Bear (1888) an d The Proposal(1888-9) wer e staged by both professional an d amateur companies in , forexample, Kazan , Kaluga , Kostroma , Novocherkassk , Simbirsk , Revel ,Tiflis, Tomsk , Tula , Yaroslav . Chekhov' s fam e grew , an d hi s first majo rstory, 'The Steppe', was reviewed in dozens of papers across the country.

At the ver y heigh t o f hi s succes s a s a short-story write r an d dramatist ,Chekhov mad e hi s journe y t o Sakhali n - 'i t wa s a plac e o f th e mos tunbearable suffering tha t could ever befall a man, whether captive or free '(Works, vol. rv, p. 32).13 For a time, Chekhov wa s spared the necessity ofworking o n the verge o f th e impossible , suc h a s completing, whil e sittin ghis medical exams, a hundred stories a year - a task he had set for himself .By 'reading , lookin g aroun d an d listening , ther e i s much t o lear n an d t odiscover . . . Besides , I believ e thi s trip , si x month s o f uninterrupte dphysical and intellectual labour, is absolutely necessary for me, because myUkrainian lazines s has started to show of late. It's high time for m e to getback int o training ' (Works, vol . IV, p . 31) . Thi s 'training ' continue dthroughout hi s life , an d i s th e outstandin g characteristi c o f thi s mos taccomplished self-taught writer .

The tri p t o Sakhali n wa s bese t wit h th e mos t enormou s difficulties .Chekhov ha d t o trave l righ t acros s Siberia , including 4,00 0 kilometre s i nhorse-drawn vehicles . Within thre e month s o f hi s arrival , working o n hisown, Chekho v ha d mad e a complet e censu s o f th e Sakhali n population ,filling i n over 8,000 reference cards . He spoke literally to each one, in theirhomes o r i n thei r priso n cells . In 189 5 hi s book , The Island of Sakhalin,was published . Impression s o f th e tri p wer e als o incorporate d i n storie ssuch a s 'Gusev ' (1890) , 'Peasan t Women ' (1891) , 'I n Exile ' (1894 ) an d'Murder' (1895) . Afte r Sakhalin , Chekho v bega n t o writ e suc h philoso -phical storie s a s 'Duel ' (1891 ) an d 'War d No.6 ' (1892) , questionin g th emeaning o f life , deat h an d immortality . Throughou t hi s lif e Chekho vengaged in matters that were not directly related to literature: he organisedrelief fo r th e famine-stricke n provinces , practise d a s a docto r an d buil tschools. Thes e activitie s increase d notabl y afte r Marc h 189 2 whe n h e



bought the Melikhovo estate , not far fro m Moscow . In 189 2 and 189 3 heran a free medica l centr e o n the estate i n response to a cholera epidemic .Where previously his medical practice had been occasional, now he treatedmore than 1,50 0 patient s i n two years . Thus he extended th e range o f hisexperience.

Living i n th e country , Chekho v no t onl y practise d medicine , bu t als opersonally financed the construction o f three schools in the neighbourhoodand served as a member o f the examination board . He also participated inall loca l affairs , makin g n o distinctio n betwee n majo r o r mino r issues ,whether fighting the choler a epidemic , diggin g wells , buildin g road s - o ropening a post office a t the railway station. 'I t would be great if each of usleft behin d a school , a wel l o r somethin g o f tha t kin d s o tha t one' s lif ewouldn't vanis h into eternity withou t trace ' (Works, vol . xvn, p . 70). Hisimpressions o f Melikhov o ar e reflected i n such major work s a s 'Peasants '(1897), 'In the Cart' (1897), 'New Villa' (1899) and 'In the Ravine' (1900).

Chekhov entertained many guests at Melikhovo: the famous artis t IsaakLevitan, th e acto r Pave l Svobodin ; th e writer s Ignati y Potapenko , Iva nLeontiev-Shcheglov an d Vladimi r Nemirovich-Danchenk o (shortl y t o co -found th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre) , an d Alexe y Suvorin . Amon g th e guest sthere were always young ladies.

By nature Chekho v wa s very reticent , an d s o littl e i s known abou t hi srelations wit h women . H e ha d hi s first sexua l experienc e a t th e ag e o ffourteen wit h a Greek woman, and his affair wit h an Indian girl in Ceylonis know n onl y becaus e h e wrot e abou t i t i n on e o f hi s letters . Hi scomplicated relationshi p wit h Yevdokia Efros laste d for a year-and-a-half .Chekhov even referred t o her a s his fiancee and the episode i s reflected i nthe relationship betwee n Ivanov and Sarah in Ivanov. No less complicatedan affair wa s the one Chekhov had with 'beautiful Lika' , Lidia Mizinova, afriend o f hi s sister , Mari a Chekhova , an d late r o f th e whol e Chekho vfamily (echoe s o f this affai r ar e found i n The Seagull). Hi s affai r wit h theactress Lydia Yavorskaya was turbulent, bu t brief . During Chekhov' s tripsfrom Melikhov o t o Mosco w h e was ofte n see n i n the compan y o f ladie sfrom Moscow's 'bohemian' artistic circles.

Once Chekho v wa s establishe d a s a seriou s write r th e mai n criticis mlevelled at him was his lack of a central idea, a clear-cut outlook, a unifyingtheme. This criticis m wa s bes t expresse d b y Mikhailovsky, wh o wrot e i n1890: 'Chekhov treats everything equally: a man and his shadow, a bluebelland a suicide . . . Here oxe n ar e bein g drive n an d ther e th e pos t i s beingdelivered . . . her e a ma n i s strangle d an d ther e peopl e ar e drinkin gchampagne.'14

Beginning wit h th e story , 'Th e Steppe' , almos t al l o f Chekhov' s work s


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

were criticise d fo r thei r lac k o f a clear-cu t structure ; fo r thei r exces s o fincidental an d irrelevant detai l that impeded the flow of the narrative. Formany years , h e continue d t o b e criticise d fo r hi s rando m sequenc e o fepisodes whic h mad e i t impossibl e 't o gras p th e overal l picture' . Critic scalled into question hi s narrative pattern s i n the shor t stories , the absenceof extende d introductions , o f definit e conclusions , o f th e elaboratel ydetailed pre-historie s fo r hi s characters , o r clear-cu t motive s fo r thei ractions. Particularly annoyin g was the tota l absenc e o f a n authoria l view .Thus Chekhov' s innovativ e descriptiv e styl e was considered a violation oftraditional canons of fiction writing, and parallels were drawn between himand new European artist s suc h a s the Impressionists . But in general , fro mthe earl y 1890s , bot h critic s an d reader s bega n increasingl y t o singl e ou tChekhov from th e majority o f his literary contemporaries . Only VsevolodGarshin an d Vladimi r Korolenk o and , amongs t younge r writers , Maxi mGorky, were ranked with him. More and more, critics ranked Chekhov ona leve l with th e Russian classica l writer s - Nikola i Gogol , Ivan Turgene vand Lev Tolstoy.

Recognition o f Chekhov' s dram a wa s equall y belated . The Seagull,premiered o n 1 7 October 189 6 at the Alexandrinsky Theatr e in St Peters-burg, was a flop. The author was deeply upset by its failure an d that nightsaid t o Suvorin : 'Eve n i f I live for anothe r 70 0 years , I'l l stil l no t offe r asingle play to the theatre . . . I'm a failure i n this sphere.' 15 But the reasonfor its failure was Chekhov's innovative dramatic technique, which was notunderstood unti l 189 8 when the 'theatre o f the new century', the MoscowArt Theatre , stage d it s hugely successfu l production s o f The Seagull, an dsubsequently all Chekhov's other plays.16

Following the MAT productions, Chekhov' s fam e entere d a new phase.His plays were produced acros s the Russian Empire . Each successiv e newwork was a literary and theatrical event. From 1899 onwards, articles andreviews of his works appeared in the Russian press almost every day (up to300 articles a year). Books devoted to Chekhov began to be published bothin Russia an d abroa d (abou t te n suc h books were published i n Chekhov' slifetime). How did he react to his fame? He objected to the clamour and tothe incessant demand s tha t wer e made o f him, bu t i n private he had highself-esteem, h e kne w hi s wort h an d wa s full y awar e o f hi s positio n i nRussian literature.

From 1897 , Chekhov's health deteriorated rapidly as tuberculosis bega nto take hold. As a doctor, Chekhov knew that his way of life had to change,but h e persiste d i n workin g himsel f int o th e ground . Hi s doctor s recom -mended that he move to Yalta, so he sold the Melikhovo estate and went tothe Crimea, where he spent the last five years of his life. In those times he



wrote suc h masterpiece s a s ' A Lad y wit h a Littl e Dog' , 'I n th e Ravine' ,Three Sisters (1900-1) , 'Th e Bishop ' (1902 ) an d The Cherry Orchard(1903-4). Bu t Chekho v di d no t lik e Yalt a wit h it s palm-tree s an d idl etourists. He loved the countryside of Central Russia, and he loved Moscow.Nevertheless, h e bough t a plo t o f lan d an d buil t a lovely house . Bu t th ehouse had on e serious defect , particularl y fo r a sick man: in winter i t wascold. Th e winte r climat e i n Yalt a i s bad , wit h frequen t col d winds .Chekhov had alway s fel t a n affinit y wit h nature , a dependence o n it withthe season s o f the yea r markin g importan t phase s i n hi s life . Rain , snow ,any change in the weather was as equal in importance to him as his literaryor public affairs . I n his letters references t o work ar e regularly interrupte dby such observations as : 'it has started to snow' or, as he wrote to both hiswife and his sister in Autumn 1902 : 'big news - i t rained at night'. (Letters,vol. xi, p. 41).

There was another reason why Chekhov disliked Yalta, and, indeed, whyit seeme d lik e a priso n t o him : h e ha d becom e involve d wit h th e MA Tactress, Olg a Knipper , an d i n 190 1 h e marrie d her . Knippe r staye d i nMoscow, performing a t th e MAT, while Chekho v coul d no t visi t there asoften a s he wished: 'I t i s neither my fault no r yours that we are separated ,but the demons who planted th e bacillus in me and the love of ar t in you'(Works, vol . ix, p . 124) . Nevertheless , h e misse d he r dreadfull y an d hi sletters ar e ful l o f complaint s an d request s fo r he r t o come , whic h wer eechoed b y hi s friend s an d acquaintances . Thus , th e directo r an d write rLeopold Sulerzhitsky wrote to Knipper: 'Anton Pavlovich needs you. He issuffocating withi n hi s fou r walls . Yo u mustn' t forge t tha t h e no t onl ybelongs to you, but he is also a great writer and you should come and visithim, for you are the one person who can cheer him up and help restore hishealth which is vital for everybody, for Russian literature, for Russia.' 17

In Yalta Chekhov missed the literary milieu and his friends, although oldand new acquaintances helped to relieve his isolation: writers such as IvanBunin, Maxim Gorky , Alexande r Kupri n an d Nikola i Teleshev ; the oper asinger Fyodo r Chaliapi n an d th e compose r Serge i Rakhmaninov. I n April1900, th e MAT made a special visi t t o Yalt a t o perform Chekhov' s play sfor him.

In spit e o f worsenin g health , Chekho v stil l engage d i n publi c an dcharitable activities in Yalta, giving money to build schools and clinics, andwriting a n appea l fo r hel p fo r tubercula r patient s whic h wa s reprinte din man y paper s an d magazine s acros s Russia . I n 190 2 Chekho v an dKorolenko gave up the title of Honorary Academician in protest at the Tsar'sdecision t o rejec t th e electio n o f Gork y t o th e Academy , a s inadmissabl eon political grounds .


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

On th e occasio n o f th e premier e o f Chekhov' s las t play , The CherryOrchard in January 1904 , Moscow honoured its much-loved writer, but bythat time he was so ill he could barely stand. The celebration seemed morelike a farewell . B y the summe r Chekhov' s healt h wa s eve n wors e an d heand his wife wen t to the spa o f Badenweiler i n Germany fo r th e cure. Hedied ther e o n 1 5 July . Righ t t o th e end , h e remaine d courageousl ycomposed.

In enumerating Chekhov' s achievement s throughou t hi s life , on e migh ttake hi m fo r a publi c figure . H e practise d medicine ; organise d ai d fo rfamine-stricken provinces ; ra n a medica l statio n durin g th e choler a epi -demic; built schools and hospitals; donated to public libraries; made publicappeals fo r aid , an d personall y helpe d hundred s o f peopl e i n nee d an dmisfortune. H e wrote article s o n socia l and politica l subjects , an d a bookabout th e priso n islan d o f Sakhalin , t o whic h h e ha d undertake n a narduous journe y righ t acros s Siberia . All o f thi s was don e b y a man whowas alway s plague d b y ill-health . An d a t th e sam e tim e h e wa s engage dconstantly i n th e mos t titani c literar y labour , writin g a ne w pag e i n th eartistic history of the world.

NOTESTitles of the stories are generally from Ronal d Hingley's The Oxford Chekhovor Ronal d Wilks ' Pengui n edition s i n fou r volumes , t o enabl e non-Russia nspeaking readers to find many of the stories in English. See Appendix I.

1 Unles s otherwise specified , th e references t o Works and Letters are from N . F.Belchikov and others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisemv 301 totnakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works andLetters in 30 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83).

2 M . P. Chekhov, Around Chekhov, in Memoirs, Moscow, 1981, p. 32 .3 Nikola i Vuchina , the eccentric headmaste r o f the Greek school , who seems to

have taught largely through torture (suc h as a form o f crucifixion, lashin g boysto the window shutters) , unlike mor e usua l pedagogues . Certainl y Anto n andhis elder brother Nicholas lef t afte r a year without learnin g any Greek, exceptfor a few swear words.

4 Serge i Aksako v (1791-1859) , membe r o f the dynasty o f a famous Slavophil eRussian family . H e came t o writing lat e i n life , an d was renowned fo r theunique wor k Notes on Fishing (1847), an d Notes of a Hunter of OrenburgProvince (1852) , bot h remarkabl e fo r thei r systemati c descriptio n o f ever ydetail. He was also the author of the 'fictional ' Family Chronicle (1856) , basedon his own despotic landowning family.

Mikhail Prishvin (1873-1954), prose writer, whose stories are like Aksakov'sin thei r mi x of science and poetry i n describing nature . His works hav e beencalled 'verba l landscapes ' an d recor d meticulousl y th e chang e o f seasons ,climate, an d effect o f tim e o n nature, an d the animal s o f Norther n Russia .Courageously Prishvi n used Peter the Great's orde r to carry overlan d his great



fleet fro m th e White Se a to the Balti c as a metaphor fo r Stalin' s use o f force dlabour i n buildin g th e Baltic-Whit e Se a Cana l i n 1933 . The huma n cos t ca nnever really be known.

Alexander Chudakov's point here relates to descriptions of nature which evennow is changing and in some cases disappearing.

5 Pabl o de Sarasate (y Navascuez), 1844-1908.6 A . Ismailov, Chekhov: 1860-11)04. Life, Persona, Work, Moscow, 1916, p. 62.7 G . A. Byaly, Late 19th Century Russian Realism, Leningrad, 1973 , p. 159.8 N . Mikhailovsky, 'Literature and Life', Russkoe bogatstvo 6, 1897, p. 121.9 Fo r the origina l Russian title s o f these an d th e othe r storie s mentioned i n this

chapter, see the list of variations of English titles from the Russian (Appendix 1).10 Chekhov' s pen-name s o r pseudonym s range d fro m 'M y brother' s brother ' t o

'A. Chekhonte' and other comic names.11 Alexe y Sergeyevic h Suvorin , wealth y owne r an d publishe r o f Noveye vretnya

(New Time), and Chekhov' s first real publisher, wh o als o becam e a friend fo rmany years. Their friendship survive d Chekhov's move to the more progressiveRusskaya mysl (Russian Thought), edited b y Vukol Lavrov, and even survivedtheir vehementl y oppose d view s ove r th e Dreyfu s Affair . The y disagree d als oover the row created b y the rejection o f Gorky , on the order s o f the Tsar, as aproposed Honorar y Academicia n when the Academy refused hi m membershi pon politica l ground s - an d bot h Chekho v an d Korolenk o resigne d i n protest .Suvorin took a characteristically reactionar y approac h to both these and othermajor politica l event s an d issues . Many o f Chekhov' s mos t importan t letter swere written to Suvorin, for whom he felt personal loyalty even when politicallyopposed. Suvorin died in 1912.

12 Th e Dreyfus Case , in which Dreyfus , a n innocent Frenc h Jewish arm y officer ,was accuse d o f treason , an d th e tria l becam e a cause cel'ebre throughou tEurope. Dreyfu s wa s foun d guilty , sentence d t o exil e an d pena l servitud e o nDevil's Island , an d would hav e die d had i t no t bee n for th e publi c suppor t ofEmile Zola , wh o accuse d th e Frenc h arm y an d governmen t o f anti-Semitism .Reactions to the case were sharply divided across Europe between the reaction-aries wh o assume d Dreyfus ' guilt , an d th e progressive s wh o insiste d o n hi sinnocence.

13 Th e islan d o f Sakhali n wa s a Russian prison-island , nea r th e coas t o f Japan ,comparable i n functio n an d purpos e t o th e Frenc h Devil' s Island , t o whic hDreyfus wa s sent , an d - mor e recentl y - Sout h Africa' s Robbi n Islan d wher eNelson Mandel a an d othe r politica l prisoner s wer e held . Chekhov' s journey ,made at great personal risk given the subsequent effect o n his health, produceda book which did influence an d achieve some penal reform. The book, titled inthe English edition, The Island, A Journey to Sakhalin, trans. Luba and MichaelTerpak, London , 1987 , appeare d i n Russian , German , French , bu t i n Englishonly in 1987. The edition above has an introduction by the major Russian poet,Irena Ratushinskaya, who puts the work in its humanist, pragmatic , but none-theless historicall y limited , perspective . A t th e presen t time , th e islan d o fSakhalin an d othe r island s i n tha t are a ar e stil l a source o f territoria l disput ebetween Japa n an d wha t i s no w th e recentl y forme d an d name d Russia nFederation.

14 Literary Critique, Moscow, 1957, p. 606.


ALEXANDER CHUDAKO V

15 M . Krichevsky , ed . an d foreword , A. S. Suvorin's Diary, Moscow-Petrograd,192.3, P- 12.5 .

16 Se e chapters 3 and 14 in this volume for detailed accounts of these productions.For an account o f the negative aspect s of Chekhov's plays in production a t theMAT, se e chapte r 5 , 'Stanislavsk y an d Chekhov' , i n Edwar d Braun , TheDirector and the Stage, London, 1982 , pp . 59-76 ; an d chapte r 3 , 'Mosco wNights', in Laurence Senelick, The Chekhov Theatre -A Century of the Flays inFerformance, Cambridge, 1997.

17 Olg a Leonardovn a Knipper-Chekhova , Correspondence: I8<)6-I<)5<) (Par t 2) ,Moscow, 1972, pp. 30-1.


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

Chekhov and his Russia

The geographica l setting s i n Chekhov' s literatur e ar e extensive : hi s char -acters ar e foun d i n smal l villages ; i n provincia l towns ; o n a nobleman' sestate; in the two 'capitals ' - Mosco w and St . Petersburg; in the Caucasusand th e Crimea , Siberi a an d Sakhalin . Ther e ar e als o endles s road s an dnumerous encounters o n country lanes , tracks o n the steppe , and encoun -ters in railway stations and on trains.

No less diverse is the socia l world populated b y his characters: intellec-tuals, merchants , peasants , landlords , shepherds , fishermen, firemen, mili-tary o f al l rank s an d civi l servant s o f al l grades, 1 policemen an d thieves ,actors and scholars, students, doctors, teachers, lawyers and clergymen - ofdifferent generations , ages, levels of education and culture.

But the geographical dimension , the social backgrounds an d profession sare not as important as Russia's inner state and the way this shapes people'sindividual destinies . The purpose of this chapter is precisely to explore thisinterdependence, whil e the subjec t ma y b e defined a s 'turn-of-the-centur yRussia' throug h Chekhov' s eye s o r - t o pu t i t anothe r wa y - 'Chekhov' simages o f Russia' . Thi s interdependenc e i s explore d fro m a variet y o fperspectives: th e vastnes s o f Russia' s territor y an d th e abundanc e o f it snature a s the Russians ' existentia l context , an d Russi a i n th e context s o fthe world, and of the universe. Chekhov's judgements are never categoricalor blunt, just as the symbolic 'images' of Russia are never unequivocal, andreflect th e complexitie s an d controversies , th e combinatio n o f ligh t an ddarkness, goo d an d evil , tha t typif y th e Russia n wa y o f lif e an d Russia nsensibilities at that time.

An example of Chekhov's complex perceptions o f Russia are his feelingsabout th e sout h o f th e countr y wher e h e wa s born , combinin g deepl ypersonal an d emotiona l impression s wit h objective , unprejudiced observa -tions. In 1887 Chekhov, already a popular author of short stories, revisitedhis home town of Taganrog. His impressions of local customs and manners,found i n hi s letters , ar e ful l o f irony . Havin g live d i n Mosco w fo r seve n


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

years, h e foun d man y o f th e loca l custom s alie n an d eve n detestable : th elack o f culture , th e idl e tal k o f th e philistine s wh o 'onl y eat , drink , bree dand hav e n o othe r interests ' (Letters, vol . n , pp . 54-84). 2 Bu t beneat h thi sirony i s a touchin g an d uncynica l admiratio n fo r th e charmin g sounds ,colours an d smell s o f th e Souther n lifestyle : musi c i n the cit y par k an d th esmell o f lilac s an d acacias , bu t mos t o f al l th e 'littl e hillocks , kites , lark sand blu e vistas ' o f th e Do n Steppe . A distinc t memor y o f hi s childhoo dexperiences i s expressed i n the stor y 'Th e Steppe ' (1888) 3 as the image o f a'beautiful, ster n motherland' (Works, vol . vn, p . 46).

In th e 1880 s th e write r whos e childhoo d wa s spen t i n thi s setting , wa sfaced wit h quit e a differen t realit y - depressin g an d ominous . Havin gfinished wor k o n 'Th e Steppe' , Chekho v wrot e t o Dmitr i Grigorovic habout hi s realisatio n o f th e fundamenta l hostilit y t o ma n o f Russia' s vas texpanses:

On th e on e hand , ther e i s physica l weakness , nervousness , earl y sexua lmaturity, passionate desir e to live and find the truth, dreams of work which,like th e Steppe , hav e n o boundaries ; edg y analysi s an d lac k o f knowledg ecombined wit h th e irrepressibl e flight of thought ; an d o n th e othe r han d -endlessly flat land, severe climate, a grey and severe nation with its hard andcold history, the Tatar yoke, bureaucracy, poverty , ignorance, rainy capitals ,Slavic apathy, and so forth . . . Russian life beat s the soul out of the Russian. . . I n Wester n Europ e peopl e di e becaus e thei r spac e i s crampe d an dsuffocating. In Russia they die because the space is an endless expanse.

(Letters, vol. n, p. 190)4

It seem s thi s imag e o f Russi a i s quit e differen t fro m th e beautiful mother -land o f 'Th e Steppe' . Chekho v ha d foun d a rational e whic h h e expresse dthrough artisti c intuition i n his short storie s 'Th e Witch', an d 'O n th e Way '('Na puti' , 1886) , where fros t an d snowstorm s becom e symbol s o f restles ssouls or the spirit . The only common thread i n his letter to Grigorovich an dthese storie s i s th e conflic t betwee n th e 'passionat e desir e t o liv e an d findthe truth ' - an d man' s impotenc e i n suc h a vas t an d col d space. 5 Althoug hthese word s abou t th e col d wer e writte n b y a southerner , bor n nea r th ewarm sea , the y ech o th e widesprea d Europea n perceptio n o f Russi a a s acold country . (Wa s thi s perhap s th e reaso n wh y i n th e Britis h premier e o fThe Cherry Orchard, th e actors wore fur coat s and fur caps? )

Chekhov himsel f nearl y froz e t o deat h i n Siberi a i n 1890 , an d i n th eNizhni Novgoro d provinc e i n 1892 , s o th e moti f o f a col d climat edestroying th e huma n physiqu e an d psych e i s no t accidenta l i n hi s works .'In thi s climat e on e expect s i t t o sno w a t an y time , an d no w al l thi sphilosophising' (Works, vol . XIII , p . 178) . These line s o f Masha' s i n ThreeSisters contai n a subtext , suggestin g th e dreadfu l ambienc e i n th e house ,

18



dominated b y th e heartles s rationalist , Natasha . Thi s atmospher e i s a sunbearable as apprehension of the cold winter which will soon come in theUrals - a s Chekho v wrote , th e actio n o f th e pla y i s se t 'i n a provincia ltown, like Perm' (Letters, vol. ix, p. 133).

Having move d t o th e sout h o f th e Crime a i n th e lat e 1890s , bu t stil lpossessed by the memories of Melikhovo, the splendour o f central Russianwinters, th e jo y o f sledgin g i n th e abundan t an d pur e Russia n snow ,Chekhov returns to the problem of Russian destiny in the endless expansesof the country. In the short story, 'On Official Business ' (1899), he portraysa low-grad e countr y policeman , subservientl y engage d i n meaningles spaperwork, agains t the backdrop o f a snowstorm. As a member himself ofthe Serpukhov Sanitation (Health ) Council , Chekhov knew such policemenwho, fo r thirt y years , ha d timidl y endure d th e pett y tyrann y o f loca ladministrators. Th e protagonis t i n Chekhov' s story , investigato r Lyzhin ,watches th e snowstor m an d think s h e see s th e littl e policema n walkin ghand-in-hand with the dead insurance agent, whose failure to cope with thepressures o f harsh realit y ha d drive n him to suicide . In Lyzhin's min d theold policeman, of peasant stock, and the bygone intellectual, are merged inthe singl e imag e o f a hardworkin g man , breakin g hi s bac k unde r th eburden whic h ough t t o b e carrie d b y societ y a s a whole . An d th eprotagonist has feelings of guilt about such vulnerable people.

References to the harsh image of the 'cold' motherland a s an ideal milieufor the bureaucratic state are found in Chekhov's two aphorisms: 'Russia isa bureaucrati c country ' (Works, vol . xvn, p . 167) , an d 'Russi a i s a vas tplain acros s whic h a dashing horsema n recklessl y rides ' (ibid). The latte raphorism wa s echoe d b y th e eminen t statesma n Konstanti n Pobedono -tsev6, wh o als o sai d tha t 'Russi a i s a n ic y deser t acros s whic h a dashin ghorseman roams'. 7 I t i s no t know n wh o firs t use d th e epithe t 'icy' withreference to Russia, but it matches perfectly Chekhov' s general image of hishomeland.

The 'daring ' o f th e Russia n bring s u s bac k t o th e issu e o f unrealise dindividual aspirations . Wher e i s th e daring , dashin g horsema n ridin g s orecklessly? Thi s questio n als o relates to Gogol' s proverbia l compariso n ofRussia a s 'th e troik a swif t a s a bird' , an d t o Gogol' s rhetorica l question :'Russia, whithe r d o you fly?'.8 The concept o f man's conflict wit h Russia' svast expanse s i s linke d i n Chekhov' s min d wit h th e proble m o f suicid ewhich, b y the en d o f th e las t century , ha d becom e almos t commonplace ,especially amongs t th e young . (Treplev' s attempt s an d suicid e i n TheSeagull are relevant here.)

Another scourge of society which concerned Chekhov was the psycholo-gical diseas e know n a s a 'persecutio n complex' , whic h flourished in th e


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

fertile soi l of Russian police terror and outrages, causing the people to livein constan t fea r o f arrest , an d of administrativ e o r criminal punishment .Such a persecution comple x damage d the mind o f the refined intellectual ,Ivan Gromov. Seeing shackled convicts in the street, escorted by guards, heconvinces himself tha t this will happen to him, and he ends up in a lunaticasylum. The story 'Ward No.6' (1892) came as a real shock to the readingpublic. Chekhov's most terrifying 'experiment ' in the aesthetic exploratio nof Russian society resulted in the exposure of yet another aspect of Russia:'Ward No . 6 ' becam e a metapho r fo r th e countr y a s a whole . Th eparadoxical moti f o f th e claustrophobi a o f Russia' s vas t expans e i nChekhov's lette r to Grigorovich acquire d literal meaning in 'Ward No. 6'.The actio n i s set in an enclosed space , cut off from th e rest o f the world,and the ward in the clinic looks like a prison-cell. Dr Ragin identifie s theclinic with the prison, which can be seen from th e window, and comes tothe conclusion: 'This is reality' (Works, vol. VIII, p. 121). The only way toescape it is to die. So Ragin dies.

The sens e o f 'War d No . 6 ' a s th e symbo l o f a feuda l Russi a whic hrepresses huma n freedom , wa s shared b y the painter Ily a Repin , an d thewriter Nikola i Leskov : '"War d No . 6" is everywhere . . . This i s Russia '(Works, vol. VIII, p. 458). And Vladimir Lenin confessed tha t when he wasyoung, he was terrified b y the story, as though he himself was locked in theward with madmen.

It wa s later tha t Chekho v becam e intereste d i n man's reactio n t o suchgrim realities . An d h e discovere d tha t horro r a t th e prospec t o f bein gimprisoned ofte n result s in transference int o the desire to see others jailed.This motif firs t appeare d in the early short stories such as 'Cases of ManiaGrandioza' (1883 ) o r 'Sergean t Prishibeyev ' (1885) . Th e only wa y suchpeople can cope with the fact that their reality is a prison is to adapt - andmake other s d o the same. Thi s metho d i s used b y the teacher o f Greek ,Belikov, i n ' A Har d Case ' (1898) . H e create s hi s ow n microcosm , an dvoluntarily imprison s himsel f i n it : a bedroo m tha t look s lik e a 'box' ;window blind s permanentl y closed ; th e habi t o f sleepin g wit h hi s hea dcovered by a blanket; and a robe, a cap, things in cases, invariably galoshesand an umbrella. The wretched Beliko v is terrified o f any sign that other sare unwilling to live according to the same rules, and when he dies they puthim i n his las t cas e - a coffin . Bu t Chekhov leave s hi s readers wit h n oillusions: 'And how many more such men "in their cases" are still around ,and ho w many mor e ar e yet to com e . . .?' (Works, vol . x, p . 53) . Thesymbol o f th e case , an d th e ma n wh o voluntaril y lock s himsel f i n it ,became Chekhov' s wide r metapho r fo r the grim socia l atmospher e o f the1880s.



Such dar k image s o f Russi a hav e a n origina l sourc e and a synonym :Sakhalin. At a time when his knowledge of penal servitude in Sakhalin waslimited t o source s fro m 'special ' o r restricte d literature , Chekho v realise dthat 'thi s is a place of unbearable suffering' (Letters, vol. rv, p. 32) . Duringhis visit to Sakhali n Island i n 1890 , Chekhov was able to obtain proof o fhis assumptions . Crowd s o f convicts , man y o f the m falsel y condemned ,suffered fro m a col d climate , o f whic h Chekho v wrote : 'Thi s i s no t aclimate. I t i s the mos t fou l weathe r . . . this islan d i s the foules t plac e inRussia.' Th e onl y wor d Chekho v use d t o describ e thi s dreadfu l climate ,combined with hard labour, was 'hell'.

In hi s book , The Island of Sakhalin (1895) , Chekho v expresse d th ehopelessness o f th e convicts ' existence , doome d t o endles s physica l an dmoral suffering . Th e worst-of f wer e peopl e lik e th e fratricid e Yako vTerekhov, described in 'Murder ' (1895) , who had not yet lost his irrepres-sible longing for freedom. H e had tried to escape many times, was brutallypunished, but his soul purified itsel f through suffering an d he acquired faithin Go d whic h previousl y ha d bee n lackin g fo r him . And peerin g int o th edistance toward s the motherland wit h anguis h an d love , he dreams abou tsharing his cruel experiences, even if only with one other person who mighttherefore b e saved. No matte r wh o he is , man's sou l i s as multifarious a sRussia itself.

In much of Chekhov's work , Sakhalin became the symbol of repression .He onc e observe d tha t al l hi s work s o f th e 1890 s ar e 'Sakhalinize dthroughout'.9 Equally, the 'ravine' symbolises the abyss that has swallowedup no t onl y the villag e o f Ukleyev o bu t th e whol e o f Russia . Thi s imagewas bor n ou t o f Chekhov' s observation s i n Melikhovo (hi s estate outsid eMoscow), from his close contacts with peasants, merchants and the ownersof the nearby factories , depicte d in the story 'I n the Ravine ' (Hingley' s 'I nthe Hollow' , 1900) . The ravin e i s a dark , unclea n place : 'swamp y mud ,even i n summer , foul-smellin g river , pollute d b y factor y waste s . . .shadows whic h th e ol d willow s cas t o n th e hous e an d o n th e courtyard .Darkness outside reflected darknes s in the house and sin loomed like fog inthe air ' (Works, x , pp . 144 , 146) . An d th e onl y pur e creature , Lipa ,daughter o f a poor widow , i s kep t b y the ric h famil y a s i f i n a prison -gaining freedom cos t too high a price: the loss of her little son, victim of afamily row . The stor y end s wit h th e fal l o f darknes s a s the villag e agai nsinks into the ravine. At the same time, however, the literal sense of 'ravine'remains part of nature. And thus this deep cavity with steep slopes performsanother, psychological , functio n i n accentuatin g th e characters ' experi -ences. The intelligent Vera Kardina in the story 'In the Home-Stead' (1897),is so horrified b y the landlord' s violen t outburs t a t a peasant gir l tha t sh e


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

feels violentl y dragge d bac k decade s t o th e tim e befor e th e abolitio n o fserfdom, an d sh e runs , awa y fro m herself , t o th e ravin e wher e sh e find speace o f mind . Sh e decide s t o chang e he r lif e an d 'becom e on e with th eluxuriant steppe' , with it s beauty an d vistas . And althoug h thi s offer s he rno personal happiness , the function o f the ravine i n Vera's imagination i sparallel t o th e stepp e i n th e 188 8 stor y o f tha t name : her e to o i s th eembodiment of Russia's endless expanses.

In the story 'Peasants ' (1897) , the cliff - lik e a ravine it too is associatedwith steep slopes - i s related to the degradation of a Russian village which,however, i s seen against the backdrop o f the beautie s o f rural nature wit hsunset on the river, the church, the 'soft and indescribably clean air'. That ishow the devout Olga, sitting with her sick husband on the edge of the cliff,sees the village on the day of their arrival . Her spirit s are not yet darkenedby poverty o r thei r relatives ' hostility toward s the m a s self-invited guests .And at the end of the story, Olga is again sitting on the edge of the cliff. Shehas survive d a sever e an d hungr y winter , ha s los t he r husband , bu t sh eadmires th e rive r an d th e churc h an d dream s o f ho w sh e wil l retur n t oMoscow.

The contras t o f darknes s an d ligh t i n the symbol s o f nature echoe s th edifferences withi n th e characters , suc h a s th e peasants . Th e derogator ynickname o f 'lackey-land ' give n to the village of Zhukovo is not a generalmetaphor o f th e country , o r th e nation . Afte r all , th e peasant s wer e no tborn lackeys , boors, thieves o r drunks . They acquired these vices throughliving i n unbearabl e conditions , har d labour , povert y an d th e injustic e o flocal administrations . Suc h vice s onl y disappea r whe n 'humanitarianism 'and fait h i n Go d tak e over . Lik e Dostoyevsky , Chekho v regarde d th eRussian soul, whether of a peasant or a landlord, an intellectual or a casuallabourer, a s the receptacl e o f bot h goo d an d evil , strengt h an d weakness ,degradation an d rebirth . A s a psychologist , Chekho v particularl y value dmoments of insight, and of the sudden awareness of a wasted life. Likewise,the convict s Chekho v me t an d interviewe d o n Sakhali n provide d n oexception.

These negative symbols of a rich and multifarious country are juxtaposedwith the images of a 'stern an d beautiful motherland ' i n 'The Steppe' , andRussia a s 'ou r orchard ' (Works, vol . XIII , p . 227 ) i n Chekhov' s las t play ,The Cherry Orchard. Amongst othe r symbol s betwee n thes e tw o work sone must include the forest i n Uncle Vanya (1896). It is as beautiful a s thesteppe o r th e orchard , an d wit h th e sam e inevitability , i t i s becomin gscarce. The fores t an d th e live s o f th e character s ar e vividl y interwoven .The beauty of Sonya's feelings is futile, as are the feminine beauty of YelenaAndreyevna, Astrov's talents and his efforts t o protect the forest, o r Waffle's



innocence an d naivety . Bu t th e mos t dramati c i s Voinitsky' s (Vanya's )awareness of his wasted life , while only the nanny, Marina, with her quie tsimplicity and faith in God, personifies the healthy spirit of the people.

In The Seagull, th e lake - a s the natural sceni c setting for Treplev' s playabout the distant future o f mankind - bear s the authentic traits of Russianlife: people fish in it, gulls fly over it and living on its banks is a girl (Nina),who dream s o f gettin g ou t o f th e province s t o Mosco w wher e th e 'rea lstage' is . But al l thi s coul d happe n i n an y country : th e nationa l specific scarry universa l meaning . Th e sam e applie s t o th e seagul l symbo l i n th eplay. It contains a variety o f meanings, bot h explici t (reference s t o Nina' sruined personal life) and implicit (whe n Treplev says that 'soo n he will killhimself i n the same way as the seagull') (Letters, vol. xm, p. 27). The playcontains allegorical references to art which triumphs over people's personalsufferings; i n a sense thi s bird , kille d i n 'rea l life' , bu t resurrecte d a s thesymbol of ar t an d th e beaut y o f life , echoes those symbol s o f the mother -land whic h ha s endure d muc h sufferin g i n th e past , ye t stil l remain s apotent source of vitality.

Nina's longin g fo r Mosco w reveal s on e furthe r aspec t o f Russi a whic hthe artist can see in his favourite city . First there is the Moscow-Petersburgantonym in Chekhov's works. Moscow is the symbol of Russian statehood ,'the widow in purple' a s Pushkin described i t in The Bronze Horseman, 'awidow' wh o stoo d aside , overshadowed b y the new capital . But Moscowturned out to be the kind of 'widow' who has not lost interest in the world- o r taste for the joys it offers. Deep in their hearts, the majority o f Russiansalways preferre d Mosco w t o S t Petersburg . Hospitable , famou s fo r th epromenades along the Sadovoye and Boulevard Circles , with its cosy sevenhills an d numerou s churches , Mosco w appeare d mor e homel y t o th eordinary Russia n tha n S t Petersburg wit h it s European styl e an d planne davenues. I t wa s no t b y chanc e tha t th e stor y 'Misery ' (1886 ) o f th e ol ddrayman an d hi s tragic lonelines s sinc e he lost hi s son , i s enacted agains tthe backdrop of cold and indifferent S t Petersburg crowds.

Chekhov's stories 10 of human drama ar e also set in Moscow: such as 'ADreary Story' (1889), 'Three Years' (1894), or part of 'A Lady with a LittleDog' (1899) . Moscow was more dea r than S t Petersburg to both Chekhovand hi s character s (suc h a s Yartse v an d Kochevo y i n 'Thre e Years') . H eeven liked it for its coolness and 'grey misty days'. 11 In Chekhov's writing,departure t o S t Petersbur g i s usuall y relate d t o th e characters ' hope s o fchanging the circumstances o f their lives - fo r example, in 'Practical Jokes'(1886), or 'The Artist's Story' (also known as 'The House with a Mezzanine',1896); o r fo r career s - Docto r Blagov o i n 'M y Life ' (1896) ; an d th elonging for Moscow arises from the desire 'to start life from scratch ' - a s in

23


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

'The Russian Master' (1894) . But Chekhov always makes exceptions: in hislast shor t story , 'The Marriageable Girl ' (1903) , Nadya Shumina , eager tostart lif e fro m scratch , merel y passe s throug h Mosco w o n he r wa y t oSt Petersburg wher e sh e is going to study . I t may be that thi s wa s relatedto Chekhov' s sympathy with the (radical) student movement which was verymuch alive in St Petersburg over the years 1899-1902.

Moscow as the symbol of a desirable new life became central to Chekhovhimself throughou t hi s 'exile ' to Yalta , an d in Three Sisters (1901), this isgiven the most powerful expression . I t seems also symbolic, however, tha tthe sisters ' drea m doe s not materialise . The very idea tha t a new life maystart just by changing places is itself an illusion. And one of the sisters, Irina,who ha s th e opportunit y t o chang e places , doe s no t g o t o Moscow , bu tbecomes a teacher and so will be faced with new and unpredictable realities.

Chekhov's perception of Moscow as the heart of Russia is also illustratedby th e fac t tha t i n hi s creativ e o r fictiona l meditation s o n th e futur e o fRussia he always thought of Moscow's historical past. The teacher, Yartsev,in 'Three Years', admires the up-and-coming new generation, believing thatRussia i s 'on the eve of a great triumph' , bu t he also says that 'Mosco w isthe cit y tha t wil l hav e muc h t o suffer ' (Works, vol . ix , pp . 74 , 75) .Paradoxically, to prove these words he looks back to the past, to the timesof raid s b y nomadic tribe s o n Russi a a t th e en d o f th e elevent h centur ywhen Mosco w alread y existed . I t i s suggeste d t o Yartse v tha t h e writ e aplay abou t thos e time s fo r th e youn g generation , o f who m h e ha s suc hgreat expectations . Draftin g a pla y tha t wil l neve r b e written , Yartse vimagines a scen e wit h a capture d Russia n girl , tie d t o th e saddle , wh owatches th e dreadfu l conflic t 'sadl y an d wisely ' - sadnes s an d wisdo msymbolising th e sufferin g o f th e nation , ye t endowe d wit h grea t patienc eand prepared for furthe r ordeals . Thirteen years later, Alexander Blok alsoprophesied the return o f violent times when Russia struggle d against Tatarhordes: 'Yes, I behold you, the beginning /Of gran d an d storm y days ' (myitalics-E.P.).12

Chekhov, moreover, did not envisage the future o f Russia as an ascent to'glorious heights' , althoug h fo r man y years Sovie t Chekho v scholar s trie dto prove the opposite , referring t o the memoirs o f the writer's contempor -aries, and th e lines o f som e characters o f hi s plays an d later shor t stories .Amongst believer s i n a gloriou s futur e ar e Vershini n fro m Three Sisters,Sasha fro m th e stor y 'Th e Marriageabl e Girl' , an d Trofimo v fro m TheCherry Orchard. Chekhov' s iron y i n relatio n t o thes e character s wa sgenerally ignored , a s were thei r eviden t limitations , predilection fo r high -flown rhetori c and ineffectual personalities .

Trofimov's aphoris m 'Al l o f Russia i s our orchard ' sounds like a call t o

24



work the soil for the future; and when he talks about the land which is 'vastand beautifu l an d wit h s o man y wonderfu l place s i n it' , h e mean s th eRussian land . I t i s wort h pointin g ou t t o non-Russia n speaker s tha t i nRussian ther e i s th e sam e wor d fo r 'land ' an d fo r 'earth' . An d whe nChekhov dreame d abou t th e 'flowerin g orchard ' whic h wil l come in threeor four hundred years,13 he means the whole of the earth - th e future o f themotherland inseparable from the fortunes o f all mankind.

With al l th e limitation s o f Trofimov' s historica l optimism , h e i s b y nomeans a professiona l Russia n revolutionary . A s a participan t i n studen tprotest marche s (sinc e Chekho v ha d t o compl y wit h th e requirement s o fcensorship, he could not make this explicit in the play - bu t he wrote aboutit in a letter to his wife), Trofimov did not call for the destruction of the oldworld, bu t for givin g up the old mode of existence which allowed the fewto live at the expense of others' labour.

Chekhov's characters dream of a 'glorious future' whic h is not connectedwith revolution (fo r this reason, in the 1920s many critics ranked Chekhovamongst thos e writer s wh o oppose d th e proletaria n revolution) . O n th eother hand, up to the late 1960s , the myth about Chekhov' s revolutionar yviews wa s carefull y cultivate d b y officia l theatr e historian s wh o referre dnot onl y t o Trofimov' s tirades , bu t als o t o Tuzenbach' s line s abou t th estorm in Three Sisters, claiming that they echoed Gorky's call for the stormin The Song of the Stormy-Petrel ("Let i t brea k i n al l it s fury!') . Bu t i ncontrast to Gorky's stormy-petrel, Tuzenbach does not expect the storm tobe destructive . I n fac t The Song of the Stormy-Petrel was printe d thre emonths after th e premier e o f Three Sisters, and perhap s i t wa s partl yintended t o continu e a polemi c wit h Chekhov' s characters ' ide a o fimproving society . Tuzenbac h dreame d o f riddin g societ y o f 'idleness ,indifference, prejudic e agains t work , putri d tedium ' (Works, vol . XIII ,p. 123) , and that was all.

Chekhov's memoir s testif y tha t hi s vision o f Russia' s futur e wa s not a soptimistic a s we were taugh t t o believe . He wrote abou t event s tha t 'wil lturn everything upside down': 'Our time is much like that lived through byour fathers shortl y before the Crimean campaign, except that we are in fora greater ordeal. I know this for sure ' (my italics - E.P.). 14 That was writtenin 1903, and a month later the war with Japan broke out. At first Chekhoventertained som e hopes about the outcome of that war ('W e shal l beat theJaps.') (Letters, vol. xn, p . 54) , and even wanted to serve as a field doctor.After the defeat o f the Russian army, analogies with the Crimean campaignbecame widespread.

Missing the Russian weather in the Crimea a t the end of 1901 , Chekhovwrote: 'An endless field and a lonely birch-tree. The name of the picture is

2-5


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

"loneliness"' (Works, vol . xvn , p . 84) . An d h e wrot e thi s abou t Isaa kLevitan's pictur e Hay-Ricks: 'A meadow , hay-cocks , fores t a t a distance ,and reignin g ove r the m al l i s th e moon ' (Letters, vol . ix, p . 81) . Thes esketches betra y the melancholy, lyrical , or as Chekhov would say , 'Levita -nian mood'. I t is similar to the heroine's mood in 'Three Years ' who looksat a landscape in an art gallery , and feels the air filled with loneliness , andsilence.

Finally, there is one further poin t on this subject which Chekhov wrote inYalta in 1899: 'A conversation about earth from anothe r planet 1,000 yearsfrom now : d o yo u remembe r tha t whit e (birch ) tre e . . .?' The imag e ofRussia is placed in a global context. It is about the time when 'all lives havemade their woeful circl e and died out' , bu t the earth and its satellites havenot yet turned t o ashes, as The World Sou l prophesied in Treplev's play inThe Seagull. In othe r words , thi s i s post-apocalyptic . Henc e th e date :'1,000 years from now' , according to the New Testament, meant the end of'the earthly history', mentioned by the black monk in the story of the samename (1894). 15 And fo r Chekhov , b y that tim e th e forme r inhabitant s o fthe earth will have moved to another planet and even forgotten the name ofthe birch-tree . Th e birch-tree , withou t whic h th e Russia n landscap e i sinconceivable, becomes the symbol of both Russia and the world.

But while Chekhov had a grim vision of the earth's future, abandone d byhuman species , he also had fait h i n the triumph o f man i n the contex t ofearthly reality . H e pin s hi s hope s fo r a bette r futur e fo r Russi a no t o n asocial class, but on individuals: 'I have faith in individuals, I seek salvationin individual people , whether intellectual s o r peasants . They ar e scattere dall ove r Russia , the y hav e power , althoug h the y ar e scarce ' (Letters,vol. VIII, p. 101) . And i t was Chekhov' s constan t an d firm positio n no t t odivide people into classes or social groups: 'No division is good, for we areall a nation and the best things we do are for the nation' (m y italics - E.P. )(Works, vol. XVII, p. 9). In spite of all the human weaknesses and vices thathe sa w s o clearl y an d expose d s o ruthlessly , Chekho v ha d fait h i nindividuals.

This fait h wa s fe d b y th e ris e o f 'socia l awareness ' (Letters, vol . vm,p. 101 ) in Russia, o f the educational, cultural an d ethical standard s o f theRussian intelligentsia, 16 a s well a s by the blossomin g o f Russian spiritua lculture a t the turn o f th e nineteent h (an d twentieth ) centuries . Chekhov' scontemporaries an d acquaintance s wer e suc h outstandin g personalitie sas Le v Tolstoy , Feodo r Chaliapin , Pete r Tchaikovsky , Isaa k Levitan ,Konstantin Korovin , Serge i Rakhmanino v (whos e geniu s Chekho v wa samongst th e firs t t o recognise) , Vladimi r Nemirovich-Danchenk o an dKonstantin Stanislavsky . Th e idea s o f other s o f hi s contemporaries , suc h

26



professional revolutionarie s a s Lenin , Plekhano v an d others , wer e pro -foundly alie n t o Chekhov , althoug h h e coul d no t hel p sympathisin g wit hpolitical prisoner s (man y o f who m h e me t o n Sakhalin) . Bu t Chekhov' srejection o f th e class-oriente d mode l o f change , a s wel l a s o f al l form s o fviolence, made i t impossible fo r hi m to accep t th e revolution whic h h e fel twas about to break out .

The premonition o f calamity on the eve of the revolution, combined wit hstrong fait h i n Russia , wa s share d b y hi s successor s i n literature . I n hi sarticle, entitled 'Timelessness ' (1906) , Alexander Blok wrote: 'Some devilishvitality help s us bur n an d neve r bur n out.' 17 An d a s for th e presen t when ,as Tolstoy onc e pu t it , everything i n Russia 'ha s gon e head ove r heel s an dcannot get back on its feet',18 w e need only to repeat , afte r th e philosophe rBerdyaev, that our hope is in Russia's 'hidden resources'. 19

In the story 'In the Ravine' the wise old man observes reassuringly: 'Life islong and there will be many good and bad happenings. Mother Russia i s sovast' (Works, vol . x, p . 175) . In this statement , differen t aspect s o f Russi amerge into one. A Russia that is eternal.

NOTES

1 I n pre-Revolutionary Russia there were fourteen grades of civil servants.2 Unles s otherwise specified , th e references t o Works and Letters ar e from N . F.

Belchikov and others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisemv 3oi tomakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works andLetters in 30 Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83) .

3 Th e translation o f the story title s i s from Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol sIII-IX. See Appendix 1 .

4 Althoug h i n a differen t context , Chekhov' s poin t i s als o quote d b y Anatol ySmeliansky i n hi s 'Chekho v a t th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre' , chapte r 3 in thi svolume. Th e reiteration i s significan t fo r Europ e bot h historicall y and as weapproach the new millennium.

5 R.L . Jackson was the first to write abou t Chekhov' s interpretatio n o f Russia' sendless expanses , i n hi s chapte r 'Time s an d Travellings : A Metaphor o f AllTimes', i n Chekhoviana, Chekhov in 20th Century Culture, Moscow , 1993,pp. 8-9.

6 Fo r a version o f this phrase , see V. V. Rozanov, ed. , Collected Works, vol . vn,The Legend of the Great Inquisitor, by F. Dostoyevsky, Mosco w 1966 , p. 52:'Deserted and dark fields with a dashing horseman riding across them'.

7 Cite d by O. N. Mikhailov with referenc e t o D. M. Merezhkovsky, bu t withoutsource given. See Literary Gazette, 11 October 1989 , p. 2.

8 N . V. Gogol, Dead Souls, i n Collected Works in 6 Volumes, Moscow , 1949.vol. v , pp. 248-9.

9 Se e T P . Krestinskaya , Motifs of Sakhalin in Chekhov's Works, Nizhn iNovgorod Teacher's Training College, Nizhni Novgorod, 1967 , vol. xx, p. i n .

10 Se e Appendix 1 for Russian titles and English variations.

27


EMMA POLOTSKAY A

11 A n acquaintanc e o f Chekhov' s fro m Yalt a recalls : 'Mosco w fo r hi m wa s trul ythe hol y land , th e concentratio n o f everythin g Chekho v love d i n Russi a . . . I twas clea r tha t th e name s o f th e streets , Samotek a o r Pushchikha , th e thawe dstreet dir t i n March , eve n th e gre y mist y day s were dea r t o him , an d fille d hi sheart wit h pleasan t feelings. ' S . Y . Yelpatyevsk y an d others , eds. , Chekhov vvospominaniyakh sovremennikov [Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contempor-aries], Moscow, i960, p. 570-1 .

12 A . A. Blok, Works in 2 volumes, Moscow, 1955, vol. 1, p. 288.13 Se e A. I . Kuprin , In Memory of Chekhov, in Chekhov in the Memoirs of his

Contemporaries, p. 541.14 Se e A . Mamontov , Two Meetings with Chekhov, in Russkoye slovo, 2 July

1909.15 I . N. Sukhik h interprete d th e blac k mon k i n Chekhov' s stor y a s a prophet of

Doomsday. Se e I . N . Sukhik h i n Problems of Chekhov's Poetics, Leningrad,1987, pp. 108-9 .

16 Se e A. I. Kuprin, In Memory of Chekhov, pp. 542 , 775.17 Se e A. A. Blok, Works in 2 Volumes, vol. 11 , p. 31.18 Quote d in L. N. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, i n Collected Works in 14 Volumes,

vol. VIII , Moscow, 1952, p . 349 .19 Se e N. A. Berdyaev, Spirits of the Russian Revolution (1918), in Russkaya mysl,

May-June 1918 , and in Literaturnaya ucheba, March-April 1990 , p. 139.

28


3ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

Chekhov a t the Moscow Art Theatr e

Chekhov's relationshi p wit h th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e i s a stor y i n itself ,and quit e a tangled on e a t that . I t i s the stor y o f ho w Chekhov' s theatr ecame into being and Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko's struggl e tomaster th e poetic s o f hi s drama . I t i s th e stor y o f ho w eve n i n th edramatist's lifetime the Chekhov canon evolved into a theatrical strait] acketfrom whic h i t becam e necessar y t o brea k free . I t i s the stor y o f th e dee pdivisions betwee n theatr e an d dramatis t involvin g th e mos t fundamenta lquestions concernin g th e ar t o f theatre : th e precis e genr e o f Chekhov' splays; his view o f characte r an d hi s attitud e toward s th e whole historica ldevelopment o f Russi a itself . I n a n attemp t t o consol e Stanislavsk y afte rChekhov's death , Nemirovich-Danchenk o said : 'W e ha d alread y los tChekhov with The Cherry Orchard. He would never have written anythingelse.'1 This merciless verdict expresses al l the tension tha t existed betwee nChekhov and the Moscow Art Theatre.

After Chekhov' s death, his plays began to be perceived in the light of newtheatrical developments . Th e MAT' s production s o f Chekho v starte d t obreak free , no t fro m Chekho v himself , bu t rathe r fro m th e styl e o f th e'theatre o f mood' an d from th e detailed naturalism tha t ha d onl y recentlybrought fam e an d succes s to the young company. A few word s shoul d besaid about this naturalism, which was to come under attack not only fromMeyerhold bu t fro m Stanislavsk y himsel f (whic h wa s ho w th e tw o me ncame together and established the Studio on Povarskaya Street in 1905).

The technique s o f th e earl y MA T ar e wel l known . Th e audienc e o fTreplev's pla y (i n The Seagull) casually sittin g wit h thei r back s t o th eaudience; Astro v swattin g mosquitoe s i n Uncle Vanya; the evenin g half -light in the house of the three sisters ; the crackling of logs in the stove; thechirping o f a cricket; a single candle-flame; th e sounds o f the fire; hushed,non-actorish voices , the child's abandone d chai r o n Ranevskaya's estat e -all o f this combined t o creat e a powerful sens e o f the flow of life. Hence,the effect o f the so-called 'fourth wall' .


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

The early MAT revitalised the art of acting, made a cult of the pause, thesubtext an d th e constan t interactio n o f characters . Ther e emerge d th econcept o f th e ensembl e an d a psychological styl e o f acting . The produc-tions o f Chekho v a t th e MA T gav e birt h t o a ne w Russia n audience ,shaping it s taste s an d expectations . Thi s i s arguabl y on e o f th e mos timportant aspect s o f th e theatrica l reform s tha t wer e initiate d b y th ecompany.

Chekhov change d th e scal e o f wha t i s calle d 'a n event ' i n drama . H echanged the very object o f theatre: instead of 'the drama in life' 'th e dramaof lif e itsel f becam e th e focu s o f hi s compositions . H e deliberatel yobscured plot , refused t o express his own ideas through the dialogues andmonologues an d coldl y distance d himsel f fro m hi s characters , no t identi -fying wit h an y o f them . I n th e word s o f Pasternak , h e inscribe d hi scharacters int o a landscape an d took thei r words , together wit h the ai r inwhich the y wer e uttere d - a n impressionis t technique . Chekho v gav e u pteaching an d preachin g - thos e mai n element s o f Russia n hig h classica lliterature. Hi s narrativ e motif s contai n no t a singl e resolutio n o r eve n aclear explanation. It is impossible to understand why the three sisters nevergot to Moscow or why Ranevskaya couldn' t save her estate. The most thatcan be said is: life's like that. His characters are defined by the 'out-of-joint 'world tha t gav e rise to ne w causes an d effect s i n bot h lif e an d i n drama .Chekhov expresse d thi s chang e o f viewpoin t i n a brie f note : 'No w the yshoot themselves becaus e they ar e sick o f life , an d s o on. Previously, theydid it because they had embezzled public money.'

Each o f Chekhov' s play s a t th e MA T ha d a differen t 'lifespan' : th eshortest was that of The Seagull, which survived for only 63 performances;Uncle Vanya was performe d 31 6 times , an d Three Sisters 229. The on ewhich live d longes t wa s The Cherry Orchard, which ra n righ t u p t o th eOctober Revolution an d then was revived in 1928 , resulting in a total runof 1,20 9 performances . Th e play an d th e productio n becam e a metaphorfor 'movin g house'. When Olga Knipper-Chekhova decide d to leave Russiain autumn 1920 , she wrote a letter t o Stanislavsky in Moscow. Instead ofgoing into long explanations , sh e used on e o f Ranevskaya' s lines : 'Life i nthis house is over.'

The Revolutio n wa s t o chang e th e approac h t o Chekho v fo r man yyears. Furiou s attack s b y th e 'leftists ' (i n 1920 , Mayakovsk y wrot e tha t'Chekhov and Stanislavsk y stink') , coincided with fundamental change s inthe organisatio n o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre . Talkin g t o actor s i n 1919 ,Stanislavsky stresse d th e importance o f rhythm i n Chekhov: 'Ther e wa s atime whe n ou r production s o f Chekho v wer e appallingl y bad . Incredibl ylong pauses , ponderou s rhythm , drear y tempo . Whe n w e perfor m

30


Chekhov at the Moscow Art Theatre

Chekhov lik e that , w e reduc e hi m t o th e ordinary , t o a Chekho v "general -isation".'2

But i t was the rhythm o f history , no t o f theatre, that ha d changed . Whe nthe Civi l Wa r ende d i n 1922 , Stanislavsk y an d th e MA T went o n tou r t oEurope an d America . Sitting in his hotel room i n Berlin, Stanislavsky wrot eback to Moscow sayin g how difficul t i t had becom e for hi m to play the ol dChekhovian characters : 'Actin g th e scen e where Vershini n say s goodbye t oMasha i n Three Sisters, m y min d i s confused . Afte r wha t w e hav e bee nthrough, i t i s quit e impossibl e t o b e moved becaus e a n office r ha s t o leav eand hi s lad y ha s t o sta y behind . I a m no t enjoyin g Chekhov . O n th econtrary, I woul d prefe r no t t o b e actin g i n hi s plays.' 3 Thi s lette r wa saddressed t o Nemirovich-Danchenko, wh o ha d staye d in Moscow, keepin gan ey e o n event s i n th e Revolution' s ne w capital . Shortl y befor e th ecompany wa s du e t o retur n fro m America , Nemirovich-Danchenk o sen tthem a serie s o f warnin g letter s - th e mai n message , accordin g t oNemirovich himsel f - bein g memento mori:

I want t o shou t to them acros s the ocean : what repertoire? ! Uncle Vanya i sout of the question. Three Sisters should not even begin rehearsal, consideringthe conten t [i n th e contex t o f th e Civi l War , th e pla y wa s believe d t osympathise with the 'officer class' ] and the ages of the performers. The CherryOrchard will not b e allowed. I mean tha t the y won't allo w a play which isseen to lament the los t estates o f the gentry. And it won't stan d a n updated('welcome ne w life' ) treatment . Ivanov i s completely ou t o f tun e wit h thi spositive, 'cheerful' epoch. 4

Those wer e the specifi c circumstance s whic h ha d t o b e taken int o account .The archive s contai n Nemirovich-Danchenko' s note , date d 1925 , when, i nan effort t o respond to the challenge of the times, the MAT staged Trenyov' sThe Pugachev's Revolt. Fo r Nemirovich , th e productio n o f thi s pla ysignified th e voluntar y rejectio n o f a quarte r o f a century' s accumulate dexperience. Th e rejectio n wa s categorical : 'I t i s necessar y t o exclud e fro mthe MA T repertoir e . . . works o f literatur e tha t ar e unacceptabl e fo r th epresent da y (fo r example , al l o f Chekhov' s plays , a t leas t i n thei r ol dinterpretations). '5

The Cherry Orchard wa s restore d t o th e repertoir e i n 1928 . Yur ySobolev wrote : 'Everythin g tha t coul d b e don e t o someho w freshe n u p th eplay wa s done . This wa s especiall y tru e o f the temp o o f the firs t ac t wher ethere i s now muc h mor e laughte r tha n befor e . . . The elegia c mood o f th elast ac t was somewha t tone d down.' 6 Suc h 'revisionism ' altere d th e essenc eof th e MAT . Time itsel f ha d correcte d 'th e mood ' o f The Cherry Orchard.Other production s i n th e thirtie s (a s distinc t fro m th e MAT's , o f course) ,placed Lopakhi n a t th e forefront , interpretin g hi m a s a n entirel y 'positiv e


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

hero' wh o take s a n ax e t o th e cherr y orchard . I n th e lat e thirties ,Nemirovich-Danchenko, by this time without Stanislavsky who had died in1938, presented a new version of Three Sisters which in many ways servedas a polemic with the original turn-of-the-century production . In a letter toMaria Knebel, 7 Nemirovic h formulate d hi s directoria l interpretatio n an dideas, aimed at dispelling the MAT's acting cliches. Amongst these was the'exaggerated and distorted use of the device of "the objective" (th e style ofintensive interaction with a partner which Stanislavsky had invented at thebeginning of the century, as a means of overcoming the practice of directlyaddressing th e audienc e an d ignorin g one' s on-stag e partner , whic h wa shabitual i n th e Imperia l theatres) . Nemirovic h wen t o n t o criticis e ' adrawn-out tempo ' (here , a s w e hav e seen , h e wa s i n agreemen t wit hStanislavsky); 'talkin g inaudibl y to onesel f (fo r th e sake o f poorly under -stood simplicity ) an d sentimentalis m instea d o f lyricism . In oppositio n t osuch cliches, Nemirovich-Danchenko propose d ne w directoria l technique sfor Chekhov : a clearly define d 'core ' fo r th e production i.e . a new 'super -objective' wit h a full y understoo d an d sustaine d subtext , 'robustness' ,poetry, simplicity and genuine theatricality.8

In achievin g hi s ends , Nemirovic h a s directo r prove d t o b e quit e avirtuoso. A new poeticised Chekhov emerged, complete with an avenue ofbirch trees, and with 'th e yearning for a better life ' a s the firm cor e of theproduction. But even this directorial masterpiece was subject t o the limita-tions impose d b y its time . Nemirovich ruthlessl y cu t a number o f motif sfrom th e play, the result being that it s Chekhovian symphoni c quality waslost. Thus, in the fina l scen e he shortene d th e cynica l ye t infinitely mean -ingful line of Chebutykin that prefigured the Theatre of the Absurd: 'If onlywe knew' , an d Chebutykin' s 'Tarara-boom-deay' , line s not belongin g t otwo differen t play s bu t t o th e on e pla y b y Chekho v wit h hi s acut eperception o f th e meanin g o f life , hi s harshnes s an d restrain t - qualitie sthat were to be in such demand afte r th e Second World War and after th edeath of Stalin, when a new generation of directors would take over.

In th e post-wa r years , th e traditio n o f Chekho v a t th e MA T becam eshallow an d meaningless . Michae l Kedrov' s 194 7 productio n o f UncleVanya (assisted b y Litovtseva an d Sudakov) , was a n attemp t t o interpre tthe pla y i n the optimisti c spiri t o f Socialis t Realism . Th e onl y redeemin gfeature o f thi s well-intentione d bu t wholl y imitativ e productio n wa s th esplendid performance o f Boris Dobronravov in the title role. Devoid of anyensemble work , i t wa s a mono-play, o r sol o performance , tha t thre w th etheatre back to pre-Chekhovian times.

The mos t popula r o f the MA T revivals was The Seagull. Ther e wa s a nattempt t o make a jubilee production o f the play to mark Chekhov' s on e

32



hundredth birthday in i960, directed by Stanitsyn and Rayevsky, but it didnot sta y lon g i n th e repertoire . Bori s Livanov' s 196 8 production , o n th eother hand, ran for many years even though there were really no new ideasin it. Stanislavsky would have described its style as 'ordinary Chekhov' .

Partly a s a ripost e t o Livanov' s romanti c an d 'ordinary , generalised 'Chekhov, The Seagull was produced i n the late sixtie s a t the Sovremennik(Contemporary) Theatre, 9 whic h ha d begu n a s th e MA T studio-theatre ,and whic h remaine d linke d t o it s origin s i n a straine d an d fractiou spolemical relationship. The director was Oleg Yefremov wh o shortly after -wards became Artistic Director of the MAT, a post he has now occupied forthirty years . Fo r thi s reaso n i t i s wort h takin g a close r loo k a t hi s firs tserious encounte r wit h Chekhov . I n hi s wor k o n The Seagull, Yefremovidentified certain cunning qualities in this 'inspired and heretical play'. Thisplay can start a theatre - bu t it can also finish it off. The Seagull marked theend of Yefremov's work with the Sovremennik.

The Seagull a t the Sovremennik reflecte d th e situation a t the end o f thesixties when 'Th e Thaw'10 came to an end, and when Soviet tanks enteredPrague. Chekhov' s text , seemingl y completel y irrelevan t t o thes e events ,nonetheless responded to them. The death of 'the common ideal' set the tonefor the production. Chekhov's text was flooded with all the mutual recrimi-nations, disappointment s an d hostilitie s tha t ha d accumulate d ove r th eprevious years . Yefremov turne d the author o f The Seagull into a lampoo-nist, bore d rigi d b y intellectua l conversatio n an d critica l o f writer s an dactors who talk a lot and do nothing. Yefremov imparted to The Seagull theideological confusio n an d despai r tha t typifie d th e late sixties . People hadstopped hearing or listening to each other. All they did was strike attitudes,make scenes and squabble . And dig for worms for fishing from th e flower-bed that the designer, Sergei Barkhin, had installed in the middle of the stage.

At the MAT Yefremov avoide d Chekhov for nearl y seven years. Perhapshe was discourage d b y the failur e o f hi s Seagull at th e Sovremennik . H ereturned to him again in 1976 with Ivanov.

The play - abou t human decay - whic h had been so out of tune with the'cheerful' epoc h o f th e earl y twenties , no w prove d t o b e exceptionall yappropriate t o the 'stagnation ' o f the 1970s . In the MAT production, thi sstagnation wa s polarise d b y usin g tw o basi c colours , blac k an d white .Hovering in the 'background ' ar e the uncouth an d useless young guests inAct Four , calle d 'cavemen , troglodytes ' b y Lebedev, attacke d b y Sasha inAct Two and described by Lvov as: 'Those wretched people. Vultures, birdsof prey. They only come to tear each other to bits. ' These and the constantmotif o f the 'gooseberr y jam' , combine d wit h Misha Borkin' s bumptious -ness (performed b y Vyacheslav Nevinny) - wer e all meant to counterpoin t

33


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

the lofty confessiona l ton e in which Innokenty Smoktunovsky 11 performe dthe title role. The situation, with Ivanov's apparently unmotivated depres -sion, suddenl y reveale d it s 'long-term ' meaning . Suc h complete emptines sof the soul, the 'disease' which Chekhov rated worse than syphilis or sexualimpotence, wa s presente d b y Smoktunovsk y wit h frightenin g lyrica l pro -fundity.

This MA T productio n followe d anothe r Ivanov, directe d b y Mar kZakharov a t th e Lenko m Theatre , wit h Yevgen y Leonov in the titl e role .Instead o f presentin g a 'Russia n Hamlet', 12 Leono v mad e hi m jus t a naverage intellectual, not the Ivanov - bu t one Ivanov, 'the million and first',as Alexande r Kuge l onc e describe d him . Wha t wa s importan t wa s th etypicality o f thi s remarkabl e actor ; Leonov' s huma n dimensio n matche dthat o f everyon e i n th e audience . I n contrast , Smoktunovsk y performe dprecisely th e 'Russia n Hamlet' , a n extraordinar y man , o f undoubte dstrength, bu t sic k fro m th e commo n diseas e o f th e times . Hi s Ivano vsuffered an d agonised , unable to define a place for himsel f eithe r in life orin the space of the MAT stage. Significantly, i t was the arrangement o f thespace, designed by David Borovsky, that physically conveyed the nature ofthe disease, the desperate bu t unsatisfied desir e for fulfilmen t tha t Smoktu -novsky tried t o enact . Th e designe r furnishe d th e acto r wit h a bare stag eenclosed by the colonnaded facade o f the manor-house, with the autumnalgarden castin g th e sombr e shadow s o f it s leafles s branche s o n th e walls .Thus Ivano v acte d i n a space that looke d devastated , a s though pillaged ,where he literally could find no place for himself , or even anything to leanon. At first the actor rejected thi s spatia l solution , fearing tha t in this playabout everyda y lif e h e woul d b e lef t exposed , withou t suppor t o r cover .The director insisted and in the end the protagonist's anguis h in the emptyyet claustrophobic space powerfully conveye d Chekhov's perception of life,which cause d hi m onc e t o observ e tha t i n Wester n Europe , peopl e di ebecause thei r spac e i s cramped an d suffocating , whil e i n Russi a the y di ebecause the space is an endless expanse, in which a little man has no way offinding his bearings. 13 'Th e land look s a t me , like a n orphan' , Chekhov' scharacter repeatedl y say s - an d Smoktunovsk y conveye d thi s feeling wit hexceptional inner strength.

In this Ivanov, his former fellow-student , Lebede v (performed b y AndreiPopov) looked guiltily into his eyes, trying to comfor t Ivano v and explainthe nature of his malaise, mumbling something about the milieu 'eating youup', embarrassed b y the banality o f his own words and trying to dispel hisunease with the inevitable sho t o f vodka , serve d unerringly o n cue by hismanservant. Smoktunovsk y conveye d a distinctiv e spiritua l paralysis ,caused by a sense of meaninglessness, of eternal emptiness an d stagnation .

34



Those, like Lebedev who can drink, get drunk. Those, like Borkin, who canget carrie d awa y b y som e idioti c project , ge t carrie d away . Those , lik eCount Shabelsk y (splendidl y performe d b y Mar k Prudkin ) wh o tak epleasure in perpetrating som e vileness or other , even at their ow n expense,do so. Ivanov can do none of these things. All he can do - i s capitulate. SoIvanov accept s death a s deliverance. The only time in the production tha the smile d wa s whe n th e emancipate d girl , madl y i n lov e wit h him ,attempted t o awake n hi m t o a new lif e b y repeating sill y word s sh e hadread i n books . A t tha t momen t h e someho w becam e full y awar e o f th eshamefulness o f hi s situatio n an d too k hi s ow n life . We did no t hea r th eshot. Quit e simply , th e guest s - th e 'barbarians ' i n Lebedev' s house ,assembled fo r th e weddin g breakfast , dre w back , an d o n th e floor in themiddle of the stage we saw the dead man.

In 1980 , te n year s afte r hi s Sovremenni k Seagull and fou r year s afte rIvanov, Yefremo v returne d t o The Seagull. A s w e hav e seen , i n th eSovremennik production , th e flower-bed with worm s had boldl y replace dChekhov's 'enchante d lake' , th e tree s an d eve n th e ai r tha t Chekhov' scharacters breathe . An d now , te n year s o n i n hi s lif e an d i n tha t o f th eMAT, Yefremo v too k a fres h loo k a t th e play . Fo r th e first tim e i n hi sdirectorial career , he introduced th e concept o f transcendent natur e whichalters th e scal e o f huma n conflicts . Th e intellectua l debate s n o longe rinterested the director but gave way to the drama of life itself. In 1970, TheSeagull was interpreted as a pamphlet; in 1980, the predominant motif wasthat of reconciliation, understanding and forgiveness.

The Seagull marked the beginning of Yefremov's long collaboration withthe stag e designe r Valer y Levental . H e responde d t o th e ne w attitude stowards lif e an d toward s th e theatre , whic h fo r Yefremo v wer e alway sindivisible. The Seagull was designe d b y hi m a s a symphon y o f light , adance of curtains in a flickering space. Chekhov's characters became part ofthe landscape, like trees or clouds; they lived amidst nature, dissolved in itand died amidst the beauty of its indifferent world . The main sound effec twas th e seagull' s cry , bu t i t wa s no t s o muc h poeti c a s oppressive ,disturbing, expressin g the theme o f a n endles s circlin g in searc h o f some-thing that might comfort the soul.

For th e first tim e sinc e comin g togethe r te n year s earlier , th e MA Tcompany performe d a s a perceptibl e ensemble : Lavrov a a s Arkadina ,Vertinskaya a s Nina , Smoktunovsk y a s Dorn , Andre i Popo v a s Sorin ,Myagkov a s Treplev , Nevinn y a s Shamraev , Kindino v a s Medvedenk o -these wer e actor s capabl e o f understandin g th e Chekho v tha t Yefremo vwas i n th e proces s o f rediscoverin g fo r himself . Ther e wa s n o lac k o fopportunities t o act . In contras t wit h the Sovremenni k production , a t the

35


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

MAT Yefremov wante d t o make every character heard . H e immerse d th e'words, words , words ' i n th e glitterin g foliage . True , thes e character s o fChekhov wer e garrulous , s o garrulou s tha t the y di d no t eve n notic esomeone dying : in thi s production , Sori n (Andre i Popov) . But despit e al lthe disillusion and loss, the motif of faith amidst decay was gaining strength- th e kind of faith that is fed not by love or hatred, but by an understandingof the basic reality of life as an insoluble drama.

The directo r an d designe r move d th e pavilion-theatr e downstag e -making i t a furthe r animate d 'character ' i n th e play . Thi s pavilio n func -tioned wit h a rhythm o f it s own , a t on e momen t advancin g t o th e ver yfront o f the stage, and the next dissolvin g into the depths o f the autumna lpark. In this pavilion, the theatre o f Kostya Treplev and Nina Zarechnay acame int o being . B y the en d o f th e pla y i t looke d devastated , th e win dblowing throug h th e crack s i n it s wall s an d rufflin g th e tattere d whit ecurtains. Anastasi a Vertinskay a a s Nin a Zarechnay a repeate d Treplev' smonologue bu t this time not a s the empty phrases o f an apprentice writer .Kostya Treplev' s deat h brough t ou t th e real meaning o f the abstrus e line sabout the world-soul, people , lions, eagles and partridges . And these lineswere spoken not b y a provincial girl , but b y an 'actress ' with a capital 'A 'who ha d walke d he r pat h o f sufferin g an d reache d th e sourc e o f th esymbolic visions . Th e ide a o f mergin g materia l matte r wit h th e spiri tachieved a real human dimension. To carry one's cross and keep the faith -that was said not only of Nina Zarechnaya.

In a n od d way , Chekho v a t th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre accompanie d no tonly th e profoun d change s a t th e theatr e itsel f bu t i n Russi a a s a whole.Uncle Vanya was premiered in February 198 5 and on 30 April it was seenby th e newl y electe d Genera l Secretary , Mikhai l Gorbachev . H e sa w aChekhov who , i n hi s ow n way , summe d u p th e consequence s o f a'constrained' life . The motif o f creative patience became central. Yefremo vdid not attemp t t o turn Uncle Vanya, with hi s complaint ' I haven't lived' ,into a hero. (How could he not have lived when by definition his life was infact itsel f life? ) A s Astrov, Yefremov wa s embedded i n the daily trivialitiesof existenc e - an d struggle d t o brea k out . Th e MA T stag e revolved ,revealing the interiors o f the house. Astrov took t o drin k an d there was abrief respit e whe n hi s soul becam e free - an d everythin g aroun d hi m wasturned upsid e down . Th e undistinguishe d Her r Professo r Serebryako v(played b y Yevgen i Yevstigneyev ) continue d t o tyrannis e hi s wif e an dindulge hi s whims , an d then the stor m broke . And a s a consequence th econfessions cam e flooding out . On e perso n wa s drinking , anothe r wa spraying, rendere d helples s b y unrequite d love , whil e ye t anothe r wa ssuffering fro m lac k o f self-fulfilment . An d together , the y mad e u p al l

36



human life. Levental had placed the house upstage agains t the backgroundof a n autumna l landscap e i n th e styl e o f Levitan. 14 Whe n th e stag e wa splunged int o darkness , we suddenly notice d throug h th e mist a faint ligh tsuspended above the dewy ground. It was a small window in a house on adistant hill . The light shon e diml y in the darkness , but i t shone invitingly,showing the way. Such was the end o f the performance, premiere d o n thevery eve of changes tha t wer e to transform no t onl y Russia bu t th e entireworld.

On 7 May 1985 , Gorbachev telephone d Yefremo v t o give his reactionsto the production, sayin g that h e had like d Astrov an d tha t h e had foun dUncle Vanya simply heartrending. Then he said how much there was to do,that the y shoul d mee t t o discus s th e problem s o f theatre , an d tha t i ngeneral it was time 'to set the fly-wheel in motion'. Could he have imaginedthen where tha t fly-wheel would en d up ? I happened t o b e in Yefremov' soffice durin g this conversation, an d Yefremov seeme d to be speaking in hisusual manner, making no attempt to flatter his caller. After hangin g up, hesuddenly wipe d th e swea t fro m hi s brow . Seein g m y surprise , h e smile dguiltily an d paraphrasin g Chekhov , said : 'Yo u know, it' s har d t o squeez ethe slave out of yourself.'

A later productio n o f Chekho v a t MAT was Three Sisters. I t opene d inFebruary 199 7 during the preparations for the MAT centennial . It bore allthe sign s o f a n attemp t a t 'summin g up' . I t was a s though Yefremo v wa sreplaying al l th e mai n theme s o f hi s production s o f Chekhov , beginnin gwith th e fat e o f 'home ' - an d endin g wit h th e them e o f patienc e an dsubmission t o th e merciles s cycl e o f life . Thi s time , Leventa l locate d th ehouse o f th e Prozoro v sister s i n a kind o f cosmi c spher e whic h change dcolour fou r times : fro m th e whit e o f sprin g o n Irina' s name-da y t o th esombre blue of winter; from th e red suggesting the fire to the rusty colourof the autumna l final act . Thes e symboli c change s o f colou r reflecte d th erhythm of life that carries the characters from hop e to despair . The closingscene o f th e thre e sister s biddin g farewel l t o th e departin g officer s wa stragically expressive , an d choreographe d almos t lik e a ballet . The sisters 'arms interwove as they tried to hold together in a circle, but some invisibleforce drove them apart and broke their embrace.

Yefremov learne d Chekhov's most important lesson long ago, one that isnow bein g experience d acutel y b y th e whol e o f Russia . H e graspe d hi sobjectivity, hi s detachmen t fro m an y ideology , doctrin e o r politica l label .The age of ideologies that crushed human beings is receding. And Chekhovnow stands revealed to us in all his strange, disquieting profundity .

In contrast wit h the 194 0 production o f Three Sisters, Yefremov' s 199 7version lacks any optimism, an y signs o f poeti c exaltation . Th e strain s of

37


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

i Mosco w Ar t Theatre production o f The Three Sisters at Brooklyn Academy of Music ,January 1998 . Sets and costume by Valery Levental, directed b y Oleg Yefremov .

the marc h a s th e regimen t leave s th e tow n ver y quickl y giv e wa y t oChebutykin's nonsens e song . Bu t eve n hi s 'Tarara-boom-deay ' doesn' tembrace th e entir e expanse o f life . The ful l sto p in this production i s not 'I fonly w e knew' , bu t th e dancin g imag e o f th e vanishin g house . Thi s hous ethat ha s s o stubbornl y resiste d th e chang e o f seasons , retreat s upstage ,dissolving i n th e darkenin g autum n landscape . Th e sombre , threatenin gmusic o f Scriabi n develop s an d reinforce s th e moo d o f departure . I t i s a sthough thi s play , bor n a t th e tur n o f th e centur y ha s hal f anticipate d th elatest tur n o f events . I n th e pla y Vershini n philosophise s tha t 'i n th e past' ,mankind wa s bus y wit h wars , campaigns , raid s an d victories , 'bu t now ' i tis all gone and there is nothing to fil l this vast empty spac e . . .

At th e en d o f th e twentieth century , Russi a find s itsel f agai n i n thi s 'vas tempty space' . W e ar e tryin g t o fil l it . A t thi s tim e o f spiritua l hiatus ,Chekhov i s truly a 'constant companion' .

NOTES1 Lette r fro m V . I. Nemirovich-Danchenk o t o K . S . Stanislavsky , afte r 2 6 July

1904, from V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Selected Letters of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko in Two Volumes, Moscow, 1979, vol. n, p. 378.

38



2 K . S . Stanislavsky , Collected Works of Stanislavsky in 8 Volumes, Moscow,1974-82, vol. v, p. 134.

3 Lette r from K . S. Stanislavsky t o V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Octobe r 1923 ,Berlin, from Collected Works of Stanislavsky, vol. vni, p. 29.

4 Fro m a lette r b y V . I . Nemirovich-Danchenk o t o Olg a Bokzhanskay a o n 9March 1924 , fro m Selected Letters of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, vol. 11,p. 304 .

5 MA T Museum, Archives of V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko.6 Se e Chronicles of the Life and Works of Stanislavsky in 8 Volumes, Izdatelstvo

VTO, Moscow, 1973, vol. IV.7 Mari a Knebel (1898-1985) , actress , director and teacher. Studied at the Studio

of Michae l Chekho v i n 1918 , an d the n a t th e Fourt h Studi o o f th e MAT . In1924 she became a member of the MAT Company, with whom she played manyroles, and worked o n many different production s o f the MAT, such as KremlinChimes and Difficult Years. In 1950 she left the MAT to work as director of theCentral Children's Theatre. She also taught at GITIS (The Russian State TheatreSchool). See chapter 15 in this volume: Selected Glossary.

8 Lette r fro m V . I. Nemirovich-Danchenko t o Mari a Knebel , Apri l 1942 . FromSelected Letters of Nemirovich-Danchenko, vol. 11, p. 536.

9 Yefremo v worked at the Sovremennik Theatre from 195 6 to 1970.10 'Th e Thaw' is the term generally used to describe the end of Stalinist terror with

Stalin's deat h i n 1953 , an d th e majo r speec h a t th e 195 6 Party Congres s b yKhrushchev i n whic h h e expose d an d condemne d man y o f th e excesse s o fStalinism, and the end of the long winter of Stalin's regime. With the destructionof 'The Prague Spring' in 1968, the period of 'The Thaw' came to an end. 'TheThaw' as a metaphor was first used by Ilya Ehrenburg in his story of that name,published in the magazine Znamya in 1954.

11 Innokent y Smoktunovsk y i s perhap s bes t know n i n Wester n Europ e an dAmerica fo r hi s brilliant performance a s Hamlet i n Gregori Kozintsev's film of1965.

12 Th e them e o f 'Hamlet ' run s throughou t muc h o f nineteenth-centur y Russia nliterature, dram a an d criticism . Th e us e mad e o f Hamle t wa s o f a characte rincapable o f takin g an y actio n abou t anythin g - whethe r hi s ow n life , o r theneeds o f hi s society . Fo r a detaile d discussio n o f thi s majo r theme , se e Iva nTurgenev's essay of 1858 , 'Hamlet an d Don Quixote' . For another example ofChekhov's (comic) use of the theme other than in Ivanov, see the short story 'InMoscow' (1891 ) o r the dramatised version 'A Moscow Hamlet' i n A ChekhovQuartet, trans, and ed. by Vera Gottlieb, Amsterdam, 1996 . Ivanov has his ownpoint to make about himself a s 'Hamlet' in Act Two, Scene VI in Ivanov - an dabout himself as Don Quixote in Act Four, Scene IX.

13 Se e chapter 2 , note 4 in this volume. This is an important reiteration of a majortheme an d perceptio n o f Russia n lif e an d Russia n philosophy , a s reflected i nliterature and drama. See chapter 2 for specific examples in literature.

14 Isaa c Levita n (1861-1900) , landscap e painte r an d frien d o f Chekhov' s artis tbrother Nikolai. They shared holidays at Babkino, the estate in the countrysideof Moscow Province on which the Chekhovs bought a holiday cottage. Levitan'slandscape paintings capture the essence of the Russian countryside, the seasonsand country life. It was when out hunting with Levitan that Chekhov may well


ANATOLY SMELIANSK Y

have go t th e ide a fo r The Seagull. As h e wrot e i n a lette r t o hi s publishe rSuvorin, on 8 April 1892 from hi s estate at Melikhovo: 'Last night we went outshooting. He shot a snipe and the bird, wounded in the wing, fell into a puddle.I picke d i t up : lon g beak , bi g blac k eyes , an d beautifu l plumage . I t looke dastonished. What should we do with it? Levitan frowned, close d his eyes, thenbegged me in a shaky voice, "My dear friend, hi t his head against the gunstock. . . " I said, " I can't. " H e went o n shaking , shruggin g hi s shoulders , hi s headtwitching, and begging me; and the snipe went on looking at us in astonishment.I had to agre e with Levitan an d kil l it . One more beautifu l delightfu l creatur eless, while two idiots went home and sat down to supper.'

40


4EDWARD BRAU N

From Platonov t o Piano

Unlikely a s i t migh t see m today , th e appearanc e i n 192 3 o f a previousl yunpublished an d untitle d pla y b y Chekho v seem s t o hav e arouse d littl einterest in Russia outsid e literary circles. However, i t is not surprisin g tha tit wa s ignore d b y th e Sovie t theatr e o f tha t time . Firstly , Chekho v wa sabout the last dramatist likely to excite the new revolutionary avant-garde .Secondly, th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e wa s stil l i n th e gri p o f th e artisti cparalysis to which it had been reduced by the events of 1917, and seventeenmore years were to elapse befor e i t stage d a new production o f Chekhov .Finally, the prospect o f a ramshackle tex t almos t three times the length ofany other Chekhov play would have deterred most theatres even at the bestof times. In fact, i t was not unti l 195 7 that th e work receive d it s Russianpremiere, thoug h b y tha t tim e i t ha d bee n stage d aroun d th e worl d i nvarious versions and under a curious variety of titles.

In 193 3 th e tex t wa s include d i n th e editio n o f Chekhov' s work spublished b y th e Sovie t Stat e Publishin g Hous e fo r Literature , thi s tim eunder th e ponderou s titl e Fatherlessness (Bezotsovshchina). Th e evidenc esuggests that this play, which we now know as Platonov, is in large part thesame a s the on e tha t Chekhov , stil l a schoolboy o f eightee n i n hi s hom etown of Taganrog, first drafte d i n 1878 and reworked extensively over thenext thre e years , onl y t o abando n i t followin g it s rejectio n b y the Mal yTheatre in Moscow.1

The action o f Platonov takes place in early summer o n a country estat e'in one of the Southern provinces' of Russia. Owned by Anna Petrovna, thebeautiful youn g wido w o f Genera l Voinitsev , th e estat e i s th e centr e fo revery local intrigue, both romantic and financial. Irretrievably in debt to astring o f loca l landowner s an d businessmen , Ann a retain s nothin g bu t a ninherited coa l min e a s securit y an d th e onl y solutio n t o he r predicamen tseems t o b e marriag e t o th e wealth y bu t agin g Porfir y Glagolie v o r els ebecoming th e kep t woma n o f hi s odiou s son . However , confiden t tha tGlagoliev senior is certain to buy the estate and allow her to continue living

43


EDWARD BRAU N

there o n credit , sh e renew s he r attempt s t o seduc e Mikhai l Platonov , a nimpoverished landowner and now at twenty-seven the village schoolmaster.Disgusted b y her immorality , Glagolie v depart s wit h hi s so n fo r a lif e o fdebauchery i n Paris , an d i n th e fina l ac t i t transpire s tha t th e estat e ha sbeen bought at auction by the Jewish businessman Vengerovich, who plansto evic t Ann a Petrovn a b y Christmas , alon g wit h he r idl e stepso n Serge iand his recently wedde d wife Sofya . Earlie r i n the play, Platonov has firs twelcomed Anna' s advance s bu t the n embark s o n a passionate affai r wit hSofya, hi s sweetheart fro m thei r student days , and plans to run away withher, abandonin g hi s young wif e Sash a an d thei r infan t son . For he r part ,Anna Petrovn a ha s i n th e pas t flirted briefl y wit h Osip , 'horse-thief ,parasite, murderer, burglar' (Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol n, p. 41),2who now in a fit of jealousy makes a botched attempt a t knifing Platonov .Prior to this, in the climax to Act Three Osip rescues Sasha from unde r thewheels of a train when she tries to commit suicide. In the final act we learnfirst that Osi p himself ha s bee n lynched b y a crowd o f villagers, and thenthat Sash a ha s agai n narrowl y faile d t o tak e he r ow n life . Injure d fro mOsip's assault and in a state of delirium from incessan t drinking , Platonovis on the verge of shooting himself, but his courage fails him and instead hedecides t o seduc e Mari a Grekova , a serious-minde d youn g chemistr ystudent whom he has previously humiliated in public, thereby goading herto su e hi m fo r assault . Now , however , sh e confesse s he r lov e fo r him ,whereupon Sofya enters, seizes his revolver and kills him.

Even allowing for Chekhov' s numerous cuts, the original text would runfor a t leas t five hour s an d ha s twent y speakin g parts , compare d wit hfourteen i n Three Sisters and only eight in Uncle Vanya. In Platonov, a s inhis nex t tw o full-lengt h plays , Ivanov an d The Wood-Demon, Chekho vfollows th e genera l nineteenth-centur y practic e o f subdividin g act s int oscenes t o mar k th e characters ' exit s an d entrances . Bu t thi s i s n o mer ematter o f convention: the fact tha t the play contains no fewer tha n eighty-three scene s (henc e eighty-thre e exit s o r entrances ) i s a measur e o f it sfrenetic temp o and incessant melodramatic confrontations - a far cry fro mthe flow and texture o f everyday life tha t Chekho v was to achieve to suchunique effect in his later plays.3

Theatrical exces s is least in evidence in the first act. As Anna Petrovna' sguests graduall y assembl e fo r a lunc h tha t signal s th e beginnin g o f th esummer's socia l round , Chekho v use s introduction s an d reunion s wit hfamiliar deftnes s t o acquain t hi s audienc e wit h th e establishe d patter n o frelationships an d to se t up the conflicts tha t ar e to follow. Twic e Platonovthreatens th e convivialit y o f th e gathering , first b y reducin g th e insecur eyoung Maria t o tears with hi s persistent teasing , and next b y gratuitously

44


From Flatonov to Piano

trading insult s wit h th e rapaciou s Vengerovich , owne r o f sixty-thre etaverns. Both incidents abruptly raise the dramatic temperature, but neitherseems dramatically contrived sinc e they arise out of some obscure destruc-tive urg e withi n Platono v an d clearl y ar e onl y th e lates t i n a serie s o fincidents tha t h e has provoked. Also , it is clear tha t b y the time Platono vconfronts Vengerovich he has been deeply disconcerted by his reunion withSofya, th e on e true lov e o f his life fro m th e day s when sh e saw him as ' asecond Byron' , befor e h e droppe d ou t o f universit y an d becam e ' a mer eschoolmaster'. Twice in this act, and frequently throug h the rest of the play,Chekhov resorts to brief soliloquies, but this was a device that he continuedto employ repeatedly , ofte n a t greate r length , unti l Three Sisters whe n hefinally eliminate d i t b y using th e ol d caretake r Ferapon t a s th e dea f an duncomprehending audience for Andrei's bitter outpourings.

In Act Two, Part One, the same company is assembled in the garden for anocturnal fireworks party . The unfolding intrigue s ar e skilfully interwove nwith the ebb and flow of guests, whilst the off-stage actio n is suggested bythe noise s o f a gam e o f skittle s an d pian o an d violi n music . Th e whol escene i s illuminated wit h festiv e lantern s an d reache s it s clima x wit h th eexploding o f fireworks as Sofya resolve s to yield to Platonov. By contrast,Part Two, which takes place some hours later by a railway line in the forestoutside Platonov's schoolhouse , is a more obviously contrived sequenc e ofdualogues, beginnin g wit h Osi p tellin g Sash a abou t hi s passion fo r Ann aPetrovna i n what i s virtually a self-contained shor t story , and culminatin gin a scene of pure melodrama whe n Osip pulls Sasha to safety a s the trainscreeches past . I n between , Chekho v resort s t o a range o f stoc k devices :concealments behin d trees , eavesdropping , franti c soliloquies , comi cdrunken interlude s - eve n th e familia r lette r o f assignation , delivere d b ySofya's maid .

Act Three, set in the schoolroom three weeks later, opens with Platonovdrunk an d dishevelled , having been abandoned b y Sasha. The sequence ofone-to-one confrontations resumes , but gains variety from a drinking boutbetween Platono v an d Ann a whic h Chekho v contrive s t o mak e bot hfarcical an d tender , an d a n hilarious roug h an d tumble fro m whic h Osip ,the mos t deferentia l o f assassins , readily desist s a s soon a s Sasha returns .Osip's own dispatch the next day in Act Four is accomplished by the youngChekhov with insouciant brevity:

S C E N E I I I

[ANNA comes in and looks out of the window]SERGEI [with a gesture of despair]. Thi s i s th e absolut e end ! [Pause.]

What's going on out there?

45


EDWARD BRAU N

ANNA Osip' s been lynched by the villagers.SERGEI Already ?ANNA Yes , near the well. Do you see? There he is.SERGEI [Looks out of the window]. Well, it serves him right. [Pause.]ANNA Hear d the news, dear? They say Platonov's made himself scarce . . .

(Hingley, p. 140)

Apart fro m on e passin g referenc e thi s i s th e las t w e hea r o f Osip , bu t th eother tangle s i n th e plo t tak e rathe r mor e unravellin g a s th e denouemen tgets further complicated , first by the news o f Sasha's second suicid e attemp t(this tim e b y swallowin g matches) , an d the n b y Mari a enterin g th ecompetition fo r Platonov' s favours . Wit h Platono v increasingl y deliriou sfrom alcoho l abuse , seein g toy soldier s wit h pointe d cap s an d a tiny pian ocrawling ove r Anna' s breast , th e moo d o f hysteri a intensifies , reachin g it sclimax o f blac k farc e i n th e final scen e whe n Sofy a rummage s i n a drawe rto find a revolver , first fires a t Platono v an d misses , the n evade s Maria' sattempts t o shiel d him an d shoot s hi m point-blank i n the chest . Amidst th egrief an d confusio n i t i s Triletsk y wh o pronounce s Platonov' s epitaph :'Life's onl y wort h a copeck . Goodbye , Michael , you'v e los t you r copeck .What ar e yo u al l gogglin g at ? H e sho t himself . Th e party' s over . [Weeps.]Who ca n I celebrat e you r funera l with ? Fools ! Yo u couldn' t loo k afte rPlatonov.' (Hingley , p. 162 )

Unsurprisingly, man y critic s hav e see n littl e mor e i n Platonov tha n th eadumbration o f themes an d characters tha t Chekho v was to return to in hismature play s an d shor t stories . No t al l hav e bee n a s dismissiv e a s F . L .Lucas wh o sa w i t a s simpl y 'chaotic , unconvincin g an d tedious' 4 o rLaurence Senelick , wh o calle d i t a 'protracte d piec e o f juvenilia'. 5 Michae lFrayn, i n a perceptiv e introductio n t o Wild Honey, hi s ow n reworkin g o fthe play , acknowledge s al l it s obviou s defect s yet describe s i t a s ' aremarkable an d tantalisin g work ' possessin g 'precociou s an d inimitabl evirtues' (Frayn , p . viii) . Kenneth Tyna n wa s eve n mor e enthusiasti c i n hi sreview o f th e Londo n premier e i n i960 : 'I f anyon e stil l live s wh o need sproof o f Chekhov' s genius , le t hi m g o an d se e Platonov . . . I t make s asingular impression ; a s i f a Russia n nove l o f countr y lif e ha d bee ndramatized b y Georges Feydeau an d then handed ove r to Chekhov fo r tota lrewriting . . .' 6 I n perhap s th e mos t penetratin g analysi s o f all , Mikhai lGromov writes : 'Th e pla y wa s pu t togethe r wit h a profligac y tha t wa sinexcusable, an d conceivabl e onl y i n th e writer' s youth . A t on e an d th esame time it is a drama, a comedy an d a vaudeville; or more accurately , i t isnot an y on e o f thes e three . But tha t said , i t i s chaotic i n a way tha t bor e aremarkable resemblance to the reality of Russian life.' 7

What Gromo v identifie s i s the profoun d sens e i n which th e moo d o f th e

46



play and, in particular, tha t o f its central character , reflect s th e state of post -emancipation Russi a i n th e 1880s . Glagolie v senio r say s a s much t o Ann aPetrovna earl y in Act One :

Well - I think Platonov' s a super b exampl e o f moder n vagueness . He' s th ehero of our best modern novel, one that hasn't yet been written, I'm sorr y tosay. [Laughs.] Vaguenes s seem s to m e typica l o f moder n society , an d you rRussian novelist senses it. He's baffled an d bewildered, he has nothing to holdon to, he doesn't understand . . . Everything's so vague and blurred - it' s onegreat chaoti c mess . An d it' s thi s vaguenes s whic h th e sagaciou s Platono vtypifies, I think. (Hingley , p. 21)

One majo r reaso n fo r thi s 'vagueness' , thi s loss o f direction , i s suggeste dby the play' s origina l title , Fatherlessness. Wit h th e sol e exceptio n o f Isaa cVengerovich ( a Jew, an d henc e a n outsider) , th e entir e younge r generatio ntreats th e depravit y an d materialis m o f thei r elder s wit h feeling s tha t rang efrom embarrassmen t t o outrage . I n th e depth s o f drunke n self-disgust ,Platonov rail s a t his late parents: 'Depraved, drunke n fools - alway s drunk ,the mother a fool, the father a drunk. Father , mother - . Father - . Rot in yourgraves fo r th e rotte n mes s yo u mad e o f m y poo r lif e wit h you r drunke nfolly' (Hingley , p . 105) . Wha t th e pla y i s tryin g t o convey , though , i s apicture o f a whol e wa y o f lif e i n termina l decline . A s th e Sovie t criti cBerkovsky ha s written, 'Platonov depict s the collapse o f the country estate ,the declin e o f th e gentry , overblown , extravagant , abundan t i n scandal sand excess . And here , the end o f the gentry i s intertwined wit h th e end o f awhole age : Platonov i s a n attemp t t o writ e a n extende d epitap h t o th enineteenth century in whose closing years i t was written.' 8

Berkovsky furthe r observe s tha t Platono v himsel f wa s a n exceptiona lphenomenon: 'I n everyda y life , i n th e literatur e o f th e populist s an d thei rlike-minded contemporaries , th e villag e schoolmaste r wa s regarde d a s a nexemplary individual , th e servan t o f wha t wa s goo d an d true . I n th eschoolmaster Platono v ther e i s nothin g a t al l schoolmasterly . On e doesn' treally believ e tha t h e i s capabl e o f teachin g anyon e anything , b e i t hand -writing o r arithmetic.' 9 When h e is not engage d i n fits o f self-loathing , th eone thing tha t engage s hi s still-shar p intellec t i s the denunciation o f others ,and wha t bring s hi m t o th e poin t o f suicid e i s the realisatio n tha t h e i s n obetter than they are . He is often describe d a s a rural Don Juan, bu t thi s is toignore th e fac t tha t i t i s th e wome n who , on e afte r another , thro wthemselves heedlessl y a t him . A s Gromo v point s out , Chekho v neve rsought an y explanatio n fo r love , bu t simpl y accepte d it s irrationality . I nPlatonov th e fac t tha t a drunken , boorish , inconstan t nonentit y i s th eobject o f fou r attractiv e women' s desir e i s indicativ e bot h o f th e singula r

47


EDWARD BRAU N

charmlessness o f al l othe r availabl e partner s an d o f th e absurdit y o f th eworld they live in.

In 1928 , five year s afte r it s publication , Platonov was give n it s worl dpremiere i n Gera , south-eas t Germany , i n a version b y Rene Fiilop-Mille rentitled Der unnutzige Mensch Platonoff (That Useless Person Platonov).The followin g Januar y thi s versio n wa s performe d i n Prague , firs t i nGerman an d the n i n Czech . Production s i n Turin , Mila n an d Rom efollowed, the n i n 194 0 th e Provincetow n Playhouse , Massachusetts , pre -sented th e firs t performanc e o f th e pla y i n English , transmogrifie d int oFireworks on the James. It was first staged in French as Ce fou de Platonovon 17 May 1956 at the Bordeaux Festival, with Jean Vilar playing the titlerole in his own production with the Theatre National Populaire. Finally, in1957 the play was given it s Russian premier e a s Platonov at the Pushki nTheatre in Pskov. The critic of the Moscow journal Teatr was withering inher scorn for th e production an d could find n o justification fo r stagin g theplay at all. Nevertheless, it was revived in i960 a t the Vakhtangov Theatrein Moscow t o mar k th e centenary o f Chekhov' s birth . Using a n abridge dversion with the part of Maria Grekova cut completely, Alexandra Remizo-va's inventiv e productio n emphasise d th e play' s comi c aspect s an d wa senthusiastically receive d b y th e public . Again , though , th e critic s wer eunconvinced tha t i t was worth exhuming from th e pre-history o f Chekho-vian drama : 'It' s no t eve n Antosh a Chekhonte , le t alon e Chekhov' ,concluded Marianna Stroeva. 10

Platonov was publishe d i n Londo n i n 195 2 i n a n abridge d versio n b yBasil Ashmor e calle d Don Juan (in the Russian Manner) i n which ,strangely, Anna Petrovna become s a countess and Platonov is not sho t butdies fro m hi s illness . I t wa s thi s versio n tha t wa s use d fo r th e Britis hpremiere in 1959 a t the Nottingham Playhouse , directed b y Val May withRobert Lang as Platonov.11 The play was first see n in London a t the RoyalCourt Theatr e o n 1 3 October i960 , directe d b y George Devine and JohnBlatchley. Fo r thi s productio n Dmitr i Makaroff' s translatio n wa s heavil ycut to a running time of three hours, with Glagoliev junior discarded but avillage priest added. With Rex Harrison as Platonov and Rachel Roberts asAnna Petrovna, the production was one of the hits of the season, playing to91 pe r cen t capacit y fo r 4 4 performances . Unlik e Kennet h Tynan , mos tcritics wer e throw n int o confusio n b y th e production . Milto n Shulma ndescribed i t a s 'an outrageous burlesqu e . . . with a s much resemblance toChekhov a s Sweeney Todd\ whils t other s complaine d tha t i t faile d t oguide the spectato r int o ' a stabl e emotiona l position' . In his biography ofGeorge Devine, Irving Wardle recalls: 'Platonov was not the most polishedof shows , bu t it s suprem e virtu e wa s tha t i t di d avoi d fixe d emotiona l



positions. I n plac e o f th e expecte d journe y throug h th e flat Chekhovia nlandscape, i t substitute d a n exhilaratin g switchbac k rid e betwee n th eextremes of melodramatic hysteria an d broa d farce.' 12

The nex t majo r Britis h reviva l wa s i n 198 4 whe n th e Nationa l Theatr estaged Christophe r Morahan' s productio n o f a ne w versio n b y Michae lFrayn entitle d Wild Honey wit h a cas t tha t include d Ia n McKelle n a sPlatonov and Charlott e Cornwel l a s Anna Petrovna . Having rejected al l theprevious titles because of their suggestion that the action centres exclusivel yon the one character, Frayn explains his own choice :

The bes t titl e t o dat e seem s t o m e Alex Szogyi' s A Country Scandal [NewYork,i96o]. But Chekhov himself has provided an even better one in the text.The pla y cover s th e perio d o f th e Voynitzevs ' honeymoo n (an d it s cata -strophic end). Anna Petrovna refers to it in a phrase that seems to include allthe variou s sexua l intrigue s - ' a mont h o f wil d honey ' (i n th e origina l ' amonth smeared with wild honey'). This seems to me to evoke precisely bot hthe wayward sweetness of forbidden sexua l attraction, and the intense feelingof summer that pervades the play. (Frayn , p. xiv)

To Frayn, Anna Petrovna i s a no less remarkable creation than Platonov :

She is a most surprising character to find in a nineteenth-century play . Thereare plenty of heroines at the time who inspire erotic feelings in men (and whousually end up dead or disfigured fo r thei r pains) . . . But where else is thereone who is permitted to express such shining physical desire, and to remain -though punished , i t i s true , b y th e los s o f he r estat e - essentiall y unhumi -liated? (Frayn , p. viii)

Whilst Ann a Petrovn a i s without precedent , sh e initiates a sequence o f self -assertive wome n i n Chekhov' s play s whic h include s Arkadina , Masha ,Natasha an d Lyubo v Andreevna . However , non e o f thes e pursue s th eobject o f he r desir e wit h quit e th e sam e fran k sexua l inten t o r freedo mfrom guilt , an d non e share s Anna' s acut e awarenes s o f he r pligh t a s a neducated woman wit h no occupation .

Starting fro m th e assumptio n tha t Chekhov' s tex t wa s a roug h draf trather tha n a finished play , Fray n undertoo k a fa r mor e radica l revisio nthan an y o f hi s predecessors , preservin g th e mai n character s bu t givin g th eaction a muc h mor e tightl y focusse d dramati c shape . Whole sub-plot s ar eremoved, th e sequenc e o f scene s i s reorganised , an d th e numbe r o fcharacters i s reduced fro m twent y to sixteen , wit h elements o f Vengerovic hsenior, Bugrov an d Shcherbu k incorporate d i n Glagolie v senio r an d Petrin .A frequent targe t fo r criticis m i n the origina l tex t hav e bee n the apparentl yuncontrolled lurche s fro m on e mood t o another , an d thi s i s something tha tFrayn addresses , thoug h withou t sacrificin g th e essentia l element s o f farce .


EDWARD BRAU N

In his introduction h e writes ' I have tried t o resolve the tone o f the play b yreducing the melodrama an d th e editorialising , an d b y moving from lighte rcomedy a t th e beginning , throug h farce , t o th e darke r an d mor e painfu lcomedy o f th e fina l scenes. ' (Frayn , p . xiv) . Frayn's conclusio n i s se t i n th eschoolhouse an d is , i f anything , eve n blacke r farc e tha n th e original , wit hboth Sofy a an d Ann a vyin g t o shoo t Platono v a s Mari a shield s hi m an dSasha beg s them t o kil l her instead . H e eludes them al l by jumping throug hthe window, bu t as they pursue him into the darkness :

He steps onto the railway line and runs in the opposite direction - downstage- glancing back over his shoulder at them like a fugitive. Then he stops,blinded by the brilliant headlight of the train approaching from behind theheads of the audience, its whistle screaming. He staggers back a step or two,trying to wave the train away like the flies. Then sudden blackness, and thegreat roar of the train, its note falling as it passes us. The red tail light of thetrain appears at the front of the stage and dwindles rapidly into the smoke leftby the locomotive. There is a smell of sulphur in the air. Curtain.

(Frayn, p. 104)

Thus, the fate fro m whic h the blameless Sash a has been snatched a t the endof Ac t Tw o finall y claim s Platono v himself . Th e credi t fo r it s inventio n i sentirely Frayn's , bu t mostl y th e wor k tha t h e di d involve d cuttin g an dreorganising th e origina l material , creatin g a tightl y structure d tex t tha tstands compariso n wit h Ivanov an d The Seagull, i f no t wit h Chekhov' smature works . Writing i n The Guardian, Michae l Billingto n describe d i t a s'a brillian t piec e o f theatr e bearin g th e stigmat a o f genius' , whils t i n TheObserver Michae l Ratcliff e said : 'Th e effec t i s o f a n ol d cloc k completel ytaken apar t an d give n a ne w movement . I t i s stil l Chekhov , bu t i t i s als oFrayn.'13 Openin g o n 1 9 Jul y 1984 , Wild Honey ra n i n th e Nationa lTheatre's repertoir e i n th e Lyttelto n Theatr e unti l 1 7 August th e followin gyear.

Since the early day s o f the silen t cinem a Chekho v ha s regularly attracte dthe attentio n o f Russian film-makers , althoug h i t has bee n the shor t storie swith thei r laconi c narrativ e styl e an d thei r arrestin g imager y tha t hav eyielded th e mos t amenabl e material , th e fines t exampl e bein g Josep hHeifetz's The Lady with the Little Dog (1959) . However , a s Mikhai lGromov suggests , i f Platonov i s widely known toda y i t i s thanks largel y t othe fil m versio n b y Alexander Adabashia n an d Nikit a Mikhalkov , directe dby Mikhalkov an d release d b y Mosfilm i n 197 6 a s An Unfinished Piece forMechanical Piano. Takin g it s title from a random ide a i n on e o f Chekhov' snotebooks, th e screenpla y dispense s wit h al l th e melodramati c element s o fthe origina l t o achiev e a fa r mor e compresse d narrativ e se t entirel y i n th eVoinitsev countr y hous e an d it s woode d surroundings , an d runnin g fro m



afternoon t o sunris e the next day . All the sub-plots ar e discarded: Mari aGrekova, Osi p an d Vengerovic h senio r ar e cut ; ther e ar e n o suicid eattempts by Sasha; Platonov's affair wit h Sofya i s never consummated; andPetrin continues his benevolent underwriting of the estate, with no threat ofeviction.

On th e othe r hand , th e late general' s drinkin g partner , Shcherbuk , hastwo spinste r daughter s (restore d fro m a n early draf t o f the original text )and a young nephew, Petya. There is also a poignant scene in the middle ofthe dinne r part y whe n Gorokhov , a clerk fro m a nearby factory , appear sand entreat s th e carousing D r Triletsk y t o visi t hi s sick wife , onl y t o befobbed of f wit h a vague promis e o f 'tomorrow , o r the day after withou tfail'. Thoug h adapte d fro m a scene in the original play when the drunkenTriletsky refuse s t o ten d Glagoliev , th e episod e coul d easil y b e on e ofChekhov's shor t stories . Similarly, Platonov tells the assembled company astory that he says he 'read recently ' bu t which is really a barely concealedaccount of his youthful lov e affair wit h Sofya. In fact, severa l of the actualstories furnish idea s and snatches of dialogue for the film scenario, notably'The Russian Master','Thre e Years' , 'My Life' an d 'At a Country House' ,from whic h th e characte r o f th e ultra-reactionar y Shcherbu k i s largel ytaken.

The overal l resul t i s a fluid narrativ e whic h capture s th e languorou spassage of high summer , close in style to the late plays with their seamlessinterweaving o f th e inconsequentia l an d th e dramatic . A s Alexande rSvobodin observes , the action is punctuated wit h a number o f 'refrains'. 14

There ar e repeate d long-shot s o f th e resentfu l manservan t Yako v vainl ytrying to fish a chair out of a pond where some feckless maste r or mistresshas dumpe d it . At intervals, th e idle chatte r o f Anna Petrovna' s guest s isinterrupted b y the loud snoring of Triletsky senior . We see the small figureof Petya, in tranquil contras t to the posturing grown-ups, happily roamingthe countryside and finally in carefree slumber . Thus, a sense of continuity,of lif e repeatin g itself , i s established , retardin g th e film's temp o an dironically counterpointing the absurdity of the tragi-comic collisions.

The first hal f o f th e film reache s it s clima x whe n Ann a Petrovn asummons her guests to the terrace to marvel a t the young peasant Zakha reffortlessly playin g Chopi n o n a pian o transporte d i n fo r th e occasio nregardless o f cost . A s the y gap e i n incredulity , sh e order s th e youn gvirtuoso t o lif t hi s hand s fro m th e keyboard , whereupo n th e pian o i srevealed a s 'mechanical' , a pianol a whic h continue s t o pla y o f it s ownaccord. T o Platonov's embarrasse d scor n Sash a faint s wit h shock , whils tShcherbuk splutter s wit h relief , confirme d i n hi s assertion tha t n o 'filth ypeasant' coul d eve r achiev e suc h artistr y - onl y to be coolly reminded by


EDWARD BRAU N

Petrin tha t he , a mer e filthy peasant , i s underwritin g th e estat e an d al l it sguests' frivolities .

The closin g sequenc e coul d no t b e furthe r remove d fro m th e origina ltext, bu t owe s more than a little to the tragi-comic anti-clima x o f Act Thre eof Uncle Vanya, an d eve n mor e t o Sonya' s radian t word s o f consolation t othe unhapp y Vany a a t th e play' s conclusion . I n despai r an d self-loathin gPlatonov attempt s suicid e b y plungin g headlon g int o th e rive r belo w th ehouse - onl y t o find himsel f barel y knee-dee p i n wate r an d i n th e all -forgiving embrac e o f Sasha , wh o says : 'Mishenka , you'r e tired , yo u mus trest an d the n we'l l b e happy again ! And w e shal l liv e fo r a long, lon g tim e. . . and w e shal l be lucky. . . and w e shal l se e a bright , new , pure life , an dfine ne w peopl e wh o will understan d an d forgiv e us . Onl y w e mus t love ,love, Mishenka! A s long a s we love, we shal l liv e for a long, long time an dbe happ y . . .' 15 A s th e remainin g guest s com e dow n th e hil l an d hel pPlatonov an d Sash a fro m th e rive r w e se e th e landscap e stil l mois t fro myesterday's rain , glistenin g i n th e first ray s o f th e sun , an d hea r a steame rhooting on the river, peasants singing in the fields on the far bank .

Admiring th e teasingl y ope n ending s o f Chekhov' s shor t stories , Mi -khalkov argue s tha t i n hi s ver y ordinarines s Platono v doe s no t meri t aviolently melodramatic death , wherea s

Sasha is the only one in our film who understands what her life is for and whyshe has to go on living . .. O f course, love is not the panacea for al l sufferin gand misfortune. At this particular moment it acts as a stimulus. I don't knowif i t wil l b e permanent, eve n i f i t wil l las t fo r lon g . . . I wanted t o end thepicture on an upbeat, not because it's more comforting tha t way, but becauseit's something quite inherent in the nature an d history of Russian ar t - faith ,hope, love.16

Yet th e closin g sho t o f th e film, o f Pety a i n obliviou s slumber , hi s slende rback golde n i n th e sun' s rays , restore s ironi c perspectiv e t o th e pett ysquabbling o f th e adul t world , leavin g th e conclusio n ope n t o th e viewer' sinterpretation.

In 199 0 Platonov underwen t yet anothe r metamorphosi s whe n Trevo rGriffiths reworke d Mikhalko v an d Adabashian' s screenpla y a s a 'theatrica lmediation' entitle d Piano, whic h wa s directe d b y Howar d Davie s an dpresented i n th e Roya l Nationa l Theatre' s Cotteslo e auditoriu m o n 8August. I n hi s prefac e t o th e publishe d tex t Griffith s explain s it s relation -ship to the source material :

The Russian film-makers, whether ou t o f respect o r simple unconcern, haveallowed me to plunder their own piece in order to find my own; and I'm trulygrateful fo r the generous space they've afforded me . If I call Piano a new play,

52-



then it is in part because I have no right to saddle them (o r indeed Chekhov)with th e piec e I'v e finally fashioned . Fo r whil e i n respec t o f character ,relationship, inciden t an d dramati c terrain , Piano draws heavil y o n thes eseveral ur-works , there i s yet within it , a t the level o f tone , language, form ,means and intentions something other than what they have sought to say, forwhich I must both claim and accept full responsibility. 17

Amplifying thi s 'somethin g other' , h e quotes Raymond Williams ' definitio nof nineteenth-century realis m from hi s Modern Tragedy (1966):

it was a way o f seein g the world i n which i t was possible to experience thequality o f a whole wa y o f lif e throug h th e qualitie s o f individua l me n an dwomen. Thus, a personal breakdow n was a genuine socia l fact, an d a socialbreakdown was lived and known in direct personal experience . . . Chekhovis the realist of breakdown, on a significantly total scale.18

This sens e o f breakdown , bot h persona l an d social , i s conveye d i nChekhov's origina l tex t throug h th e overal l moo d o f mora l disintegratio nand, mos t acutely , throug h th e bitte r inter-generationa l hostilities . Mi -khalkov reinforce s th e impressio n o f socia l breakdow n b y strippin g awa ysome o f the distractin g eroti c entanglements , b y introducing th e Gorokho vepisode, b y stressin g th e banalit y o f Serge i an d Sofya' s plan s t o 'improve 'the lo t o f th e peasantry , an d b y strengthenin g th e Petrin-Shcherbu kantithesis. Griffiths retain s these elements an d follows th e film's main story -line, whils t creatin g a mise en scene tha t translate s th e poetr y an d th eincongruity o f the origina l int o vivi d stag e imagery . Thus , instead o f vainl ytrying to fish a chair fro m a pond, Yash a rescues a mysteriously abandone dcorset from a tree, carrying i t indoors o n the tip o f a 'pole held like a lance'(Griffiths, p . 8) ; a s th e fireworks displa y start s i n Ac t Two , 'The first of aseries of brilliant flare-like explosions convulsing their settled world order.Sophia moves quickly through empty space, a lamp in her hand, spectral inthe weird off-white glow. Platonov appears in her wake: he wears a longoff-white open burberry, mid-calf, like a Long Rider's coat' (Griffiths ,p. 45) ; whe n Glagolie v propose s t o Anna , 'Another flare washes theterrace. Anna sits in a chair, legs crossed, foot swinging softly forward andback. Porfiry kneels on one knee before her, head slightly bowed, eyes fixedon the swinging ankle-boot, rabbit to snake' (Griffiths , p . 47) . Platonov' sbotched suicid e attempt i s sublime tragi-comedy :

He climbs out, ready to leap. Black. Light up. Sashenka appears on the bridgealmost at once. A deep thudding splash below. She stares down in almostcomical horror, fingers stuffed in her mouth. Rushes from the bridge. A slowsalmony blush begins to colour the space. Silence. A figure slowly rises, down

53


EDWARD BRAU N

below. Platonov, drenched to the skin, fetlock deep in shallow water. Hestares hopelessly at the heavens.PLATONOV Yo u make it hard, Lord. Really. (Griffiths , p. 54)

Elsewhere, there ar e significan t change s to the screenplay . The dat e o f theaction i s advance d t o th e earl y summe r o f 1904 , capturin g 'tha t eerie ,humid momen t whic h precede s th e stor m o f disintegratio n an d defeat'. 19

Petrin provides two coordinates fo r th e date , in Act Two by reading fro mhis newspape r a repor t o f th e strik e o f al l tw o thousan d worker s a t th ePutilov plant in Moscow, then at the final curtain by reporting the death on15 Jul y o f 'th e playwrigh t Anto n Chekhov ' a t th e Blac k Fores t Sp a o fBadenweiler, quotin g hi s las t words : 'It' s a lon g tim e sinc e I dran kchampagne.'

Consistent with this historical repositioning is the far greater prominencegiven t o th e 'lowe r orders' , correctin g wha t Griffith s perceive s a s asurprising imbalance in the dramatic works: 'It's amazing how few peasantsthere ar e i n Chekhov' s play s whe n the y bubbl e al l throug h hi s stories.' 20

Like Mikhalkov, he rejects the maverick figure of the horse-thief Osip , butgives a crucial role to Radish, a character derived from the house painter ofthe sam e nam e i n th e stor y 'M y Life ' (1896). 21 Radish , 'gaun t an dcropped', i s first see n wit h th e younge r Zakha r i n th e openin g scene ,manoeuvring a massiv e wrappe d objec t (late r reveale d a s th e pianola )across a narrow plan k bridge . As they pause fo r breat h Radis h retell s thestory o f his earlier life as a painter, a story of exploitation, physica l abuse,wrongful arres t and ultimately four years ' penal servitude, during which helearned reading , writin g an d 'thinking' , whic h ha s t o b e learne d 'Lik emaking bombs . An d layin g them ' (Griffiths , p . 3) . Th e scen e end s wit hZakhar askin g Radis h wha t h e believes in . He replies : 'Believe in , maybenot. But there are things I know. . . Grass dies. Iron rusts. Lies eat the soul.Everything's possible ' (Griffiths , p . 4). At the play's conclusion Radish andT,2^\\zt are see n onc e more o n the bridge , 'lookin g dow n o n the spectre sbelow'. A s Anna vainl y reassure s he r guest s tha t 'everythin g wil l b e as i twas', Radish echoes his words from the opening scene, ending with 'Every-thing's possible. ' Thi s time , however, Pety a i s with them o n the bridge , abright young hope for the future, more Gorky than Chekhov.

As well as positioning Piano at a specific historical conjuncture, Griffith swas equally concerned to give the play a contemporary resonance; referringto Williams' definition o f Chekhov as 'the realist o f breakdown' he writes:'Should Piano prove to be about anything at all, I suspect it may prove, likeits illustrious forebears , t o b e about jus t this fel t sens e of breakdow n an ddeadlock; and thus perhaps, in a nicely perverse irony, about what it' s like

54


From Platonov to Piano

to b e livin g i n ou r ow n post-capitalist , post-socialist , post-realist , post -modern times.' 22 Rathe r a s he had don e previousl y i n hi s version o f TheCherry Orchard, 23 Griffith s employ s judiciousl y plante d neologism s i norder 't o arc h the play disconcertingly forwar d fro m tim e to time into theaudience's lap'.24

Notwithstanding Irvin g Wardle' s complain t tha t '[Griffiths ] ha s trans -formed a tragi-comed y int o a vindictiv e class-wa r fable', 25 th e grea tmajority o f critic s responde d enthusiasticall y t o th e pla y an d t o Howar dDavies' fluidl y orchestrate d production . Th e mos t penetratin g o f them ,John Peter wrote:

Platonov was a portrait o f it s ow n time , whereas , i n Piano, Griffiths look sback o n turn-of-the-centur y Russi a fro m th e vantag e poin t o f history . Th edifference i s like that betwee n a diagnosis an d a case-history compile d afte rthe patient's death . . . This play is much more than a pastiche: it is a homageto Chekhov and to Russia, and it is animated by the black, clownish humourof the transcendental , surrealis t joker s who ligh t up Russian literature fro mGogol and Dostoyevsky to Chekhov and Nabokov.26

An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano won the Golden Shel l awardfor bes t film a t the 197 7 San Sebastian film festival ; Wild Honey has beenrevived sinc e 198 4 i n places a s fa r apar t a s Israel , Belgium , Scandinavia ,South Africa, Australi a an d New Zealand; there have been recent produc-tions o f Piano in German y an d Japan . I n Jul y 199 7 th e remarkabl e S tPetersburg Maly Theatre under Lev Dodin presented a version of Platonov(called 'A Play without a Title') in Weimar which left muc h of the originaltext intac t an d had a running tim e o f four hours . Together, thes e produc-tions reaffirm th e continuing inspiration o f Chekhov's origina l conception :its erratically grotesque dramaturgy, its psychological acuity and, above all,its prescient sensing of a crucial turning point in Russian history.

NOTES1 Se e Mikhai l Gromov , Kniga o Chekhove, Moscow , 1989 , pp . 49-58; als o

Michael Frayn, Wild Honey, London and New York, 1985, pp. vii-xviii.2 Th e play-texts from which page numbers are quoted in the text are: Platonov in

Ronald Hingley , trans , an d ed. , The Oxford Chekhov, vol.11, London , 1967 ;Michael Frayn , Wild Honey, 1985 ; Trevo r Griffiths , Piano, London , 1990 .Subsequently referred to as Hingley, Frayn and Griffiths .

3 I t i s true tha t no t unti l The Cherry Orchard did Chekho v succee d finally ineliminating the gunshot from hi s plays (whils t parodying i t with Yepikhodov' sthreat o f suicid e in Act Two), but in Platonov there ar e two murder attempts ,the secon d successful , tw o faile d suicide s wit h a thir d contemplated , an d alynching (albeit offstage) .

55


EDWARD BRAU N

4 F . L . Lucas , The Drama of Chekhov, Synge, Yeats and Pirandello, London ,1963, p. 23.

5 Laurenc e Senelick , Anton Chekhov, Basingstok e an d London, 1985 , p. 30 .6 Kennet h Tynan, Tynan Right and Left, London , 1967 , p. 39 .7 Mikhai l Gromov , Kniga o Chekhove, p . 56 .8 N . Berkovskii , 'Chekhov . O t rasskazo v i povestei k dramaturgi i (okonchanie)' ,

Russkaya literatura, 1 , 1966, p. 15 .9 Ibid., p . 16 .

10 Quote d i n Kniga o Chekhove, pp . 58-59 .11 Fo r a brief revie w see Plays and Players, May 1959 , p. 32 .12 Fo r a n accoun t o f th e productio n an d it s critica l receptio n se e Irvin g Wardle ,

The Theatres of George Devine, London , 1978 , pp. 220-224 .13 Quote d i n Frayn, p. i .14 'Voln y Chekhov' , Iskusstvo kino 10 , 1977 , p. 125 .15 Unpublishe d screenpla y 'Mekhanicheskoe pianino', pp . 97-8 .16 Nikit a Mikhalkov , 'Mo y Chekhov ' i n Mosfilm via: Raztnyshleniya o filmakh,

Moscow, 1980 , pp. 107 , 132 .17 Author' s Preface t o Piano, London , 1990 . Unnumbered .18 Raymon d Williams, Modern Tragedy, London , 1966 , p. 139 .19 Joh n Peter , 'Eavesdroppin g o n a Doom-lade n Past' , i n The Sunday Times, 1 2

August 1990 .20 Quote d i n the National Theatr e programme fo r Piano, p . 4 .21 'Red'ka ' i n the original . See Appendix 1 .22 Prefac e t o Piano.23 Firs t performe d a t th e Nottingha m Playhouse , 1 0 Marc h 1977 , directe d b y

Richard Eyre . See Appendix 2 .24 Lette r t o Edward Braun , 3 0 July 1990 . Examples include : 'you miserabl e ba g of

snot, I'l l smas h you r fac e in' ; 'there' s femal e liberatio n fo r you' ; 'don' t b e s obourgeois'; 'spar e m e th e blood y sermon' ; ' I don' t giv e a weasel' s tosse r wha tyou think o f me' .

25 'Chekho v Stole n fro m Himself , i n The Independent on Sunday, 1 2 Augus t1990.

26 The Sunday Times, 12 August 1990.


VERA GOTTLIE B

Chekhov's one-ac t plays and thefull-length play s

There is a paradox abou t Chekhov' s one-ac t plays: although performed a sfrequently a s Pinter's short plays, or Beckett's - an d given the much longerperiod o f tim e sinc e thei r creatio n - muc h les s ha s actuall y bee n writte nabout them.

This ma y b e du e t o Chekhov' s ow n dismissiv e estimatio n o f the m a s'amusing trifles' , an d becaus e critic s hav e tende d t o concentrat e o n hi smajor works . There is, however, a marked correlation between the one-actplays an d th e majo r play s (an d equall y som e o f th e shor t stories) . Thi srelates t o th e use o f comic techniques, to th e inversio n o f 'stock ' conven -tions, t o hi s characterisation , an d th e exten t t o whic h actio n arise s fro mcharacter, rather than plot. It is in some of the short plays that one may seethe absence of plot , an d the developing use of action which , characteristi -cally Chekhovian , i s motivate d b y interna l - an d ofte n subtextua l -characterisation an d dialogue . The shor t play s requir e redefinitio n withi nthe contex t o f th e theatrica l convention s o f th e tim e and as a major an dserious part of Chekhov's achievement .

Chekhov does not make the case easy for anyone wishing to demonstratethat thes e play s are important, an d mor e tha n merel y 'amusin g trifles' .Again an d again he dismisses them, a s in a letter o f 2 2 February 188 8 t othe poet Yakov Polonsky: 'Having nothing better to do, I wrote a silly littleFrench vaudevill e unde r th e titl e The Bear.' 1 Similarly, Nemirovich-Dan -chenko wrot e that : 'Chekho v ofte n advise d m e t o writ e vaudeville s . . .because they were sure to bring me in a good income.' 2 It seemed that fo rChekhov the y were the theatrica l equivalen t o f the comic shor t storie s hedashed off fo r differen t paper s and journals - an d which did, in fact, brin gin an income. In his lifetime, he earned more from the frequently performe dshort play s tha n th e muc h misunderstoo d full-lengt h plays , althoug h thi swas partly becaus e o f the custom o f 'benefi t nights ' - performance s t o aidparticular actor s (suc h a s th e on e Svetlovido v ha s jus t complete d whe nSwan Song begins) . Chekho v i n fac t dedicate d The Bear t o th e grea t

57


VERA GOTTLIE B

Russian comi c actor , Solovtsov , an d th e pla y wa s ofte n performe d a s a'benefit play' or - like most of the others - a curtain-raiser.

The evidence demonstrates, however, that Chekhov disparaged the shortplays no more than he did all of his work, and it is also significant tha t theywere written over exactly the same period as the great plays - startin g withOn the High Road in 1885, and finishing with the last of six versions of Onthe Harmfulness of Tobacco (sometimes translate d a s Smoking is Bad forYou) in the same year as Three Sisters - 1903 . The fact tha t he did rewritethat pla y si x time s suggest s a fa r mor e seriou s intentio n i n usin g th evaudeville form, an d with each version, the play becomes less exaggerated- an d more serious. He makes the point himself in a letter to Suvorin afte rhe had written al l of the short plays with the exception of the final versio nof On the Harmfulness of Tobacco: 'I t is much easier to write a play aboutSocrates tha n abou t a cook , whic h merel y demonstrate s tha t I d o no tregard th e writin g o f vaudeville s a s a frivolou s occupation . No r d o yo uconsider it as such, much as you may pretend that i t is nothing but a lot offrivolous nonsense.' 3

In common with the full-length plays , most o f what Chekho v describe das 'vaudevilles' have a subtitle. Just as Uncle Vanya is subtitled Scenes fromCountry Life, s o Swan Song is called A Dramatic Study in One Act, a sindeed is Tatyana Repina ('drama' meanin g a play of a serious nature). Aswith al l o f Chekhov' s plays , on e ignore s hi s subtitle s a t one' s peri l sinc ethey indicate not only the theatrical genre and apparent conventions whichhe wa s utilisin g i n orde r t o subver t thos e conventions , bu t als o sugges tintention, mood and atmosphere. Thus, On the Harmfulness of Tobacco issubtitled A Monologue in One Act, and The Wedding, A Play in One Act.Only four o f his short plays are actually called 'farces ' o r 'vaudevilles': TheBear; The Proposal; A Tragic Role (sometimes translated, a la Moliere, asThe Reluctant Tragedian) and Jubilee (often translate d a s The Anniver-sary). On the High Road is the only one without a subtitle, although i t isclearly ' a drama' , dramatise d b y Chekho v fro m hi s ow n (ver y different )short story, 'In Autumn' (1883) . It has two other aspect s which are uniquein Chekhov's dramaturgy , though no t the short stories . First, i t is the onlyplay withou t an y comed y i n it ; an d second , i t i s hi s onl y 'lowe r depths 'play, i n whic h th e character s ar e tramps , beggars , criminal s an d th edispossessed. Set in an inn at night, it partly concerns a gentleman who has'gone t o seed ' afte r hi s wife' s desertio n o n thei r weddin g day . Written i n1885, it was neither performed no r published in Chekhov's lifetime, and itsmain interes t lie s i n th e exten t t o whic h h e use s convention s withoutsubverting the m - s o th e resul t i s a pla y whic h relie s o n a n unlikel ycoincidence when the wife suddenly appears in the inn, and on melodrama

58


Chekhov's one-act plays and the full-length plays

in th e murde r attempt . Th e origina l stor y i s evocative , a n atmospheri csketch of a rainy autumn evenin g with characters mor e likely to be found i na play b y Gorky tha n Chekhov. 4 Lik e Platonov whic h precede d it , the pla yis marred b y melodrama, exces s and over-seriousness , bu t does relat e to th epeasants an d ordinar y peopl e describe d b y Astrov i n Uncle Vanya - an d t othe tram p whos e sudde n appearanc e significantl y alter s th e moo d an d th eaction o f Act Two of The Cherry Orchard.

Unlike On the High Road, th e othe r shor t pla y whic h sit s oddl y i n th egenre i s th e unfinishe d an d posthumousl y publishe d The Night before theTrial (1890s) . The pla y relie s o n a serie s o f misunderstanding s whic h aris efrom th e ancien t comi c devic e o f mistake n identity , an d utilise s othe rtraditional comi c device s lik e the cuckolde d husband . I t to o wa s originall ya stor y o f th e sam e title , writte n i n 1886 , an d i s Chekhov' s mos t over tparody: stoc k situation , stereotypes , improbabl e plo t o r situatio n - an dlikely denouement . I t is more closely related t o commedia dell'arte, Plautu sand Moliere , tha n t o Chekhov' s othe r - late r - dramati c works . Bu t i t i salso wort h comparin g th e treatmen t o f th e cuckolde d husban d wit h th every differen t treatmen t o f Andre y i n Three Sisters, whos e wif e Natash a i sunfaithful t o hi m - an d everyon e know s it , makin g hi m a tragi-comi ccharacter. O r to the characterisation o f 'Waffles ' - Telegi n - i n Uncle Vanyaand, indeed , the very differen t treatmen t o f Vanya's an d Astrov' s interes t i nYeliena who , agains t al l convention , remain s faithfu l t o he r elderl y an ddifficult husband , Serebriakov . Thi s i s no t t o suggest , however , tha tChekhov doe s no t mak e us e o f farc e i n Uncle Vanya, bu t h e doe s s othrough th e reversal o f the convention. 5

Chekhov doe s no t mak e a clea r distinctio n betwee n 'farce ' an d 'vaude -ville', hence my own previous linkage of the two a s 'farce-vaudevilles'.6 Hi sdescription o f The Bear, in the same letter t o Polonsky quote d earlier , read sin full :

Just t o while awa y the time , I wrote a trivial littl e vaudeville i n the Frenchmanner, calle d The Bear . . . Alas! when the y find ou t o n New Time [th enewspaper fo r whic h Chekho v wrot e man y stories , owne d b y Chekhov' spublisher, Suvorin ] tha t I writ e vaudeville s the y wil l excommunicat e me .What a m I to do? I plan somethin g worthwhile - an d - i t is all tra-la-la! Inspite o f al l my attempts a t bein g serious , the resul t i s nothing; with m e theserious always alternates with the trivial.7

This i s exactly Chekhov' s method : whethe r i n hi s stories , hi s full-lengt hplays or the short plays, he alternates 'th e serious ' with 'th e trivial' . It is oneof th e mos t importan t characteristic s o f hi s styl e and intent : hi s concern ,often expressed , wa s wit h th e banalitie s an d trivialitie s o f everyda y lif e -


VERA GOTTLIE B

and yet tim e passes , lif e slip s by , opportunitie s ar e lost , an d unhappines sand disappointmen t ar e poure d ou t ove r a glas s o f tea . The Proposal i sabout everythin g excep t a proposal . Similarly , i n The Cherry Orchard,Varya an d Lopakhi n seemingl y los e th e opportunit y o f bein g togethe rbecause o f a los t pai r o f galoshe s - o r i n Three Sisters, Irin a lose s th echance o f a littl e happines s o r companionshi p o r simpl y chang e whe n th eBaron i s kille d i n a ludicrou s historica l anachronism , a due l - whil e afte rthe fata l sho t (hear d bu t unknow n bot h t o th e on-stag e character s an d th eaudience) he r brother-in-la w disguise s hi s ow n dee p unhappines s a t hi swife's infidelit y wit h Vershini n b y foolin g wit h a fals e bear d confiscate dfrom on e of the boys he teaches a t the local school . Equally, Vanya in UncleVanya - accordin g to Chekhov's direction s - jus t whistles. When people ar ereally unhappy , Chekho v said , the y jus t whistle . Spac e doe s no t permi tmore examples , bu t thi s contrapunta l devic e emanate s fro m characterisa -tion an d th e cross-dialogu e i n whic h character s eithe r canno t hea r eac hother - o r d o no t listen . This , o f course , i s a n ol d comi c devic e (foun d i nPlautus o r commedia dell'arte): th e 'comed y o f th e deaf , bu t i n Chekhov' sworks i t become s par t o f wha t h e calle d 'th e sa d comicalit y o f everyda ylife', whic h i s subject , styl e and motivation . Fo r Chekho v thi s i s more tha na device - i t is a philosophy. Alexander Kupri n reported Chekho v a s saying:

In life there are no clear-cut consequences or reasons; in it everything is mixedup together; the important an d the paltry , the great an d the base , the tragi cand th e ridiculous . On e i s hypnotised an d enslave d b y routine an d canno tmanage to break away from it . What are needed are new forms, new ones.8

It i s thi s alternatio n o f th e trivia l wit h th e significant , emanatin g no tconventionally fro m situation , bu t fro m character , whic h demonstrate sChekhov's philosophy , hi s subversio n o f conventiona l techniques , an dwhich provide s th e majo r clu e t o hi s structura l devices , i n whicheve rmedium h e wa s writing . An d i t als o explain s som e Wester n Europea n o rAmerican directors ' over-use d o r misunderstoo d respons e t o th e stag edirection: 'laughte r throug h tears' . I n essence , i t i s ver y simpl e an d no tsome characteristicall y neuroti c Russia n feature : i t is wha t happen s i neveryday lif e an d conversatio n whe n peopl e interact , yet follo w thei r ow ntrain o f thought ; whe n 'th e sad ' i s interrupte d b y 'th e comic ' - an d tear sand laughte r com e eithe r on e afte r th e other , o r simultaneously . Thi s i s thefunction o f th e contrapuntal : on e train o f though t followed , o r interrupte dapparently b y accident , b y anothe r character' s words . Or , particularl y i nthe major plays , this structure ma y involve a n off-stage soun d which work sas a n effec t i n relatio n t o wha t precede s o r follow s it , becomin g a form o fmontage.

60



There are many examples of 'laughter through tears' in the one-act playsas well . In The Wedding, for example , th e sill y young show-off , Yat , thetelegraph clerk , boastin g abou t electri c light , create s a ro w ove r th ewedding dinne r whic h change s th e whol e moo d an d prompt s a furiou sresponse fro m th e bride' s mother , Mr s Zhigalov , wh o the n continue s'tearfully'. An d in the same short 'play', 9 the most respected an d expectedguest, Genera l Revunov-Karaulov , virtuall y ruin s th e even t b y hi s litera ldeafness - th e stock comi c device , yet turned b y Chekhov int o somethin gelse: an expose of the petty, the pretentious or hypocritical.

Such stoc k device s wer e well-know n t o Chekhov . Althoug h writin gabout th e requirement s o f th e shor t story , h e list s thes e i n a lette r t o hi sbrother Alexander on 17 April 1883:

1. Th e shorter the better.2. A bit of ideology and being a bit up to date is most a propos.3. Caricatur e i s fine , bu t ignoranc e o f civi l servic e rank s an d o f th e

seasons is strictly prohibited . . .

But three years later, in another letter to Alexander on 10 May 1886 , he isless facetious:

1. Absenc e of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature .2. Tota l objectivity.3. Truthfu l description s of persons and objects.4. Extrem e brevity.5. Audacit y and originality: free the stereotype.6. Compassion .

There i s no contradictio n her e betwee n 'tota l objectivity ' - an d 'compas -sion', an d thi s to o i s a major featur e o f Chekhov' s writin g technique : the'total objectivity' i s what, mistakenly, prompted many to claim Chekhov asa 'naturalist' , whil e th e 'compassion ' i s on e o f severa l feature s whic hdifferentiate Chekhov' s vaudevilles from th e conventional - French - genr ewhich h e mention s i n th e lette r quote d abov e i n relatio n t o The Bear.Equally, i n hi s 'fre e th e stereotype ' h e i s referrin g t o th e conventiona lFrench model s whic h flooded th e Russia n stag e o f th e eighteent h an dnineteenth centuries.

In 188 0 Chekho v compile d a comprehensiv e lis t o f Things Most Fre-quently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other Such Things, whic hincluded many of the conventions he was later to subvert in both his one-act and full-length plays . The list included:

the impoverished nobleman, stupid footmen, nannies, governesses, people

61


VERA GOTTLIE B

who are not beautiful, but pleasant and attractive, the height of the skies . . .in a word: nature!. . .the aunt in Tambov, the doctor with a worried face . . .and where there is a doctor . . . there is migraine, inflammation of the brain,care of the wounded in a duel . . . the servant who has been in service withthe old masters, who is prepared to go through thick and thin for the master'sfamily, even go through fire . . . a dog who does everything except talk . . .electricity - in the majority of cases, dragged in for no particular reason . . .the gun that does not fire . . . incidental eavesdropping as the cause of greatdiscoveries . . . an endless number of interjections, and attempts to use anappropriate technical term, subtle hints to rather weighty circumstances, veryoften the absence of an ending, Seven Deadly Sins in the beginning and awedding at the end! 10

To giv e jus t a fe w example s o f hi s us e o f thes e conventions , i n TheWedding th e argumen t abou t electricity , 'dragge d i n fo r n o particula rreason' b y Yat , woul d b e comi c wer e i t no t fo r th e fac t tha t Chekhov' ssubversion of the convention changes the mood of the festivities s o that theresult is serious. It ceases to be comic because it is taken as a 'put down' byZhigalov and exposes th e pett y an d narro w mentalit y o f th e characters .Equally, 'th e attemp t t o us e . . . appropriat e technica l terms ' i s wha tinflames Mr s Zhigalo v abou t th e 'important ' guest , th e dea f Revunov -Karaulov, who keeps using naval terms.

In the full-length plays , 'the dog who does everything except talk' bringsto mind the governess, Charlotta Ivanovna , in The Cherry Orchard, whosedog 'actuall y eat s nuts ' - ye t thi s comi c lin e i s undercu t b y Charlotta' sunhappiness; or the 'servan t who has been in service with the old masters'could b e Anfis a or Ferapon t i n Three Sisters, o r Fir s i n The CherryOrchard; while 'the aunt in Tambov' becomes, in The Cherry Orchard, 'theaunt in Yaroslavl', mentioned several times as a possible source of financialsalvation. As for th e wedding at the end, Chekhov either does not provideone - a s i n The Cherry Orchard wit h Lopakhi n an d Varya , an d th eunhappy triangle between Yasha (the 'stock' figure of the 'inflated' servant),Dunyasha an d poor Yepikhodov - o r offers a very unpromising on e in thecase o f Natash a an d Lomo v i n The Proposal, or th e unexpecte d futur emarriage, a s in the ending of The Bear. I n both farces , th e women ar e fa rfrom conventiona l i n thei r proactiv e an d eve n manipulativ e role s - an dChekhov sets up the future marrie d life of both couples so we are left in nodoubt about their romantic or sentimental 'wedded bliss'.

In The Seagull, wit h the passage o f time betwee n Act s Three an d Four ,we se e th e effec t o f a 'love ' affai r i n th e unhapp y marriag e betwee nMedvedenko an d Masha. And there are the conventional love triangles onwhich The Seagull is structured, which also form a major par t of the action

62



(as distinct fro m plot) . Similarly there i s the love triangle in Uncle Vanyabetween Vany a an d Astro v an d th e marrie d Yelien a wh o - agains t al lconvention - insist s o n fidelit y t o he r elderly , selfis h husband . O r ther e isThe Bear, i n which the widowed Popova , with her dimpled cheeks , insistson grieving for her husband, which creates a love triangle in which Smirnovhas t o 'compete ' wit h a dea d husband . Subvertin g th e conventio n again ,and t o differen t effect , ar e th e lov e triangle s i n Three Sisters with tw ocharacters w e neve r see : Vershinin' s wife , an d Natasha' s ver y 'evident 'lover, Protopopov. The result is either parody of what had become a stockplotting devic e - o r th e ver y credibl e an d realistic , becaus e painful ,subversion of the device.

The mos t innovator y us e o f th e stoc k situatio n i s Chekhov' s us e o fcharacter from which the action emanates. Thus, instead of 'the stereotype'we are given three-dimensional character, and instead of 'plot' we are givenaction whic h come s onl y fro m characte r an d th e interactio n betwee ncharacters. Host s an d guest s i n The Wedding mak e i t a disma l affai rbecause o f thei r pettiness , whil e wit h bot h A Tragic Role an d On theHarmfulness of Tobacco, the monologue form allow s the objective depic -tion o f completel y subjectiv e an d self-centre d characters . I n th e first , th e'reluctant tragedian ' Tolkacho v bring s i t al l o n himself , whils t i n th esecond, th e monologue for m i s used in a highly comple x way , and b y anunhappy fellow called Nyukhin or 'Sniffler'! 11

The monologu e for m i n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco is give n a nunusual twis t in that the audience has a dual role: both a s audience in thelecture room , addressed , cajole d an d pleade d wit h b y th e 'lecturer 'Nyukhin, and , o f course, as audience a t the play's performance. Th e rolesshift with the change of focus, from close-up or empathy with Nyukhin, tolong-shot, o r objectivit y abou t thi s littl e man , alternatel y cowerin g o rstrutting. An d i n a very rea l wa y th e audienc e 'plays ' a rol e a s Nyukhi nasks a question , addresse s peopl e directl y wit h 'You , Sir ' - o r 'Madame 'and the n answer s fo r them . A questio n t o th e audienc e i s no t simpl yrhetorical, bu t seems t o carr y th e plausibilit y o f a n actua l respons e o rreaction. In Swan Song, there is a particular use of dramatic irony: we, theaudience, hav e gon e home . Ye t w e ar e audienc e t o Svetlovidov' s perfor -mance with Nikita.

The almos t cinemati c us e o f close-u p followe d b y long-shot i s a majo rtechnique use d b y Chekhov t o alte r ou r perspectiv e o n character. This , inturn, relate s t o th e numerou s occasion s o n whic h a characte r i s simpl ytalking to himself o r hersel f - other s may be present, may 'hear ' - bu t d onot 'listen' . Thi s ofte n create s th e mos t revealin g an d touchin g three -dimensionality o f character , a s whe n Charlott a Ivanovn a virtuall y ha s a

63


VERA GOTTLIE B

'monologue' a t th e beginnin g o f Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard -Dunyasha an d Yash a ar e presen t bu t concentratin g o n eac h other , a sYepikhodov strum s hi s guita r an d watche s Dunyasha , s o i t i s onl y th eaudience wh o liste n t o Charlott a a s sh e apparentl y talk s t o herself . Asimilar techniqu e i s use d i n Three Sisters, in Ac t Two , whe n Andre yunburdens himsel f exactly becaus e Ferapon t i s literall y to o dea f t o hea rhim. And lest we become too sympatheti c t o Andrey, Ferapont interrupts ,altering mood , wit h completel y irrelevan t an d nonsensica l - comi c -remarks about the rope stretched around Moscow, and the pancakes.

The subversio n o f the devic e is used differentl y agai n when a charactersuch as Gayev in The Cherry Orchard begins his declamatory speech to thebook case, and is heard by the others on stage, and his heightened reactionto event s i s deflate d whe n th e other s laugh . An d i n a differen t mode ,Astrov's impassioned speech in Act Three of Uncle Vanya about the forestsand, in the broadest sense , about ecology, captures Yeliena' s interest in theman - bu t not his 'cause' . Unlike Sonya, who listens to Astrov's ideals andaspirations, an d whic h ar e a par t o f hi s attractio n fo r her , Yelien a see s aman made attractive to her by passion, by style, not by content. There is asimilar passio n whic h motivate s Masha' s interes t i n Vershini n i n ThreeSisters, and in Irina's response to Tuzenbach's philosophy.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is demonstrated b y the multifacete dreactions t o Konstantin' s pla y i n Ac t On e o f The Seagull: eac h characte rresponds characteristically. Thus Arkadina's inability to take it seriously isa rejection o f Konstantin himself , and sets in motion the internal action ofthe relationship betwee n mothe r an d son , an d the seeming inevitability ofthe endin g o f th e play . Dr Dorn , however , doe s tak e th e pla y withi n th eplay seriously, and provides not only a calming influence o n the characters,but act s a s a kin d o f condui t o f objectivit y fo r u s a s audience . Doctor sappear o n Chekhov' s lis t o f Things Most Frequently Encountered - an dmost of the major play s do have a doctor amongst the characters. It is onlyin the final act of the play, with Nina's secretive and disturbed return , thatthe true meaning o f the 'desert ' an d 'wasteland ' becom e apparent t o Ninaherself, to Konstantin - an d to the audience. And there is the symbolism ofthe ripped curtain, flapping in the wind, still there in spite of the - two-yea r- passag e of time.

This, in turn, relates to severa l features whic h are carried ove r from th eone-act plays into the major ones : the absence o f endings as such, and theshift o f mood an d atmospher e withi n seconds of stage or real time, whichlift th e play s ont o anothe r plane . A s Nemirovich-Danchenk o pu t it :'Chekhov refined his realism to the point where it became symbolic.'12 Thisis true of the time of day or night as, for example , in Swan Song when late

64



at nigh t Svetlovido v probabl y give s Nikita (an d us ) a bette r performanc ethan anythin g either during or since his youth. Equally, the weather seemsto work 'naturalistically ' o n the characters - to o hot in Act One of UncleVanya; a heat-wave plaguing Tolkachov in A Tragic Role; stormy in UncleVanya and the last act of The Seagull; bu t simultaneously i t has a meaningand effec t greate r tha n itself , an d henc e become s 'symbolic' . I n The BearPopova's insistence o n burying herself indoor s for a year begins to changewhen Luka , he r ol d manservant , firs t tell s he r wha t a beautifu l da y i t i soutside - an d then ushers in 'the bear' - a large mammal, very much alive,breaking he r seclusio n fro m th e outsid e world . Contrastin g vividl y wit hPopova's 'dee p mourning ' dres s i s th e life-givin g descriptio n o f activitie sbeyond the room in which she has shut herself away.

The absence o f 'endings ' is evident in the vaudevilles. At the end of TheProposal it becomes clear that the rows wil l continue even after marriage ;at the end of The Bear, the change of both mood and mind by Popova is notgoing to result in tranquility; in Swan Song, Svetlovidov is led off by the oldprompter, Nikita, to wake the next day no doubt with a hangover, and withhis life unchanged by the flow of memory and even the resurgence of idealswhich briefl y illuminate d hi s lif e th e nigh t before , an d heightene d th ereality of his situation. And Nikita wil l continue to live in fear o f the stagemanager discoverin g tha t h e sleep s eac h nigh t i n th e theatre , havin gnowhere els e t o go . I n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, Nyukhin' smiserable existenc e wil l continu e a s befor e sinc e h e lacks th e courag e t otake contro l - an d change it . He may tear of f th e 'image ' o f hi s life - hi sworn, shabby, ill-fitting tail-coat - bu t he will simply continue with what heknows only too well: 'this rotten, banal , tawdry life - thi s existence whichhas made me into a pathetic old fool - th e life o f an idiot'. At the end, hiswife 'appears ' in the wings. And he puts his coat back on, begging 'us ' notto tell on him. It is only with Chekhov's last play, The Cherry Orchard, thatthere is a partial upbeat in the closure of the play: Anya and Trofimov leavethe stag e wit h th e words : 'Good-bye , ol d life ' - an d - 'Hullo , ne w life!' .This is not to suggest any easy romanticism or sentimentality in their futur elife together, bu t a contrast with the bleak prospects tha t confront mos t ofthe other characters.13

In A Tragic Role, Tolkacho v (whos e nam e relate s t o 'pushed') , wil lcontinue t o b e 'pushed' b y fulfilling everyone' s demands , allowing himselfto b e treate d lik e a cart-horse , whil e hi s frien d Murashki n ('Shivers' ) -who ha s listened , o r rather , not listene d t o thi s 'false ' monologu e (fals ebecause th e presenc e o f Murashki n theoreticall y justifie s Tolkachov' stirade) - simpl y add s t o hi s friend' s burden s wit h hi s ow n requests . Thecomedy o f Tolkachov' s entranc e (reminiscen t o f Lucky' s i n Beckett' s

65


VERA GOTTLIE B

Waiting for Godot) i s a rar e exampl e i n Chekhov' s work s o f comi cphysicality. O f al l th e one-ac t plays , onl y The Bear, The Proposal, ATragic Role an d Jubilee contain th e physicalit y o f actio n associate d wit hfarce - whethe r th e bes t Frenc h example s o f Labich e an d Feydeau , o r ofthe English variety like Pinero's The Magistrate or , more recently, some ofthe play s o f Ala n Ayckbour n o r Michae l Frayn. 14 Jubilee contain s th ephysicality o f farc e i n the creation o f chaos ; in the misunderstandings ; inthe exaggerate d reaction s o f th e character s (Meyerhold' s 'Swoons'); 15 i nthe 'demolition ' o f th e respectabl e facad e o f a bank , an d i n th e craz y'tableau' ending.

Similarly, in the majo r plays , Vanya's murder attemp t i s both farcica l -and tragic , bu t elsewher e onl y Yepikhodov i n The Cherry Orchard, withhis nicknam e o f '2 2 misfortunes ' (sometime s translate d int o Englis h a s'Simple Simon') , suffer s a n endles s serie s o f farcica l - physica l - misfor -tunes, whether crushing a hat box, or tripping over objects. The difference ,however, between Yepikhodov (or indeed Nyukhin in On the Harmfulnessof Tobacco) an d the conventional stereotype , is that each knows 'hi s fate' .Life is a series of conspiracies designed to torment, so that if something cango wrong, it will. That self-knowledge invest s the character with the three-dimensionality o f psychology , som e dignit y - and a wa y o f life . An dperhaps Medvedenko, the unfortunate schoolmaste r who marries Masha inThe Seagull, shares som e o f th e misfortune s - an d self-knowledge . Asimilar case may be made about Charlott a Ivanovna' s tricks in The CherryOrchard, or Pishchik's action in swallowing Ranevskaya's pills. Bu t one ofthe most farcica l moment s in the play takes place off-stage: i n Act Three,Trofimov's pompou s reactio n t o Ranevskaya' s teasin g i s t o marc h off ,offended - only to fall down the stairs. In a conventional farce, the audiencewould see that happen, but in a Chekhov play, the character might well behurt. I n the sam e act , Chekho v i s careful t o keep th e balanc e o f th e 'sa dcomicality', so the fact tha t Varya hits Lopakhin over the head by mistake,an action taking place on stage, prepares us for the mistiming between thecouple an d deflate s Lopakhin' s entranc e a s the 'ne w owner ' o f the estate .And hi s hea d does hurt! Vary a ask s him : ' I didn' t hur t you , di d I? ' - t owhich Lopakhin replies: 'No, it's all right. I'm going to have a wacking bigbruise, though'. By contrast, the physicality in The Bear and The Proposalis to very different effect : there is no pain involved.

The bes t examples o f Labiche o r Feydeau (o r Ayckbourn o r Frayn) relyabsolutely o n th e split-secon d timin g o f entrance s an d exit s a s th e'triangles' o f husband , wif e an d eithe r love r o r mistres s see k t o avoi dactual confrontation . Chekhov' s us e o f th e lov e triangle , whethe r i n TheBear or The Seagull, is no t base d o n suc h plottin g devices , bu t o n th e

66



psychology whic h create s th e action : onl y i n Uncle Vanya i s ther e amoment whic h attune s wit h Frenc h farce , whe n Vany a enter s wit h abunch o f flowers fo r Yelien a a t th e precis e momen t whe n Astro v an dYeliena make physical contact - a situation repeated in Act Four. The painthat thi s create s fo r al l thre e remove s i t fro m th e seemingl y painles sadulteries o f French farce. I t is partly the accidental coincidence o f timing(as distinc t fro m th e conventionall y contrived ) whic h make s i t mor epainful an d awkward . Th e othe r momen t o f farc e - define d als o b y it sphysicality - i s whe n Vany a trie s t o shoo t Serebriakov , a n actio n whic hcompletely subvert s th e convention . First , Vany a misse s - no t once , bu ttwice, and in a confined space ; second, Vanya actually says : 'Bang!' whichis a comic , i f no t 'stagey ' line , ofte n misse d i n th e action ; third , Yelien atries t o protec t th e Professo r - a s oppose d t o th e conventio n whic hdictates tha t th e ma n protect s th e woman; 16 then , th e respectable ,pompous and self-centred Professo r i s absolutely terrified; an d last but notleast, Vany a i s drive n b y utte r desperatio n cause d b y Serebriakov' sinsensitivity whic h negate s everythin g tha t Vany a an d Sony a ha d worke dfor, s o it has much les s to do with the love triangle tha n thei r whol e wayof life.

Finally, Vanya' s pai n i s suc h tha t afte r failin g twic e i n a murde rattempt,17 h e i s the n drive n t o suicid e - a suicid e onl y jus t avoide d b yAstrov an d Sony a i n persuading Vany a t o retur n th e bottl e h e has stole nfrom Astrov' s medica l bag . Thi s i s a us e o f farc e whic h becomes , i nChekhov's plays , a philosophical idea, an d no t merel y a farcica l action .Conventional farc e o f th e Frenc h o r Britis h variet y demonstrate s a worldout o f th e contro l o f th e characters ; i n Chekhov' s farce , th e character scould take control, but for often complex reasons, do not.18

It was not, however, the superbly crafted farces of Labiche or Feydeau onwhich Chekhov based his 'farce-vaudevilles', bu t the endless formulaic an doften third-rat e Frenc h import s whic h flooded th e popula r stage s o fEurope. An d i n which , n o doubt , Svetlovido v i n Swan Song regularl yplayed - a s woul d Nina , actin g i n provincia l theatres , travellin g secon dclass from jo b to job, as she describes i t in Act Four o f The Seagull. Thu sthe chance s ar e tha t whe n th e audienc e o r reade r conside r a Chekho vcharacter 'melodramatic ' o r 'farcical' , the n tha t i s exactl y th e reactio nChekhov intends: he uses melodrama t o expose the melodramatic, an d heuses farce t o expose the farcical, a s Beckett was subsequently t o do in thetwentieth century: as a - significantl y differen t - philosoph y o f life. To putit another way: the spectator o r reader shoul d trus t thei r ow n instinct andnot inhibi t suc h reaction s wit h th e though t tha t thes e ar e mean t t o b edeeply seriou s 'Russian ' (ie . 'heavy' ) plays . Th e danger , however , lie s i n

67


VERA GOTTLIE B

playing them slowly, whether th e one-ac t o r full-lengt h play s - a n aspec tabout which Chekhov constantly complained.19

NOTES1 Unles s otherwise indicated, quotations from the letters are from N. F. Belchikov

and others , eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v $oitomakh, Moscow, 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in30 volumes, Moscow, 1974-83).

2 Quote d in David Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York, i960, p. 54.3 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 2 January 1894.4 Fo r a mor e detaile d discussio n o f th e play , se e Ver a Gottlieb , Chekhov and

the Vaudeville, A Study of Chekhov's One-Act Flays, Cambridge , 1982 ,pp. 110-19 .

5 The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard are bot h calle d comedies , whil e ThreeSisters i s subtitled A Drama in Four Acts. Not on e o f hi s plays, shor t o r full -length, is called a 'tragedy', so even with Konstantin's suicide at the end of TheSeagull, it remains a comedy, as does The Cherry Orchard.

6 Gottlieb , Chekhov and the Vaudeville, The shor t play s ar e analyse d unde rgenre: farce-vaudevilles, dramati c studies, a play in one act and a monologue inone act.

7 Lette r to Yakov Polonsky, 22 February 1888.8 Quote d in Sophie Laffitte, Chekhov 1860-1904, London , 1974, p. 16.9 'Play ' is used here as distinct from farces, such as The Bear and The Proposal, or

a 'comedy ' such as The Cherry Orchard, o r a 'drama' such as Three Sisters o rSwan Song.

10 A . P . Chekhov , Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories andOther Such Things (1880-2), in vol. I of Collected Works and Letters, Polnoesobranie sochinenii i pisem, vol. I, pp. 17-18 . For the complete lis t in English,see Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, p. 17.

11 Ever y now and agai n Chekhov uses the stock device of 'meaningfu l names' : inThe Cherry Orchard the 'hanger-on ' Pishchi k i s translatable a s 'Squeaker' ; i nSwan Song Svetlovidov's name is associated wit h 'svet ' o r 'light ' whil e i n TheWedding Zhigalov relates to 'burning' ; Revunov-Karaulov relates to 'howl-for -help'; the midwife, Mrs Zmeyukin, is 'snake'; and Mozgovoy is associated with'brain'.

12 Quote d in Edward Braun, The Director and the Stage, London, 1982, p. 73.13 Se e chapter 10 in this volume.14 Se e discussion of Michael Frayn's use of farce in chapter 18.15 Fo r a n analysi s o f Meyerhold' s productio n 33 Swoons se e chapte r 14 . Als o

Edward Braun' s Meyerhold, a Revolution in Theatre, London, 1995 . And seeGottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville. Part s o f th e las t mentione d boo k hav ebeen reprinte d i n Drama Criticism, Criticism of the Most Significant andWidely Studied Dramatic Works from All the World's Literature, vol. IX , ASpecial Volume Devoted to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-11)04, One-ActPlays, Detroit and London, 1999, pp. 162-94 .

16 Th e conclusio n o f Platonov has a simila r role-reversa l wit h Sony a firin g a t

68



Platonov, Mariya trying to protect him, but Sonya does not miss and Platonovdies on stage (Act Four, Scenes xn and xin). See chapter 4 in this volume.

17 Se e chapter 8 in this volume.18 Se e chapter 18 in this volume.19 'Thi s really is dreadful! An act [The Cherry Orchard, Ac t Four] which ought to

take a maximum o f twelve minutes - you'r e draggin g it out for fort y minutes !All I can sa y is that Stanislavsk y i s ruining m y play. ' Lette r t o Olg a Knipper -Chekhova, 29 March 1904.


PATRICE PAVI S

Ivanov: the invention o f a negativedramaturgy

Ivanov (1887) occupies an unusual place in Chekhov's theatre because it israrely staged. The four main plays, which are generally more enjoyable, arefrequently performe d - a s indeed i s Platonov (1882), in spit e o f bein g anearly work, but in which every flaw may be excused as a sign of chaotic butpromising genius. If, in fact, Ivanov is read as a play either from Chekhov' ssuccessful maturit y or his impetuous youth, one will inevitably be surprisedand eve n disappointed : th e pla y i s rathe r heav y an d complicated ; th echaracters are verbose and excessive, and the main springs of the action areboth evident and predictable. But if one considers the play as an open-castquarry from whic h al l his dramatic works will be extracted, or as a schoolfor experimenta l dramaturgy , on e i s amaze d b y th e richnes s o f thi sdiscovery: al l the ingredients ar e offered u p with complete openness , a s ifthe writing process - erasin g and burying more than creating - ha d not yettaken place. Ivanov should not be underestimated. It would even be betterto cwerinterpre t i t an d imagin e everythin g tha t ha s t o b e eliminate d o rcovered u p i n orde r t o find the tone , th e concisio n an d th e econom y o fspeech in the four major plays.

The year 188 7 marks a precise turning poin t i n European dramaturgy :Antoine founde d th e Theatre-Libre , th e birthplac e o f naturalis m i n th etheatre, and Lugne-Poe opened his Cercle des Escholiers, which in turn ledto the symbolis t Theatre d e l'Oeuvre. Chekho v himself seeme d to hesitatebetween naturalistic writin g and symbolis t vision , between realistic effect s- an d theatrica l conventions . I t migh t no t hav e bee n apparen t the n tha tthey ar e tw o side s o f th e sam e coi n an d tha t Ivanov i s th e 'negative 'dramaturgy at the source of this revelation.

The inventio n o f a new dramaturg y

To look first at a negative dramaturgy. Ivanov shows the transition from aclassical (o r neo-classical ) dramaturg y t o a ne w one , characterise d b y

70


Ivanov: the invention of a negative dramaturgy

ellipsis, allusio n an d subtext . However , thi s proces s o f erasing , o f under -mining and of 'burying' writing devices, is not an easy or painless one. Theold dramaturg y o f the well-made play , the hei r o f classica l theatre , i s stillsolid and visible : the story can be read easily, the numerous characters arepsychologically an d sociall y characterise d an d th e conflict s ar e wel ldefined. Th e dramati c action , whic h i s stil l ver y externalise d an d taut ,climaxes at the end of every act, with a crescendo within each act and fromone act t o the next , righ t u p to the final conventional suicide . All actionsand word s ar e subordinat e t o th e dramati c structure ; the y canno t detac hthemselves fro m i t t o becom e autonomous ; the y ar e constraine d b y th emain dramaturgical pillars. All are centred around the main character, whotalks a lot , givin g awa y al l kind s o f detail s abou t hi s intention s an dmotivation. Al l character s expres s themselve s mor e tha n i s necessary ,dotting the i's an d crossing th e t's , as if they were the mouthpieces o f theauthor.

Have we then become prisoners of a problem dramaturgy? Ivanov looksvery much like a 'problem play' : the author use s the rather trivia l story ofan anti-her o i n orde r t o giv e a diagnosi s o f hi s time . H e confront s aprematurely worn-ou t Russia n society , a n environmen t an d a characte rwho cannot resist weariness and degradation. The point seems obvious: themain character does not find the strength to fight back and causes his wife'sdeath bot h b y negligenc e an d i n th e hop e o f a ne w life . Docto r Lvov ,unable to cure Ivanov's wife , Anna, tries to protect her from he r husband .He publicly accuses him of having premeditatedly killed his spouse in orderto escape bankruptcy.

If Ivanov' s motivatio n i s supposedl y clea r - a t leas t fro m th e poin t o fview of Lvov, his accuser - Lvov' s own motivation is less obvious. And thisis the main ambiguit y o f th e play . The dialogu e i s indeed explicit , fo r n ocharacter fail s t o tel l u s wha t the y thin k o f Ivanov . Chekho v ha s no t ye t'demotivated' his characters: he lets them pour out everything and nothing.He gives them hardly any unspoken, implicit, o r indeterminate statements ,whether i n thei r word s or in thei r situations . Th e reader' s o r spectator' sreception i s strictl y guide d an d the y reac h conclusion s wit h complet eawareness.

Modern dramaturg y thu s seem s to hesitat e o n the brin k o f a completevoid; it stil l clings to a thesis, a problem and an explanation, a key, even ifthese have becom e problematic i n Szondi' s sense, 1 since they see m out oftouch wit h the new world-view. I t depend s o n well-tried effects , o n well-known conclusions , o n credibl e explanations . I t ha s no t ye t foun d a nadequate form , particularl y i n relatio n t o th e dilutio n o f conten t o rstatement within the whole textual network, o r in relation to a polyphonic


PATRICE PAVI S

form instead of a univocal content. It still shows moments of concentrated,isolated meaning , wher e th e individua l wor d i s weighe d dow n b y heav yexplanations.

The variou s coups de theatre in Ivanov, situated accordin g t o th e neo-classical dramaturgica l principl e o f effects a t the end o f each act , concen-trate and resolve the tensions of every act and every situation in the mannerof a cod a fo r a musica l piec e i n fou r movements . Onl y later , wit h TheSeagull, will thes e ho t spot s disappea r o r b e extende d int o th e whol etextual network , withi n a n exchang e o f dialogue , o r eve n withi n tw osuccessive lines . Th e action s ar e tightl y linked ; the y ar e se t u p an dperformed withou t hesitation , accordin g t o th e principl e o f maximu mtension for each coup de theatre which punctuates the end of each act. Onedialogue lead s t o th e next , instea d o f vanishin g int o th e thi n ai r o f non -attentiveness. Whenever a character enters or exits, there is - i n accordancewith the rules o f classica l dramaturg y - a related chang e in the situation :any new incident increase s the tension, particularl y wit h the conventiona ltriangle o f Ivanov/Anna/Lvo v a s Lvov' s persecution s becom e mor e an dmore insistent. Ivanov is increasingly caught in a trap, until he has no otherchoice bu t t o destro y himself . Th e actio n remain s essentiall y dramatic ,according to what Bakhtin referred t o as the dialectic of action/reaction o rspeech/action, visible in the characters' behaviour rather than in the textualnetwork of discursive, rhythmical and dialogical counterpoints.2

The dramaturgy i s indeed more positive than negative ; it is very visible,linked to classical structures , and too solidl y buil t to le t the dialogues anddiscourses resonat e togethe r an d provok e multipl e an d unexpecte d ech oeffects. I t remain s emotionall y heightene d an d exaggerate d (paroxysmic) ,albeit parodic, dramaturgy with an immoderate taste for obligatory scenes,teasing situations and calculated and predictable effects .

Later - whethe r in Chekhov's work to come or in rereading the play withthe retrospectiv e perspectiv e propose d her e i n th e ligh t o f Chekhov' sclassical work an d his subsequent dramati c writing - thi s dramaturgy wil lbecome negative; it wil l becom e destructured , dematerialised , disorien -tated, an d wil l let the textual network s gradually emerge . But in this neo-classical building , crack s ar e alread y visible , o r rathe r audible . A for mbased on conflict, opposition , dualism and the contrasting qualities of goodand evil is no longer adequate. It relies too much on the contradictions o f apriori ideas (such as honest/dishonest; pure/criminal; normal/pathological) .Even in 1887 , and obviousl y mor e s o today, on e can n o longer stic k to abinary dramaturgy in a decentralised world, where oppositions cancel eachother ou t an d languag e game s an d polyphon y disappea r i n a network o fechoes. Thus th e very summi t o f naturalis m - th e illusio n tha t th e worl d

72



can b e mimeticall y represente d - lead s exactl y t o it s antithesis , t o th equestioning o f a closed neo-classical dramaturg y an d to the use of textua land discursive mechanisms. Thus dramaturgy and its rigid rules give way tointernally motivated effects o f language and textual mechanisms.

Within this strict framework w e now find a wandering word, an unstablesubject, a loose chai n o f ready-mad e motive s an d preconstructe d themes ,which wil l b e take n u p i n th e late r plays . Words , subjects , an d motive sdetach themselves slowly from the dramaturgical framework an d its pointsof orientation , becomin g fre e association s dependen t o n textua l devices ,which still have to be invented, or at least systematised.

Textual an d discursiv e device s

The dramatic text can be analysed not only according to its macro-structure(its dramaturgy), but also to the textual devices which are much more tinyand subtle : languag e games , pragmati c us e o f language , stylisti c effects .Given th e visibility o f th e dramati c structure , on e tends t o se e al l textua land discursiv e device s a s subordinat e elements . Textua l mechanisms /devices ar e unde r dramaturgica l control ; the y ar e th e emanation s o f th eaction an d characters . Thi s i s wh y th e dialogue s ofte n explain , i n grea tdetail, the characters ' motivations . Thei r explanation s neve r see m to end ,even if only to repeat tha t the y cannot find an y explanation fo r thei r ownbehaviour. Eac h character has a very chatty and verbose way of speaking;a fe w languag e tic s o r mannerism s ar e enoug h fo r thei r characterisation .Everyone ha s hi s o r he r ow n themati c an d linguisti c obsessions : Ivano vperforms hi s ow n existentia l auto-analysis ; Lvo v hold s fort h o n th equestion o f honesty ; Shabyelsk y make s cynica l an d tasteles s jokes , o rKosykh talk s onl y abou t cards. 3 Al l o f the m ten d t o overexplain theiractions instea d o f performin g the m silently . Thei r word s contai n littl esubtext, very few silences , few points of suspension o r unspoken elements ,but instead a lot of overtext, loquacious and endless explanations.

This overtextual mod e of speech uses fairly classica l forms o f discourse:conversations betwee n tw o o r three people ; genre scene s where there i s agroup discussion , fo r instanc e i n th e drawing-roo m (Ac t Two) ; direc texchanges betwee n tw o character s (Ac t Two , Scen e XII I o r Ac t Three ,Scene ix , o r Act Four, Scen e VIII) ; long monologues (Ac t Three, Scene vi,Act Four, Scene i), and rapid an d fas t cut s (stichomythia , a s in Act Three,Scene iv). These somewhat traditional dramaturgica l forms, however, werealready undermine d an d invade d b y textual an d discursiv e device s whichonly a few years later were to become the trademark of Chekhov's dramaticwriting. These device s may no t ye t have reached thei r complet e maturity ,

73


PATRICE PAVI S

or ha d no t alway s bee n activated , bu t the y wer e alread y controllin g th etextual network. Briefly mentioned belo w is a selection o f them, and thesedevices ma y onl y b e understoo d withi n th e dialectic s o f a negativ edramaturgy.

(1) The indirectness of lines - th e fact tha t the characters' lines do not goin one and the same direction, but are open to many possible paths - i s notyet systematise d i n Ivanov: dialogue s stee r themselve s toward s a finalresolution; connections are made without any ambiguity; the arguments arelinear an d unquestionable ; th e dramaturgica l weavin g follow s a clea rstrategy. Th e smalles t detai l acquire s a functio n withi n th e story : fo rinstance, it is not an insignificant detai l that Lvov, who is blatantly agains tIvanov, tells Anna that his 'father's dead , but [his ] mother's stil l alive' (ActOne, Scene vn).

(2) TLffects of announcement prepare the reader fo r forthcomin g action sin suc h a direc t wa y tha t on e wonder s wha t els e i s left fo r th e reader o rspectator t o stil l imagine . 'I f h e spent a n evening a t home he'd ge t bored ,he'd blo w his brains out ' (Ac t One , Scene v), Lvov warns us , and Ivano vconfesses t o u s that ' I jus t don' t understand . I might a s well shoo t mysel fand be done with it' (Act Three, Scene vi).

(3) Effects which play to the gallery, beyond the personal opinion of thecharacter, which impose on reader or spectator a given interpretation o f theaction, preventing them from judging for themselves. Thus: 'Once married,he won't pa y what he owes her, and you can't very well take your son-in -law to court' (Ac t Four, Scene 11), Kosykh tells the gallery. Here again, suchan explanation mus t no t b e taken fo r granted , sinc e i t i s also a signal fo rthe spectator to remain critical, a decoy to conceal or forestall any untimelyconclusions.

(4) Explanatory chit-chat which makes the characters' words so obviousthat it seems, when judged by the standards of Chekhov's later plays, to besuch a major dramaturgica l flaw that i t leads t o th e infantilisatio n o f thereader/spectator. I t is enough to refer bac k to the characters' obsessiv e ticsin orde r t o transfor m i t int o a deceptive an d ambiguou s device , preciselybecause it is so explicit.

(5) Talking through their hats, as most character s do , i s also a way ofdiscouraging reade r o r spectato r fro m interpretin g th e characters ' word sliterally. I t i s als o a paradoxica l wa y o f allowin g moment s o f absolut esincerity whe n a rea l emotio n o r authenti c sentenc e suddenl y break s th estereotypic straitjacke t - a s when , fo r instance , Shabyelsk y make s thi sunexpected an d touchin g confession : ' I can' t conced e tha t a living personmay suddenly drop dead for no reason' (Act Three, Scene 11).

(6) Swarming speech, an uncontrolle d outpouring , a n infantil e diseas e

74



from whic h al l th e character s i n Ivanov suffe r whe n the y loo k fo r a nanswer t o thei r crise s i n publi c confessions . Ironically , thes e crise s ste mprecisely fro m thei r immoderat e lov e o f word s an d thei r refusa l o f anyconcrete action.

(7) N o collective discourse/dialogue really counterbalance s Ivanov' smonologues. A remnan t o f th e ol d dramaturg y produce s conflic t an ddebate betwee n Ivano v an d the others , betwee n supporter s an d enemies.Only with The Seagull is the central figure 'extended' to all the characters,their discours e generalise d an d scattere d withi n th e dialogu e o f al l thecharacters.

(8) Changes of subject frequently interrup t the flow of monologues, thuscontradicting a conversatio n tha t wa s supposedl y serious . Ivano v ofte nskips from on e subject to another, relativising his will to get to the bottomof things : ' I daresa y I' m ver y muc h t o blame . (Listens) I thin k they'v ebrought th e carriag e round ' (Ac t One , Scen e v) . O r 'whe n yo u star trescuing me and giving me good advice , a look o f sheer innocenc e comesover you . . . Just a second, there's dust on your shoulder. (Brushes the dustoff her shoulder)' (Act Three, Scene vn).

(9) Prerecorded, preconstructed discourse takes ove r i n such instances ,and set s the exchanges betwee n character s o n automatic pilot : there is nonovelty, n o authenticit y i n this exchang e o f quotes , phrase s o r obsessiv eremarks. Al l th e songs , imitation s o f Yiddis h pronunciation , technica lterms from car d games, aphorisms on Russian life , women or doctors, areonly quotations and situations that are to be systematically recycled in thesubsequent plays.

(10) Thematic lines connec t differen t word s whic h ar e take n u p a tregular interval s withi n a networ k o f terms , whos e emergenc e become smeaningful a s a kind o f through-line, a n ideologem, ie. a simultaneousl ythematic, narrative , discursive and ideological unit , which is also a key tothe socia l relationships . For instance, the term honest(y), which is appliedpositively and negatively to Lvov and Ivanov. This term becomes an emptyelement which demonstrates, somewhat ironically , the difficulty o f judgingthe actions of human beings. It thus relativises any judgement and forces usto compare every context where the term is used.

(11) Auto-textuality (i.e . th e reflectio n o f th e tex t upo n itself , fo rinstance, i n th e mise en abime 4) i s no t ye t a discursiv e devic e whic h i sextended to the whole play; it remains limited to a character's commentaryon itself . Thu s Ivano v see s himsel f a s a provincia l an d a ridiculou s'Hamlet'-figure (Ac t Three , Scen e vn) , bu t th e questio n o f 'Hamletism 'does not find any extension in the overall structure of the play. Later, as inThe Seagull for example, auto-textuality is dissolved and generalised to the

75


PATRICE PAVI S

whole texture, thus becoming one of the main keys to Chekhov's work, andobviously dependen t o n the ol d dramaturgy , which stil l imposes a certainreading o f th e conflict s an d a n evaluatio n o f th e characters . Chekho vcertainly does not propose any solution - h e rather suggests that the readeror spectator should decide, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, andaccording t o his/he r ow n values , whethe r Ivano v i s guilt y o r innocent .However, receptio n i s greatl y influence d b y th e ide a tha t Lvo v i s mor efanatical tha n honest , an d that Ivanov is more a victim than guilty . Hencereception is in fact as open as it was to become in all the later plays.

All thes e textua l mechanism s a t wor k i n th e play , albei t i n a limite dfashion, d o no t ye t prov e tha t changin g a fe w dramaturgica l rule s ha salready produced a new textuality. The mechanisms or devices still tend tocast themselve s i n constricting dramaturgica l forms , no t ye t changing thenature o f Chekhovia n playwriting . Dramaturgica l an d textua l innovatio ntherefore remains very limited, even if one can anticipate all the possibilitiesof thi s negativ e an d destructurin g writing , whic h wil l unti e no t onl ydramaturgy and textuality, but also character and subject .

Ivanov's characters are somehow on the defensive. On the one hand theyare draw n meticulousl y wit h al l thei r contradiction s o f character , an d o nthe othe r han d the y alread y ten d t o eras e themselves , fo r th e benefi t o f atapestry of discourse and language games.

Characters o n th e defensiv e

These character s exist , eve n befor e the y ope n thei r mouths , sinc e anaturalistic acting style gives them very precise characterisation. The tics intheir behaviour , thei r way s o f talking , the allusion s t o thei r time , are likeBarthes' 'reality effects' 5 whic h give us the illusion tha t we are confronte dby real people. And yet this does not make them understandable t o us . Inspite o f al l thei r auto-analyses , the y - o r a t leas t th e mai n character s -remain contradictory and unfathomable .

The fac t i s tha t th e subjec t i s i n crisis : th e ver y crisi s o f th e year s1887-1900 which coincided with the discovery of psychoanalysis and miseen scene, two 'disciplines ' i n searc h o f a n unidentifie d objec t whic h ha salways, without knowing it, existed. In this evolving subject, the oppositionbetween good and evil, guilt and innocence, vital desire and death-drive, nolonger holds.

Chekhov invites us to find the key to his main character: like a Woyzeckof the Russian intelligentsia, Ivanov is 'as everyman, an abyss, which makesyou dizzy when you lean over it', who is also beyond judgement for 'We allhave to o man y wheels , screws , an d valve s t o judg e eac h othe r o n first

76



impression o r o n on e o r tw o pointers ' (Biichner' s Woyzeck, Ac t Three ,Scene vi).6 The self is made out of incomprehensible wheels. It is split, eachhalf correspondin g sometime s t o differen t characters : fo r instance , th e'infernal couple ' Ivanov-Lvov, where the latter i s only the prefiguration o fthe former , te n year s before . Th e dramati c whee l o f th e pla y i s Lvov' shatred fo r Ivanov , i n who m h e see s a hated father-figure , a n obstacl e t oAnna's recovery as well as to his own Oedipal desire for her . A divided selfis even a scattered self, whose explosion we witness when Ivanov blows hisbrains out.

This crisi s o f th e subjec t i s a t th e sam e tim e th e caus e an d th econsequence o f a dee p crisi s o f language . Thi s ca n b e discovere d i n th eterrible fina l confrontatio n betwee n Ivano v an d Anna . Ann a accuse s he rhusband not so much of betraying her with another woman but of lying toher fro m th e beginning . Sh e cast s doub t o n hi s word , an d therefore ,according to him, on his very existence; he only defends himself agains t theaccusation o f lying. Unable to silence her, he tells her that th e doctor tol dhim sh e woul d soo n die . Th e wor d ha s becom e a desperat e an d fata lweapon: i f th e othe r n o longe r believe s me , I hav e t o kil l hi m o r her .Ivanov's anxiety grows not so much from no t knowing any longer who heis and what he wants (Act Four, Scene x), but having no more words in theother's and in his own eyes, or only a word that kills.

The subjec t i s whole and undivided; i t is ready to di e or to kill , only toprove it s ow n existence . Whethe r fo r th e character , th e writin g o r th edramaturgy, the subject is made out of one piece, one solid block. One canstill mak e distinction s betwee n dramaturgy , textualit y an d character s a sstrong autonomou s systems . Th e characters , an d particularl y th e titl echaracter Ivanov , is the cement which stil l unites these systems and masksthe cracks in the building. One can still look at his fate, his motivations andhis psychology , whic h preven t us , inversely , fro m perceivin g th e play' stextuality, it s languag e games , an d it s dramaturgica l forms . Chekho vdesperately fill s th e gap s an d crack s o f th e subject . H e give s a ver ycomplete, dense, subjective representation of the hero and his surroundings,only t o giv e th e illusio n o f realit y an d t o participat e i n it s salvaging .However - an d here comes the writing - th e representation no w needs, inorder t o appea r mor e perfectl y mimetic , t o b e meaningfully codifie d an dstructured. Fro m no w on , th e representatio n o f th e rea l wil l no t sto pdematerialising, demotivatin g an d destructurin g itsel f int o a mor e ope ntext, wher e frontier s an d difference s betwee n dramaturgy , writin g an dcharacters have become much more blurred , o r even non-existent. For weare just about to move, even if the characters, so to speak, have not noticedit, t o th e leve l o f metadiscours e - namely , th e possibilit y o f saying , o f

77


PATRICE PAVI S

knowing whethe r on e i s speakin g th e truth , o f remainin g silent . These ar emetadiscursive techniques which take place not s o much o n the level of thecharacters' statements, as on the level of a discursive mechanism, o f textua lindecisiveness, of the continuum of character/dramaturgy/textuality .

Hence the slightly monomaniac monodram a unwind s an d open s itself t omultiple network s o f allusions , echoes , subtexts , whic h ar e al l th e mor ecomplex a s the motivations o f the character s tak e flight and th e readers o rspectators erase , b y themselves , th e all-too-explici t information . Thi scomplexity an d thi s indecisivenes s ar e mythological , beyon d everydaybanality an d triviality , and o f th e undecide d unconsciou s beyon d clear-cu tstatements: tim e inescapabl y devour s it s ow n children ; th e so n curse s th efather befor e takin g hi s plac e an d fallin g int o th e sam e traps . Th e faul tcannot b e redeemed , eve n b y violen t death , becaus e i t i s unnameable an ddaily. The high-flown question s - ('wh o a m I, what a m I living for, o r wha tdo I want?') (Ac t Four, Scene x) - d o not receive any answers.

All thi s i s i n Ivanov, a s alway s i n a first play , bu t no t al l o f thi s i sChekhovian. Chekho v wil l hav e t o forget , t o erase , t o giv e up . A wholeprocess of abstraction an d stylisation wil l take place. To erase and to forge tthe purel y mimeti c representation/performanc e wil l lea d t o a greate rtheatricality, t o a playful lightnes s i n the dialogue s an d th e gestures , to th edouble fac e o f th e Mosco w Ar t Theatre , th e naturalisti c theatr e an d th etheatre o f mood . A double fac e tha t Meyerhold 7 ha d full y recognise d an dwhich is also Ivanov's.

NOTES

1 Se e Peter Szondi's distinctions in La Theorie du Drame Moderne, trans . PatricePavis, L'Age d'homme, Lausanne, 1973. English translation, ed. Michael Hays,Minneapolis, 1987.

2 Se e Mikhail Bakhtin, Le Frincipe Dialogique, Paris , 1989 . An English transla-tion is The Dialogic Imagination, ed . Michael Holquist , trans . Caryl Emersonand Michael Holquist, Austin, Texas, 1981.

3 I n chapter 3 of thi s volume Anatoly Smeliansk y makes a related point , albei twithin a different context .

4 A n inner part which reflects the whole structure.5 Rolan d Barthe s call s 'realit y effects ' thos e detail s i n th e tex t whic h giv e the

reader the impression of confronting the real world.6 Geor g Biichne r (1813-37) , a medical studen t an d progressive politica l activis t

who wrot e severa l subsequentl y renowne d plays : Danton's Death (1835) ,Leonce and Lena (1836 ) an d Woyzeck, unfinishe d b y his early deat h i n 183 7from typhus . Ahea d o f hi s contemporary theatre , Biichner' s play s wer e onl yappreciated an d subsequently performe d a t the end of the nineteenth century .His fragment , Woyzeck, prefigure s muc h o f moder n dram a i n Biichner' sdeterminism, hi s understanding o f the fatalism o f history an d in his treatment of

78



an alienated , inarticulat e ordinar y soldier , Woyzeck, a t the mercy o f forces hecannot control or change.

7 Vsevolo d Meyerhold, Theatre naturaliste et theatre d'atmosphere, in Ecrits surle theatre, L'Age d'homme, trans. Beatrice Pic.on-Vallin, Lausanne, 1973, vol. 1 ,pp. 95-104.

79


7THOMAS KILRO Y

The Seagull: a n adaptatio n

Writers who are considered immorta l o r just plain good and who intoxicateus have one very important trai t in common: they are going somewhere andcall you with them . . . The best of them are realistic and paint life as it is, butbecause ever y line is saturated with juice , with the sense of life , you feel , inaddition to life as it is, life as it should be . . .

Chekhov: letter to A.S. Suvorin, 25 November 1892.1

In 1 9 81 I adapted The Seagull, resettin g i t o n a n Anglo-Iris h estat e i n th eWest o f Ireland , wit h th e tim e o f th e actio n place d i n th e lat e nineteent hcentury.2

The first reaso n wh y I did thi s was , quit e simply , becaus e I was aske d t odo s o b y Ma x Stafford-Clark , the n artisti c directo r o f th e Roya l Cour tTheatre. Ma x felt , an d I agree d wit h him , tha t som e Englis h languag eproductions o f Chekho v tende d toward s a very Englis h gentilit y wher e th esocially specifi c Chekho v tende d t o b e lost i n polit e vagueness . He believe dthat a n Anglo-Iris h settin g woul d provid e a specificity , a t onc e remove dfrom, an d a t th e sam e tim e comprehensibl e to , a n Englis h audience . H ealso fel t tha t a n Iris h settin g woul d mor e easil y allo w th e rawnes s o fpassion o f th e origina l t o emerge , th e kin d o f semi-farcica l hysteria , whic hChekhov use s i n th e scene s betwee n Arkadina , Treplyo v an d Trigori n i nAct Three , fo r example : a kin d o f roug h theatricalit y somewha t remove dfrom polit e Englis h comed y bu t commo n enoug h i n th e Iris h comi ctradition.

The secon d reaso n wh y I too k th e commission , a n equall y persuasiv eone, wa s tha t whe n I bega n t o thin k abou t them , th e parallel s betwee nChekhov's Russi a an d nineteenth-centur y Anglo-Irelan d became , fo r me ,extraordinarily vivi d an d apt . Th e resonance s o f Chekhov' s pla y becam eeven mor e universalise d whil e I wa s als o abl e t o articulate , i n thi sborrowing fro m a grea t Europea n playwright , certai n perception s tha t Ihave had abou t the history o f my own country .

80


The Seagull: an adaptation

But wh o exactl y wer e th e Anglo-Iris h gentry ? I n th e definitio n o f th ehistorian F . S . L . Lyons , th e Anglo-Iris h wer e 'th e descendant s o f Englis hsettlers i n Ireland , t o who m abou t th e en d o f th e nineteent h centur y th ename Anglo-Irish was beginning to be attached. Tha t name was not o f thei rseeking, thoug h i t expresse s ver y precisel y th e schizophreni a whic h wa stheir natural condition.' 3

Like Chekhov's gentry , the Anglo-Irish landowning class no longer exists ,having bee n swep t awa y i n th e foundatio n an d late r developmen t o f th enew Irish stat e i n the firs t decade s o f the twentieth century . In each culture ,at th e en d o f th e nineteent h century , ther e wa s thi s pervasiv e sens e o fimminent, drasti c change . I t wa s ver y eas y indee d t o fin d a n equivalen t o fthe Chekhovia n moo d o f approachin g darknes s i n suc h a n Anglo-Iris hsetting an d a s I went on , th e commo n factor s betwee n Russia n an d Anglo -Irish gentry multiplied .

Both represente d an d enacte d imperia l authorit y ove r a muc h larger ,subservient population . Bot h playe d significant role s i n th e Crow n Civi lService and in military command whic h di d so much to preserve that powe rin their respective countries . For both , the source and symbo l o f that powe rwas th e countr y estat e wit h it s dependen t peasantr y o r serf s an d th einstability o f this property i n the latter hal f o f the nineteenth centur y mark sthe firs t sign s o f th e disintegratio n o f th e empire s themselves . Whil e thi sloss o f power , fo r bot h Russia n an d Anglo-Iris h gentry , cam e toward s th eend o f th e nineteent h century , bot h classe s coul d loo k bac k wit h nostalgi ato the preceding century a s the period o f their greatest flowering.

Here i s how Lyon s describe s th e cultura l milie u o f th e Anglo-Irish an d i fone changes th e actua l references , on e come s clos e t o th e Russia n counter -part:

At one level they gave a passable imitation of a governing class on the Englishmodel. They acted as deputy lieutenants o f their counties, as high sheriffs o ras justices o f the peace , an d the y were prominen t i n local government unti lthe end of the nineteenth century. Apart from visits to the Dublin Horse Showand to the winter season at the Viceregal Court , many of them resided all theyear round in their Georgia n houses - sometime s beautiful , sometime s ugly,but often dilapidate d and generally uncomfortable - where they lived the sortof lif e tha t landlord s live d everywhere . Shooting , fishing, an d hunting ,interspersed with hospitality more lavish than they could afford - thi s was theframework o f their lives.4

There is , however , tha t all-importan t distinctio n o f 'th e Englis h model' ,something whic h mark s a crucia l distinctio n betwee n th e Anglo-Iris h an dthe Russian . Th e Anglo-Iris h represente d a foreign , Englis h powe r i n

81


THOMAS KILRO Y

Ireland. Chekhov' s gentr y a t leas t share d a commo n Russia n nationalit ywith those around and beneath them.

The 'schizophrenia ' o f the Anglo-Irish tha t Lyon s refers t o is the classiccondition o f a pro-consular , governin g clas s i n a colonia l situatio n 'tor nbetween thei r countr y o f origi n an d thei r countr y o f settlement.' 5 Their swas a see-saw condition, caught between two other, irreconcilable cultures,the English and what might be called, for wan t of a better term, the nativeIrish. For this reason, my adaptation of The Seagull is more overtly politicalin implicatio n tha n th e original . I t bring s t o th e surfac e th e tension sbetween the Anglo-Irish an d the much larger population o f native Irish. Itis also set against the Land War, which reached a climax in the 1870s , theradical campaig n fo r tenants ' right s whic h eventuall y destroye d land -lordism i n rura l Irelan d an d le d t o th e establishmen t o f moder n Iris hfarming. I n my version, the schoolteacher (Medvedenk o in the original ) iscalled Jame s an d h e represent s th e nativ e Iris h peopl e outsid e th e estat ewalls, now stirring in the first movements towards successful revolution .

Having sai d al l that , ther e wa s anothe r commo n facto r betwee n th eRussian an d Anglo-Irish gentr y which override s th e force o f politics . Thiswas th e commo n fat e o f provincia l isolatio n i n a perio d befor e moder ncommunications. Bot h world s wer e a t a remove fro m thei r metropolita ncentres. These centres , London an d Moscow , serv e a s the sam e focus fo rAnglo-Irish an d Russia n sensibilities , a focu s o f desir e an d ambition , o fillusions an d dreams , magnifyin g th e pent-u p emotion s o f thos e remot ehouseholds an d offerin g a prospect , a lure , to o ofte n unattainabl e b ysensitive souls.

There i s ye t a furthe r geographica l detai l o f som e importanc e t o m yadaptation. B y resettin g th e pla y i n th e Wes t o f Irelan d rathe r tha nelsewhere in the country I was able to find a n equivalent fo r another , an dcharming, featur e o f th e Chekhovia n househol d - it s promiscuou s socia -bility, the way his houses fil l up , not onl y with relatives bu t with a wholevariety of hangers-on and the fact that this sociability crosses class lines.

We kno w fro m th e novel s o f Georg e Moor e tha t th e Anglo-Iris h 'Bi gHouse' in the West of Ireland admitted and welcomed a great confusion o fsocial intercourse, far mor e so than in other, more anglified , mor e sociallystratified part s o f the country. The political and socia l distinction betwee nProtestant and Catholic, between landlord and professional o r craft classes,between old money and new money, indeed, between landlord an d tenant ,seemed to dissolve or at least lose something of its rigid parameters west ofthe river Shannon.

One reason for this , also of immense importance i n the major Chekho vplays, i s that th e Western Irish landlords tende d t o be more impoverishe d

82



than elsewhere . The y wer e no t entirel y insulate d fro m thei r neighbours ,their servants, through great wealth. Mutual poverty, relatively speaking, inreducing all , tende d t o effac e th e stiff-necke d barrier s create d b y politic sand socia l snobbery . As in Chekhov, the constant topi c o f conversation inAnglo-Irish house s seeme d t o b e abou t survivin g financial collapse. Thi sgenteel poverty , familia r fro m th e mor e recen t novel s o f th e lat e Moll yKeane, was eventually to spread to the Anglo-Irish throughout Ireland. Butin the late nineteenth centur y i t was more common in the West of Irelandthan elsewhere.

In my adaptation, Irina Nikolaevna Arkadin a become s Isobel Desmond,the Anglo-Iris h actres s o f th e Londo n stage . Bori s Alexeevic h Tregori nbecomes Mr Aston , a prolific bu t minor English novelist . Isobel is visitingthe Wes t o f Irelan d estat e o f he r brothe r Peter , a forme r civi l servan t i nDublin Castle , the centre o f British imperia l power i n Ireland prio r t o thefoundation o f th e Iris h Fre e Stat e i n 1922 . Shamrae v become s a cousin ,Gregory, and this extended family is a feature of the Anglo-Irish household.The runnin g o f th e estat e o f a n absente e landlor d wa s ofte n lef t i n th ehands o f a poorer relation . The doctor , called Dr Hickey, and the teacher ,James, in the play become Catholic outsiders, admitted into the Anglo-Irishcircle but , particularly i n the case o f the teacher , significantl y exclude d a swell. The two young people, Treplyov and Nina, become Constantine an dLily, and their passion for theatr e becomes the most distinctive connectionof all between the Anglo-Irish and Russian worlds.

The Anglo-Iris h contributio n t o th e English-speakin g theatr e ha s bee nimmense. We tend to think of this exclusively, and understandably, in termsof individua l playwrights : Farquhar , Sheridan , Goldsmith , Wilde , Shaw ,Yeats, Synge , Beckett . Bu t ther e wer e als o figures lik e th e actres s Pe gWoffington who , thoug h o f working-clas s background , ros e throug h th estage to prominence in Anglo-Irish society in eighteenth-century Dublin; orLady Gregory, herself a West of Ireland landlord, but also a playwright andtheatre manager, who was highly influential i n the foundation o f the AbbeyTheatre, Dublin, with Yeats and Synge.

In founding a new theatre for Irelan d in the last decades of the century,Gregory, Yeat s an d Syng e turne d away , consciously , fro m th e Englis hmodel an d dre w thei r inspiration , instead , fro m Iris h peasan t cultur e an dancient Irish myths and legends (the translations of which, incidentally, hadbecome availabl e largel y throug h th e wor k o f Anglo-Iris h translators ,scholars an d antiquarians) . Th e dram a whic h the y create d ha d th e sam enovelty an d strangenes s fo r it s Anglo-Irish audience s a s Symbolis t dram awould have had for th e Russian audienc e represented b y the household ofThe Seagull. So , in my adaptation, Treplyov's 'decadent ' Symbolis t play in

83


THOMAS KILRO Y

Act On e become s Constantine' s 'Celtic ' pla y base d upo n ancien t Iris hmyth.

The presentatio n o f thi s amateuris h dram a mark s a significan t divid ebetween the generations, between the old and the new. Chekhov's target isnot Symbolist drama as such but what the occasion reveals of the mother'sattitude t o the son . Constantine's pla y has exactly the same kind o f effec ton Isobel which Treplyov's has upon Arkadina. Both women are disturbedand strangely threatened by what they see and the ineptitude of the writingin each case allows them to fal l bac k upon mockery . Arkadina's distres s isrelated t o th e perceive d threa t t o he r kin d o f theatr e represente d b y herson's play, a kind of ungainly, monstrous power threatening her ou t of thefuture. Isobe l feel s this , too , bu t i n he r cas e ther e i s th e adde d politica lthreat i n tha t Constantine' s pla y come s ou t o f th e suppresse d culture ,which a t al l time s wa s threatenin g rebellio n agains t he r clas s an d th eproperty o f he r family . W e have a n Anglo-Iris h famil y divided : som e stil llooking to England a s its natural motherland , som e looking to the nativeIrish tradition for it s inspiration, and this division mirrors historical realityin the period. Like the poor imitators of voguish 'new' drama that Chekhovdespised, ther e wer e many theatricall y poo r attempt s a t writing mytholo-gical dram a i n Ireland , sid e b y side with th e exquisit e one s o f Yeat s an dSynge. Constantine's is one of those.

The play-within-the-play in Act One of The Seagull is one of the passagessingled out by Eugene K. Bristow in his Norton Critical Edition of the playsas presenting difficultie s fo r th e translator becaus e o f the precise, concretecultural reference s use d b y Chekhov. 6 I t i s als o th e moment , a s Bristo wrecognises, at which the central theme of art , and more specifically th e ar tof theatre , i s establishe d b y Chekhov . Thi s run s lik e a spina l colum nthrough the whole play giving it its main structura l cohesion . The kind ofplay, then, whic h Treplyo v present s befor e hi s mother an d the househol dand Chekhov' s ow n attitud e toward s it , colour s th e whol e subsequen tdramatic meditation o n art and and its relation to the lived life right up tothe play's denouement.

This dramati c presentatio n o f a cluste r o f idea s o n ar t an d th e artis tdraws in each o f the othe r characters . It is connected t o the loyalty whichboth Sori n an d Dor n displa y toward s Treplyov' s writing , on e a simpl eloyalty, the other a more complex one. It is connected to Arkadina's muchmore comple x attitud e t o th e sam e subject . I t touche s Masha' s patheti cappeal to the writer in Trigorin and her dreams of being in a book. Finally,it provide s th e nexu s betwee n Trigorin , Nin a an d Treplyov , a vocationa lbase, as it were, against which is played ou t the fraught gam e of love andits loss , betwee n th e three . What i t i s t o b e a n artist , wha t i t i s to b e a



writer, thi s preoccupation , thi s obsession , fuel s th e othe r feeling s o f affec -tion, of love but also of hatred, o f self-disgust i n the play. In Chekhov, idea sare always enmeshed in passionate emotion .

I hav e trie d t o reproduc e thi s networ k effec t bu t usin g Iris h references .Let me give some examples to show the changes whic h thi s produced i n thetext.

The mos t sustained , th e mos t traumati c passag e i n th e pla y i n whic h a nobsession wit h ar t i s seen to affec t feeling , wit h disastrou s consequences , i sthat betwee n Trigorin an d Nina toward s th e end o f Act Two. The scene is aremarkable demonstratio n o f self-disgus t a s a n instrumen t o f seduction ;Trigorin pile s o n th e image s o f abjec t self-dismissa l befor e thi s youn g gir lwho i s so besotted b y the notio n o f ar t tha t eac h disclaimer , eac h rejectio nof hi s ow n worth , simpl y make s he r fee l eve n mor e privileged , mor e priv yto the inner secret s of the artist .

The firs t effec t o f m y adaptatio n wa s radicall y t o reduc e th e lengt h o fTrigorin's speeches . This wa s partl y a matter o f th e tast e o f th e productio nfor whic h th e adaptatio n wa s prepared . Bu t i t als o ha d t o d o wit h m yrepossession o f Trigori n i n th e shap e o f M r Aston , th e mino r Englis hnovelist, wh o cam e t o m e withou t an y o f th e flowering, Russia n imagery ;he becam e a dappe r Victorian , parsimonious , edgy , neuroti c an d acutel yaware o f finding himsel f i n foreign parts . The Chekhovian image s o f moon ,relay horses , cloud , heliotrope , hone y bees , gambler , fo x hun t an d misse dtrains becam e somethin g les s natural , mor e mechanical , mor e i n tune wit hthe vision o f living death in Victorian England .

Here is the Bristow translation an d my own adaptation :

There are some persistent notions that dominate a person's mind, for instance,when someone thinks constantly about the moon day and night. Well, I havemy own kind of moon. Day and night one persistent thought obsesses me - Imust write, I must write, I must . .. I no sooner finish one story than for somereason or other I must write the next, then a third, and after tha t a fourth . . .I write endlessly, exactly as relay horses run, and I can't do it differently. S o Iask you , what' s particularl y beautifu l o r brillian t abou t that ? Oh , wha t asenseless and remote way to live! Here I am with you, I'm overwrought. . 7

How curious. I've become quite excited, actually nervous, almost hysterical .Very well . Le t u s tal k calmly , abov e all , accurately , abou t thi s beauty , thi sbeautiful life , as you put it. To begin with, I'm obsessive. I have this obsession,you see, as many people do, by which I become a machine, an engine, utterlywithout will , feeling , withou t risk , cogs merely slipping into thei r places onthe wheel. Click-click. Do you understand what I mean? Perhaps not. It is notimportant. I n fact i t is extremely monotonous . But of course you do under-stand. You are obviously an intelligent, sensitive young woman.8


THOMAS KILRO Y

Dorn's European tri p i s an ingenious devic e on Chekhov' s par t t o allow anarrative summar y a t the beginning o f Act Four, filling i n the detail s for th eaudience o f wha t ha s happene d i n the two-yea r interim . Th e docto r ha s t obe told an d i n th e tellin g w e ar e brough t u p t o dat e o n the sorr y conditio nof bot h Nin a an d Treplyov . But i t is also a trigger t o reintroduce tha t play -within-the pla y o f Act One, rounding of f th e great meditation o n art . In theoriginal thi s i s don e b y Dor n rememberin g th e play' s them e o f a universa lsoul as he was buffeted b y the warm turbulence o f a crowd o n the streets ofGenoa. I n my adaptation , th e cit y become s Pari s an d th e experienc e i saltogether more cultural . Here is Dr Hickey from th e adaptation :

Well, Paris is a different plac e to different people , I dare say. For me, it is theSalon and the Opera Comique . For others it may be the cafe life, the cuisineor the intellectual conversation. By the way, Constantine, did I tell you? Thereis great interest nowadays over there in the Celtic thing and all that. I believeProfessor d e Joubainville's lecture s o n th e ol d Celti c mytholog y ar e highl yregarded i n th e Colleg e d e France . I though t o f you r play . Remember ?Moytura. The one about the battle of the two giants, the Light and the Dark.The one which Lily acted for us , outside on the lawn. Was it two years ago?By the way, whatever has become of Lily?9

My us e o f Pari s wa s t o dra w attentio n t o th e fac t tha t th e Anglo-Iris hfascination wit h Celti c mythology an d folklor e wa s no t confine d t o Irelan dat tha t time . D e Joubainville's lecture s wer e attende d b y John M . Syng e i n1898. This contact with ancien t Irish lore in the lectures o f a French schola rmay a t leas t hav e ha d a s muc h effec t a s th e famou s injunctio n o f Yeat s t othe younge r playwright , tw o year s earlier , tha t h e retur n t o th e Ara nIslands, of f th e Wes t Coas t o f Ireland , an d writ e abou t th e peopl e there ,which Synge , of course did , with remarkable results. 10

My use of Moytura a s the myth o f Constantine's play has another Anglo -Irish echo , on e o f som e persona l meanin g t o me . I t wa s a myt h whic hentranced Si r Willia m Wilde , th e surgeon-cum-folkloris t fathe r o f Osca rWilde to the extent tha t h e named on e o f hi s summer home s b y that name .The house was one o f the few possessions lef t t o the impoverished Osca r i nhis las t year s in Paris . Unfortunately, i t was sol d to pay creditors bu t i t stil lstands jus t a fe w mile s dow n th e roa d fro m wher e I a m no w writin g thi schapter.

In The Seagull, a s s o ofte n elsewhere , Chekho v i s writin g abou t th emysterious, contradictor y effect s o f failure . Th e fac t tha t h e conduct s thi stheatricalised discours e o n ar t an d it s complex relationship t o the life o f theartistic practitioner , throug h th e figure s o f a faile d artist , a rathe r vulga ractress, a mediocre, self-hating write r an d a young actres s who may or ma ynot succeed , account s fo r th e rich layering of ideas in the play. The fact tha t



Treplyov's pla y i s a poo r dramati c vehicl e doe s no t mea n tha t Chekho vhimself despise d Symbolis t dram a or , indeed , ne w form s o f theatr e gener -ally. It means tha t this is the way he sets Treplyov upon hi s journey throug hfailure toward s illuminatio n an d thi s illuminatio n occur s moment s befor ehe shoot s himself . To arriv e a t a conviction a s to wha t i s o f valu e i n lif e i snot enough . I f on e gives al l t o bein g a n artis t an d fails , ther e i s no poin t i ncontinuing an d thi s i s th e blea k conclusio n o f thi s comedy . I t i s a s i f th estruggle t o b e a n artis t ha s opene d hi s ow n sou l t o Treplyo v an d wha t h ehas seen there is chaos.

Bristow identifie s th e moment o f illumination i n Treplyov a s coming jus tbefore Nin a rap s upo n th e windo w i n Ac t Fou r an d i s brough t int o th eroom. I t i s par t o f a monologu e o n styl e whic h engage s th e contrastin gelements o f exactitude , specificity , o n th e on e han d an d impressionisti clyricism o n th e other , precisel y th e element s crucia l t o Chekhov' s ow n art .It i s a s i f Chekho v i s writing ou t o f a ghostl y versio n o f hi s ow n youthfu lself, the one who might hav e failed. Th e great , bu t extremely difficul t scen ebetween the young couple tha t follow s bring s a final sunderin g an d i t is notmerely on e o f emotion . I n the steel y accountin g o f thi s pla y sh e has draw nstrength from failure , h e has draw n despair , an d thereby the y ar e separate dforever.

Here i s tha t momen t o f Treplyov' s illumination , firstl y i n Bristow' stranslation, then from m y own adaptation :

I've talke d an d talke d a lot abou t ne w forms , ye t I feel no w tha t I too amslipping little by little into a conventional rut . . . Yes, I'm invariably comingmore and more to the conviction that the issue is a question neither of old norof new forms, bu t that a person simply writes, never thinking about the kindof forms, he writes because it pours freely out of his soul.11

Useless, absolutel y useless ! 'W e nee d ne w form s tha t wil l brin g bac k th eancient wisdom of the people.' What does that mean? I have no contact withthe people. Merely stories out of old books written in a strange, lost language. . . New forms! What does any of it matter s o long as it is true to what onefeels?12

Of course , I ha d anothe r grea t write r i n min d whe n constructin g thi sAnglo-Irish Constantine , one , too , whos e ar t move d betwee n th e concret eand th e evanescent , th e broke n nec k o f a bottl e an d distant , tremulou smusic, th e see n an d th e unseen . Yeats , too , lik e Chekhov , struggle d t o ge tthat balanc e right . Lik e Constantin e i n my adaptation , he , too , wa simmensely awar e o f th e obstacle s i n hi s attempt s t o writ e 'o f th e people' .He wa s a far mor e politica l creature tha n Chekho v an d althoug h h e fough tagainst extreme nationalism, hi s theatrical movemen t wa s bu t on e o f man y

87


THOMAS KILRO Y

movements towards national self-expression a t the time, all of which cameto a hea d i n th e country' s Wa r o f Independenc e (1919-21) . Bu t Yeat swould hav e immediatel y recognise d th e tragi c perceptio n i n thi s youn gman's speech, that if the written word is not grounded in the deep personalfeeling of the writer, it is nothing.

For a write r wh o i s s o dependen t upo n mood , tone , nuance , ther e i sconcrete materia l realit y behin d everythin g whic h Chekho v wrote . Thi shard, concret e specificit y require s a simila r exactitud e i n an y adaptatio nand, indeed, in any production o f the plays. Without i t there is always thedanger o f a fals e Chekhovia n style , a self-regardin g surrende r t o tha tseductive moo d o f ennui. I t wa s on e o f th e extraordinar y experience s o fadapting The Seagull to find suc h specific detail s leaping ou t of the periodof Iris h histor y an d fro m th e Englis h theatrica l an d literar y background .But there was also the solid foundation fo r thos e more intimate, domesti cdetails o f Chekho v a s well: the low wages o f a schoolmaster hobnobbin gwith those of apparent wealth; the peculiar panic of the powerful whe n thepower begins to ebb away; how aging changes the shape of thinking as wellas the body.

The late Peggy Ramsay13 was one of the great figures o f post-war Britishtheatre, a woman o f immens e influenc e fa r beyon d tha t o f a dramatist' sagent. When I began work on The Seagull she said to me that translation oradaptation was 'a form o f privileged conversation with an author' bu t thatyou woul d 'hav e t o reac h belo w superficia l detail ' befor e tha t privileg ewould be granted. It was some time before I understood what she had saidand when I did, Russian an d Anglo-Irish setting s became irrelevant. Whatmattered was the amplitude of Chekhov's vision of human life.

In writing the plays he seemed to project himsel f int o a future an d fro mthis mysteriou s poin t i n tim e h e look s bac k a t th e creature s o f hi simagination. In that sense , in writing the plays he was compiling a kind ofhistory. Certainly , n o othe r playwrigh t ha s a more acut e historica l sensi -bility in the way the plays are authentic records o f a time past bu t also bythe way they are permeated b y the ordeal o f time passing and haunted bythe glimme r o f tim e t o come . Thi s sens e o f tim e an d it s effect s i sparticularly underline d i n The Seagull becaus e o f tha t two-yea r ga pbetween Act Three and Act Four.

This almost Olympian perspective is the source or a t least vehicle of hisimmense generosity as a writer, which somehow coexists with that implac-able gaze. There are no heroes in Chekhov. Even the servants blossom intoplace becaus e he understood ho w the process o f time diminishes eve n themost Napoleoni c o f egos . Whe n thi s process , a s i n The Seagull, is ademonstration o f the awful persistenc e of failure and that the continuity of



life depend s upo n movin g throug h an d beyon d failure , the n th e dram abecomes one of a moral testing.

Stars like to play minor character s i n Chekhov, somethin g which is notquite as true of Shakespeare. This distribution o f attention by the writer toeach characte r i n the play is , at firs t sight , an immens e technica l achieve -ment in play-making. But then you realise that it is essentially an acknowl-edgement o f things as they are in the world - 'lif e a s it is', a type of moralrealism. This fierce gri p o n the present momen t give s an almos t unendur -able patho s t o thos e characters , lik e Nina/Lily , wh o reac h ou t toward s afuture, to what might be, as if it were already in place, while we know thatit may never actually materialise.

Certain voices , too , throughou t th e majo r play s (Tuzenbak h an d Ver -shinin in Three Sisters, Astrov in Uncle Vanya, and Treplyov) allude to thatfuture, ofte n i n word s tha t recal l Chekhov' s ow n letters . Th e character smay be cynical, apocalyptic, absurd, romantic or astute, but what they addup to is a kind of negative self-portrait , a n ironical subjection b y Chekhovof hi s own , ofte n passionatel y held , idea s t o th e levellin g exposur e o fcomedy. The self-effacement o f Chekhov is but another way of describing awriter wh o accepte d completel y tha t h e wa s himsel f subjec t t o th e sam efollies a s hi s creations . A t thi s lat e stag e o f th e twentiet h century , a s westagger about under the weight of its self-conciousness, this simple fact mayappear exceptional, even radical.

The dynami c o f The Seagull, then , exist s wel l belo w it s socia l detai l i nthe humane bu t rigorou s discrimination s o f Chekhov himsel f betwee n thefrailty o f human behaviour an d the absolute demands of love, between thegenerosity o f lov e - an d th e imperiousnes s o f art . Th e pla y i s filled wit hthose awkward, clumsy moments when people try to cope with daily livingwhile at the same time in the grip of obsessions and aspirations , unable tosee anything with clarity , unsure o f putting on e foot i n front o f the other .The condition is comic, of course, but a kind of comedy which invites manydifferent response s from a n audience. Here, too, is another version of time.For all their sense of imminence, of the moment about-to-be, all Chekhov'splays ar e roote d i n a n untid y present , ful l o f inconsequentialities , o fordinary helplessness . The Seagull, lik e the other majo r plays , is placed inthis curiou s shel l o f time , past-present-future , bu t eac h phrase , eac hgesture, i s a grindin g effor t t o dea l wit h thos e immediate , troublesom emoments of the here and now.

To those who are bothered about adaptations, seeing them as parasitic oreven a violatio n o f th e original , ther e i s simpl y onl y on e answer . Th ehistory o f theatr e i s a histor y o f adaptation , beginning , an d continuing ,with the extraordinary variet y o f repossessions o f the Greeks . There is no


THOMAS KILRO Y

obvious explanatio n a s t o wh y thi s mediu m i n particula r (an d als o it soffshoots i n cinem a an d television ) i s s o given t o borrowin g an d recyclin gof materia l fro m withi n it s ow n tradition . Fo r som e reason , theatr e ha salways enjoye d thi s activity , ha s see n i t a s essentiall y theatrica l an d i t ha snever fel t tha t th e integrit y o f th e origina l ha s bee n damage d i n an y way .Quite th e contrary . Th e goo d adaptatio n alway s send s on e bac k t o th eoriginal, afresh an d with a new appreciation o f its worth .

NOTES

Where the translations have not been made by the author himself, the English-language version used is that of Eugene K. Bristow (see note 6 below).

1 Quote d fro m Lillia n Hellman , ed . an d intro. , The Selected Letters of AntonChekhov, trans. Sidonie K. Lederer, London, 1984, p. 172

2 Thoma s Kilroy , adapt. , The Seagull, Loughcrew, Meath , Ireland , 1993 . Pre-miered on 8 April 1981, Royal Court, London, dir. Max Stafford-Clark .

3 F.S.L . Lyons, Culture and Anarchy in Ireland, I8<)O-I<)3<), Oxford , 1982 , p . 18.4 Ibid., p. 19.5 Ibid.6 Eugen e K . Bristow, ed . and trans. , Anton Chekhov's Plays, New York, 1977,

pp. xxiv—xxv .7 The Seagull, Act Two, in ibid., p. 25. Hingley, Oxford Chekhov, vol . 11, Ac t

Two, p . 255 .8 Kilroy , The Seagull, Act Two, pp. 48-9 .9 Ibid., Act Four, p. 75.

10 Thi s resulted in Synges' plays, In the Shadow of the Glen (1903); Riders to theSea (1904); The Well of the Saints ( 1905); Deirdre of the Sorrows (1910); TheTinker's Wedding (1971 , first productio n a t the Abbey), an d the famous ThePlayboy of the Western World (1907) . The dates refer to the first productions atDublin's Abbey Theatre.

11 The Seagull, Ac t Four , i n Bristow , Anton Chekhov's Plays, p . 47. Hingley ,Oxford Chekhov, vol. 11, Act Four, p. 277 .

12 Kilroy , The Seagull, pp. 81-2.13 Margare t Ramsay (1908-91) whose agency, Margaret Ramsay Ltd., was one of

the leadin g playwrights ' agencie s i n th e English-speakin g theatre . Afte r he rdeath th e agency continue d a s Casarotto Ramsa y an d Associates Limited . SeeColin Chambers, Peggy, London, 1997.

90


8LEONID HEIFET Z

Notes from a director: Uncle Vanya

In different period s of one' s life a s a director - a s well as of a spectator o rreader - on e finds i n Chekhov somethin g which seem s particularly signifi -cant a t a specifi c momen t i n time . I have no w don e tw o production s o fUncle Vanya: th e first , i n 1969 , at the Centra l Sovie t Army Theatre (no wthe Russian Army Theatre) in Moscow; and then the second production in1991, in Turkey a t the Istanbul Municipal Theatre . Each done in differen tcountries, and at different times .

In thos e intervenin g years , I hav e neve r bee n parte d fro m Chekhov ,whether in my thinking or in my practical work. I directed Three Sisters inTurkey (1988) , an d The Cherry Orchard a s a televisio n productio n(Moscow, 1976) , a s wel l a s i n th e theatr e i n Kirgizi a (1983) , i n Turke y(1986) an d i n Polan d (1997) . Bu t m y memories o f thos e firs t encounter swith Uncle Vanya remain uniquel y precious . When I recall my memories,thoughts an d experience s o f tha t work , I alway s fee l somethin g ha dchanged i n tha t perio d o f time , bot h i n m e an d i n m y perceptio n o f th eplay. Yet at the same time, something has also always remained immutable.

An old entry fro m m y diary reads : 'One evening I was rereading UncleVanya. Without an y specia l purpos e o r reason . An d suddenl y I fel t sad .This always happens when you read Chekhov . But towards the end of theplay, I realised that somethin g differen t ha d happened t o me. And readingSonya's final lines about stars, shining like diamonds, I felt not sadness, butfury. 'W e shal l rest! ' Thes e ar e not word s o f consolation , bu t o f intransi -gence: we shal l res t irrespective o f anythin g o r everyone . No matte r ho whard it is going to be: We shall rest. This is a challenge: Sonya's last outburstof fur y an d elevate d courag e becam e a n interna l imperativ e fo r remem -bering Uncle Vanya for ever and ever. . ,'1

And I have always remembered. Nearl y thirty years have passed sinc e Imade that entry. The century and the millennium are running out . The agehas grown old, and so have we. And now I would find i t difficult t o ask theactress playin g Sony a t o expres s th e feeling s tha t overwhelme d u s i n th e


LEONID HEIFET Z

late 1960s : to do wha t youn g Natash a Vilkin a manage d to express wit hsuch tragic power. Perhaps today this challenge would sound inappropriate,even ludicrous. For now we know tha t w e shall not se e the stars , shininglike diamonds , and tha t to o man y people would prefe r t o have diamond snot in the sky , bu t somewher e close r to hand. An d thes e day s I perceiveSonya's monologu e a s word s o f consolation . No w ther e i s no fury ,bitterness o r challenge , bu t compassio n an d love . None of this, however ,means that Uncle Vanya now seems to me a quiet and serene play. On thecontrary, it is turbulent an d passionate , bu t th e sens e o f romantic protes thas gone. The acuteness and scope of our present-day perceptions sharpe nawareness o f Uncle Vanya's agony. Not melancholy , bu t the specific agonyof dying, and awareness that life has been a complete failure.

As a young director I did not realise the actuality of Uncle Vanya's talk ofsuicide a s strongly a s I do now. 'I' m forty-seven . Suppos e I live til l sixty .Thirteen year s to go. A long tim e . . .'2 Previously thes e word s di d no tmean muc h to me bu t now , whe n I myself a m lon g pas t forty-seve n an dhave bee n throug h s o much, th e sinister actualit y o f the situation isdisturbing. Suicid e rate s in the worl d hav e no t decline d an d perhap s th enext 'candidate ' is here - in the audience . . . Why don't we try and save atleast one life, keep him or her on this earth a little longer? How? By lettingpeople fee l the y ar e no t alon e an d ar e cared for , b y trying t o war m thei rhearts, b y loving the m mor e tha n w e lov e ourselves . Thi s wil l tak e anenormous spiritual effort, bu t today I can see no other meaning or purposefor staging Uncle Vanya.

Uncle Vanya' s humiliatio n jarre d o n m e when I was young . I couldn'tunderstand ho w a man coul d b e so crazy abou t a woman tha t h e wouldgive u p al l dignity, an d be g her : ' I know m y chance s o f any retur n arenegligible. They are negligible. But I want nothing. Only let me look at yousometimes, hear your voice.' It would seem that then I was unaware of themagnetism of love, even thoug h I was alread y a married ma n an d ha d adaughter. Decades later , I became aware of this, bu t I' m stil l no t sur e if Ican fee l th e entir e measur e o f despair an d exaltatio n whic h give s UncleVanya the right to speak those words.

It is , after all , a matter o f sensibilities . They can evolve towards cruelt yor the othe r wa y round . Ther e wa s a time when classicis m i n the theatr egave wa y to romanticism which , in turn, wa s late r 'dislodged ' b y natur -alism. Thi s evolutio n reflecte d change s in sensibilities, in the intensit y o fperception. Ostrovsky' s play s wer e initiall y censore d i n Russia a s to oshocking an d forthright . Th e emergenc e of the Mosco w Ar t Theatr e lat elast century was a reaction to the bombastic style of the Academic ImperialTheatres.3 In the middle o f this century, the Sovremennik (Contemporary )



Company wa s bor n - t o spea k th e ver y trut h which , unde r Stalin' stotalitarian regime , was even mor e seductiv e tha n durin g th e MAT' s origi nand development . Th e sam e ha s happene d t o ou r perception s o f Chekhov .The pensive lyricism o f the MAT stagings gave way to the crue l styl e of th e1960s.

My 196 9 production , condemne d b y critic s fo r excessiv e cruelty , woul dtoday look slac k and flabby, for ou r modern theatr e i s certainly more cruel .Even Peter Brook' s acclaime d mid-1970 s Frenc h productio n o f The CherryOrchard woul d see m serene and gentle compared to more recent stagings .

But t o retur n t o th e play , Uncle Vanya. Le t u s rea d th e ver y first scene ,which I defin e a s 'Astrov' s grievance' . Th e grievanc e o f th e docto r calle dout to see a patient, riskin g a breakneck rid e o f thirty miles, only to find outthat th e patien t i s no t a t hom e an d i s apparentl y quit e well . Th e nanny ,Marina, love s Astro v and , knowin g ho w h e feels , sh e tries t o pu t hi s min dat ease.

MARINA Hav e a bite, my dear fellow.ASTROV Don' t feel like it. . .MARINA Hav e some vodka then?ASTROV No . I don't drink vodka every day. Besides, it's hot. (A pause)

These first line s o f th e play , a superficiall y insignifican t exchange , ar eabsolutely remarkabl e fo r thei r intonation ; fo r th e musi c o f th e 'humani -tarian' whic h sound s i n bot h o f them . Th e ol d nanny , o r nurse , see s ho wbad the docto r feels , but how to convey his feelings ?

In my productio n i n 1969 , Astro v wa s waitin g fo r th e supposedl y 'sick 'Professor Serebryakov , sittin g o n a chai r an d tappin g wit h hi s stick , a sthough t o emphasis e th e irony o f th e situatio n an d t o sho w tha t h e doesn' ttake i t seriously . Bu t toda y I would sugges t t o th e actor s a quit e differen tmeans o f expressing Astrov' s restlessnes s an d grievance . The sensibilitie s o fthe mid-1990 s cal l fo r a heightene d leve l o f tension . Astrov' s ironi cmelancholy i s insufficient an d inadequate . The insul t i s gnawing a t his guts.He i s i n th e kin d o f moo d whe n lif e seem s especiall y meaningles s an dpointless. I f th e pla y open s wit h suc h a hig h pitc h o f emotions , i t wil lachieve the driving force necessar y to heighten dramati c tensions .

Now w e hav e starte d th e play . Wha t I cal l 'Astrov' s grievance ' i s th eopening event . But in the Russian directoria l traditio n ther e i s the notion o fan 'initia l event' , a kin d o f poin t o f departur e whic h typifie s Chekhov' sdrama. Ou t o f necessity , a t th e first rehearsa l I would tal k wit h th e actor sabout a typica l Chekhovia n situation : arriva l - an d departure . Th e whol estory o f The Cherry Orchard unfold s betwee n tw o ordinar y events : th earrival o f Ranevskay a - an d th e departur e o f Ranevskaya . Th e stor y o f


LEONID HEIFET Z

Three Sisters also ha s its boundaries: lif e i n the tow n change s wit h th earrival of the artillery regiment - and returns to normal when the regimentleaves. In Uncle Vanya this situation is especially graphic: life on the estatewas monotonou s an d peacefu l unti l th e arriva l o f the Serebryakovs , th eProfessor an d hi s wife. Wit h thei r arriva l th e pleasant dul l rhyth m ofcountry life explodes, but again the story ends with a departure. (The storyis the action, unfolding on stage in the eyes of the audience. But in the play,each character has a pre-history, something which has happened before thecurtain rises , somethin g unspoke n an d unperformed , bu t whic h ca n beguessed, deduced or imagined.)

Simultaneous wit h th e 'initia l event ' whic h pushe s th e action , ther e isalso the 'main event ' - Uncle Vanya's violent revolt . One can imagine thatafter th e Serebryakovs leave, the neighbourhood wil l gossip for a long timeabout somethin g terrifyin g whic h happene d a t this house : the attemp t tokill a man. One man fired two shots at the other. He missed, but this was amurder attempt, followed by a suicide attempt.

The audienc e see s Uncle Vany a fire at the Professo r wit h hi s revolver ,miss, collaps e wit h despai r an d shame , an d the n tr y to kill himsel f wit hpoison he has stolen from the doctor; and it takes considerable effort b y hisrelatives to take this poison awa y from him . In contrast to my productionof the lat e 1960s , today I would interpre t th e stor y o f thi s rebellion wit hmore emphasi s o n th e cruelty . It is a scene of blood, eve n thoug h bloo dwasn't spilt , an d o f two misse d shots , fired on e afte r anothe r ('Bang ! Imissed? Misse d again?!' ) - whic h ca n mak e th e audienc e laugh . Bu t it isboth laughable and terrifying .

It i s also necessar y t o talk t o the actors abou t th e accumulation ofconflict. Th e socia l aspec t o f this conflic t i s only on e of many, althoug hRussian experience and mentality prohibit one from ignoring it completely.In m y Turkis h productio n o f Uncle Vanya, the acto r playin g Voynitsk y(Vanya) also threw his books and manuscripts a t the Professor, an d sheet sof paper were flying all over the space. This scene, it seems, reflected som eof my own personal experiences. It was my revolt, my protest against thosevast volumes which until recently had filled our lives; against those idols wehad worshipped an d th e false truth s w e had believed . I went through thi spersonally - not that I threw books at anybody or burned them. My revoltwas quiet : I walked away . Escaped . In this sense , Uncl e Vany a i s morestraightforward an d mor e honest . Illusions , causin g u s to make grave nimages, ar e an eternal proble m for humankind. Illusion s ar e perpetuall ycreated - and inevitably ruined. Our society is still buried under these ruins.Our way of life suddenly came tumbling down, exposing the previous lies,and throwing people into awareness of wasted lives - their ow n and those



of others. In this sense , too, Chekhov's play has relevance and reference t othe present day.

But th e socia l aspec t o f th e conflic t i s th e director' s concern . Fo r th eactors, it is important for them to know that at the core of Uncle Vanya arepersonal relationships. Vanya's disappointment in life essentially grows outof his unrequited feelings fo r Yelena Andreyevna. His mind is scorched bythe thoughts o f injustice whe n some people, like the Professor, hav e every-thing: n o matte r ho w ol d an d grey , the y ar e famous , love d b y beautifu lwomen an d liv e in luxury , whil e others , like Uncle Vanya, hav e nothing .One has the feeling that in spite of all his pains and gout, the Professor wil llive for a hundred years, while Uncle Vanya will have expired much earlier.

The pattern o f relationships i n Uncle Vanya is so clear tha t on e wouldhave to work extremely hard to make this play incomprehensible - bu t thishappens often enough , in both the Russian theatre and abroad. I have seenproductions by directors who do not believe that love is always relevant tothe presen t da y - an d wh o therefor e loo k fo r somethin g mor e topica l o rfashionable. But Chekhov's play rests entirely on love. The modern theatreseeks different approache s to Chekhov, but for me the only right directio nis t o di g deepe r inside , becaus e th e dept h o f th e soul , th e dept h o fperception, the depth of pain, has no limits. But if there is no such searchingdeep inside , i f socia l temperamen t o r a predilectio n fo r 'effects ' o r ne wforms fo r thei r ow n sake impel director s to try and strik e a t the audienc ewith som e pioneerin g interpretatio n o f Chekhov , the n th e audienc e doe snot usually respond.

My experience s abroad , beginnin g wit h th e first production i n th e lat e1970s, hav e helpe d m e t o realis e th e valu e o f simpl e an d eterna l truths .Audiences respon d whe n th e directo r succeed s i n conveyin g th e essentia laffinity o f huma n experiences . A n Eskim o an d a n Africa n g o throug hbasically th e sam e experience s whe n the y ar e born , liv e an d di e o n thi searth. This may be cliched, but ignoring this makes it rather difficult fo r thedirector to convince and move the audience, especially a foreign one.

When I directed Chekhov's plays in Turkey, at first they seemed infinitelyremote fro m tha t country' s custom s an d traditions . Bu t bot h The CherryOrchard and Uncle Vanya played t o packe d house s fo r a n unbroken fiveyears. Why?

In the Turkish Uncle Vanya everything was focussed o n love, somethingeveryone understood. Here is a beautiful, charming woman, Yelena - [o r inHingley's version, Helen] - an d three men around her . In the first rehearsalit was immediately possibl e t o sea t the woman i n a chair, make the threemen stand b y the wal l an d explai n t o them thei r part s an d the pattern oftheir relationships . One man loves and desire s the woman an d i t looks as


LEONID HEIFET Z

though she returns his feelings. The other also loves and desires her, but hedoesn't have a chance. And the third man is simply her husband whil e theother two want to take her away from him. Inside such a 'triangle', tensionsand struggles break out naturally. And at a certain distance from them, youplace a girl with large eyes (Sonya ) an d tel l he r tha t th e first man i s yourlove and dream, and that you only feel alive when you see him. The otherone, your uncle , is helpless and desperate . And the third man , your father ,has become a terror in the home.

This is only a blueprint, an outline, but it makes everything become clear.It is clear wha t a n elderl y husban d is . It is clear wha t i t means to be awoman, living with an old man, when two other men in love with her arearound. It may no t b e immediately clea r ho w falle n idol s brea k people' slives, bu t in the en d thi s als o ma y b e understood . S o working o n UncleVanya in Istanbul, I had no problems with national specifics .

Another aspect is the degree of openness in expressing feelings. Turkey isan Islami c countr y wit h age-ol d househol d tradition s an d ethics , wher eexpression i s traditionally restrained , an d a woman i s certainly no t th ecentre of the universe. And it took some effort t o find the balance betweenthe open expression of feelings which typifies modern life - and the Turkishtheatrical tradition fo r performin g lov e scenes. The power o f feeling i s thesame, bu t different nation s i n different time s expres s i t differently . Fo rinstance, I don't kno w how , in the origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatre produc -tion, Stanislavsk y a s Astrov declare d lov e t o Olga Knippe r a s YelenaAndreyevna: ho w h e too k he r b y th e hand , an d stol e he r kisse s in thatfleeting momen t when Uncle Vanya was out picking flowers. In our moderntheatre, I would recommend tha t the actor needs to be more energetic andaggressive. Today we can feel the powerful eroticis m of Chekhov's play, wecan talk about it and perform it . I believe there was a very strong masculinecharge i n Chekhov , an d the tuberculosis, loneliness , anticipatio n andseparation (from his wife, Olga Knipper) only activated it.

I am surprised to hear people arguing about whether Yelena really lovesAstrov o r at what momen t the y first notice each other . These two peopl eare visibl y burnin g wit h th e desir e to be close ; the y ar e o n th e verg e o flosing control o f themselves - an d no t onl y in the 'interrogatio n scene ' ofthe third act. It is difficult t o explain the leave-taking scene at the end of theplay logically , whe n everythin g is ready for departure, bag s packe d an dloaded - th e husban d ma y ente r a t any moment , ye t they stil l thro wthemselves a t each other and Astrov again tries to persuade Yelena to stayand g o with hi m ou t into th e 'fresh air' . Th e stronge r thi s desir e forpossession, the more the erotic charge is infused i n the actors, and the morefascinating the performance wil l be.

96



I canno t sa y I fully manage d t o achiev e this , eithe r i n th e first, o r i n th esecond production . Thi s ca n b e don e b y actors , possessin g som e moder ntechniques, an d havin g th e courag e an d determinatio n t o perfor m realdesire and carry i t to the highest level . This i s the source o f many situation sand conflicts i n the play, bu t certainl y no t th e only source . In Chekhov i t isalways importan t t o maintai n th e balanc e an d su m tota l o f all th e cause sand components o f the action: whether intimat e and personal o r social .

The objectivit y an d breadt h o f perception , th e abilit y t o se e th e under -lying cause s an d t o b e fair , al l typif y Chekho v - an d presen t majo rdifficulties fo r us . Perhaps th e bes t illustration o f thi s i s Chekhov's attitud etowards hi s ow n characters . Separat e moment s an d motif s o f th e pla y cal lfor detaile d discussion , bu t thi s i s even more the case with th e characterisa -tion! I t seem s t o m e that character s i n Uncle Vanya, a s well a s in the othe rplays, ar e ver y clos e t o Chekhov . Th e onl y characte r i n al l o f Chekhov' splays whom I really detes t is Yasha in The Cherry Orchard, bu t working o nthat play , th e acto r an d I tried t o b e objectiv e an d discove r eve n this man' s'truth' too. As for Uncle Vanya, al l the characters ar e close and clear to me,but this didn' t happen immediately .

Another entr y fro m m y ol d diary : 'Sony a . . . I t al l starte d wit h her .Fascination wit h thes e unpretentiou s country-lif e scene s bega n wit h thi stwenty-year-old girl , th e beaut y an d powe r o f he r soul , he r unbendin gdignity, her love and despair . I even blame d mysel f fo r bein g unfai r t o othe rcharacters. But Sonya proved to be the clue to al l the others . And i f initiall ythe pla y wer e t o b e retitle d Sonya, the n soo n afterward s w e woul d b erehearsing Astrov , Serebryakov , Waffles , Uncl e Vany a an d the n agai nSonya, Yelena Andreyevna , an d so on. '

I am recallin g th e pas t onl y to stres s tha t explorin g Chekho v i s always aprocess, a journey . I t ca n star t wit h an y episod e o r an y line , o r wit hcuriosity abou t on e characte r o r another : wit h Sonya , o r Telegi n (nick -named 'Waffles') , o r ol d Mary a Vasilyevn a (Maman) , an d eac h wil l lea dyou t o th e other s - and , ultimately , t o th e whol e play . Ever y on e o fChekhov's character s ha s a faith , a truth , a n individuality , an d eac h on eseems particularly close and important. 4

I a m tryin g t o understan d thes e peopl e throug h myself , my age , m yexperiences an d observations . Having lived for ove r sixty years, I have beenthrough man y o f th e situation s an d phase s o f lif e tha t ar e foun d i n thi splay. Th e onl y characte r I hav e no t bee n mysel f i s probabl y Waffles , alonely an d good-hearte d ma n wh o ha s becom e par t o f th e famil y an d th ehome. Bu t eve n her e ther e i s a certain affinity : th e lonelines s followin g th eloss o f hi s wife. I too happe n t o hav e bee n lef t alone , lik e everyone o n thi searth.

97


LEONID HEIFET Z

I even try to pu t mysel f i n Serebryakov' s shoes . After all , it is unfair tothink o f Serebryakov a s a monster, an evil creature an d the only source ofthe conflic t tha t strike s th e family . Character s in Chekhov's play s d o no tlend themselves to divisio n into the righteous an d the guilty. They canno tbe placed o n two sides of the barricade . I would b e bored to see a play inwhich the Professor i s presented only as a talentless fraud. No doubt he hashad comman d o f his professio n an d ha s worke d har d i n the field ofeducation. He has been loved by his students, and by two beautiful women :his first wife , Sonya' s mother , an d Yelen a Andreyevna . Imagin e yoursel fwith a young and beautiful wif e in the company of two men who are tryingto tak e he r awa y fro m you . Both ar e in lov e with Yelen a an d bot h quit eopenly despise the Professor. He sees it all, sees Astrov's attempts at wooingher, and this must be the reason why, from the outset, he abhors the doctor.It is not that he is right to insult Dr Astrov, but the point is that Serebryakovis unhappy in his own way, and has his own subjective truth.

Everything is important in Chekhov's characters: what makes them alike- an d different ; thei r past , an d thei r destinies , and th e subtles t nuance s offeelings. Th e ver y titl e of the play , the notion of 'Uncle Vanya ' is itself anuance. This is very difficult t o explain to a foreigner becaus e Uncle Vanyaembodies th e national sensibilitie s o f an average Russia n intellectual :incapable of great deeds; the man who shoots twice - and misses, misses hisrevenge. Bu t on the othe r hand , h e is an extremely conscientiou s man ,lonely, loving, lovable and dear, in a word - Uncle Vanya.

In spit e o f all the differences betwee n Vany a an d Astrov , the y hav ecommon destinie s an d a commo n misfortune : tha t o f failin g t o fulfi lthemselves, although one wouldn't say this when seeing Astrov for the firsttime. Failure in self-fulfilment o r in realising aspirations, whether in privatelife or in a professional career , was as much a tragedy last century, in 1897,as it is now.5 In the quarrel with the Professor an d when he is at the heightof hi s outburst , Vany a crie s tha t h e 'could becom e a Schopenhauer , aDostoyevsky'. On e know s tha t thi s i s not true . He could hav e becom esomeone else , bu t h e didn't . H e coul d hav e ha d a family, a loving wife ,children but , like Astrov, he has not. Both have grim futures: it seems justas likely that Uncle Vanya will calm down as that Astrov will drink himselfto death in the absence of love, in the hopeless humdrum drearines s of hisexistence.

In fact, everyone in this play is a loser. Not one has good luck in life. Andthe one thing suc h differen t wome n a s Yelena, 'th e splendi d woman' , an dSonya, 'the unattractive woman', have in common is bad luck. Unfortunatewomen, lik e Sonya , hav e alway s bee n abundan t i n Russia. In no othercountry is the loneliness of a woman expressed s o painfully. Nowher e else

98



does a woman have to 'be ' everything in a large house, and in a ridiculousand disunited family have to be the mother and the sister, to exhaust herselfby har d wor k becaus e ther e ar e n o prospect s fo r lov e an d persona lfulfilment. I t i s al l th e mor e remarkable , therefore , tha t i n he r situatio nSonya manages to preserve the purity and beauty of her soul.

As a character , Sony a ha s alway s bee n love d b y actresses . Ther e i s aclarity abou t Sony a whic h i s absen t fro m th e othe r characters , bu t ther ehave bee n man y faile d performance s i n playin g he r part . Wit h Yelena' scharacter i t is different: sh e is a mysterious woman, and much depends onthe actress who plays this part. In her performance, sh e has to explain andjustify th e stor m o f passion s whic h break s ou t aroun d her . I f othe rcharacters' fascination wit h her has to be 'imitated' , an d i f the men in theaudience don't share these feelings, then the play will not work. The actressmust no t jus t b e beautifu l an d feminine , bu t 'splendid' . Sh e mus t arous edesire, turn heads.

But even this is insufficient. Ever y heroine in Chekhov' s plays has somemystery. The mystery o f Yelena is - sh e is profoundly unhappy . She is notwhat he r admirers , worshippers , think sh e i s when the y ar e caugh t u p intheir frustration: sh e is not a femme fatale, or 'a mermaid'. She is alive anddecent, and life is hard on her. It is hard to put up with the situation whenshe is with he r husband an d the men ar e struggling ove r her . It is hard t oconceal her growing passion for Astrov , for whom , from th e moment theymeet, sh e has bee n burnin g wit h desir e an d love . But he r breeding , stric tmorals, the presence of her husband, her own conscience and reticence, andthat wretche d Uncl e Vany a wh o chase s he r everywhere , o r Sony a wh oherself i s in love with Astrov - al l this keeps Astrov and Yelena apart , andtheir paths will never again cross . . .

Much mor e coul d b e sai d abou t thi s play , abou t eac h o f it s character sand scenes . The longer on e lives , the more there i s to say . The play pull syou i n irresistibly . And in spit e o f al l the turbulence o f the action , al l thesquabbles and rebellions, and the hopelessness o f this dreary everyday life ,there is cajoling poetry in this play. This is the poetry of feelings and words,of nature and lifestyle, which grows out of the simplest things.

Perhaps in no othe r pla y o f Chekhov' s hav e I heard suc h mournful an dtouching musi c o f departure , expresse d i n jus t on e word : 'Left' . (O r'Gone'.)6 Th e Serebryakov s wil l exit , th e bell s wil l jingl e an d Astro v wil lsay: 'Left' . Th e nanny, Marina, wil l enter , followed b y Sonya: 'Left' . An dthe ol d Maman wil l echo: 'Left' . Thi s refrain alternate s i n perfect rhyth mwith simpl e action s an d exchange s o f neutra l phrases . The n Astro v wil lleave ('Left' , 'Left ' . . .) - an d thes e peopl e wil l remai n t o liv e ou t thei rdays.

99


LEONID HEIFET Z

The twentiet h centur y i s runnin g out . Th e Russia n poe t Osi pMandelshtam calle d thi s centur y 'th e wolf-hound' . An d I would cal l it theage of Chekhov . Not o f Hitler o r Mussolini , o f Stalin o r Chairman Mao , ofChurchill o r of Roosevelt. I t is more likel y tha t thi s i s the ag e o f CharlieChaplin an d of Einstein , bu t most o f all , o f Chekhov . Th e age of hi striumph, hi s bloodles s victory . Ver y soo n (wit h onl y a n instan t in eternitybefore th e ne w millenniu m i s upon us ) w e ma y b e plunge d int o an abyss.This evil , blood-thirsty , disgustin g centur y will laps e int o th e abyss , to theroar o f missiles , th e rattling o f assaul t weapon s an d the groans o f th evictims o f war. Bu t it will g o dow n in history a s th e ag e of Uncle Vanya' sbitter revelatio n an d great love , alon g wit h Chekhov' s warnin g agains tmaking false , graven , images . Biblica l truth s transcen d an d triump h ove rcenturies. And Chekho v has triumphed too .

I would b e curious to know whethe r a young director i n the next century ,reading Sonya's monologue, will feel fury ?

NOTES1 Excerpt s from this diary were published in Teatr, 3 , 1978, pp. 85-94 .2 N . F. Belchikov and others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie, sochinenii i

pisem v 301 totnakh, Moscow , 1974-83 , (Anton Chekhov, Collected Worksand Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow, 1974-83) . From Works, vol. xin, p . 107.All subsequent - Russian - quotations from Chekho v come from thi s edition ofthe Collected Works and Letters.

3 Heifet z i s here referrin g t o such Imperia l Theatre s a s the Mosco w Bolsho iTheatre o r the Mal y Theatre , in fact t o al l theatre s which were no t privatel yowned or/and private or subscription theatres like the MAT, or Korsh's Theatrewhere The Bear was premiered.

4 Stanislavksy' s famou s an d much-quoted remar k tha t 'ther e ar e no smal l parts,only small actors' seems relevant here.

5 189 7 was the year of publication of Uncle Vanya.6 Ofte n translate d int o Englis h a s 'Gone' . Ther e is ambivalence an d dualit y in

either word, whether in Russian or English, and different n o matter whether it is'Gone' or 'Left'. Ye t each carries the same finality.


9TREVOR NUN N

Notes from a director: Three Sisters

Anything tha t I have t o sa y abou t Chekho v fro m a director' s perspectiv eamounts to a testament to his extraordinary durability , the sheer toughnessof the material and how well made his plays are . In fact, th e experiences Ihave to relate are full o f compromise a t every level and thus quite oppositeto any idealistic or ideological approach. What shines through my memoryof th e experienc e i s th e pla y - th e indestructibilit y o f th e pla y almos tbeyond ruination. The story I have to tell more or less proves this.

I wanted the Royal Shakespeare Company both for political reasons andreasons proceedin g fro m m y ow n socia l convictions , t o moun t a kind o fsmall-scale touring operation , whic h would enable the company 't o reachthe parts o f the country that othe r beer s could not reach'.1 I wanted to goto place s wher e ther e wer e n o existin g theatr e buildings , o r wher e ther ewas an absenc e o f a theatre-going habi t o r tradition . B y definition, there -fore, places that would seem to have been 'written off fo r theatre.

I wanted thi s because it was a time (1979 ) when I was trying to get theArts Council to think differently about the RSC's approach to touring, andto persuade them to invest money in us taking the entire Stratford operatio nfor an extended period to Newcastle. I wanted to replicate the approach ofthe Berline r Ensemble , whic h ha d take n ever y aspec t o f thei r repertoir eoperation t o differen t area s i n Eas t German y fo r a perio d o f tim e - aresidency, rathe r tha n ou r tourin g syste m o f takin g on e productio n fleet -ingly t o a venu e fo r a wee k a t a time . Bu t I realised tha t i f I won tha targument wit h th e Art s Council , I had to b e abl e t o offe r a concomitan tform of touring to create a balance.

That balance would bes t be achieved by creating a small-scale operatio nwhich by definition woul d present a kind of 'rough theatre':2 we would betaking ou r ow n stag e platfor m an d lightin g towers , an d goin g t o place ssuch as social centres , community halls , church halls , town squares . I wasopen to any and every suggestion about where the company might go, butit was axiomatic that our presentations would be 'unsophisticated' .


TREVOR NUN N

Finally, the new endeavour was approved by the Arts Council. As a resultI thought I would have to get somebody of a very high theatrical profile t obe responsibl e fo r th e tour , otherwis e i t woul d happe n mor e o r les sanonymously an d unnoticed. The person I turned t o was the leading acto rwith whom I had been working for the previous two years, Ian McKellen. Isuggested to Ian that he should use and adapt the principles of The Actors'Company,3 wit h whic h h e ha d bee n involve d a s a founde r member , an dbuild up a company of artists for whom he would be ultimately responsible.I aske d hi m t o b e involve d i n pla y selection , choosin g an d plannin g th erepertoire along with the tour manager, and advised him to think o f this asa semi-autonomous operation . Ian agreed. Then, a couple of months later,he telephoned m e to say , 'I'v e forme d a group, an d accordin g t o Actors 'Company principles, we have debated who we most want to direct us andnow, representing the Company, I am saying that we want you. ' Now thatwas no t quit e th e poin t - I mean th e idea o f Ia n organisin g th e tour wa sthat he shoul d tak e responsibilit y fo r i t an d I woul d no t otherwis e b einvolved.

Anyway, his phone calls persisted and Ian said that it would make all thedifference i f I would validate the project by agreeing to direct. I understoodhis thinking, much though I resisted him; by then it was established that hewas going to present a production o f Twelfth Night, and was urging me todo a production o f The Seagull. From the n on , thi s stor y i s increasingl yabout manageria l pragmatism . I though t abou t th e actor s Ia n ha dassembled. I understood, of course, that he must have assembled them withsome sense that The Seagull would be an appropriate play for them . But Ibelieved tha t i t di d no t provid e a balanc e t o th e castin g requirement s o fTwelfth Night. I could se e that there was great value in doing a Chekhov;actors know that workin g o n a Chekhov play is likely to be a democraticexperience an d tha t everybod y i s required t o provide a n equa l amoun t ofcontribution and initiative. The Chekhov play becomes 'company-forming 'material. But I assure you , and I must b e honest abou t this , my choice ofChekhov wa s hard-nosed an d practical . I could se e the company value ofdoing a Chekhov play, but I concluded they were talking about the wrongone. I decided to study the acting company that had been put together, andsee which Chekhov play offered bette r casting opportunities. The cart wasmost emphatically before the horse.

I had seen Three Sisters in a very highly regarded production directe d byDr Jonathan Miller. 4 I think I had also seen a television version which wasnot particularl y distinguishe d an d I had see n a productio n a t th e Worl dTheatre Seaso n tha t struc k m e as being over emphatic, heavy-handed an dself-indulgently slow . I had few preconceptions abou t the play. I knew that



what Jonathan ha d done , according t o critica l authority , had bee n to fre ethe play of a number o f preconceptions, bu t I can't sa y I knew what thosepreconceptions ha d been . I rea d th e pla y i n a n immediatel y availabl etranslation by Richard Cottrell, 5 with whom I'd been at university. I foundit a ver y accessibl e translatio n wit h ver y clea r intentions , bu t t o som eextent i t lacked anythin g very idiomatic. It was careful, clear , clean. Morethan a literal translation , i t had insigh t bu t no grea t sens e o f place o r theRussian idiom. It occurred to me that i t would be very good to work withsuch a translation s o that somethin g more richly idiomatic could be foundduring the rehearsal process , rather than to work with something minutelyinstructed by the translator from the word go.

So, I put i t to Ian that i n fact w e should thin k abou t Three Sisters. Ia nwas happy to give me free rein just so long as I did something; it was not acase that I had t o argu e in an y great detail . So by chance, rathe r tha n bydesign, I found mysel f involved in a production o f Three Sisters and foun dmyself more or less inheriting a cast. I suspect that this is a far cry from thecircumstances i n whic h mos t director s woul d agre e t o proceed , whethe rStanislavsky,6 Tovstonogov7 or Lyubimov,8 or contemporary director s whohave learned from the Russian tradition. Such a contemporary director , likeMax Stafford-Clark, 9 would , I am sure , never contemplat e proceedin g i nthis way. I was fortunate tha t the group of people who had been assembledwere all immensely intelligent, and brought with them no amour propre, orthe kin d o f personalit y i n constan t nee d o f bein g stroked . The y wer eimmediately and passionately interested and engaged with their characters.It was really only as a second wave of perception that I began to understandthat I had presented myself with a very considerable conundrum.

The circumstanc e o f ou r travellin g theatr e necessitate d th e audienc ebeing seate d o n thre e sides . Fo r space s wher e ther e wa s n o existin gauditorium o r rake d seating , w e ha d t o erec t a platform stage . S o I wasreading a pla y tha t ha s th e specifi c requirement s o f rooms , door s an delements o f furniture tha t would seem to be integral and then, of course, Iwent through a period of panic.

I feared that either the tour had to be rescheduled so we would go only toexisting theatres, and that a full-scale desig n for the play could be made, orthat w e woul d hav e t o reconside r an d pla n a differen t play . Bu t the n Istarted t o thin k o f Three Sisters as a poetic play, a s a play o f heightene dlanguage an d poeti c ideas . I n a sense , I starte d t o thin k o f i t i n Shake -spearean terms. The seventeenth-century bare stage and back wall providedactors with the capability o f entering an d leaving an uncluttered environ -ment, the specificity and detail of which could be created through language.I found tha t thi s notion entirel y released m e from th e panic , and a s all of

103


TREVOR NUN N

the clutte r an d furnitur e an d bric-a-bra c o f nineteenth-centur y socia l lif edisappeared ou t o f m y mind , s o a lo t o f th e accretion s o f tha t theatr etradition disappeared . I suppose in my own defence I should add that thi swas befor e Pete r Brook' s brav e stag e adaptatio n o f The Cherry Orchardwhich I think o f a s the best , the mos t affectin g productio n o f a Chekho vplay that I have seen.10

It wa s clea r t o m e tha t becaus e I wa s plannin g a mixtur e o f a 'poo rtheatre'11 an d 'roug h theatre ' relationshi p betwee n th e pla y an d th eaudience, i t wa s vita l tha t everythin g b e suggested and tha t th e deman dshould b e mad e o n th e spectators ' collectiv e imaginatio n t o provid ewhatever scenicall y was missing. For example, I had n o problem with thedemand fo r ther e t o b e a larg e numbe r o f peopl e a t a lunc h party ,necessitating a huge table and the need to solve the method of its arrival, aswell a s an y ensuin g sightlin e restrictions . A 'table ' coul d b e mad e b y agroup of actors using only chairs, forks an d napkins. What was importantwas that they should be able to crystallise minute behavioural details at thislunch party , s o everything o f thei r characters ' physica l live s coul d b eselected t o provid e a recognisabl e an d convincin g clarity , an d coul d b echoreographed t o make each textual an d comedic focus. I discovered tha tthe absence of the furniture als o made the scene intensely comic; I enjoyeddoing thos e ver y thing s tha t woul d hav e bee n impossibl e wit h th e table .That is not the same as saying we were no longer in a naturalistic play, butthat instead we were presenting a heightened poetical experience.

The music for th e production provide d a similar case in point. It wouldhave bee n contradictor y i n thi s 'poor ' theatr e environmen t t o emplo y asound departmen t wit h state-of-the-ar t electroni c amplifier s reproducin glarge-scale instrumenta l musi c cues . I t wa s extremel y releasin g t o kno wthat I had to find an actor who could play the piano, an actor wh o couldplay th e guitar , a n acto r wh o coul d pla y th e violi n an d tha t th e all -important musi c o f the productio n woul d com e onl y from thos e sources .This decisio n provide d th e productio n wit h a n unshakeabl e authenticity .The music , whic h becam e fundamentall y importan t t o th e experienc e o fChekhov's play , wa s organic . Ther e wa s n o 'background ' score , nothin gwas overlai d o r forced ; instea d th e actor s contribute d wha t the y could ,which resulted in something touching and irreducible.

I suppose how we approached the incident of the spinning top, the child'stoy give n t o Irin a a t th e lunc h party , demonstrate s m y poin t bette r tha nanything. Once I had banished the tapedeck a s the provider o f music cues,it became imperative to banish it for everything . The real spinning top weused mad e a perfectly acceptabl e an d perfectl y audibl e whirrin g musica lsound whe n i t wa s pumpe d up . Bu t i t wa s no t haunting ; i t wa s no t

104



memorable; it was not poetic; and so one day I experimented with a silentspinning top and asked the actors to provide the sound.

Something muc h mor e extraordinar y and , I felt , mor e organi c wa sexpressed tha n b y the rea l sound . In rehearsal , I developed th e possibilityby asking each character to make their wish - i n the spirit of the question:'What woul d your birthda y wis h be?' . The n I aske d eac h o f the m t oconcentrate o n tha t wish , an d transfor m i t int o a singl e an d sustaine dsound. When eventually we put al l those single sounds together, we foundthat there was an inexplicable mysteriou s cadence composed o f low notesand high notes, sighing notes, yearning notes, impatient and frustrated an ddiscordant notes . S o th e spinnin g top , surrounde d b y everybod y a t th elunch party , mad e thi s unplaceable , indefinabl e hauntin g sound . S o whatwe i n th e audienc e wer e hearing , wa s wha t th e character s wer e hearing ,their inne r thought s abou t thei r futur e - thei r imagination s capture d a t amoment in time.

I decide d no t t o interrogat e th e actor s abou t thes e particula r inne rthoughts bu t i t i s probable tha t th e girl s were communicatin g a yearningfor Moscow in one way or another. However, the yearnings that each of thecharacters in that boisterous household has, proceeding from unhappiness ,experience o r discontent , ar e complex an d intrinsicall y interrelate d t o thepresence o f the other characters , so the exercise (an d the resultant expres-sion of it in the production) provided them with a moment of fusion, a timeof complete interconnection.

The fac t tha t I had remove d everythin g o f th e traditiona l stagin g tool srevealed fo r u s excitin g answers , mor e poeti c an d mor e integra l answer sthan might otherwise have been the case. At the very beginning of the play,I knew tha t i t wa s necessar y t o hav e th e rea l soun d o f a piano an d tha tTusenbach shoul d actuall y pla y the piano ; we should se e him playing thepiano; it was vita l to indicate the Baron's breeding an d sophistication , hi scertainty tha t indee d h e coul d provid e i n tha t household , i n tha t town ,what nobod y els e ther e coul d provide . S o th e presenc e o f a rea l pian o(which of course provides the image of a locked piano) was very important.Additionally, I needed something in the bare white space which would say'we are in a house, indoors' ; s o I chose one very large, very male, leatherarmchair. Quite simply we agreed, 'That is father's chair. '

This solitar y armchai r wa s ofte n occupie d b y al l thre e sister s together .They clustered round it; there was a sort of seniority about who was on theseat, who o n the arm . Because i t wa s the onl y furnitur e i n the roo m an dbecause th e sister s kne w it s significance , it s presenc e ha d nothin g t o d owith answerin g th e usua l naturalisti c question : 'ho w i s th e roo m furn -ished?'. Rather , i t ha d th e identit y o f anothe r character , a permanen t

1 0 5


TREVOR NUN N

reminder of loss, of change, an anchor that restrained the sisters and whichthey could not drag in any direction. It is entirely possible that some peoplein the audience may have seen the whole range of significance i n our singlechair; man y woul d not , bu t wha t woul d hav e bee n unmissabl e wa s th econnection that each of the three sisters had to that inanimate object and itshistory.

Two kinds of rehearsal work kept pace with each other. I mentioned thatwe worked improvisationally, bu t not exclusively so. It was important tha twe studied the textual material , s o we analysed togethe r - collectivel y wetook every utterance in the play apart, and as a group we identified al l thepossibilities of textual meaning at each interrelated moment. We broke theplay dow n int o units , i n th e conventiona l Stanislavskia n way . The analy -tical proces s was very exhausting. I think w e spent mor e than tw o weeksreading and talking, and very occasionally turning our insights into action.But then in the evenings - w e did our situational and individual improvisa-tion work.

I foun d i t immensel y helpfu l tha t th e textua l an d improvisationa ldisciplines more or less kept pace with each other, and once we felt we hadenough to go on, the middle period of rehearsal was exhilarating. We werenot decision-making; possibilities were offering themselve s and being livedthrough. I was able to allow improvised scene s to run on for longe r than Inormally would because the company had so much background. I also gavethe actor s licenc e t o pla y wit h th e tex t whe n the y fel t somethin g mor eidiomatic was necessary. We would then discuss those textual variants anddecide which had been unhelpful, an d which had worked.

This proces s le d t o a sense tha t w e were not dealin g wit h a learned o rreceived text , a tex t t o b e recited ; w e wer e abl e t o she d th e literar yconstraints whic h traditionall y attac h t o a play tha t ha s bee n 'previousl ywritten down' . Instead, there was a sense that th e play was developing itsown rhythms and movements, because to some extent i t was being writtenas it was being created in the moment. I am in danger of exaggeration here.This 'creative' textual process didn't seek to change Chekhov's content, butto discover an idiom.

The actors reported tha t they were liberated b y being in an empty spaceand involved in making their improvised choreography; but simultaneouslyworking i n th e minutes t analytica l detail , bot h befor e an d afte r th eimprovised event , le d t o unfettere d moment s o f emotiona l exchange . Sorehearsals reached a point of imaginative 'lift-off .

As for my input as director, I wish I could say that I had 'conducted ' theplay bu t I thin k tha t woul d sugges t a controlle d overview . I wa s to oconcerned abou t ho w th e smalles t influenc e o f though t o r gestur e coul d

106



change meaning, and so change what we had arrived at through consensus.Therefore, I would say I thought of myself as receiving more than initiatingwhat was happening in rehearsal. Well, let's say it was two-way traffic .

The band music at the end was of course taped. This was the only pointin th e productio n wher e somethin g occurre d on-stag e tha t di d no t gro worganically fro m th e wor k o r inventio n o f th e company . W e talke d a tlength abou t ho w we might b e able to achiev e the passing ban d b y otherimpressionistic means, but no satisfactory solution emerged.

John Napier's12 work was very important. I have talked abou t a 'rough 'theatre productio n bu t actuall y th e environmen t Joh n gav e us , a whit eexpanse, was a purifying environment . It enabled an audience to really seein clear images, as it were against a photographer's cloth, to see the smallestdetails o f behaviour . Bu t i t als o create d a disciplin e whic h expose dwhatever was extraneous as well. Our white environment required unusualeconomy fro m th e actor s an d a stric t discipline , s o the productio n wen tthrough a furthe r stag e o f refinin g th e poeti c sparenes s whe n th e se tarrived. Abov e an d behin d th e character s wa s a faded 'pentimento ' icon ,barely visibl e o n the whit e wall , which came to hav e a different meanin gfor eac h o f them: regre t tha t traditio n wa s fading ; pleasur e o r convictio nthat i t mus t continu e t o fade ; certaint y tha t th e futur e woul d li e i nsomething else . The fain t externa l hin t als o gave us a sense o f the sor t oftown that the Prozorovs lived in. It was not so much an icon as a memoryof an icon.

Curiously, Three Sisters is not a play I would want to do again. I had anindelible experience, even though I feel so much could s o easily have gonewrong i n suc h unusua l an d primitiv e circumstances . S o much t o d o wit hthe theatre concerns elements of chemistry and good fortune; mystica l andindefinable element s whic h ar e quit e intangibl e ca n tur n out , lik e 'th eforce',13 to be with you. They were overwhelmingly with me in this case. Ifelt deeply grateful fo r the experience and I wouldn't have the hubris to sayI migh t d o bette r wit h th e pla y i n a differen t version , o r a t a secon dattempt.

I hope to do another Chekhov play one day soon. At present, I'm terriblydisappointed because I have just been beaten to the punch: for a number ofyears I hav e bee n plannin g t o d o a productio n o f The Wood-Demon -largely I suppose becaus e I want to show that The Wood-Demon i s not afailed attemp t a t Uncle Vanya - a well-worn critical misapprehension bot hof thi s play and , mor e fundamentally , o f how writer s write . I t i s so clearthat wit h The Wood-Demon Chekho v wa s makin g a pla y tha t wa sfundamentally optimisti c - a heavily challenge d optimis m - bu t a funda -mentally forward-looking an d positive accoun t o f an assortment o f young

107


TREVOR NUN N

lives. Extraordinarily youthfu l i n tone, the play i s about no t succumbin g t olife, bu t abou t survivin g crisis . It ha s a las t ac t where th e young people ar ein th e gri p o f regre t an d guil t bu t the y com e throug h i t i n thei r separat eways an d the y g o on . Som e writer s an d reviewer s wit h twenty-twent yhindsight hav e suggeste d tha t becaus e Chekho v reuse d som e o f thi snarrative materia l t o writ e a very differen t pla y a t the en d o f hi s career , h ehad bee n strugglin g t o writ e Uncle Vanya bu t wa s i n som e way too callo wor inexperienced t o get it right. This is nonsense.

My muc h admire d colleague , Richar d Nelson, 14 agree d t o translat e th eplay. He di d a wonderfully idiomati c an d speakabl e jo b o n it , bu t w e bot hremained worrie d abou t th e structur e o f th e narrative . Richard' s respons ewas t o as k m e wha t w e woul d d o i f w e wer e i n th e film busines s an d ha dencountered suc h structura l problems ? 'Le t m e kee p al l Chekhov' s mate -rial', h e urged 'bu t le t m e writ e th e film script. ' Wonderfu l idea . O f cours ewhat Richar d fashione d wa s a totall y 'stageable ' film script, 15 an d sinc eThe Wood-Demon i s almos t neve r done , I thought ther e woul d no t b e to omuch critica l distres s an d academi c complain t i f I presente d Richard' s'version'. S o I was plannin g t o d o thi s versio n her e a t th e Cotteslo e bu t Ihave jus t hear d tha t a company unknow n t o m e i s preparing a productio nof The Wood-Demon ove r th e rive r a t th e Playhous e Theatre. 16 Th edifficulty i s tha t i f the y d o i t ver y well , the n clearl y i t woul d b e a ba d ide afor anothe r productio n t o com e alon g i n quic k succession , precisel ybecause i t i s such a rarity . Bu t Catc h 22 , i f the y d o no t d o i t well , opinio nwill be influenced agains t anothe r productio n o f an unsuccessful apprentic epiece.

We ar e doin g a ne w productio n o f The Cherry Orchard a t th e Roya lNational Theatr e i n Septembe r 2000 , i n th e Lyttelto n Theatre . Afte r th emillennium celebrations , I fee l tha t I wan t t o direc t a smal l theatr eproduction o f The Cherry Orchard. Chekho v i s 'th e othe r grea t writer ' -Shakespeare an d Chekhov . An d lik e Shakespeare , Chekho v change s i nmeaning an d relevanc e fro m generatio n t o generation . N o productio n i sever definitive . Thes e ar e play s tha t on e coul d wor k o n fo r th e whol e o fone's life and never exhaust them .

NOTESThis chapter is taken from a n interview with the editors a t the Royal Nationa lTheatre, London, June 1997.

1 Thi s i s a colloquia l referenc e t o a ver y popula r Heineke n lage r televisio nadvertisement from th e late 1970 s which sold Heineken a s a beer that 'reachesthe parts that other beers cannot reach'.

1 0 8



2 Se e chapter entitle d 'Th e Roug h Theatre ' i n Pete r Brook , The Empty Space,Harmondsworth, England, 1984, pp. 73-100. (First published London, 1968.)

3 Th e Actors' Company was created in 1972 with the intention of giving back toactors som e o f th e creativ e an d artisti c contro l the y ha d los t t o directors , b yinviting directors to work with them (instea d o f vice versa), and also partly totry an d compensat e fo r th e declin e o f th e repertory system . See chapter 1 1 inthis volume.

4 Three Sisters directe d b y Jonathan Mille r a t the Cambridg e Theatre , London ,1976.

5 Three Sisters directe d b y Trevor Nun n opene d a t th e RSC' s The Othe r Place ,Stratford-upon-Avon, o n 2 9 Septembe r 1979 , befor e touring . Th e compan yconsisted o f himsel f a s director, Richard Cottrel l a s translator, John Napie r a sdesigner an d a cast which included: Timothy Spal l a s Andrey; Susan Tracy asNatasha; Janet Dale as Olga; Suzanne Bertish as Masha; Emily Richard as Irinaand Edward Petherbridge as Vershinin. See chapter 11 in this volume.

6 Konstanti n Stanislavsk y (1863-1938) . Co-founder wit h Vladimir Nemirovich -Danchenko o f th e (private ) Mosco w Ar t Theatre . Stanislavsk y wa s th e firs tdirector (a t the Mosco w Ar t Theatre ) o f Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters,The Cherry Orchard and Ivanov. He was also the first performer o f the leadingparts o f Trigori n (The Seagull, 1896) ; Astrov (Uncle Vanya, 1899), Vershinin(Three Sisters, 1901); an d Gaye v (The Cherry Orchard, 1904). Stanislavsky' s'System' o f actin g technique s - firs t misinterprete d the n reinterprete d i nAmerica, a s 'The Method ' - forme d bot h th e firs t coheren t analysi s o f actin gtechniques and (ofte n mistakenly ) th e metho d o f approachin g 'naturalistic 'plays. Nemirovich-Danchenk o wa s a mor e accurat e interprete r o f Chekhov' splays, and Chekhov's unhappiness with Stanislavsky's interpretation of his playsis no w legendary , an d wel l documente d i n severa l collection s o f Chekhov' sletters. See Bibliography and Jean Benedetti's The Moscow Art Theatre Letters,and specificall y Edwar d Brau n i n chapte r 5 o f The Director and the Stage,London, 1982. See also chapters 3, 12, 14 and 15 in this volume.

7 Georg i Tovstonogov, 1915-89 . Born in Tbilisi, capital o f what was to becomethe Sovie t Republi c o f Georgia , Tovstonogo v graduate d i n 193 8 fro m GITI S(The Sovie t Stat e Theatr e School) . He becam e Artisti c Directo r o f th e Gork yTheatre, Leningrad. Amongst many othe r innovatory productions , hi s produc-tion o f Three Sisters in 196 5 coincide d wit h th e post-Stalinis t 'Thaw' . Hi s'credo' ma y b e summarise d a s 'th e eliminatio n o f wha t i s possibl e bu t no tessential'. Fo r furthe r information , se e als o a Frenc h versio n o f hi s auto -biography, Gueorgui Tovstonogov: Quarante ans de tnise en scene, Moscow,1976; Ver a Gottlieb , Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia,Cambridge, 1984 ; Laurence Senelick's The Chekhov Theatre: A Century of thePlays in Performance, Cambridge , 1997 ; an d se e in thi s volume , chapter s 1 4and 15.

8 Yur i Lyubimov (1917 - ) was Artistic Director o f the radical an d controversia lTaganka Theatre, Moscow - 'th e hub of artistic dissent'. Lyubimov's 'Brechtian'approach t o Chekhov' s plays , an d i n particula r t o hi s productio n o f ThreeSisters, 1981, has made him, with Tovstonogov , Efro s an d Heifetz , on e o f themost radical of Russian interpreters of Chekhov on the Russian stage. Describedby some as 'the theatrica l conscience o f his nation', an d b y others viewed as a

1 0 9


TREVOR NUN N

'deserter', Lyubimo v ha d hi s Sovie t passpor t withdraw n whil e workin g i nLondon in 198 4 on his production o f Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment atThe Lyric , Hammersmith . Lyubimov' s production s ar e notabl e fo r hi s us e ofnon-naturalistic techniques. See chapters 14 and 15 in this volume.

9 Ma x Stafford-Clar k (bor n 1941 ) wa s Artisti c Directo r o f th e Roya l Cour tTheatre, London , fro m 1979-93 , a n d K currentl y Artisti c Directo r o f th ecompany Ou t o f Joint , whic h h e founde d i n 1993 . Renowne d bot h fo r hi sproductions o f many new plays - b y Caryl Churchill, Timberlake Wertenbaker,and other s - h e i s als o a majo r classica l director . Hi s mos t recen t Chekho vproduction wa s hi s 199 6 Three Sisters at th e Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith ,London.

10 The Cherry Orchard, or in Brook's French translation, La Cerisaie, opene d a tLes Bouffes d u Nord , Brook' s Pari s theatre , i n May 1981 , designed b y ChloeObolensky. See chapters 12 and 14 in this volume.

11 'Poo r theatre ' wa s a ter m originall y coine d b y th e Polis h directo r Jerz yGrotowski, i n his book Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. Eugenio Barba, London,1976, p. 19 . (First published in Denmark, 1968. )

12 Joh n Napier is a renowned scenographer who has worked with Trevor Nunn onseveral productions . Hi s design s includ e Nicholas Nickleby, Les Miserables,Miss Saigon, Cats and Starlight Express.

13 'Ma y the Force be with you' was said by the character Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi toLuke Skywalker in the feature film Star Wars (1977) directed by George Lucas,designating the transmission of supernatural powers.

14 Th e playwright , Richar d Nelson , whose work include s Sensibilities and Sense;Two Shakespearean Actors; Some Americans Abroad, and Misha's Party withthe Russian playwrigh t Alexande r Gelma n fo r th e Roya l Shakespear e Theatr eCompany and The Moscow Art Theatre.

15 Se e chapters 4 and 13 in this volume.16 Directe d by Anthony Clark a t The Playhouse Theatre in London's West End in

June 1997.


IOEDWARD BRAU N

The Cherry Orchard

In 1963 , th e Marxis t criti c an d philosophe r Geor g Lukac s resume d hi scritique of Brecht's epic theatre, questioning its necessity in the depiction ofsocial change:

Even without alienatio n effects, writer s have succeeded not just in surprisingthe audience , bu t i n movin g the m profoundl y b y dramatizin g th e contra -dictions of a given social order . . . [Chekhov's] plays are built on the conflictbetween th e subjectiv e intention s o f hi s character s an d thei r objectiv etendencies an d significance . Thi s constantl y create s a divide d impressio n i nthe minds of the audience. On the one hand, they understand the characters'feelings an d ca n eve n sympathiz e wit h them . A t th e sam e time , the y ar eforced int o a n intense experience o f the tragic , tragi-comic o r comic conflic tbetween these subjective feelings and the objective social reality.1

Whether the objective social reality is apparent as a determining factor inall o f Chekhov' s majo r play s i s debatable . Certainly , i n hi s earl y dram aPlatonov (as it is now known) the chaotic action serves to convey a pictureof the Russian landowning gentry in terminal decline.2 Similarly, in his nextplay th e characte r o f Ivano v embodie s th e sens e o f worthlessnes s an ddisillusionment tha t paralysed the educated classes when the high hopes ofliberal refor m an d modernisatio n engendere d b y the emancipatio n o f th eserfs wer e extinguishe d b y th e accessio n i n 188 1 o f th e autocrati c Tsa rAlexander II I afte r th e assassinatio n o f hi s more progressiv e fathe r Alex -ander II . However, b y comparison wit h thes e earl y work s relativel y littl eindication o f th e broade r socia l contex t i s give n i n th e thre e play s tha tfollowed. I t i s true tha t i n Uncle Vanya Astrov's hopeles s struggl e agains trural backwardness mirrors Chekhov's own experience as a landowner andunpaid country doctor a t his Melikhovo estate, but in The Seagull the onlyagrarian problem seems to be the availability o f carriage horses for a driveinto town a t harves t time . Similarly , in Three Sisters, th e pervasive atmo -sphere is one of provincial stagnation with little prospect of change, thoughthere is an element of class conflict implici t in the vulgar Natasha's ruthless


EDWARD BRAU N

appropriation o f th e hous e fro m he r sociall y superio r sisters-in-la w an dtheir demoralised brother. However, it is not until The Cherry Orchard thatthe process of social change becomes the central concern, resulting in a textthat i n originalit y o f for m an d complexit y o f subjec t matte r wen t fa rbeyond his earlier plays.

The declin e o f th e lande d gentr y wa s a crucia l proble m i n nineteenth -century Russia. By 1859 one-third of the estates and two-thirds of the serfsbelonging to landowners were mortgaged t o the stat e o r to private banks.The Emancipation Ac t of 1 8 61 was designed to address this crisis throughthe redemption payments tha t the peasants were to make for the land thattheir forme r master s chos e t o transfe r t o them , bu t i n consequenc e th elandowners coul d n o longe r cal l o n the fre e labour , tool s an d animal s oftheir former serfs . In the 1870s the gentry still owned one-third of all arableland, but by 1905 its share had declined to 22 per cent, of which one-thirdwas rented to the peasantry. Few landowners had any grasp of agricultur eor accountin g an d man y o f the m spen t lon g period s awa y fro m thei restates, leavin g thei r affair s i n th e hand s o f corrup t o r incompeten tmanagers (i n The Cherry Orchard the responsibility i s shared betwee n thetwenty-four-year-old adopte d daughte r Varya and the accident-prone clerkYepikhodov). A s a consequenc e o f suc h neglec t numerou s estate s cam eunder th e hamme r t o mee t long-accumulate d debts , no t excludin g suc htime-honoured name s as Dolgorukov, Golitsyn, Stroganov and Obolensky .During the reign of Alexander II I emergency fiscal measures were taken tohalt th e erosio n o f thi s clas s o n who m th e entir e economi c an d socia lstability o f th e empire depended , bu t the y faile d t o preven t vas t tract s ofland passing into the hands o f a small minority o f entrepreneurs, many ofthem emancipated serfs and their sons, who made light of the unfavourabl ecredit term s availabl e fro m th e newl y establishe d Peasants ' Ban k an dreadily took to money-making as a way of life.3

The them e o f bankrup t estate s an d th e ris e o f th e ne w entrepreneuria lclass wa s commo n i n post-emancipatio n literatur e an d drama , thoug h i tinspired no works o f lasting significance. I n the case of Chekhov, it is easyto forge t amids t th e mayhe m a t th e en d o f Platonov that th e spendthrif twidow Anna Petrovn a an d he r idle stepson fac e evictio n fro m thei r estat efollowing it s purchase a t auctio n b y the rapaciou s businessma n Vengero -vich. I t wa s a subjec t tha t h e wa s t o retur n t o i n a numbe r o f stories ,notably 'Lat e Blossoms' , 'A n Unwanted Victory ' (bot h 1882 ) an d ' A Visitto Friends ' (1898), 4 i n whic h th e pligh t o f th e Lose v famil y closel yresembles that of Ranevskaya and her brother in The Cherry Orchard.

Chekhov wa s well placed t o observe the fecklessness an d incompetenc eof landowners during the six years he spent running his own five-hundred -


The Cherry Orchard

acre propert y a t Melikhovo , sout h o f Moscow , whic h h e purchase d i n1892. Durin g tha t tim e h e als o witnesse d th e gradua l declin e o f th eBabkino estate, which belonged to his old friends Alexe i and Maria Kiselev.In December 1897 , Maria wrote to Chekhov: 'At Babkino many things arein a stat e o f collapse , fro m th e owner s t o th e building s . . . th e maste rhimself ha s become an old infant, amiabl e but rather demoralised.' 5 Threeyears late r th e estat e wa s finall y sold , it s valu e greatl y enhance d b y th ecompletion of a railway line from Moscow which made the land a desirablelocation for dacha s for city-dwellers . Alexei Kiselev became a director o f abank i n th e neighbourin g tow n - jus t lik e Gaev , an d wit h th e sam ehandsome salary of six thousand roubles.

Both ' A Visit to Friends ' and The Cherry Orchard owed a great dea l toChekhov's observatio n o f th e Kiselevs . In ' A Visit t o Friends ' a Mosco wlawyer, Podgorin , visit s hi s ol d friends , th e dissolut e Serge i Losev an d hi swife Tatyana , whos e estate i s shortly du e to be auctioned t o pay of f thei rdebts after year s of neglect. Tatyana fondly imagine s that i f only Podgorinwould marr y he r beautifu l siste r Nadezhd a al l woul d b e well , bu t face dwith this prospect he makes a hasty departure for Moscow and permanentbachelorhood, abandonin g th e Losev s t o thei r fate. 6 Whils t th e stor yanticipates The Cherry Orchard i n a numbe r o f details , i t remain s a nencounter tha t take s plac e i n the cours e o f a day an d a nigh t withi n th eimmediate famil y circle , stoppin g shor t o f th e sal e o f th e estat e an d th edispersal of the household.

The Cherry Orchard was an undertaking on an altogether different scale .As the Russia n directo r Nikola i Petro v ha s written , 'Chekho v calle d TheCherry Orchard a comedy, but in essence it is a novel, an engrossing novelthat embraces the whole period from 186 1 to 1905 and describes the life ofpeople i n Russi a jus t befor e Tsaris m bega n t o collapse.' 7 Nichola s I I wasonly twenty-six when he came to the throne in 1894 following hi s father' ssudden death from kidney failure, and he possessed neither the will nor theintelligence t o contro l hi s deepl y reactionar y ministers . A s the vas t semi -feudal empir e struggle d t o catc h u p wit h Europ e throug h headlon gindustrialisation, massiv e foreig n investmen t an d a drive fo r exports , th erural econom y wa s cripple d b y heav y taxation , cro p failures , choler aepidemics, rocketing lan d price s an d a massive increas e i n population. I n1901 cro p failure s resulte d i n th e wors t outbreak s o f violenc e sinc e th e1860s, and over the next two years thousands of starving peasants invadedthe estates of the gentry in the southern provinces of Poltava, Kharkov andSaratov.8

In The Cherry Orchard the servants ' quarter s hav e bee n occupie d b yvagrants who , it is rumoured, ar e being fed b y Varya o n dried peas while

113


EDWARD BRAU N

Gaev take s hi s siste r t o tow n b y trai n fo r a n extravagan t lunc h an d the nproceeds t o hold fort h t o the waiter s o n the Decaden t movemen t (pp . 302 ,308).9 The reference t o these interloper s i s typical o f the oblique manner i nwhich th e action' s wide r significanc e i s conveyed. I n the course o f th e pla ythere ar e passing references t o wel l over thirty characters wh o neve r appea ron-stage, includin g Lopakhin' s bruta l peasan t father , Anya' s aristocrati cgreat-aunt i n Yaroslavl , th e ric h merchan t Deriganov , Charlotte' s fair -ground artist e parents , Ranevskaya' s lat e lawye r husband , Trofimov' schemist father , an d many others. 10

Similarly, th e brie f intrusio n o f th e Passer-b y i n Ac t Tw o i s more tha n amere pretex t fo r demonstratin g Ranevskaya' s thoughtles s extravagance ; a sMichael Fray n point s out , a t the turn o f the century in Russia th e word fo rpasser-by ('prokhozhy' ) implie d someon e trampin g th e countrysid e t oescape fro m priso n o r exil e i n Siberia , an d th e origina l verse s b y Nadso nand Nekraso v fro m whic h h e quote s half-remembere d snatche s hav e arebellious rin g t o the m tha t ech o Trofimov' s radica l sentiments , an d ar eunlikely t o have bee n los t o n a n audienc e o f poetry-lovin g Russians. 11 TheScarlet Woman, Alexe i Tolstoy' s highl y popula r poe m whic h i s declaime dby th e station-maste r durin g th e makeshif t bal l i n Ac t Thre e ha s n o suc hconnotation, thoug h i t coul d b e construe d a s a n unwittin g allusio n t oRanevskaya's eas y virtue . However, a s Firs remarks, the station-master , th epost-office cler k an d the other reluctan t down-at-hee l guest s who have bee nroped i n wit h th e servant s t o mak e u p th e number s fo r thi s desperat e las tfling ar e n o substitut e fo r th e generals , baron s an d admiral s wh o use d t ocome flocking i n th e ol d days . The sens e o f humiliatin g socia l declin e wa sexactly conveye d i n the origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e production ; t o quot eStanislavsky's prompt book :

A completel y abortiv e ball . Ver y fe w guests . Hal f o f thos e dancin g don' tknow the steps of the quadrille and even fewer in the grand rond . . . Silenceprevails the whole evening so that you'd think they'd come along to a funeral.As soon as a dance ends they al l come to a halt, then dispers e to thei r seat salong the wall. They sit and fan themselves. The moment someone breaks thesilence b y runnin g throug h th e roo m o r startin g t o talk , everyon e i sembarrassed an d th e offende r immediatel y feel s guilt y a t causin g th e dis -turbance, then the room becomes even more silent and embarrassed.12

In The Cherry Orchard th e setting s to o ar e mor e significan t i n thei rdetail an d mor e clearl y synecdochi c tha n i n an y o f the earlie r plays . This i sseen mos t clearl y i n Ac t Two , fo r whic h Chekho v spelle d ou t hi s require -ments wit h a precisio n tha t wa s los t o n Stanislavsk y an d hi s designe rSimov. The line of telegraph pole s in the distance an d the large town barel yvisible thirtee n mile s awa y o n th e horizon , contrastin g wit h th e long -

114


The Cherry Orchard

abandoned shrin e an d neglecte d tombstones , ar e clearly intended t o signif ythe encroachmen t o f th e ne w industria l age , thei r meanin g underline d b ythe references t o the recently completed railway , conveniently clos e to brin gthe ne w bree d o f city-dweller s ou t t o thei r dachas, 13 b y th e Englishmen' sacquisition o f the right s t o the 'whit e clay ' o n Simeonov-Pishchik' s lan d (a ta knock-dow n price , on e suspects) , b y th e soun d o f a 'breakin g string' ,which th e ever-practica l Lopakhi n i s alon e i n identifyin g correctl y a s awinding-cable snappin g i n a distan t min e shaft, 14 an d finall y b y the soun dof the axe felling the commercially redundant orchard .

With som e justification , critic s hav e pointe d ou t tha t a n orchar d o f th esize indicate d b y Lopakhin' s calculation s i n Ac t On e (1,00 0 desyatins , o rabout fou r squar e miles ) coul d scarcel y hav e existe d i n reality , eve n if , a sGaev haughtil y remind s Lopakhin , i t i s so remarkable a s to meri t a n entr yin the 'Encyclopaedic Dictionary' . Donald Rayfield comments :

To a less literal-minded and more receptive audience, the cherry orchard takeson fro m thi s poin t symboli c qualities : i t represent s a n economi c an d socia ldinosaur approaching extinction. A cherry orchard that could glut the worldwith cherrie s an d ye t canno t ear n it s owner s a living symbolize s a decrepi tworld, a decrepit Russia for which ordered destruction is the only alternativeto disordered ruination.15

However, notwithstandin g th e espousa l o f th e play b y the Russian Symbo -lists16 an d Chekhov' s ow n regar d fo r th e mystica l allegorie s o f Mauric eMaeterlinck, ther e i s nothin g 'symbolic ' abou t th e cherr y orchar d (o r th ebreaking string , fo r tha t matter ) i n the sens e o f th e universal , th e transcen -dental o r th e ineffable . A s a signifier , i t i s polysemic yet quit e specific . Fo rLopakhin, th e orchar d represent s bot h a n 'economi c dinosaur ' an d a nunmissable busines s opportunity , a s wel l a s embodyin g th e oppressio nsuffered b y hi s fathe r an d earlie r generation s befor e th e emancipation .Paradoxically, i t i s also fo r hi m 'th e mos t beautifu l plac e i n th e world ' - abeauty tha t (lik e Ranevskaya's ) h e ca n onl y eve r drea m o f possessing , an dwhich throug h possessin g h e i s boun d t o destroy . Fo r Ranevskay a an dGaev, i t ha s alway s serve d a s the provide r o f thei r idl y squandere d wealth ,yet the y ar e obliviou s t o it s economi c significanc e an d i t evoke s onl y fon dmemories o f thei r mother , thei r yout h an d thei r happiness . Fo r Firs , i trecalls a lucrativ e rura l econom y base d o n skill s lon g forgotte n throug hcareless neglect . Fo r Trofimov , i t i s th e embodimen t o f a corrup t socia lorder i n whic h Anya' s forebear s 'owne d livin g souls' , whos e eye s ca n b eseen starin g i n balefu l accusatio n 'fro m ever y cherr y i n th e orchard , fro mevery leaf, from th e trunk o f every tree' (Frayn, p. 318) .

In Chekhov' s earlie r play s i t i s possible t o identif y on e characte r wh o i s


EDWARD BRAU N

the agen t o f disruption . I n The Seagull, it i s Trigorin , wit h hi s casua lseduction o f Nina ; i n Uncle Vanya, it i s Professor Serebryakov , wit h hi sbreathtaking proposal to dispose of Sonya's inheritance; in Three Sisters, i tis Natasha, with her remorseless annexation of the Prozorovs' house. But inThe Cherry Orchard it become s clea r tha t everyon e i s a t th e merc y o f aprocess of change beyond their control and comprehension. Lopakhin is noexception; at the end of Act Three he seems as bewildered as anyone by hisown acquisition o f the estate, and he only begins to grasp its full implica -tions when the keys are hurled at his feet by Varya. As he picks them up heremarks, somewhat superfluously , 'Sh e threw awa y the keys to show she'snot in charge here now. ' Bu t in truth i t is a gesture (o r rather 'Gestus' ) a sprofound i n it s socia l an d economi c significanc e a s anythin g tha t Brech thimself would ever conceive.

The development of Lopakhin's character cost Chekhov more effort tha nany other in the play. Originally, he intended the role for Stanislavsky in thehope that his poise and stage presence would work against the portrayal ofLopakhin as the familiar stereotyp e of the vulgar self-made man. However,apprehensive tha t the part was beyond him, Stanislavsky preferred t o playthe 'aristocrat ' Gae v and entrusted Lopakhin to Leonidov who, he assuredChekhov, wa s 'mil d an d gentl e b y nature'. 17 I n th e cours e o f rehearsal sChekhov mad e a number o f changes to the text designe d t o bring out thesensitive aspec t o f Lopakhin' s character . I n particular , h e gav e furthe remphasis t o hi s concern i n helping Ranevskaya an d Gae v save the estate ,and delete d a n exchange betwee n the m referring t o a second mortgage of40,000 rouble s advance d b y Lopakhin. Also , he made clea r th e dept h ofLopakhin's tru e feeling s fo r Ranevskay a b y adding in Act On e the word s'. . . to see your amazing , heart-breaking eye s looking a t me the way theyused to' , an d ' I love you like my own flesh and bloo d . . . more than myown flesh and blood? (Frayn, p. 292). 18

The fac t tha t Lopakhi n ca n ventur e eve n thi s tentativ e overtur e t o th edaughter of his father's maste r is indicative of the collapse of the old socialbarriers - jus t as her failure even to register it shows how rooted she still iswithin her own class. Whilst Ranevskaya i s ready enough to marry of f he radopted daughte r Vary a t o Lopakhin , i t i s only becaus e 'sh e comes fro msimple people' (Frayn, p. 311) - an d she may possibly have in mind as wellthe financial salvation tha t coul d ensue , even a t thi s eleventh hour . As forLopakhin, thoug h h e command s th e deferenc e o f Yepikhodo v an d Dun -yasha, calls Gaev 'an old woman' to his face an d treats Varya as an equal,he is stil l acutel y awar e o f hi s peasant origins : self-conscious i n his whitewaistcoat an d yellow shoes , and deepl y ashamed o f his lack o f education .He celebrates his triumph a t the auction in a manner worthy of his brutish

116


The Cherry Orchard

father, bu t whe n he becomes awar e o f Ranevskaya' s grie f h e consoles herlovingly, gentl y reproachin g he r fo r no t heedin g hi s advic e an d wishin gtearfully tha t the y migh t chang e thei r 'miserabl e muddle d life ' (Frayn ,p. 334) . At thi s poin t i n hi s prompt boo k Stanislavsk y note d 'H e weeps .The mor e sincerel y an d tenderl y th e better . S o wh y doesn' t Lopakhin ,sensitive sou l tha t h e is , sav e Ranevskaya ? Becaus e h e i s a slav e t ocommercial dogma , becaus e h e woul d b e ridicule d b y hi s fello w busi -nessmen. Les affaires sont les affaires.'19 A further indicatio n of Chekhov'sconcern to convey this dualism in Lopakhin's character i s his late additionin Ac t Fou r o f Trofimov' s lines : 'Al l th e same , I can' t hel p likin g you .You've got fine, sensitive fingers like an artist's. You've got a fine, sensitivesoul, too ' (Frayn , p . 338).20 T o whic h Lopakhin , revertin g t o mercenar ytype, responds b y offending Trofimov' s dignit y with the ill-judged offe r o fa loa n fro m th e 40,00 0 rouble s tha t h e ha s cleare d wit h th e popp yharvest.

These abrup t contradiction s i n Lopakhin's behaviour , whic h veer s fro mthe carin g an d th e sensitiv e t o th e clums y an d th e downrigh t offensive ,from th e compassionate to the triumphalist, reflec t a persona strugglin g toadapt t o a radicall y change d role . B y contrast , Ranevskay a an d Gae vsimply deny change, maintaining the manners and attitudes of a dying age,of which Fir s in his ancien t liver y an d whit e gloves is the living remnant .Ranevskaya see s her return from Pari s as a return to her lost childhood, anage o f innocenc e an d eterna l values , an d i t i s fitting tha t th e roo m sh ecomes back to in Act One is the old nursery, which gives an illusory senseof life returning a s day breaks , the spring approaches an d the cherry treescome into blossom once more. Once the orchard i s sold the future ca n nolonger b e denied , an d th e nurser y fro m whic h the y tak e thei r leav e i sstripped bare and 'cold as hell', a scene of life departed and a bleak restingplace for the carelessly abandoned Firs.21

Scarcely anyon e i n the play escape s th e impac t o f socia l change , a s theclosing diaspor a make s clear . I t is a measure o f Ranevskaya's fecklessnes sthat, whils t taking Yasha back with her to Paris to survive for a brief spel lwith th e mone y fro m th e great-aun t i n Yaroslavl, 22 sh e leave s Vary a t oenter servic e a s a housekeepe r fo r th e Ragulins , readil y accept s Anya' sassurance that Yasha has taken Firs to hospital, and gives no thought a t allto Charlott a who , destitut e an d wit h n o passport , i s lef t dependen t o nLopakhin's charity . I n a moment o f abrup t gesti c clarit y Charlott a drop sher comic persona an d casts her swaddled 'baby ' to the floor, where it liesabandoned like herself (Frayn , p. 342). As for Gaev , with his own survivalcomfortably secure d b y his position a s a 'financier ' a t the bank (provide dhe can get up in the morning and dress himself without Firs' assistance), all

117


EDWARD BRAU N

he can sa y is 'They'r e al l leaving us . Varya's going away . . . Suddenly noone needs us anymore' (Frayn, p. 342).

Apart fro m Lopakhin , th e characte r wh o cause d Chekho v th e greates tdifficulty wa s th e 'perpetua l student ' Trofimov . A s Orland o Fige s com -ments, 'The universities had been the organizational centre of opposition tothe tsaris t regim e sinc e th e 1860s . I n th e Russia n languag e th e word s"student" an d "revolutionary " wer e almos t synonymous.' 23 I n Januar y1901, followin g a wav e o f demonstrations , th e Ministe r o f Education ,Bogolepov, ordere d th e conscriptio n int o th e arm y o f ove r 20 0 studen tleaders, then a month late r wa s assassinate d b y a Socialis t Revolutionar ystudent. Despit e violen t polic e reprisals , demonstration s continue d o n amassive scal e an d i n Apri l 190 2 a twenty-year-ol d student , Balmashov ,gained entry to the Mariinsky Palace in St Petersburg and shot the Ministerof the Interior at point-blank range. After these events it is hardly surprisingthat Chekho v wrot e t o Olg a Knipper i n Octobe r 1903 , 'The poin t i s thatTrofimov i s always being exiled and thrown out of university, but how canyou sho w thing s lik e that?' 24 W e ca n bu t gues s a t wha t Chekho v fel tconstrained t o exclud e fro m hi s portrayal , bu t th e onl y passage s i n th ecompleted tex t t o catc h th e censor' s ey e wer e i n Trofimov' s tw o lon gspeeches i n Ac t Two , th e first describin g th e livin g condition s o f th eworkers, the second denouncing the Gaev family t o Anya for 'Th e posses-sion of human soul s . . . living on credit, a t the expense o f others ' (Frayn ,pp. 314,318) .

Of al l th e character s i n th e play , Trofimo v i s th e on e wh o remain sunscathed b y the dissolution o f the estate; if anything, he emerges with hisconvictions reinforced an d ready to resume the struggle back a t university.Chekhov's portrayal o f Trofimov i s finely balanced; his trenchant diagnosi sof th e stat e o f Russi a i s irrefutabl e an d clos e t o th e dramatist' s ow nfrequently expresse d views, yet the rhetoric is a shade too practised and, asJohn Tulloc h ha s observed , b y 190 4 'Chekho v coul d hav e tol d Trofimo vthat change had taken place , that hi s own medical group was establishingchildren's creches , tha t librarie s wer e bein g establishe d (Chekho v himsel fwas supplying a new one a t Taganrog with books).' 25 Trofimov's 'mangy 'appearance, his premature loss of hair and beard that refuses to grow are atcomical odd s with his heroic utterances, and his priggish assertion tha t heis 'above love' is deservedly ridiculed by Ranevskaya; yet his assessment ofLopakhin is both affectionate an d shrewd, so that we are inclined to agreewith hi m tha t Lopakhin' s grandios e plan s fo r th e estate' s transformatio nare little more than 'arm-waving' .

As th e tex t neare d completion , Chekho v wrot e t o Olg a Knipper : 'I tseems to me that, however boring it might be, there is something new in my

118


The Cherry Orchard

play. An d incidentally , i n th e entir e pla y ther e i s no t a singl e gunshot.' 26

The understatemen t i s typica l o f him : no t onl y i s ther e n o gunsho t (it selimination emphasise d b y Yepikhodov's comic threat o f suicide) , but gon eis th e familia r famil y doctor , gon e ar e th e servant s wh o kno w thei r plac eand offe r comi c relie f o r ancien t wisdo m (forgotten , lik e th e recip e fo rdried cherries) , an d gon e i s the centra l lov e intrigue , no w parodie d i n th ebelow-stairs burlesqu e o f Yasha , Dunyash a an d Yepikhodov , Trofimov' shigh-minded friendshi p wit h Any a an d Lopakhin' s errati c courtshi p o fVarya. When Ranevskay a finall y persuade s hi m to propos e to Varya, ther eis a moment when comedic closure seems imminent, bu t as they flounder ina successio n o f evasions an d non sequiturs, i t become s painfull y clea r tha tsuch a matc h ha s n o plac e i n thi s ne w dram a o f Chekhov , wit h objectiv enecessity no t subjectiv e desir e bein g th e ultimat e determinan t i n huma nrelations.

The achievemen t o f thi s uniqu e pla y i s to presen t thes e tw o imperative sin equal , teasing complexity - ye t how ofte n i n productions i s one stresse dto th e neglec t o f th e other . Wha t Trevo r Griffith s wrot e i n 197 7 i n th eintroduction to his version of the text stil l holds good today:

The Cherry Orchard has always seemed to me to be dealing not only with thesubjective pai n o f property-los s bu t als o an d mor e importantl y wit h it sobjective necessity. To present it as the first is to celebrate a pessimism; as tosee it a s both i s to redress an important politica l balanc e poten t in the textChekhov wrote but in practice almost wholly ignored.27

NOTES

1 Author' s translate d extrac t publishe d i n New Left Review, n o, July-Augus t1978, p. 5>o -

2 Se e chapter 4 in this volume.3 Se e Orlando Figes , A People's Tragedy; The Russian Revolution 1891-19Z4,

London, 1996 , chapte r 2 ; see also Richard Charques , The Twilight of ImperialRussia, Oxford, 1958 , pp. 19-26.

4 Th e author's translation of titles is used throughout this chapter. For alternativetranslations in Hingley or Wilks, see Appendix 1.

5 N . F. Belchikov and others, eds., Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii ipisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow , 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works andLetters in 30 Volumes, Moscow , 1974-83) , vol . vn , p . 504 (subsequentl yreferred to as Works or Letters).

6 Fo r an English translation o f 'A Visit to Friends' (a s 'All Friends Together' ) seeRonald Hingley , trans , an d ed., The Oxford Chekhov, vol. ix, Oxford , 1975,pp. 225-42 .

7 Nikola i Petrov, jo i 500 vserossiiskoe teatralnoe obschchestvo, Moscow, i960 ,p. 405.

8 Chekho v doe s no t specify th e exact locatio n o f the estate, thoug h th e nearest

1 1 9


EDWARD BRAU N

major tow n i s Kharkov. Stanislavsk y place d i t in either th e Orel o r the KurskDistrict, to the north of Kharkov (lette r to Chekhov, 1 9 November 1903) .

9 Pag e references to The Cherry Orchard ar e to Anton Chekhov , Flays, trans , andintro. Michae l Frayn , London , 1988 , cite d a s Frayn. I n some instance s I haveused my own translations - EB.

10 Thi s observatio n i s mad e b y Petrov , j o i 500 vserossiiskoe teatralnoe ob-schchestvo, pp . 415-24 .

11 Fo r a translation of the complete text s of the two poems , originally published in1881 and 1858, see Frayn, pp. 368 , 316.

12 Inn a Solovieva , ed. , Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K.S.Stanislavskogo, vol . in,1901-4, Moscow, 1983 , pp. 374-5 .

13 Th e significance o f the railways i n Russia' s economi c transformatio n ca n begauged fro m th e fact tha t betwee n 189 1 and 1905 nearl y 20,00 0 mile s o f newtrack were built .

14 A s Donald Rayfiel d point s out , i t is clear fro m bot h the Moscow Ar t Theatre'soriginal 190 4 prompt boo k an d fro m simila r sound s describe d i n tw o ofChekhov's shor t storie s ('Fortune ' an d 'Rolling Stone' , bot h 1887 ) tha t Lopa -khin's explanatio n i s the correct one . The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe andComedy, Ne w York, 1994 , pp. 74, 107 .

15 Ibid., p . 58.16 Se e Andrei Bely , 'Th e Cherry Orchard ' i n Laurenc e Senelic k trans , an d ed. ,

Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, Austin , Texas , 1981,pp. 89-92 ; Vsevolo d Meyerhol d quote d i n Edwar d Braun , Meyerhold: ARevolution in Theatre, London , 1995 , pp. 22-3 .

17 Letters 11, p. 606 . Chekhov neve r became reconciled to Leonidov's portrayal ofLopakhin; on 24 March 190 4 h e wrote to Olga Knippe r ' I am very glad to hearthat Khalyutin a i s pregnant. Wha t a pity thi s can' t happe n t o some o f the menin the cast, for example Alexandrov an d Leonidov. ' Letters, vol . xn, p . 69.

18 Se e Works, vol . XIII , pp . 321-4 .19 Solovieva , ed. , Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K.S.Stanislavskogo, vol . in, p. 425.20 Se e Works, vol . XIII , p . 333 .21 Som e critic s hav e observe d tha t Fir s wil l b e rescued whe n Yepikhodo v return s

from th e station , bu t as he lies motionless an d w e hea r th e thuddin g o f the axeand th e soun d of the breakin g string , 'dyin g awa y and sad', thi s is hardly likel yto be the effect i n the theatre .

22 Rayfiel d (The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe and Comedy, pp . 85 , 90) is wrongin calculating that Ranevskaya wil l return to Paris with the unspent money fro mthe great-aun t i n Yaroslavl and the proceed s o f the sale , making a comfortabl esum o f 105,000 roubles . Lopakhi n make s i t clear i n Act One tha t th e estate isbeing sold to pay thei r debt s (p.292 ) an d in Act Four Ranevskay a refer s onl y tothe money from th e great-aunt (p.342) .

23 Figes , A People's Tragedy, p . 165 .24 Letters, vol . xi, p. 279 .25 Joh n Tulloch, Chekhov: A Structuralist Study, Ne w York, 1980 , p. 9.26 Letters, vol . xi, p. 256 .27 Anto n Chekhov , The Cherry Orchard, a ne w Englis h versio n b y Trevo r

Griffiths, London , 1978 , p. vi.


IIIAN McKELLE N

Acting Chekhov: 'a friend t o the actor'

Ian McKelle n ha s played mor e Chekho v role s tha n an y other acto r o f hisgeneration. These have included Konstantin in The Seagull in 1961-2 for TheBelgrade Theatre , Coventry ; Tusenbach for radio in a Caedmon productio nof Three Sisters, 1966; Konstantin in a BBC Radio production of The Seagullin 1967; a radio version of Chekhov's story 'A Provincial Life', dramatised byPeter Gil l in 1970; Svetlovidov i n Swan Song for the opening of the (then)new Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, Novembe r 1971 ; Khrushchev in The Wood-Demon, the Actors' Compan y i n 1973, directed b y David Giles , in RonaldHingley's translation , Edinburg h Festiva l an d then touring ; Andre y ( a parttaken over by Timothy Spall for the Stratford run and televised production) inTrevor Nunn' s Roya l Shakespear e Compan y productio n o f Three Sisters i nthe 197 8 touring productio n (se e chapter 9 in this volume); Lopakhin i n arevival of The Cherry Orchard, directed an d translated with Lili a Sokolov aby Mik e Alfred s a t The National Theatre , designe d b y Paul Dart , opene dDecember 198 5 (first performed a t the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, Septembe r1981, with Roger Sloman as Lopakhin); Platonov in Michael Frayn's version,Wild Honey, of Chekhov's unfinished pla y Platonov, directe d by ChristopherMorahan, Th e National Theatre , 1984-6 ; Vanya in Sean Mathias ' produc -tion of Uncle Vanya, translated b y Pam Gems , with Anton y She r as Astrovand Janet McTeer as Yelena, Royal National Theatre Studio production, thenthe Cottesloe, National Theatre , 1991 . Most recently (Octobe r 1998 ) he hasplayed D r Dor n i n Jud e Kelly' s productio n o f The Seagull at th e Wes tYorkshire Playhouse , designe d b y Robert Innes-Hopkins , i n a translation /version by Tom Stoppard.

VG Wit h the exception o f Shakespearean parts , you seem to have playedmore Chekho v role s tha n thos e o f an y othe r playwright : (i n Swan Song;Seagull; Ivanov; Uncle Vanya; Platonov in Wild Honey; Three Sisters, TheCherry Orchard and The Wood-Demon.) Do you have a favourite part?

IMC I suppose Vanya was the most attractive because I liked the produc-


IAN McKELLE N

tion very much. It does depend o n who you're working with, and how theproduction goes.

VG Hav e you approache d th e character s ver y differentl y - o r i s there acommon approach or basis when you play a Chekhov role?

IMC I don' t se e an y connectio n between , fo r example , Lopakhi n an dVanya, but it depends on how the director set s things up. The big problemwith Chekho v i s tha t w e don' t d o Chekhov - w e d o translations ofChekhov. Very few translator s - a t leas t thos e I'v e worke d wit h - wor kfrom the original. Instead they come from literal translations. It varies: PamGems doesn' t kno w Russia n whil e Michae l Fray n an d Richar d Cottrel lboth do. Richard did Three Sisters in which I played Andrey.1 That explainsthe scepticism abou t English o r American or German actor s talking abou tplaying Chekhov. It's constantly frustrating no t to know how close you areto hi s intentions . I think i t i s a crucia l question , bu t I have never had asatisfactory repl y t o whethe r i n The Seagull Konstantin does kill himsel fwhen he shoots himself. Do we know? Al l the translators I've asked abou tit say : 'It' s jus t shot. ' An d whe n I ask whethe r 'shot ' mean s 'killed' , the yanswer that 'i t could be' . Chekhov put i t there in the origina l - bu t I shallnever really know because I don't speak Russian.

VG I n the original Russian it is deliberately ambivalent, but implicit is thesense that Konstantin succeeds with his suicide. [See postscript.]

IMc Ther e you are ! Likewise, everybody talks about Konstantin' s suicid e- bu t is it a successfu l on e o r i s i t anothe r failure ? An d ther e ar e othe rsuicide attempts as well. Or there is the reference in Three Sisters to Solionyfilling the room with smoke. It is not clear whether that is literal smoke orwhether it' s just the general upse t which he causes wherever he goes. Alsoyou cannot b e certain abou t the rhythm. So Pam Gems and a lot o f othe rtranslators adapt Chekhov, cu t hi m withou t yo u knowing . When you ar edoing a production you are very much in the hands of the translator as wellas the director . So you cannot connect the plays in the way that you mightconnect Shakespeare' s wher e th e actin g problem s ar e commo n t o al l th eworks. I couldn't sa y tha t abou t Chekhov' s play s becaus e I'v e neve r rea dthem! I t i s a majo r problem . T o giv e on e example : I neve r won , bu t Iwanted t o chang e Uncle Vanya to Uncle Jack, o r Uncle Johnny, whic hseems t o m e a fai r translation . Ther e i s onl y one Uncle Vanya, bu teveryone's got an Uncle Jack. That i s surely the point: that i t is just UncleJack. But with Uncle Vanya you're alread y of f int o the realms o f high ar t


Acting Chekhov: 'a friend to the actor'

and romance. I think the original i s a very unhelpful titl e in English, bu t Icouldn't persuade the translator.

VG I s thi s proble m alleviate d i f th e translatio n is , i n fact , overtl y aversion} Thoma s Kilro y unequivocall y di d a version o f Seagull, set i nIreland.2 Is it more honest to do that?

IMC Le t me put it this way: I'm a great proponent of doing Shakespeare in'modernish' dress. 3 But Chekhov is so close to us, and the circumstances oflife i n Russi a on e hundre d year s ag o ar e s o readil y availabl e throug hpeople's writings, paintings, photographs, that you don't have to go outsideof tha t contex t i n orde r t o understan d it . I wouldn' t hav e though t i tparticularly helpfu l t o se t i t i n Irelan d becaus e th e Iris h ar e no t th eRussians. I could see some point in doing it - bu t it wouldn't b e Chekhov.I've neve r don e ' a version' . I'v e alway s don e wha t th e translator s hav eclaimed was Chekhov. It's in the detail s when rooting aroun d th e transla -tions that you discover that they've made their own changes.

VG Particularl y Michael Frayn?

IMc Th e only one of his I've done is the Platonov play - Wild Honey.4

VG Th e wa y h e pu t i t togethe r mad e i t ver y muc h Frayn' s pla y rathe rthan Chekhov's . What did you feel abou t the ending with the train and sothe potentia l fo r melodrama ? M y memory o f Chekhov' s origina l i s that i tdoesn't rea d melodramaticall y an d wit h th e assumptio n tha t Platono v i sgoing t o thro w himsel f unde r th e train . Th e critic s seeme d t o thin k i tmelodramatic.

IMc Actin g it certainly didn' t feel melodramatic , bu t I don't know how itends i n Chekhov's play . I alway s though t tha t probabl y Platono v ha djumped on to the back of a train - an d was already in Moscow by the timethe audienc e ha d lef t th e theatre ! H e can' t simpl y die . I think hi s spiritsurvives, bu t i s that melodramatic ? I don't know . I t seeme d very much inkeeping wit h Frayn' s play . I always though t o f i t a s 'Frayn' s play', bu t Ihaven't rea d an y of his translations o f the plays that I know better , wherepresumably he hasn't taken liberties.

VG It' s vital that you find i t frustrating no t bein g able to work from th eoriginals. Did Mike Alfreds approac h The Cherry Orchard and the wholequestion of translation very differently ?

123


IAN McKELLE N

IMC H e was credite d wit h th e translation , bu t I don't kno w o n what hebased it - certainl y not a knowledge of Russian.5 He would have looked atlots of different versions , and he would have used a literal one as well. Buthis techniqu e o f rehearsin g a pla y - an d tha t i s no t jus t particula r t oChekhov's - answer s a lot of major question s about what's wrong with thegeneral wa y o f rehearsing . Alfred s i s th e onl y directo r I know wh o ha sactually worke d ou t a method o f rehearsa l - a method whic h i s virtuallyfoolproof i n creating a company, an 'ensemble' - and in freeing the actor' simagination and keeping it free right through performances .

There's nothing fixed i n the blocking a s to where the actor s may move.Obviously they have to enter fro m th e same place and o n cue - bu t wha tyou d o thereafter , ho w yo u pla y th e scen e i n term s o f emotion , al l tha tcomes ou t o f th e circumstance s yo u discove r whe n yo u arriv e o n stage ,which can diffe r fro m nigh t to night . There's no attempt t o repeat. That'sparticularly helpfu l wit h Chekho v wher e th e audienc e i s likel y t o b epicking up as much information fro m a character who is quietly listening -or not listening, or not speaking - a s the character who is speaking. There'sa whole range of people on stage and each one of them is telling the story. Iremember Alfred s sayin g tha t eac h o f th e actor s shoul d thin k the y ar eplaying the leading part. That would be inappropriate fo r many plays, butfor Chekho v it' s very helpful. O n the whole Alfreds doesn' t tel l you wha this views are because he would muc h rathe r le t things emerge . Yet he didbelieve ther e wa s somethin g vaudevillea n i n th e play , an d tha t whil e th echaracters certainl y could b e playe d naturalistically , the y wer e als o ver ymuch 'types' . He was interested i n an actin g styl e which would dra w theaudience's attentio n t o that . Certainl y th e desig n o f the production - an dthe costume s - wer e rathe r formalised . W e al l wor e roughl y th e sam ecolours, but changed for each act in keeping with the seasons.

I remember speakin g to the Russian directo r Efros. 6 H e made the pointthat Chekhov is not exclusively a naturalistic playwright, and that there aremany many styles within his writing. You'd be hard put to know that fro mreading translations! Once you realise that you may be killing the effect o fa Chekho v pla y b y resolutely playin g i t i n onl y on e style , then you've achance of unlocking its richness. So if Michael Frayn makes Chekhov's playinto an English comedy, perhaps he has that right given that Platonov is arambling, unfinished, unperforme d pla y in a first draft . Bu t with the otherChekhov plays , lookin g aroun d fo r th e possibilit y o f differen t style s o fpresentation can be very helpful.

So the Alfreds ' metho d work s ver y wel l becaus e th e actor s ar e fre e -they're not just being told what to do. I wouldn't very much enjoy being ina Chekhov production - o r indeed o f any play - wher e I was told exactly

124



what t o d o - o r tha t som e specifi c effec t ha d t o b e made o n a particula rline. Mor e tha n mos t playwrights , Chekho v i s ver y har d t o pi n down .There is life happening on stage which is real life - bu t at the same time it'stheatricalised.

PA D o yo u thin k tha t Alfred s wa s pushin g yo u t o quit e specificall yrepresent 'Russian culture' - o r did it just evolve?

IMC W e di d a lo t o f researc h collectively , bu t I'v e don e tha t wit h othe rproductions of Chekhov as well. Actors are given tasks. For example, whenyou're doin g The Cherry Orchard o r Three Sisters, it's fundamenta l t oconsider th e distance s tha t thes e character s ar e fro m th e place s the y tal kabout - an d indeed, the places they go to. On this little island it' s difficul tfor u s to conceive , to feel , wha t thos e distances mus t b e like. I remembertrying t o wor k ou t th e siz e o f th e cherr y orchard . I n on e bi t o f math s(which I suspect wa s faulty) , w e worked ou t tha t th e cherry orchar d wa seight times as large as Hyde Park - absolutel y massive.7 We tend to think ofit as a couple of acres at the bottom o f a path, but this was a big industry.The possibility o f Lopakhin destroying it and building his houses indicatesan entire town - no t just a row of cottages. How do you get that over to anaudience? All that knowledge has somehow to get inside you.

And as for being Russian, Lila Kedrova - whe n playing Arkadina8 - ha da sentence which she began in floods of tears and ended laughing her headoff. That' s something we English don' t have. There is that lack of restraintat times, and a desire to share feelings which are not peculiar to Russians,but which are certainly not natural to British actors. I would always try andestablish a bit of the flavour of that, and the Alfreds' method helped.

VG Thi s fluidity betwee n laughte r an d tear s i n Russia , an d i n th elanguage, i s absolutel y natura l bu t whe n playe d i n English it ca n ofte ncome ove r a s neuroti c - whic h i s a n actin g problem , isn' t it ? I t doesn' tnecessarily mean that the character is neurotic. My reading of Lopakhin isthat h e i s not neuroti c - man y things motivat e him , bu t no t neurosis . OrChekhov himself sai d that Varia is 'a cry-baby' . When he wanted someon eto be a cry-baby, he actually said so. Is this a cultural problem which affect sthe plays ? Hav e yo u foun d yoursel f worrie d abou t appearin g neuroti c i nany of the roles you've played?

IMC No , but I'm aware that this is not an easy thing. It's a volatility and anopenness which perhaps actor s have more than non-actors . But it isn' t a n'actorish' qualit y i n Chekhov' s characters , no r i s i t peculia r t o Chekhov' s

1 2 5


IAN McKELLE N

plays. We meet this all the time. The acting problem is exactly the same whenyou play people i n Italian plays . You've got t o b e aler t t o thei r openness ,their manners , and a willingness to show emotion i n a public place, al l ofwhich g o agains t Britis h training . Which i s probably wh y the British likeactors so much - because they rather envy what they think is their free spirit.

VG Whe n Vanya fires - an d misses - woul d you see this perhaps o n onelevel as farcical, bu t on another level, deeply tragic, as part of this duality?In lif e it' s almos t impossibl e t o fir e a gun an d mis s thre e time s i n suc h asmall space.

IMC Fortunately , that' s not my responsibility a s an actor. That's up to theaudience. I don' t thin k i t woul d b e possibl e fo r Vany a himsel f t o b e s oobjective tha t h e woul d fin d wha t h e wa s doin g funny . A s a n outside rwatching th e play , yes, I think i t is perfectly possibl e to find tha t momen tfunny and pathetic. The aftermath come s in the next act of Uncle Vanya ashe reverts to his old life, having had a good sniff o f how his life might havebeen different. I feel desperately sorry for him, but at the same time I thinkhe needs a good shake and that he should grow up. You're not as trappedas you think you are ! I don't reall y like productions o f Chekhov in whichthe audience is told what to think and what to feel. It's very difficult no t tobe tempted t o direc t thei r feelings - bu t al l you've got to do is direct thei rattention - to say 'look at this'. I think that's what audience participation is.They ar e th e editors , the y ar e th e judges . It' s no t lik e a movi e wher eeverything is decided. The audience can look where they want. That is whyit's important i n a Chekhov play that wherever they look, there should beextremely detailed life.

VG Ma y I ask about your performance a s Svetlovidov in Swan Song} Theone-act play s ar e considere d b y man y a s mer e trifles . An d Chekho vdeliberately tried to put people off the scent by calling them 'trifles' , ye t heworked and worked a t them. Was your approach to Svetlovidov similar tothe mechanics o f approaching the part o f Vanya? Or was there somethin gabout the one-act form which altered your approach?

IMc Obviousl y the scale is smaller - jus t two people and their relationship.But I wouldn't thin k o f i t a s a trifle becaus e he took a very deep view ofthose old men and their relationship as it happens that particular night.

PA A s an actor, do you have a sense of your audience's assumptions, anddo you try to second-guess them at all?

126



IMC No , you can't guess what kind of reaction there might be. I mean, it'strue that if you want the audience to feel that it is perfectly alrigh t to laughat the character, you might exaggerate some effects t o indicate to them thathumour i s allowed . I gues s that' s wha t Mik e Alfred s wante d wit h th evaudevillean characters.

VG I s it the differenc e betwee n laughin g at someone - o r laughing withthem? M y feelin g wit h almos t everythin g Chekho v wrot e wa s tha t on elaughs with the characters, and not at them. There isn't a cruel element.

IMc I thin k tha t woul d depen d o n wh o yo u were . Yo u migh t laug h atthem.

VG I suppose you would laugh at Pishchik in The Cherry Orchard whenhe takes Ranevskaya's pills.

IMc Yes , indeed. When we did Wild Honey in the United States, it was notwell received . On e perso n wh o ha d see n i t explaine d t o m e tha t i t wa simpossible to do a play 'for laughs ' in the United States - thi s was about sixyears ago - i n which the leading character is an alcoholic. That man was ill.It couldn't be a farce.

VG I s that why it didn't work?

IMc Tha t was on e explanation . I woul d sa y tha t Platono v i s a comi ccharacter, but there are other ways of looking at people who drink a greatdeal, whether you do them to be laughed at or to be cured. What I'm sayingis that all we can do as a group is to play a piece as it seems to us. It's up tothe audience to judge and enjoy it on whatever level they want.

VG M y memor y o f you r performanc e o f Vany a wa s tha t i t differe dfascinatingly eac h tim e I saw it, bu t on e o f the constants wa s his rage. Isthis your reading of the character?

IMc H e is a deeply frustrated ma n in many ways, partly sexually. His lackof self-fulfilmen t i n middl e ag e ha s bee n tolerabl e becaus e h e ha s bee nmanaging the estate. He's found a role for himself , a job as a professional,and he gets on with it . But when al l his work i s rejected, whe n he' s falle nhead over heels for the visitor, Yelena, whose husband Serebryako v has lethim dow n - the n rage , disappointmen t an d frustratio n reac h th e poin twhere he wants them to stop so much that he is going to kill.

127


IAN McKELLE N

VG Bu t whe n Vany a say s ' I migh t hav e bee n Schopenhauer , a Dos -toyevsky', h e give s himsel f a potentia l rol e an d the n measure s hi s failur eagainst it. Perhaps what he needs is to find happiness in more modest terms.

IMC I don' t lik e tha t judgement . Al l I hav e t o d o a s a n acto r i s believe i nwhat I' m sayin g a t th e momen t I sa y it . I hav e t o mak e decisions . A m Ipretending? A m I lying? D o I really believ e it ? Do I feel it ? How importan tis i t tha t I get th e othe r perso n t o understan d wha t I' m saying ? Ar e the ylikely to ? Al l thos e things . It' s no t u p t o m e whethe r th e characte r woul dhave been bette r of f i f he had o r hadn' t sai d that. It' s not up to me to say : ishe foolish t o say that? He just does sa y it .

VG Ye t is it not part of your work as an actor to decide if he's playing a role,albeit sincerely, for himself or for other people ? Like Soliony in Three Sisters ?

IMC I don't quite see it in those terms. Soliony, to outsiders, is an unpleasantannoying man , althoug h doesn' t th e Baro n sa y tha t i f yo u get hi m o n hi sown, he's alright? He's a show-off, an d he exaggerates the situation. All youhave to do as an acto r i s ask if that gives him pleasure? Ha s he said i t man ytimes before? Doe s h e believ e it ? On e mus t alway s tr y t o d o thi s withou tjudging him . He' s a ma n wh o feel s ver y deeply . It' s no t u p t o m e t o judg ewhether h e is constantly putting scen t on his hands because he doesn't wan tto smel l o f death . That' s fo r th e audience . Bu t h e feel s thing s s o strongl ybecause he' s frustrate d tha t h e can' t se e an y differen t wa y o f ho w t o dea lwith his feelings excep t b y affecting othe r people . He's very nicely complex .I'm alway s tryin g no t t o tak e a n attitude , bu t delv e int o al l th e detail s o fwhat th e ma n is , and wha t h e say s he is , and wha t othe r peopl e sa y abou thim - an d presentin g that a s clearly a s possible . I suppose I have a n actor' scanniness tha t thi s lin e migh t strik e som e peopl e i n th e audienc e a s funny .But to go out and try to get a laugh from Chekho v reduces Chekhov .

VG S o complexity i s the key dimension o f the characters ?

IMc Yes . I would find i t very hard t o write abou t Chekhov , bu t I don't fin dit very difficult t o act .

PA Ar e ther e an y othe r technica l approache s i n Alfreds ' metho d whic hhelp bring a group together ?

IMc Many . H e ha s ver y lon g rehearsa l periods , usuall y week s an d weeks .Much o f th e earl y rehearsa l i s sittin g aroun d an d dissectin g th e tex t fo r

128



information abou t you r ow n character , an d othe r people's . Throwing ou tlong list s o f wha t th e character s do , what the y sa y abou t themselve s an dabout each othe r an d what thei r pas t was . All o f this materia l i s garneredfrom th e text. Chekhov's work ha s much more detai l about people's lives,past and present, than in most plays. With a play like Closer9 we know verylittle about these people when they are not relating to each other - w e haveno ide a wher e the y com e from . Chekho v provide s muc h mor e satisfyin gcharacters t o pla y becaus e yo u hav e suc h detail s tha t yo u don' t nee d t oguess. I think his instruction to Stanislavsky was that you should not guess,because the material is all there. So a lot of rehearsal preparation is spent onthe actors inhabiting the world and their characters so completely that theycan go on being credible whether the y are sitting down, standing up, withtheir bac k to the audience, shouting , laughing o r crying. Whatever they'r edoing, they jus t go o n 'being' . As we al l d o in ou r ow n live s - w e go onbeing ourselves. That's how it is in a Mike Alfreds' production.

Or you might one day do the play with the whole point of concentrationon money - s o that a s you ar e doing The Cherry Orchard, you would bealert to what is said about money: knowing how much money you earned;how much you're likely to earn, an d how much you have in your pocket .You discover that every character has some problem with money. Whetherthey've got it or not, they all know a great deal about money and when youdo it like that, the whole play seems to be about money! Or you can makethe poin t o f concentratio n th e pas t - an d yo u the n discove r tha t the y al ltalk about the past non-stop. Equally, the emphasis can be the future - an dthey all talk about the future!

There ar e s o many theme s goin g o n i n Chekhov' s plays , bu t i n suc h adelicate way, always rooted and expressed in the text. Or another techniqueis that on e day you do a run-through - an d then your poin t o f concentra -tion i s one particular character . I f i t was Trofimov, fo r example , then youwould only do Trofimov's scenes , and in those scenes the thing uppermostin you r min d a s a n acto r wa s that character . Yo u migh t fin d yoursel fignoring him, bu t yo u woul d know yo u wer e ignorin g hi m - an d why .Once tha t ha s bee n don e wit h al l o f th e characters , righ t dow n t o th epostman, you then realise as an actor that you can go on being Lopakhin -who I wa s - whethe r yo u ar e sayin g you r line s t o Trofimov , o r t oRanevskaya, or to Dunyasha. It doesn't matter - yo u go on being yourself.And there' s n o en d t o th e way s i n whic h yo u ca n tel l th e story . Thi swouldn't necessaril y wor k i n a large theatre where stag e pictures ar e veryimportant, bu t in a small theatre, where the audience can see everything atclose quarters, then I think it works.

Chekhov appeals to me because you cannot realise the play in production

1 2 9


IAN McKELLE N

unless ever y par t ha s bee n worke d o n fully . Tha t isn' t tru e o f mos tplaywrights. But i t als o mean s tha t i t i s al l the more intolerabl e i n ThreeSisters i f you have a weak Solion y or a poor Andrey . Chekhov allow s theactors ful l rei n an d ye t doesn' t allo w any on e actor t o run awa y with theplay. It reaffirm s wha t I most enjo y abou t actin g i n the theatre , whic h i sworking in a group.

VG S o is it playing with it , playing 'of f othe r people? Is that wh y everyperformance i s different ?

IMC Ever y performance ha s to b e different becaus e everybody's trying toput themselve s int o it . Today the weathe r i s differen t fro m yesterday ; theaudience i s different - an d you ar e different . Ho w ca n you possibly d o itthe sam e way ? Yo u can' t breath e th e sam e air . It' s no t th e sam e word syou're saying . Those words hav e gone. It's a nonsense t o try an d mak e i tthe same. It cannot be done.

PA Som e actors try to do that.

IMc Most . In a musical these days, if a singer decides for some reason to singlouder or softer it will be adjusted by the sound technician at the back who isdesperately trying to fix the sound as agreed during the technical rehearsal.

But returning t o Chekhov , anothe r bi g error wit h man y production s i sthat the characters are so often 'impersonated ' by actors who are the wrongage. Recently , ther e wa s a very young Vanya. 10 That' s a little perverse , Ithink, unless you're doing a play about Vanya as opposed to the play calledVanya. Trigorin is normally played far too old. Trigorin and Konstantin arethe sam e generatio n an d yo u can' t reall y fee l th e sexua l tensio n an djealousy there in The Seagull, professionally and personally, unless you seethat they are envious of each other because they are close in age.

VG Equally , Chekhov sai d that Ranevskay a i s an old woman. He didn' twant hi s wife Olg a Knipper 11 t o play her becaus e he thought sh e was tooyoung.

IMc Age s aren't always mentioned but you can usually work them out.

VG Hav e yo u see n a Russia n productio n o f an y o f th e play s whic hclarified contextual elements which you hadn't thought of?

IMc Ther e wa s a production i n Mosco w o f The Cherry Orchard at th e

130



Taganka Theatre. 12 A t the beginnin g o f th e play , Lopakhin cam e o n an dalthough Dunyasha was on stage, he spoke directly to the audience. Thereare many occasions in Chekhov when a character is left alon e on stage andis speaking. I've tried in this country, but I've never succeeded in persuadingother actor s tha t i t is appropriate fo r th e acto r t o spea k directl y t o th eaudience a s Shakespeare' s character s constantl y d o - brea k throug h th efourth wall . When Alfreds talk s abou t vaudevill e I think it' s connected t othat. Th e character s ar e s o self-confident , s o needy t o b e themselves tha tsometimes ther e i s no-on e els e aroun d fo r the m t o spea k t o except th eaudience. It doesn't mean you have to stop being your character or that youare no longer in Russia. It's just the magic of the theatre that you can be inRussia and the theatre a t the same time. Andrey, for example , hardly evergets to speak to anyone else. When he speaks in Act Two, his wife doesn' tlisten and the other person he speaks to - Ferapon t - i s deaf. In the third acthe speaks to his sister s who ar e behind th e screens . I tried t o sugges t tha tAndrey might talk to the audience, but Trevor Nunn wasn' t interested . Soit's something we don't ofte n se e in a British production. I've always triedto get people to see Mikhalkov's film version o f Platonov - An UnfinishedPiece for Mechanical Piano. Even with film where directors have the upperhand and its as much their story as the author's, Mikhalkov had licence toshape the material as he wanted yet time and again the camera in his film isway back - an d we see all the characters simultaneously. 13

PA I s there any more Chekhov that you're burning to do?

IMC I' d lik e t o d o Vany a agai n becaus e w e onl y di d i t fo r abou t thre emonths. I' m goin g t o d o Dor n i n The Seagull this autum n a t th e Wes tYorkshire Playhouse , with Jude Kelly directing . That play i s so essentiallyabout theatr e peopl e tha t a company o f actor s ca n brin g a n awfu l lo t oftheir own lives to it, even though it was written a hundred years ago and inanother country . We're goin g t o se t up a company o f actor s wh o ca n d othree o r fou r play s on e afte r th e other . A s usual , i n thos e circumstances ,Chekhov immediatel y spring s t o min d a s a ver y goo d wa y o f bindin g agroup. Th e majo r jo y o f Chekho v i s th e grou p tha t doe s it . Also , everydetail o f th e relationship s betwee n th e characters , whethe r the y spea k t oeach other much or not, is very clearly present in the text. It's very easy andquick to read what the situation is, which isn't true of Ibsen, for example.14

Chekhov is a wonderful frien d to the actor.

131


IAN McKELLE N

2 Ia n McKellen (D r Dorn) and Claudi e Blakley (Nina ) in The Seagull at the West Yorkshir ePlayhouse presented by the West Yorkshire Playhouse Courtyard Company , Leeds, Octobe r

1998 directed by Jude Kelly, designed b y Robert Innes-Hopkins .

NOTESThis intervie w wit h Ia n McKelle n an d th e editor s too k plac e a t th e Roya lNational Theatre, London, in May 1998.

1 Se e chapter 9 in this volume.2 Se e chapters 7 and 9 in this volume.3 I n 199 5 Ia n McKelle n co-wrot e an d co-produce d Richard III, directe d b y

Richard Loncraine , as an extremely successfu l featur e film , and played the titlerole i n 1930 s militar y uniform . Th e parallel s wit h th e ris e o f Fascis m wer eevident i n th e militar y dress , th e colou r symbolis m an d McKellen' s brillian tmanipulation of 'the people', highly reminiscent, though not imitative, of Hitler.

4 Wild Honey, Michael Frayn' s versio n o f Chekhov' s unfinishe d Flatonov wasdirected b y Christopher Morahan , an d designe d b y John Gunter . I t opene d a tthe Lyttelton Theatre, National Theatre, in July 1984.

5 Alfred s worked on the translation with Lilia Sokolova, who provided the literalRussian translation.

6 Anatol y Efros, on e of the great iconoclastic directors of the post-Stalinist years,was responsible for the radically innovative production o f The Cherry Orchardwhich se t the play non-naturalistically in a graveyard/huge bed . For a detaileddescription o f that production in English, see chapters 3 , 12, 14 and 1 5 in thisvolume. See also Theatre Quarterly, 7 , 1977, pp. 34-47: 'Anatolij Efros direct sChekhov's The Cherry Orchard and Gogol' s The Marriage', i n a n articl e b yM. Shevtsova. And see note 12 below.

132



7 Se e chapter 10 in this volume on the size of the orchard.8 Lil a Kedrova , a French-Russian actress , played Arkadina i n the production of

Seagull translated an d directe d b y Richar d Cottrell , firs t don e a t th e Art sTheatre, Cambridge, July 1970.

9 Th e reference here is to the play, Closer, written and directed by Patrick Marber,first performed a t the Royal National Theatre, May 1997.

10 Thi s is a reference t o Katie Mitchell's production o f Uncle Vanya, translated byDavid Lan, with the forty-one-year-old Stephe n Dillane as Vanya - a Young Vic/RSC co-production, 1 April 1998.

11 Olg a Leonardovna Knipper (1868-1959) , the actress who married Chekhov inMay 1901 , three year s befor e hi s deat h fro m tuberculosis , an d whe n h e wasalready 'exiled ' t o Yalt a fo r th e winter month s becaus e o f hi s illness . Knipperwas the original Arkadina in the MAT production of The Seagull; played Yelena(Helen) i n Uncle Vanya (against Chekhov' s wishes) ; playe d Mash a i n ThreeSisters ( a part he wrote for her) and was the original Ranevskaya in The CherryOrchard - again , against Chekhov's wishes since he felt she was too young. Shedied a t th e ag e o f ninety-on e (althoug h a mistak e o n he r passpor t mad e he rofficially tw o year s younger , bor n i n 1870 , s o dyin g age d eighty-nine ) afte rplaying those an d othe r part s in successiv e MAT productions, man y o f whichremained more or less unaltered from the original productions.

12 Vishnevyi sad (The Cherry Orchard), directed by the innovatory Anatoly Efro sin 1975, designed by Valery Levental. See chapters 11, 14 and 15 in this volume,and note 6 above.

13 Se e chapters 4 and 13 in this volume.14 A t the time of this interview, Ian McKellen was playing Dr Stockmann in Ibsen's

An Enemy of the People, directed b y Trevo r Nun n a t th e Roya l Nationa lTheatre, London.

Postscript:Ian McKellen was filming in New Zealand at the time of final proof-reading, a majorfactor which did not, however, stop him from generously telephoning his corrections/suggestions. Concerning the exact words Chekhov gives Dr Dorn at the end of TheSeagull about Konstantin's suicide (se e p. 122 of this interview), Chekhov uses theword 'zastrelilsya ' (th e pas t perfective) , whic h literall y translate s tha t las t lin e a s'Konstantin Gavrilovich has shot himself dead. ' Or more idiomatically, 'Konstantin. . . has killed himself.' With reference to the editorial point in the interview, therefore,it is quite clear that Konstantin has killed himself this time. Also, Dorn is a doctor.

The ambivalence in English translation is born out by the following examples . InHingley, The Oxford Chekhov, vol. 11 , Act Four , p . 281 , Dorn says : 'The fac t is ,Constantine ha s sho t himself . I n E.K. Bristow' s version , Anton Chekhov's Plays,New York , 1977 , p . 51 , i t reads : 'Th e fac t is , Konstanti n Gavrilovic h ha s sho thimself; thi s translatio n i s identica l i n Elisavet a Fen' s Chekhov Plays, PenguinClassics, i960 (reprin t of 1951) , p. 183, and is again identical in S.S. Koteliansky'stranslation in Tchekhov - Plays and Stories, London, New York, 1974, p. 101.

This raised a more contentious question than I had realised at the time, and beforegoing back to the original, so this postscript is also a belated apology to Ian McKellenfor a misleading response in the interview which, however, does prove his point. Theambivalence is in the English translation, not the Russian original. V.G.

133


12ARNOLD ARONSO N

The scenography o f Chekho v

The stag e demand s a degre e o f artific e . . . you hav e n o fourt h wall . Besides ,the stag e i s art , th e stag e reflect s th e quintessenc e o f lif e an d ther e i s no nee dto introduce anythin g superfluous o n to it. 1

These wer e Chekhov' s word s t o a n acto r durin g th e rehearsal s fo r th eMoscow Ar t Theatr e premier e o f The Seagull, and i t encapsulate s th eongoing struggle s Chekho v woul d hav e wit h Stanislavsky' s productions .Chekhov was a Symbolist playwright trapped in a Naturalist theatre. In histexts th e setting s wer e describe d wit h a stark, ye t poetic minimalis m an dcould be seen as part o f the Symbolist project t o fuse interio r an d exteriorstates of mind. For Chekhov, as for Maeterlinck whom he greatly admired,the concret e element s o f th e externa l worl d wer e manifestation s o f emo -tional states of being; what Richard Wagner called 'soul states'. The settingsare virtual roadmaps to the psyche, and so complete is the identification ofthe characte r wit h th e deco r tha t i f th e settin g wer e take n awa y th echaracter woul d cease to exist. ' I love this house, ' says Madame Ranevskyin Act Three of The Cherry Orchard. 'Without th e cherry orchard m y lifewould los e it s meaning , an d i f i t mus t reall y b e sold the n g o and sel l mewith the orchard.'2

Such unity o f scenograph y an d sel f i s unique amon g the playwrights ofthe time . Nora , i n Ibsen' s A Doll's House, fo r example , mus t hav e ahouse t o leave , o f course , bu t fo r al l th e specificit y o f Ibsen' s stag edescriptions, no single item has the resonance o r necessity of the bookcasein Uncle Vanya, the dinin g tabl e i n Three Sisters or th e nurser y i n TheCherry Orchard. These ar e crucial emblemati c an d atmospheri c elements ,and se t piece s eve n functio n a s determinant s o f th e rhyth m o f hi s plays ,such a s th e chai r ove r whic h Yepikhodo v stumble s i n The CherryOrchard. Yet Chekho v wa s no t s o much intereste d i n th e detail s o f rea llife a s i n th e evocatio n o f a stat e o f mind , o f th e so-calle d nastroenie,and everythin g o n th e stag e wa s subordinate d t o thi s end . Chekhov' s


The scenography of Chekhov

scenography aims at an emotional sensibility , not a documentary recordingof domestic decor.

And yet, the popular conception of a Chekhovian setting is not the spareand evocative one implied by the stage directions, but one that i s rich andcluttered; i t i s a n imag e o f painstakingl y detaile d houses , room s an d ol dfurniture, al l imbued with the crushing weight of memories and unfulfille ddesires a s i n Michae l Blakemore' s productio n o f Uncle Vanya (London ,1988) whic h wa s describe d b y on e criti c a s 'choc-a-blo c wit h saplings ,samovars, an d duf f furniture.' 3 Chekho v ha s becom e s o closely identifie dwith thi s imager y tha t h e ha s joine d tha t smal l fraternit y o f playwright swho have lent their very names to the language as adjectives. Bu t whereasSophoclean, Shakespearean , Brechtia n o r Pinteresque , fo r example , pri-marily ten d t o identif y a styl e o f writing , a poin t o f view , a particula rcontent, or , more ephemerally , a dramati c world , th e ter m 'Chekhovian' ,more than any other, conjures u p a landscape. It is, almost by definition, avisual style . It is so ingrained i n our consciousness tha t when performanc eartist Stuart Sherman created his rarified deconstructio n of Chekhov's textsentitled, simply, Chekhov (1985) - a twelve-minute abstraction o f gesturesand sound s - hi s stag e direction s calle d fo r ' a realisti c Chekhovia ndrawing-room, wit h larg e Persian ru g an d dining-tabl e (o n which ca n b eseen teacups, playing cards, an ashtray containing a half-smoked cigar , andcandlesticks) . . . a n armchair, a samovar, and a cabinet, which holds icons,books an d famil y photographs' . Thoug h Chekho v ma y neve r hav e de -scribed suc h a room , i t wa s instantl y recognisabl e t o spectator s a s th equintessential Chekhovia n landscape . (Thi s 'room' , whic h occupie d hal fthe stage , was peopled no t wit h actor s bu t wit h two-dimensiona l cutout son which were printed fragments o f Chekhov's texts.)

But if such particularised scenograph y i s not explicitly demande d i n thetexts, then why do we retain this impression? While the symbiotic relation-ship of Chekhov and the Moscow Art Theatre, of course, proved beneficia lfor bot h o f them , th e Naturalisti c approac h o f Stanislavsk y an d hi sdesigner, Viktor Simov,4 had the unfortunate effec t o f encasing the plays ina highly detailed, representational , physica l world that has imprinted itselfon theatrical consciousness. The plays and the decor have become inextric-ably linked, not unlike the later designs of Caspar Neher for Bertolt Brecht,or Jo Mielziner for Tennessee Williams. From the 1950s onward, however,directors and designers have tried, with varying degrees of success, to breakaway from the Naturalistic framework an d find something more in keepingwith Chekhov's Symbolist tendencies.

Given th e theatrica l practice s o f th e day , th e Naturalisti c approac h t oscenography wa s probabl y inevitable . Neithe r Stanislavsk y no r Chekho v


ARNOLD ARONSO N

had the vocabulary for creating a new style. Moreover, Stanislavsky, for al lhis influence o n twentieth-century theatre , was immersed in the late nine-teenth-century aesthetic . His work was a culmination o f over a century ofdevelopments toward psychological realism in acting and Romantic realismin design. Scenographically, thi s meant the illusionistic practices of fourth -wall Naturalism . Chekhov , fo r hi s part , despit e som e knowledg e o fWestern Europea n Symbolis t playwrights , ha d not , o f course , see n th eproductions o f Paul Fort's Theatre d'Ar t i n Paris. Even if he had, a formalSymbolist scenograph y wa s never clearly articulated , althoug h playwrigh tPierre Quillar d se t fort h a Symbolis t approac h t o desig n whe n h e stated ,'Speech create s scener y lik e everythin g else.' 5 Chekho v wa s inexorabl yapproaching the same aesthetic on his own, something that Maxim Gorkyapparently recognised in Chekhov when he wrote, 'You are a man who cancreate a characte r wit h a mer e word , an d wit h a sentenc e tel l a whol estory.'6 Quillar d calle d fo r a mise-en-scene that woul d 'emphasiz e th einfinite multiplicit y o f time and space' . By abolishing the accretions o f theNaturalist stage , th e Symbolist s hope d t o fre e theatr e fro m it s inevitabl yflawed attempts to reproduce reality and instead allow theatre to 'be whatit should be: a pretext for a dream'. Though Simov and Stanislavsky neitherattempted nor achieved such a visual world, Quillard's aesthetic anticipatedthe post-1960 approach to Chekhov.

Chekhov's minimalis t se t descriptions, in fact, ar e closest in spirit to theideas o f Appia 7 (thoug h wit h n o direc t influenc e sinc e mos t o f Appia' swritings came afte r Chekhov' s death) . The second ac t o f Uncle Vanya forinstance is described thus: 'The dining room in Serebryakov's house. Night.The watchman can be heard tapping in the garden. Serebryakov is sitting inan armchai r i n fron t o f a n ope n window , he i s dozing.' 8 Tha t i s al l - n odescription o f furnishing s o r decor , althoug h ther e ar e reference sthroughout th e ac t that indicat e the need fo r a table, a window, a door, asideboard, and a few chairs. Think of Chekhov's settings as Appia declares:'We shall no longer try to give the illusion o f a forest, bu t the illusion of aman i n th e atmospher e o f a forest . Ma n i s th e reality , an d nothin g els ecounts . . . Scenic illusion is the presence of the living actor.'9

By th e tim e o f The Cherry Orchard, Chekho v seem s clearl y t o b eattempting a Symbolist-like fusion o f interio r an d exterio r state s o f mind ,one i n whic h th e ver y wall s o f th e hous e see m almos t transparent . Th esetting fo r Ac t On e o f The Cherry Orchard is described a s ' A room tha tstill goe s b y th e nam e o f th e nursery . On e o f th e door s lead s t o Anya' sroom. It is dawn and the sun will soon come up. It is May. The cherry treesare i n flower, but i n th e orchar d i t i s cold , ther e i s mornin g frost . Th ewindows in the room are closed.'10 The locale is identified an d we are told

136



that ther e i s a door and , significantly , wher e tha t doo r leads . If thi s wer eIbsen o r Sha w ther e woul d b e detaile d description s o f furniture , bric-a -brac, carpets , wal l covering s an d th e like . Bu t wha t i s importan t i n thi sdescription is the exterior; there is a continuity between the nursery and theworld beyond , a s i f th e nurser y ca n b e understoo d onl y i n term s o f th econtext o r environmen t i n whic h i t sits . Exterior scenes , i n turn , hav e afluidity tha t takes them beyond the mere confines o f the stage. Act Four ofThree Sisters, for instance , unfold s i n 'Th e ol d garde n attache d t o th eProzorov house . A long avenue o f fir trees a t the end o f which is seen theriver. On the other side of the river - a forest. O n the right is the terrace ofthe house.' 11 Th e hous e i s almos t a n afterthought . Wha t i s clearl y mos tsignificant fo r Chekho v i s th e vist a stretchin g int o th e distanc e wit h it simplication o f continuity an d the promised land tha t the sister s can neverreach: a garden, a river, a forest - lef t unstated , o f course, is Moscow, fa rbeyond.

While th e stag e direction s fo r The Seagull are the mos t detaile d o f th emajor plays , Chekhov already evinces an eye for the larger picture and theunseen world that surrounds his characters:

Part of the park on Sorin's estate. A broad avenue leads from th e view of theaudience into the depths of the park toward a lake. A platform stag e - piece dtogether an d hastily buil t fo r a home performance - ha s been placed acros sthe avenue in such a way that the lake cannot be seen. To the left and right ofthe platform stag e is shrubbery. There are a few chairs and a small table. Thesun has just set. . .12

In My Life in Art, however, Stanislavsky describes the same setting with thepride of someone who has learned wel l from th e Duke of Saxe-Meininge nand Andre Antoine.

On the very forestage, righ t near the footlights, in direct opposition to all theaccepted laws and customs of the theatre o f that time, almost al l the personsin th e pla y sa t o n a long swingin g benc h characteristi c o f Russia n countr yestates, with their backs to the public. This bench, placed in a line with sometree stumps that remained from a destroyed forest, bordere d an alley set withcentury-old tree s tha t stoo d a t a measured distanc e fro m eac h other . In thespaces betwee n thei r trunks , whic h seeme d mysteriou s i n th e darknes s o fnight, there showe d somethin g in the form o f a proscenium tha t was closedfrom sigh t b y a larg e whit e sheet . Thi s wa s th e open-ai r theatr e o f th eunsuccessful an d unacknowledged Treplev.13

The proble m wa s conflic t o f intentions . Chekhov , docto r tha t h e was ,observed th e rea l worl d i n carefu l detail , bu t the n distille d i t t o poeti cessences. Stanislavsk y too k th e essence s an d fleshed the m ou t agai ninto three-dimensiona l illusions . I n hi s correspondenc e wit h Stanislavsk y

137


ARNOLD ARONSO N

regarding The Cherry Orchard, fo r example , Chekho v indicate s a ver yspecific inspiratio n fo r th e environment . 'It' s a n ol d mano r house, ' h e sai dof th e Ranevsk y estate . 'Som e tim e ag o th e peopl e wh o live d ther e di d s oon a very rich scale, and thi s must b e felt i n the setting. A feeling o f richnes sand cosiness.'14 A few weeks later he provided mor e details :

The house is a large two-storied one . . . [It] has to be large and solid : madeof wood or stone, it doesn't matter which. It is very old and of enormous sizeof a kin d whic h holida y maker s don' t ren t bu t pul l dow n an d us e th ematerials t o buil d summe r cottages . Th e furnitur e i s old-fashioned , stylish ,and solid; their financial straits and debts haven't affected th e furnishings. 15

Yet Chekhov di d no t inten d fo r Stanislavsk y t o buil d a n actua l house ; afte rall, we never se e the exterior . Th e poin t wa s t o creat e th e essence o f suc h ahouse o n th e stage . Stanislavsky , nonetheless , move d towar d greate r an dgreater detail . Meyerhol d describe d ho w th e 190 5 reviva l o f The Seagull,for instance , became even more illusionistic :

Every corner of the set was laid bare : there was a summer house with a realroof an d real columns; there was a real ravine on stage . . . I n the revival thewindows i n the improve d se t faced th e spectato r s o that th e landscape wasvisible. You r imaginatio n wa s silenced , an d whateve r th e character s sai dabout the landscape, you disbelieved them becaus e i t could never be as theydescribed it; it was painted and you could see it.16

While h e ma y no t hav e ha d a specifi c Symbolis t vocabular y wit h whic hto describ e hi s settings , Chekho v understoo d th e contradictio n o f minglin gthe foun d object s o f th e rea l worl d wit h th e carefu l artific e o f th e stage .'There's a genre painting by Kramskoy,' h e explained t o an acto r durin g therehearsal o f The Seagull, accordin g t o Meyerhold , 'i n whic h th e face s ar eportrayed superbly . Wha t woul d happe n i f yo u cu t th e nos e ou t o f on e o fthe paintings an d substitute d a real one ? Th e nos e would b e "realistic " bu tthe pictur e woul d b e ruined.' 17 A few year s later , shortl y befor e hi s death ,Chekhov woul d ech o thi s sentimen t whe n h e wrot e o f The CherryOrchard, 'Stanislavsk y ha s ruine d my play.' 18 B y mixing two-dimensiona lpainted scener y with rea l furniture , no t t o mention a very rea l crying baby ,Stanislavsky had , in essence, put a real nose in the artistic framework o f theplay-

Chekhov wen t i n an d ou t o f favou r i n Russi a an d th e USS R ove r th efollowing decades . Despit e a mov e toward s a mor e lyrica l an d Impressio -nist decor , especiall y i n th e design s o f Vladimi r Dmitrie v i n th e 1940s , th escenography wa s stil l solidl y i n th e traditio n o f Simo v wit h on e notabl eexception. I n 1944-5 , Alexander Tairo v directe d a theatricalist productio nof The Seagull a t th e Kamern y Theatr e tha t wa s clearl y intende d a s a

138



rejection o f th e Naturalisti c styl e o f Stanislavsky' s production s an d espe -cially thos e o f th e Socialis t Realis m dominan t i n the Sovie t Union a t th etime. Perhaps inspire d b y the deman d fo r ne w form s b y the characte r o fTreplev, an d wit h a no d t o Appi a an d Craig, 19 Tairo v largel y replace dillusionistic scenery with platforms an d black velvet drapes and an almos texclusively black and white colour scheme that led some critics to describeit a s funereal . I n th e wanin g day s o f Worl d Wa r I I an d i n th e wak e o fStalin's purges , th e starknes s o f th e se t mus t hav e bee n striking . B y the1950s, in both the Soviet Union and elsewhere, the conventional 'Chekho -vian' se t - mor e accurately , a 'Simovian ' se t - bega n t o see m date d b ymodern standards . Moreover , th e element s o f Chekhov' s setting s whic honce served a s a subtl e an d detaile d semioti c guide to a complex psycho-social worl d becam e meaningles s excep t a s self-referents . Naturalisti csettings whether fo r Chekhov , Hauptmann, o r Strindberg became indistin-guishable allusions to a previous century. And the specific props, costumesand se t pieces now associated with Chekhov no longer signifie d aspect s ofRussian society at the turn o f the century but came to stand for Chekhov' splays themselves. New approaches were needed.

Directors an d designer s workin g sinc e the 1960 s have attempte d t o ri dthe stag e of lingering nineteenth-century sentimentalit y whil e emphasisingthe fluidity of inne r an d oute r worlds . Th e pastich e approac h typica l o fpostmodernism was particularly well suited to Chekhov. Designers seemedto be following th e advice of avant-garde compose r an d theoretician JohnCage who, when aske d abou t ho w to trea t classics , suggeste d tha t rathe rthan simpl y rejectin g them , the y shoul d b e 'quoted ' i n ne w productions .Fragments o f traditiona l Chekhovia n scenograph y place d an d juxtapose dwithin a mor e abstrac t environmen t becam e increasingl y commo n i nproductions from the 1970s onward.

The first step in breakin g th e realistic , sentimenta l gri p wa s taken i n ai960 productio n o f The Seagull directed b y Otomar Krejc a an d designe dby Josef Svobod a a t the Tyl Theatre in Prague. (See Appendix 4.) Svobodaencased th e stag e i n blac k drape s s o tha t th e actor s wer e i n a theatrica lvoid. The park - indeed , the natural world - existe d emblematically as leaf-filled branche s hanging over the stage through al l four acts . Interiors weresuggested by furniture an d fragmentary sceni c units such as a window withdrapes (bu t n o surroundin g walls) . Mor e important , th e atmospher e o feach scene was created through the use of changing 'ligh t curtains' , one ofSvoboda's technologica l creations , tha t create d a scrim-lik e effect . Thus ,the entir e pla y occurre d i n a fluidly changing , bu t essentiall y unifie denvironment. Exterior s an d interior s blende d an d the externa l worl d wa salways visibly present in the house.

139


ARNOLD ARONSO N

The sam e yea r witnesse d simila r approache s fo r th e firs t tim e i n th eSoviet Union. Nisson Shiffrin's deco r for The Seagull (i960) a t the MoscowArt Theatre included a surround that depicted trees and the horizon as wellas the sk y in both exterio r an d interio r scenes ; the interior s containe d n oceilings and only partial walls. At the same time, tall window drapes, tallerthan the rooms, hung in the exterior a s well as interior scenes , creating anever-present sense of spatial memory or anticipation. For The Seagull at theTsvilling Theatr e i n Chelyabins k (1979) , designer Danii l Lide r use d over -hanging branches , remarkabl y simila r t o Svoboda's , a s wel l a s a sor t o fcurtain hun g o n a clothe s lin e i n hi s design . Th e moti f o f branche soverhanging the stage through exterior an d interior scene s proved popula rin th e USS R an d coul d b e foun d i n Mikhai l Kurilko' s desig n fo r UncleVanya in 1966 at the Kupal Theatre in Minsk and in Enar Stenberg's 1969production of The Seagull at the Moscow Art Theatre.20

By 1962 , th e attemp t t o visuall y fus e th e interio r an d exterio r scene sappeared in England at the newly opened Chichester Festival Theatre. SeanKenny's design for Laurence Olivier's production o f Uncle Vanya consistedof a simpl e woode n bac k wal l wit h tw o window s an d a door . Wit h th ewindows blacke d ou t i n th e firs t ac t i t becam e th e garden ; wit h ligh tcoming throug h the m th e stag e wa s transformed int o th e interior s o f th elast thre e acts . Th e grea t innovation , however , wa s th e use , perhap s fo rthe first tim e anywhere , o f a thrust stag e for Chekhov . Not onl y were theinternal boundarie s destroyed , bu t som e o f th e separatio n betwee n th estage and the audience seemed to disappear as well, leading a contemporarycritic t o not e tha t '[Chekhov's ] peopl e ha d no t bee n mor e closel y allie dto us'. 21

Olivier continue d th e atmospheric , non-Naturalisti c approac h i n hi sfamous 196 7 London production o f Three Sisters a t the National Theatr ewith designs by Svoboda. Here Svoboda's light curtains were replaced by asurround o f stretche d cord s tied from floor to grid , whil e window-frame swere place d betwee n tw o layer s o f cords . Throug h th e us e o f light , th ecords coul d becom e 'soli d walls , delicat e bars , o r shimmerin g depth swithout precis e limit'. 22 Th e cord s als o serve d a s a scree n fo r Svoboda' strademark projections . Althoug h minima l piece s o f furnitur e wer e em -ployed, thi s was a n essentially abstrac t settin g creating a theatrical rathe rthan illusionistic environment.

By eliminating naturalisti c approache s t o scenography , th e association sthat go with it are likewise eliminated and the stage reasserts itself. It is nolonger a n illusion of reality , bu t a n allusion to reality . Walls , door s an despecially window s becom e ephemeral , transformabl e element s which , a sSvoboda noted, are at the heart of Chekhov:

140



Windows are very special things in Chekhov. The thoughts and desires of thecharacters fl y ou t throug h th e windows , bu t lif e an d it s realitie s fl y i n th eother way. The windows must b e created b y means of light, like that o f theFrench Impressionists - ligh t dispersed in a i r . .. Th e windows lead us to allof Chekhov' s atmosphere , th e interior s ar e no t bordere d o r limited , bu tdiffused.23

Meanwhile, Sovie t directo r Georg y Tovstonogo v ha d expresse d a simila rpoint o f vie w i n hi s 196 5 productio n o f Three Sisters a t th e Bolsho iDramatic Theatre (BDT ) in Leningrad, designe d by Sofia Yunovich .

In ou r production , th e rooms i n the Prozoro v hous e wer e no t delimite d b ywalls, ceilings , windows o r doors . Furniture . . . was distribute d ove r al l ofour huge stage . A crystal chandelie r hun g over the table . Near th e center ofthe stag e stood a lonely Empire column, which supporte d nothing . Sunligh tpoured i n through windows placed upstage behind a gauze which was hungalong the circumferenc e o f th e stage . The pla y o f ligh t an d shado w o n thecolumn (cause d b y branche s swayin g behin d th e windows ) an d th e sof ttwittering o f bird s create d th e atmospher e I wanted : spring , peace , an dprosperity. A few minute s afte r th e pla y ha d begu n - mor e precisely , jus tbefore Vershinin' s entranc e - th e ligh t was cu t o n the windows behin d th egauze, and they seemed to disappear. In the last three acts, in exactly the sameway, there were illuminated windows in the Prozorov house, and an alley ofbirches (done three-dimensionally). And they disappeared in exactly the sameway a few minutes after th e act had begun. It seemed to me that these three-dimensional bits of scenery had served their purpose in indicating the place ofaction. All they could d o further durin g th e course o f th e play would b e todistract the attention of the audience from the action itself.24

Tovstonogov als o believe d tha t th e contemporar y audienc e wa s mor efamiliar wit h th e experienc e o f films tha n o f th e stati c theatr e an d tha tChekhov woul d b e more comprehensibl e i f stage d i n a cinematic form . B yusing a revolv e an d mobil e platform s tha t projecte d toward s th e audienc ehe attempted t o create the equivalent o f close-ups, pan shots , reverse angle sand th e lik e - th e vocabular y o f th e film whic h constantl y alter s th eorientation o f th e spectator s t o th e scen e t o enhanc e o r replac e th emovement o f actors .

Anatoly Efros ' 196 7 production o f Three Sisters a t the Malaya Bronnay aTheatre i n Mosco w wen t eve n furthe r i n fusin g exterio r an d interior . Th esetting wa s reduce d t o nothin g bu t a solitary , stylise d tre e wit h coppe rleaves whic h represente d th e avenu e o f birc h tree s an d als o serve d a s acoat-rack. Th e influenc e o f Samue l Becket t a s th e spiritua l descendan t o fChekhov was clearly making itsel f felt .

The conflatio n o f inne r an d oute r world s ha s continue d t o b e a stron g

141


ARNOLD ARONSO N

motif i n Sovie t an d Russia n production s a s see n i n the design s o f ValeryLevental, Serge i Barkhin , Davi d Borovsky , Mar t Kitaev , Danii l Lide r an dEduard Kochergin . Though each of these designers has a unique style , theproductions are often typified b y fragmentary se t pieces or furniture sittin glike icons or islands in the midst of an open stage ; often natur e is seen notonly blendin g wit h th e man-mad e worl d bu t seemingl y overpowerin g it .The latte r i s evident i n Vladimir Serebrovsky' s Ivanov (1978 ) i n Baku , inwhich the dining room was open to the garden and autumn leaves coveredthe floor, or Davi d Borovsky' s 197 6 MA T production i n whic h branche sand vines overwhelmed the exterior of the house. (See Appendix 4.)

The most aggressiv e proponent o f the fusion approac h ha s been Roma-nian-born director Andrei Serban, who has worked since the early 1970s inthe United States . In his 197 7 The Cherry Orchard at the Lincoln Center ,designed b y Sant a Loquasto , symboli c element s wer e isolate d agains t aluminous backgroun d o f barre n trees , and th e visua l images wer e echoedby symboli c action s suc h a s a plough dragge d acros s a field by peasants.The ballroom was depicted a s a structure that coul d b e viewed a s either agiant gazeb o o r a s a cage . Th e white-on-whit e colou r schem e suggeste dboth a formality an d isolatio n o r barrenness . Despite a negative respons ethis productio n receive d fro m th e mor e conservativ e Ne w York critics , i tspawned a hos t o f imitations . Serba n di d a Seagull in Japa n i n 1980 ,designed b y Kaoru Kanamori , tha t too k a more romanti c tur n bu t none -theless carried on the motif of a continuous interior and exterior. The insidewas suggested by a repetitive row of window-frames that , while reinforcingSvoboda's remar k abou t th e importanc e o f window s i n Chekhov , func -tioned almos t as an abstract motif. A wood-planked stag e floor unified theentire stage space.

Any hin t o f coldnes s gav e wa y totall y t o th e war m woo d texture s o fSerban's 198 3 Uncle Vanya, also designe d b y Loquasto . Bu t jus t a s th esymmetrical row of windows of the Japan Seagull worked in opposition tothe romanticism of the wood and trees, the romanticism of this Vanya wasoffset b y th e geometri c patter n o f th e groundplan . Th e settin g her econsisted of platforms an d steps with a few pieces of furniture - room s andspatial division s were define d b y differing level s rather tha n actua l walls .The idea for the set was generated b y a reference i n the play to the emptyhouse being like a maze. The effect was , according to Loquasto, 'the sweepof a Becket t landscape , bu t on e wher e yo u als o ha d war m woo d an dfamiliar Chekho v texture s . . . But by stretching the space , i t too k o n theascetic serenity of an Oriental walkway as well.'25

Yet anothe r approac h t o th e Chekhovia n sens e o f fluidity has bee n t ocreate a sens e o f endlessnes s throug h room s an d space s tha t continu e

142


The scenography o f Chekho v

; The Cherry Orchard, Ac t One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) , directed by AndreiSerban, designed by Santa Loquasto , originally produced b y the New York Shakespear e

Festival a t the Vivian Beaumont Theatr e in New Yor k City.

4 The Cherry Orchard, Ac t One, Romanian National Theatre (1993) , directed by AndreiSerban, designed by Santa Loquasto , originally produced b y the New York Shakespear e

Festival a t the Vivian Beaumont Theatr e in New Yor k City.

143


ARNOLD ARONSO N

beyond the spectator's view, thereby creating a tantalizing maze of off-stag espaces tha t remai n frustratingl y inaccessibl e t o th e audience . The intima -tion o f such a world i s already present in Three Sisters with the ballroo mvisible through columns behind the drawing room; in The Cherry Orchardwhere, again , th e ballroo m i s visibl e beyon d th e archwa y behin d th edrawing room, or in the first ac t of The Seagull with the lake hidden behindthe makeshift stage .

One of the earliest productions to approach the play in this way was the1969 Cherry Orchard designe d b y Kar l Erns t Herman n i n Berlin . I temployed a classic box se t with fain t echoe s o f the Teatro Olimpico . Thetwo upstag e door s tha t le d to the drawin g room wer e placed i n the bac kwall in such a way that it was impossible for any one person in the audienceto see the entirety of the inner room. Furthermore, these doors were echoedin the upstage wall of the inner room. There was an implication of infinit y- i f these door s were opened th e spectator s woul d se e another room , an danother and so on.

A 197 0 productio n o f th e sam e play , designe d b y Jiirge n Ros e i nHamburg, also played with neo-classical perspective, but in a more blatantand unrelentin g fashion . Th e ey e wa s ineluctabl y draw n t o a singl evanishing poin t throug h a doo r i n a star k bo x set . However , th e neo -classicism was softened b y the romanticism of flimsy gauze curtains and thewarm tones of the walls.

John Conklin' s desig n for Mar k Lamos ' production o f Three Sisters fo rthe Hartford Stag e Company i n 198 4 continued th e sam e basi c idea - a nupstage space visible beyond the main playing area - bu t Conklin opted fora colde r formality . Th e upstag e opening s coul d b e understoo d a s pillars ,doors or windows; the floor of the thrust stage had a polished surface, thusabjuring the warm textures associated with Chekhov. Beyond the openingswas cold, unknown space, a void that could be anything.

The elements o f formality, texture , isolated iconographic piece s and theimplication o f space beyond were epitomised, however , in a 1983 Cologneproduction o f The Cherry Orchard designed by Rolf Glittenberg . This wasalmost a parody of a box set: towering walls seemingly inspired by GordonCraig, though texture d throug h th e use o f wood , dwarfe d th e performer sand th e few sceni c element s whic h resemble d th e vestige s o f som e earlie rChekhovian set . But while suggestin g a type o f prison , th e spac e wa s notimpenetrable. Th e rea r wal l coul d spli t open , admittin g brigh t ligh t int othis confined, barre n world, and suggesting a paradisiacal world beyond. Athematically simila r Ivanov wa s designe d b y Mark Thompso n fo r Elija hMoshinsky's 198 9 Londo n production . A critic describe d th e roo m a s ' abare and almost windowless cell, like some large prison space . . . The only

144



relief from thi s stifling uniformity i s a square hole, a glass-less window cuthigh in the back wall, through which can be seen a passing vista of blue andwhite clouds, and where Ivanov's watchful wif e appears.'26

Chekhov's character s ar e ofte n trappe d i n a lif e o r philosoph y tha t i srepresented b y the concrete elements o f a house. The freshness o r freedo mof th e outsid e worl d i s tantalisingl y visibl e ye t inaccessible . Chekho vcreates an interior b y describing the exterior. In the settings by Glittenbergor Thompson , however , a formidable barrie r i s created betwee n th e tw oworlds.

When Chekho v stated , i n th e quot e tha t begin s thi s chapter , tha t 'yo uhave n o fourt h wall' , h e wa s expressin g th e nee d t o acknowledg e th etheatricality o f th e event . Bu t certai n contemporar y production s hav eattempted t o tak e th e breachin g o f th e fourt h wal l mor e literall y an dincorporate the audience, to some degree or other, in the production o r theworld o f the play. If this is done successfully, th e spectator i s implicated inthe actio n an d th e pla y i s transforme d int o a n existentia l reflectio n o fcontemporary society . Needless to say, this is a risky strategy. Any produc-tion, whether Chekhov' s o r not, tha t incorporate s o r attempts to incorpo-rate the audience and theatre into the staging, runs into the problem of theclashing worlds o f audienc e an d performance . Th e suspension o f disbelie fcan extend onl y s o far whe n w e are surrounded an d confronte d wit h ou rfellow patron s an d th e accoutrement s o f th e theatre . Nonetheless , th eenvironmental theatr e movement o f the late 1960 s and 1970 s has inspiredsome attempts . Directo r Andr e Gregor y brough t th e audienc e int o th esetting fo r hi s 197 4 productio n o f The Seagull at Ne w York' s Publi cTheatre, in which the set consisted of furniture an d shrubs, but no walls oreven clearly demarcate d boundaries , se t i n a bifurcated aren a space . Theaudience sa t around the outdoor settin g for th e first two acts , then movedto the other sid e of the stage for the indoor scene s of the last two acts . Analternative environmenta l approac h wa s take n b y iconoclasti c Sovie tdirector Yur i Lyubimo v i n Three Sisters a t th e Tagank a (1975) . Th eproduction began with the back wall of the theatre sliding open to reveal amilitary ban d o n th e stree t outside . Th e shee t meta l wal l the n closed ,reflecting the audience back on itself.

British director Peter Brook, as he has done so often, too k a wide cross-section o f al l thes e trend s an d pu t the m togethe r i n hi s acclaime d 198 7production o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Majesti c Theatr e i n Brooklyn ,New York.27 The Majestic wa s an abandoned movie palace and vaudevillehouse tha t wa s onl y partiall y renovate d a s a n anne x fo r th e Brookly nAcademy of Music. Fragments of plaster remained on exposed brick walls,the onc e gaud y pain t o f thi s theatr e coul d b e seen in fade d patche s o n a

145


ARNOLD ARONSO N

decayed ceilin g an d th e prosceniu m arc h hinte d a t it s forme r glory . Th etheatre becam e a perfect metapho r fo r th e Ranevsky estate . In the rathe rcavernous spac e o f th e stage , made eve n large r b y a n extensio n ove r th eformer orchestr a pit , Broo k an d designe r Chlo e Obolensk y create d dra -matic locales through the use of a few well-chosen objects : an armchair , abookcase, a screen, some Persian rugs and a few pillows. The performanc eextended int o th e decrepi t stag e boxe s an d use d th e proscenium door s t osuggest entrances to other rooms in the house. It ranged from the back wallof th e theatr e t o th e ver y edg e o f th e thrust . Broo k an d Obolensk y ha dmerged the fictional world of the characters with the very theatre itself.

The genera l tren d o f th e lat e 1980 s an d 1990 s ha s bee n a retur n t oRomanticism - albei t tempere d b y th e ironi c ey e o f contemporar y de -signers, a s i n th e wor k o f Greek-bor n Frenc h designe r Yanni s Kokkos ,whose Seagull suggests a Simovian scenography filtered through an Expres-sionist aesthetic . (Se e Appendi x 4. ) Bu t a decidedl y anti-Romanti c post -modernism ha s als o arisen , nowher e mor e s o tha n i n th e startlin gproduction o f Three Sisters done b y the Wooster Grou p i n New Yor k in1991. Entitle d Brace Up!, the piec e wa s a n adaptation/deconstructio n b yPaul Schmidt , directe d b y Elizabeth LeCompte , wit h set s b y James Clay -burgh an d light s b y Jennifer Tipton . Performe d i n a converted industria lspace, the Performing Garage , the feeling insid e the theatre was a strangemixture of stark high-tech and home-made shabbiness. The audience sat onsteep tiered plank seating facing a simple platform stag e framed b y lightingtowers o n whic h wer e a n assortmen t o f industria l an d fil m lightin gequipment. A n invented character , a master o f ceremonies , addresse d th eaudience, interviewed character s an d called upon the translator (wh o alsoplayed Chebutykin ) t o provid e dramaturgica l commentary . Televisio nmonitors glided to and from the audience across the stage floor - no t unlikeTovstonogov's platforms - o n which could be seen live images of off-stag eactor/characters wh o wer e capture d o n vide o a s the y spoke , on-stag echaracters creatin g a visua l ech o o f th e actio n an d interpolation s fro mpopular movies . Lik e th e Broo k production , Brace Up! coalesce d th efictional world with the physical theatre; the video fused on - and off-stag eworlds as well as the world of contemporary culture with the historicity ofthe play. By apparently strippin g away the frame o f the stage , it created anew framewor k i n whic h t o hous e th e pla y fo r th e spectator s an dperformers o f a postmodern culture.

One hundred years after Ivanov, the adjective 'Chekhovian ' still conjure sa world o f samovars, drawing rooms, old bookcases an d beloved gardens.Yet the nastroenie or mood that Chekho v attempted t o create through theimplied transparenc y o f walls , fluidity of space , juxtaposition o f nea r an d

146



far an d symboli c us e o f familiar item s was a harbinger o f Appia an d Craig ,the Surrealist s an d even , t o a degree , Brecht , whos e significantl y charge dprops an d se t piece s sa t i n th e mids t o f a stag e void . I t i s temptin g t ocontemplate wha t th e landscap e o f twentieth-centur y Wester n theatr ewould hav e bee n ha d Chekho v live d an d ha d Adolph e Appi a turne d hi stalents t o Chekhov' s dram a a s well a s to Wagner's operas . The successe s o fthe origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e production s ar e a testamen t t o th e fac tthat Chekhov' s play s worke d - i n thei r tim e - i n Simov' s settings . Bu t th eChekhovian landscap e has not onl y adapted wel l to the qualitie s o f moder nand postmoder n scenograph y bu t ha s thrived , almos t a s i f i t ha s foun d amore comfortabl e home . Chekhov' s continue d popularit y o n worl d stage ssuggests tha t no t onl y th e theme s an d character s remai n relevant , bu t th evisual landscape a s well.

NOTESQuotations fro m th e play s com e fro m Anton Chekhov's Plays, trans, an d ed .Eugene K. Bristow, W. W. Norton &; Company, Inc., New York, 1977. This is notedas B. followed by page number.Given problem s o f availabilit y o f Bristo w i n th e UK , th e sam e quotation s ar ereferenced fro m The Oxford Chekhov, trans, an d ed . Ronald Hingley , volume 11:Platonov, Ivanov, The Seagull, London , 1967 , and volume in: Uncle Vanya, ThreeSisters, The Cherry Orchard, The Wood-Demon, London, 1964 . This will be notedby H. followed by volume number and page number.

1 Anto n Chekho v in rehearsal, quoted b y Vsevolod Meyerhold in Meyerhold onTheatre, trans, and ed., Edward Braun, New York, 1969, p. 30.

2 The Cherry Orchard, Act Three, B. p. 195; H. vol. in, p. 179.3 Stev e Grant, 'Uncle Vanya', Plays and Players, July 1988, p. 19.4 Vikto r Simo v (1858-1935 ) - primar y designe r fo r th e Mosco w Ar t Theatr e

who designed the original productions of Chekhov's plays at the MAT.5 Quote d in Frantisek Deak, Symbolist Theatre, Baltimore, 1993, p. 144.6 Quote d in Siegfried Melchinger, Anton Chekhov, New York, 1972, p. 65.7 Adolph e Appia (1862-1928 ) - Swis s theorist an d designer whose ideas revolu-

tionised theatr e an d oper a desig n b y replacin g th e Romanti c Realis m o f th enineteenth century with suggestive, three-dimensional settings , often employin gsteps and platforms, and stages sculpted with light.

8 Uncle Vanya, B. pp. 64-5; H. vol. in, p. 30.9 Adolph e Appia , 'Idea s o n a Refor m o f Ou r Mise en Scene,' in Richar d C .

Beacham, ed., Adolphe Appia: Essays, Scenarios, and Design, trans. , Walther R.Volbach, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1989, p. 106.

10 The Cherry Orchard, B. p. 165; H. vol. in, p. 145.11 The Three Sisters, B. p. 144; H. vol. in, p. 124.12 The Seagull, B. p. 5; H. vol. 11, p. 233.13 Constanti n Stanislavsky, My Life in Art, New York, 1952, pp. 353-4 .14 Quote d in Anton Chekhov's Plays, trans, and ed., Bristow, p. 159.15 Quote d in Nick Worrall, ed., File on Chekhov, London, 1986, p. 70.

147


ARNOLD ARONSO N

16 Quote d in Braun, Meyerhold on Theatre, 1969 , p. 26.17 Ibid., p . 30.18 Quote d in Worrall, File on Chekhov, p . 71.19 Edwar d Gordo n Crai g (1872-1966 ) - Britis h theorist , directo r an d designe r

best know n fo r emblemati c an d symboli c setting s tha t conveye d a sens e o fgrandeur while stripping away the realism o f nineteenth-century theatre .

20 Se e Viktor Berezkin, Khudozhnik v teatre Chekhova, Moscow , 1987 , pp. 84-5.21 J . C. Trewin, Illustrated London News, 2 8 July 1962 , p. 154.22 Jark a Burian , The Scenography of Josef Svoboda, Middletown , Conn. , 1974 ,

P- 49-23 Ibid., pp . 49-50 .24 Georg y Tovstonogov , 'Chekhov' s Three Sisters a t th e Gork y Theatre' , The

Drama Review 13.2 , 1968, p. 153 . See chapter 15 , and Glossary.25 Quote d i n Arnol d Aronson , American Set Design, Ne w York , 1985 ,

pp. 113-14 -26 Nichola s de Jongh, 'Ivanov', The Guardian, 4 April 1989.27 Pete r Brook' s Cherry Orchard originate d fro m wor k a t hi s Pari s theatre , Le s

Bouffes d u Nord , i n 1981 . Thi s derelic t forme r operett a theatr e serve s a sBrook's bas e for his 'Theatre o f Nations'. The production toure d to Moscow, aswell as New York. See chapter 15 , Glossary and Appendix 2.

148


PHILIP FRENC H

Chekhov on screen

Although Anto n Chekho v wa s onl y thirty-si x whe n th e cinem a wa sinvented, seriou s film-makin g di d no t begi n i n Russi a unti l a coupl e o fyears afte r hi s death . So , unlik e hi s contemporarie s Maxi m Gork y (si xyears hi s junior ) an d Georg e Bernar d Sha w (fou r year s hi s senior) , wh oboth took a passionate interes t i n the possibilitie s o f the new medium, hedid no t liv e t o se e hi s wor k reac h th e screen . Hi s niec e however , Olg aChekhova, a sculptres s wh o emigrate d t o Germany , appeare d i n F . W.Murnau's Schloss Vogelod (1921) an d Rene Clair' s Un Chapeau de pailledTtalie (1927) , an d hi s nephew , Michae l Chekhov , enjoye d considerabl esuccess in America as both teacher and actor, his most celebrated role beingthe psychotherapist to whom Ingrid Bergman takes Gregory Peck in AlfredHitchcock's Spellbound (1945).

As earl y a s 191 1 ther e wa s a one-ree l Russia n comed y base d o nChekhov's stor y 'Romanc e wit h Doubl e Bass' , directe d b y Ka i Hansen .(The Britis h comedia n Joh n Clees e directe d an d appeare d i n a n amusin gBritish versio n o f thi s tale i n 197 4 wit h hi s then wife , Conni e Booth. ) I n1914 Bori s Glagolin made movies o f Illegal and The Daughter of Albion,and in 1917 Boris Sushkevich filmed The Flowers Are Late.1 Meanwhile, in1913, Vladimir Mayakovsky evoked the playwright's name in the magazineKine-Journal in an article called 'Theatre , Cinema, Futurism': 'The theatremoves toward s it s ow n destruction , an d hand s ove r it s heritag e t o th ecinema. And the cinema industry , branchin g awa y from th e naive realismand artific e o f Chekho v an d Gorky , open s th e doo r t o th e cinem a o f th efuture - linked to the art of the actor.'2

Whether or not they took their cue from Mayakovksy , the movie makersof th e Sovie t cinema' s Golde n Ag e pai d littl e attentio n t o Chekhov . I n1926, whil e specialisin g i n film s fo r children , Olg a Preobrazhenskay adirected Kashtanka, which wo n he r th e opportunit y t o mak e pictures fo radults. But the first major Sovie t production based on Chekhov was YakovProtazanov's Ranks and People (1929) , a n adaptatio n o f 'Ann a o n M y

149


PHILIP FRENC H

Neck', 'Deat h o f a Petty Official ' an d 'Chameleon', 3 a pioneer example ofthe portmanteau movi e or film a sketch, that was to become so popular inthe 1940 s an d 1950s . A decade passed , however , befor e Chekho v movie sbegan to flow from th e Russia n studio s and , a s the historia n o f Russiancinema Jay Leyda points out , flow from th e film schools, where his storiesbecame the favourit e subject s fo r graduatio n films. There were numerou sadaptations o f the shor t comi c play s know n a s vaudevilles an d o f thestories, th e most celebrate d bein g b y Isidor Annensky , whos e severa lChekhov films includ e The Man in the Case (1939) . Th e onl y majo rdirector to take an interest in Chekhov at this point was Sergei Gerasimov,though sadly his plans to make a biographical study of the writer (T dreamof showing in this film the meaning of modesty in combination with talent,of wha t result s it gives in huma n life' 4) di d no t com e to fruition. I n factthere wa s no truly importan t Sovie t adaptatio n o f Chekhov unti l i960 .Oddly enough , i n the Unite d State s ther e wa s a major movi e thoug h itattracted little attention at the time.

In 1937, the Danish-born Detlef Sierck , a man of the political left with aJewish wife , abandone d a promising caree r in the Germa n cinema , emi -grating to Hollywood vi a Switzerland , Franc e and Holland. O n arrival hechanged his name to Douglas Sirk, and while he was to become one of themost commerciall y successfu l director s o f his day , serious critica l recogni-tion in the English-speaking world did not come until the 1960s , by whichtime his Hollywood caree r was at an end and he had returned t o work inthe Germa n theatre . Sirk' s so n b y his first marriage, Clau s Detle f Sierck ,one of Germany' s mos t handsome child stars , remained a t home when hisfather emigrated . After appearin g in six movies Claus died fighting with theWehrmacht o n th e Easter n Fron t in Marc h 1944 , three week s befor e hi snineteenth birthday . This touching piece of biographical informatio n i s byno means incidenta l t o Sirk' s work, an d especiall y hi s first two America nprojects, a s his son' s deat h precede d b y thre e month s th e releas e o f hisChekhov movie.

Sirk was a master of melodrama, a genre he employed to study character,expose hypocris y an d examin e socia l an d spiritua l aspirations . Afte r acouple o f year s i n the States makin g documentarie s an d working onaborted projects , he got the chance to work with a team of fellow emigresand refugees o n two moderately priced independent productions . The first,shot i n a wee k an d then amplifie d wit h MG M money , wa s Hitler'sMadman (1942) , th e story o f the assassination o f Heydric h an d th edestruction o f Lidice. Th e secon d wa s Summer Storm (1944) , a screenversion of The Shooting Tarty, Chekhov's onl y novel , publishe d in 1884,excluded fro m th e 1899-1901 ten-volum e editio n o f his works, and

1 5 0


Chekhov on screen

translated onl y once into English (in 1923 by A. E. Chamot and revised in1986 by Julian Symons) . This was not a standard Hollywoo d production .Sirk had initially developed i t at the Ufa studi o in Germany (wher e he hadalso done a screen treatment o f William Faulkner's Pylon, which he finallyfilmed a t Universal as Tarnished Angels in 1958).

In Chekhov's novel, a former provincial magistrate presents a manuscriptto a Moscow magazin e (edite d b y Chekhov himself ) i n 1880 , agreeing toreturn three months later to receive the editor's verdict. It is the story of thecynical narrator' s involvemen t wit h a dissolut e Count , owne r o f a vas tdecaying estate , an d ho w the y bot h becom e th e lover s o f th e beautiful ,ambitious Olga , daughte r o f a n insan e woodcutter , afte r sh e has marrie dthe Count's middle-aged bailiff . During a shooting party Olga is murdered,the instrument use d bein g a Caucasian knif e give n her b y the Count . Heralcoholic husban d come s o n th e scen e wit h bloo d o n hi s hand s an d adrunken, one-eyed peasant is discovered with blood on his tunic. The one-eyed peasan t i s murdered i n th e loca l jai l (seemingl y b y Olga' s husband )and, a s a double-murderer, Olga' s widower i s sentenced to nineteen years 'hard labou r i n Siberi a an d apparentl y expire s o n th e outwar d journey .Early o n in the narrative , th e editor' s footnote s (signe d 'A.Ch.' ) questio nthe tex t i n a manner characteristi c o f eighteenth-centur y fiction, but no wcalled Borgesian or postmodern. We are also in the presence of what WayneBooth calls 'the unreliable narrator'.5 Like Agatha Christie's The Murder ofRoger Ackroyd, The Shooting Party i s narrate d b y th e kille r himself .Chekhov's stor y contain s bot h hi s confession an d a n arrogan t defianc e o fsociety, fo r h e believe s onl y a fe w superio r soul s wil l b e capabl e o frecognising the clues that revea l his guilt. Thus he will go free, alon g withthe weak-willed Count , who is sitting in a carriage outside , ready to sharethe money from th e sale of the tale . The story doe s not quit e add up , butJulian Symon s in his introduction t o the 198 6 edition persuasivel y argue sfor it as 'a landmark in the history of the crime story'.

The modestl y budgete d movi e versio n o f Summer Storm wa s mad e i nthat brie f wartim e period betwee n 194 2 and 194 5 when America an d theUSSR wer e allie s an d Hollywoo d too k a benig n vie w o f th e Russia nRevolution. Th e presen t tim e become s 191 9 an d th e stor y i s tol d i n a nextended flashback to 1912 . But a s adapted b y Sirk, i t i s the Coun t wh obrings the manuscrip t t o the offic e o f a newspaper i n Kharkov, where theeditor is not only a woman of the new Russia but also the fiancee whom theJudge had betrayed when he became infatuated wit h the peasant girl Olga.The Count , playe d b y th e priss y Edwar d Everet t Horton , a specialis t i ncamp valets and waiters, is comically conscious of being an outsider in theUSSR and payin g fo r hi s (an d hi s class' ) pas t sins . The Judge i s imperso-


PHILIP FRENC H

nated b y the suav e Britis h actor , Georg e Sanders , wh o wa s bor n i n S tPetersburg o f British parent s an d spen t th e firs t te n year s o f his lif e inTsarist Russia . Durin g th e movi e he sings a song in fluent Russian. H ebrings a proper arroganc e to the par t an d is able to suggest th e Judge' sinner conflicts . H e als o refer s t o the comin g Revolutio n tha t wil l swee pthem all away. As Olga, Linda Darnell, an actress best known for her sultrytemptresses, is merely adequate , an d as her derange d father , Si g Ruma nreprises hi s comi c commissa r fro m Erns t Lubitsch' s Ninotchka. Bu t th emovie i s stron g o n mood (Sir k pu t aside hi s first script , writte n incollaboration wit h James M. Cain , becaus e it had becom e too American -ised) and has dramatic power and moral ambiguity.

At the end of the film, when the Judge discovers that the Count has soldhis manuscript , h e hurries t o the newspaper offic e t o discover tha t hisformer fiancee has put it in an envelope addressed to the public prosecutor.But expectin g hi m t o come , sh e has no t poste d it , an d sh e gives hi m th eopportunity t o do this himself . Wit h a nic e touch , tha t reveal s theprotagonist's divide d character whil e also meeting the requirements o f theHollywood Productio n Code, 6 th e Judge first post s th e package, the nattempts to retrieve it from the postman and is shot dead by the police afte ra chase through the streets . He dies on the floor of a cafe, referring i n hislast gas p t o 'the heavenl y electricity ' (i.e . the lightning tha t ha d kille dOlga's mothe r an d b y whic h sh e hersel f ha d expecte d to be killed) . Thefinal shot i s of a wastepaper baske t containin g hi s fiancee's dance car dwhich she threw awa y the night th e Judge betrayed he r and which he hascarried ever since as a guilty memento.

Summer Storm, though a box-office success , was not well received at thetime. Th e Britis h Fil m Institute' s Monthly Film Bulletin (1945 , p . 131)concluded snootily : 'T o blame Chekho v fo r an y par t o f thi s cliche-ridde ncollection o f the shallow an d th e commonplace i s taking mean advantag eof a dead author. ' Although the Irish poet James Simmons was inspired inthe 1970 s to write a mocking comic poem about it ('Summer Lighting ' inhis Poems 1956-1986) posterit y has been kinder to it and the movie is nowwidely regarde d a s a minor classic . In hi s Biographical Dictionary of theCinema (1994 ) Davi d Thomso n acclaim s 'Summer Storm, a poignan tdramatisation o f Chekhov's The Shooting Party with Georg e Sander s asone of Sirk's finest "weak interesting" men'.

The first truly outstanding Russian Chekhov film came in i960 when theveteran Josef Heifetz , the n i n hi s mid-fifties , adapte d 'Th e Lady With theLittle Dog' , a scrupulously faithfu l versio n o f the tal e of the lov e affai rbetween tw o unhappily marrie d middle-clas s peopl e - a middle-age dgovernment officia l (Alexe i Batalov ) an d a young woma n (Iy a Savvina ) -

1 5 2


Chekhov on screen

who meet at a resort hotel beside the Black Sea. Shot in elegant black-and -white, th e fil m recreate s th e lat e nineteenth-centur y worl d wit h immens esubtlety, contrasting the summery Yalta with the wintry Moscow where thelovers have a reunion. The sadness , yearning, repression an d brie f libera -tion are captured in the landscape and architecture; the eroticism is impliedwith the camera turning away at the bedroom door . Heifetz demonstrate dthat th e leisurel y expansio n o f a shor t stor y wa s a bette r wa y t o mak e afeature fil m tha n th e contractio n o f a lon g novel , an d hi s movi e wa suniversally acclaimed as the screen's best adaptation of Chekhov up to thatpoint. Three years later he filmed anothe r Chekho v story , 'In the Town ofS', abou t th e frustration s o f a docto r i n a torpid provincia l town , whic hattracted favourabl e review s bu t wa s regarde d a s les s satisfyin g tha n th eearlier film . Unlik e The Lady With the Little Dog, i t di d no t becom e apermanent addition to the art-house canon.

It wa s probabl y th e succes s o f Heifetz ' movie s tha t finall y persuade dSoviet director s t o tur n thei r attentio n t o th e grea t Chekho v full-lengt hplays, beginnin g in 196 4 whe n Samso n Samsonov , who ha d wo n a SilverPrize in Venice for his version of Chekhov's 'The Grasshopper', made a filmof Three Sisters, wit h Le v Ivanov a s Vershinin, Konstanti n Soroki n a s DrChebutikin, an d Lyubov Sokolova , Margarita Volodin a an d Tatyana Mal -chenko as Olga, Masha and Irina. The play was opened out for the screen,and th e tex t wa s severel y cu t (th e philosophica l speeche s disappearin galmost entirely) rathe r tha n rewritten . I t was not highl y regarded an d di dnot fin d a distributo r i n th e West , an d i n fac t ther e wer e tw o Britis hadaptations before the next Soviet ones.

In 196 8 the American directo r Sidne y Lumet, who had mad e an admir -able jo b o f filmin g Eugen e O'Neill' s A Long Day's Journey Into Night(1962), turned hi s attention t o The Seagull, workin g with a largely Britishcast an d cre w i n Sweden . A s Arkadina , Simon e Signore t i s a trifl euncomfortable, bu t o n the principle tha t i t takes a star t o pla y a star sh ebrings conviction t o the role , and James Mason (Trigorin) , David Warner(Konstantin) an d Vanessa Redgrave (Nina ) ar e excellent. The movie openswith the disconcertingly bold touch of showing Trigorin sharing Arkadina'sbed, but is otherwise a faithful transcriptio n o f the play (Moura Budberg iscredited as translator and adaptor) until the final scene where Lumet makesa majo r change . D r Dorn' s speech , i n whic h h e conceal s Konstantin' ssuicide fro m Arkadina , i s dropped , an d th e film ends wit h th e assemble dcompany al l aware o f the appalling even t tha t ha s jus t taken plac e in theroom next door.

Lumet's The Seagull did no t ope n i n Britain unti l earl y i n 1970 , a fewmonths befor e Laurenc e Olivier' s film o f Three Sisters, als o usin g a

153


PHILIP FRENC H

translation b y Moura Budber g which retain s far mor e o f the origina l tex tthan th e Samsono v film . Thi s wa s substantiall y a screen versio n o f thememorable 196 7 Nationa l Theatr e productio n wit h a modified for m ofJosef Svoboda' s stage sets and lasting 165 minutes. Olivier himself plays DrChebutikin, Alan Bates (replacing Robert Stephens) is Vershinin, with JoanPlowright, Jeanne Watts and Louise Purnell as Masha, Olga and Irina. Ononly two occasions does Olivier depar t significantly fro m the stage version.First, for a rather flat fantasy sequenc e before Act Four when Irina (LouisePurnell) dream s o f a beautiful futur e i n Moscow; second , whe n a flashforward to the fatal due l is cut into the final dialogue between Irina and theBaron. In the final moments, as the sisters stand together wit h Chebutiki nreading nearby , a few bar s o f the Internationale can b e hear d fro m th edistance, a hint of things to come. The best that can be said for th e film isthat it preserves (i n a ponderous, slightl y misleading form) a classic stageproduction.

In th e Sovie t Unio n i n 1971 Yul i Karasi k filmed The Seagull, whicheventually reache d the West bu t mad e no grea t impression . Though ofte npictorially strikin g (especiall y i n the stagin g o f Konstantin' s awfu l pla y inAct On e where th e curtain part s acros s th e widescree n t o revea l th e lak ebeyond), th e film is heavy withou t bein g weighty , a lugubrious, low-ke ymovie tha t misse s th e original's iron y an d wit . Rathe r bette r i s AndreiKonchalovsky's Uncle Vanya, also made in 1971, with a formidable cas tled b y Innokenty Smoktunovsk y a s Vanya an d Serge i Bondarchu k a s DrAstrov. But even with a much cut text it moves with a ponderousness quiteabsent from Londo n production s o f the time seen at the National Theatr eand th e Roya l Court , an d fo r no apparent reaso n th e movi e alternate sbetween a n attractive sepi a tone and a fuzzy, ofte n ill-li t colour. Indicativeof the change o f emphasi s i s the substitution of a handful o f snapshot s ofthe neglected poor for the elaborate ecological charts that Astrov shows toYelena. W e first see some o f these picture s i n a scene-setting montag eevoking th e privilege d pleasure s an d genera l miser y of pre-revolutionaryRussia.

Significantly, Konchalovsk y lef t Russi a i n the 1980 s fo r Hollywoo d (h ewas the first Soviet directo r t o find success there) , and it was his youngerbrother, th e actor-directo r Nikit a Mikhalkov , wh o became , afte r Heifetz ,the Sovie t cinema' s principa l directo r o f Chekhov . Mikhalkov' s mos tpopular movie in the West has been the Russo-Italian co-production , DarkEyes (1987), based on several Chekhov stories, but mainly 'The Lady Withthe Little Dog', which won for Marcello Mastroianni the Best Actor Awardat Cannes . If Konchalovsky's picture s ar e lik e recklessl y heate d pressur ecookers o n the point o f blowin g thei r tops , hi s brother's ar e closely


Chekhov on screen

watched pot s tha t steadil y simmer . Dark Eyes unfold s a s th e romanti creminiscences o f th e middle-class , middle-age d Italia n Romano , onc e aprosperous ma n o f leisure , now a waite r o n a ferry boa t i n th e Adriati cshortly befor e Worl d War One . Romano meet s a n elderly Russian honey -mooner and proceeds to regale him with his life and loves. As a young manhe had ambitions to transform the world as an architect. Instead he marriesa Roman heires s and become s a pathetic, philandering playboy . But a t anItalian spa he falls in love with a beautiful, unhappil y married Russian andwhen sh e suddenl y depart s h e pursues he r t o he r remot e provincia l tow nunder the pretext of setting up a glass factory there.

The fil m i s visuall y ravishin g i n a sub-Viscont i fashio n wit h a liltin gFrancis La i score . The pace i s funereal, th e humour leade n an d the poeticevocation o f Mothe r Russi a a serie s o f soft-focu s cliche s fo r th e expor tmarket. Mastroianni, who in addition to the Award at Cannes got an Oscarnomination, doe s a near-parodi c variatio n o f hi s self-pityin g passiv eamorist, but Silvana Mangano is superb as his chilly patrician wife.

Far mor e interestin g tha n Dark Eyes i s Mikhalkov' s earlie r film , AnUnfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano (1976). 7 Subtitled 'Themes from theworks o f Anto n Chekhov' , th e sourc e i s almos t entirel y Chekhov' s first ,unnamed play, discovered in 1920, published in 1923 and usually known inEnglish a s Platonov. 8 Thi s vast , ramblin g text , writte n aroun d 1881 ,contains th e principa l themes , situation s an d character s o f hi s late r play sand would take over six hours to perform uncut . Mikhalkov has shaped itinto a 100-minut e fil m tha t take s plac e o n a singl e summe r da y o n th eestate of Anna Petrovna , a general's youngish widow, who is being visitedby her wea k stepso n an d hi s wife , th e actres s Sofy a (Elen a Solovei) . Herguests, in addition to a couple of local landowners, are the drunken retiredColonel Triletzky , hi s docto r so n an d hi s simpl e daughte r Sasha , wh o i saccompanied b y he r husband , th e thirty-five-year-ol d Mikhai l Platono v(Alexander Kalyagin) , a village schoolteacher . A s a student , Platono v ha dhad a passionate summer affair wit h Sofya, bu t seeing him after a n absenceof seven years she fails to recognise this overweight, disappointed man whohad onc e bee n spoken o f a s a future ministe r o f stat e o r the secon d LordByron.

With great humour and sadness, the film charts the relationships betweenthis large cast over the course of a day and night as they reflect o n the pastand contemplat e th e future . Th e ol d lov e betwee n Sofy a an d Platono v i srekindled, threatening two marriages and leading to a suicide attempt, bu tending in a stoic acceptance of things as they are. Clever emblematic use ismade o f th e player-pian o tha t give s th e movi e it s title , a machin e tha tperforms Lisz t unaccompanied , an d sound s exactl y th e sam e whoeve r -

155


PHILIP FRENC H

whether poe t o r peasant - play s upo n it . Among th e numerou s way s inwhich Mikhalkov' s screenpla y differ s fro m th e 198 4 versio n o f Platonovthat Michae l Fray n mad e fo r the Nationa l Theatr e a s Wild Honey i s thesubstantial rol e that Frayn accords to Anna Petrovna .

The succes s o f Mikhalkov's fil m bear s ou t some remark s mad e i n myoriginal review o f Olivier's Three Sisters for The Times (3 0 October 1970) :

Frankly th e pictur e - fo r al l it s manifes t respectabilit y an d understandabl ereverence fo r th e text - strike s me as a misguided enterprise , confirming th ebelief that Chekhov's full-length play s (unlike his fiction) are unfilmable. Thishas somethin g t o do with thei r perfectio n a s theatre. O f course, a boldcinematic geniu s migh t b e prepared t o throw awa y th e tex t entirel y an dattempt to re-create a Chekhov play from scratch as a movie.

An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano goes som e wa y toward s that ,and a simila r kin d o f boldness inform s th e most interestin g Chekho vpictures of the past decade or so.

There ar e firs t thos e movie s tha t w e migh t describ e a s Chekhovian -works that , b y design o r chance , resemble Chekho v in mood , them e an ddramatis personae. Satyajit Ray' s Days and Nights in the Forest (1969), thestory of four youn g middle-class men spending the summer a t a bungalowin th e Bengal i countrysid e an d comin g int o contac t wit h a wealthy loca lfamily, remind s mos t audience s o f Chekhov . Interestingly , Andre wRobinson i n his critica l biograph y Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye (1989 )remarks of Ray's transposition to Bengal of An Enemy of the People: 'Th eintroduction o f the temple into the story is Ray's masterstroke: It enabledhim to turn Ibsen into Ray - via Chekhov.'

Much mor e specificall y Chekhovia n i s Louis Malle' s Milou en Mai(1989), th e elegia c stor y o f the fina l gatherin g o f a French famil y o n adecaying estat e i n south-west Franc e a s les evenements of 1968 swee pthrough the country . The declinin g vineyard evoke s The Cherry Orchard;the eponymou s middle-age d Milo u (Miche l Piccoli) , wh o ha s thanklessl ydevoted his life to keeping the estate going, is a Vanya figure, and virtuallyall th e character s hav e Chekhovia n counterparts . In Nikita Mikhalkov' sBurnt by the Sun (1994), one of the finest Russian movies of the 1990s andwinner o f an Oscar a s Best Foreig n Languag e film , th e directo r himsel fplays a middle-aged ex-colonel , a hero of the Russia n Revolutio n wh o isliving in a rural community outside Moscow in 1936 . It is as if Lopakhin,the self-mad e businessma n i n The Cherry Orchard, had married int oRanyevskaya's household and they were living idyllically on the old estate.In fact ther e ar e specific reference s t o show that th e characters themselve srecognised the parallels with Chekhov. But this is the time of Stalin's purges

156


Chekhov on screen

and when the secret police arrive to escort the Colonel to the Lubianka anda sho w trial , Uncle Vanya turns int o Darkness at Noon. I n America, th eSwedish actres s Vivec a Lindfor s mad e he r fina l appearanc e i n Henr yJaglom's Last Summer in the Hamptons (1995) , a charmin g an d deepl ymoving film about a New York theatrical family tha t gathers every Augustwith thei r friend s a t a bi g house o n Lon g Islan d t o moun t a play i n th egardens. This is to be the last production before the house is sold, the piecechosen i s The Seagull and th e directo r i s playe d b y Andr e Gregory . Al linvolved identif y themselve s wit h Chekhov' s characters , thei r behaviou rechoes th e pla y an d th e fil m conclude s wit h a fraugh t bu t successfu lproduction.

Secondly, there are the films that rework the text of the plays. In the early1990s, two central European directors made new versions of Three Sisters.Margarethe von Trotta, who in such films as The German Sisters and RosaLuxemburg has pursued feminist theme s more thoughtfully tha n anyone inmainstream cinema , transpose d Three Sisters to th e entrancin g norther nItalian town of Pavia in the early 1980s. Her Olga, Masha and Irina are thestunningly beautifu l daughter s o f th e loca l university' s lat e recto r - Veli a(Fanny Ardant) , a libera l professo r o f literature ; Mari a (Gret a Scacchi) ,wife o f a popula r T V comedian; an d Sandr a (Valeri a Golino) , a medica lstudent. Thei r Vershini n i s Massimo, a handsome astrophysicist , recentl yreturned from a decade teaching in the United States. The twists are minor,but ingeniou s - Massim o i s Velia' s love r befor e switchin g t o th e sad ,married Maria ; hi s neglecte d wif e become s a friend , a feminis t siste rindeed, o f Velia an d Sandra . Od d detail s ar e amusin g - th e bore d Maria ,for instance , watche s th e soulfu l Now Voyager instead o f he r husband' stedious TV show. Elegant tracking shots follow the tastefully dresse d ladiesaround th e cit y an d th e autumna l countrysid e an d n o on e coul d wis h t oleave thi s idylli c plac e fo r Rom e o r Milan . Chekhov' s pla y i s a tragi -comedy or comic tragedy, while von Trotta's emotionally shallow, ideologi-cally trendy movie is merely designer-angst.

Potentially a fa r bette r adaptatio n i s th e youn g Hungaria n film-make rAndor Lukats ' Three Sisters (1992) which transposes the play to a Russianbarracks i n a remote corne r o f Hungar y i n the lat e 1980 s an d conclude swith the final withdrawa l o f Soviet forces in 1991. The text is pared downand does not seem to have been fully though t through in terms of the newsituation, bu t a n importan t change , o f considerabl e significanc e t o loca laudiences, i s tha t Masha' s patheti c schoolteache r husban d i s no w aHungarian, whic h i n itsel f make s hi m a n inferio r bein g in the eyes o f hiswife an d he r sisters . Stylisticall y fa r remove d fro m vo n Trotta' s version ,Lukats' film has a deliberately bleak, sickly look and the hand-held camera

157


PHILIP FRENC H

is constantl y o n th e mov e aroun d th e claustrophobi c barracks , usin g awide-angle lens to distort perspectives so that walls and corners loom up atus menacingly. The movie is an oppressive, wearing experience, but I wouldnot wish to make a definitive judgement after having seen it only once witha somewhat inadequat e ear-phone commentary. (Th e same, incidentally, istrue of the 197 8 version o f The Shooting Party directed by Emi Lotianou,of whic h I sa w on e excitin g un-subtitle d ree l durin g a displa y o f th edirector's work in Moscow.)

The most distinguished films of the plays have been the versions of UncleVanya recreate d i n differen t settings . I n Country Life (1995) , Michae lBlakemore, on e o f th e Britis h theatre' s finest exponent s o f Chekhov ,transposes Vanya to a decayin g estat e i n remot e Ne w Sout h Wale s an dhimself take s th e rol e o f Alexandr e Serebryakov , wh o ha s becom eAlexander Voyse y ( a par t intende d fo r Nige l Hawthorne) , a middle-age dAustralian write r returnin g hom e (rejecte d a s i t transpires ) afte r twenty -two years as a drama critic in London. The year is 1919, Australian troopsare comin g bac k fro m th e Europea n Wa r an d Alexander' s famil y suffer sfrom that famous 'cultura l cringe' before al l things English, with London astheir equivalen t o f Moscow . Hi s youn g Englis h bride , Debora h (Gret aScacchi, who acted in Blakemore's London stage version of Vanya and vonTrotta's film o f Three Sisters), turn s th e hea d o f Uncl e Jac k (Joh nHargreaves), who has sacrificed himsel f t o running the estate, and attract sthe loca l genera l practitione r D r Askey (Sa m Neill) . Chekhov's sad , plai nSonya becomes Sally (Kerry Fox), hopelessly in love with Askey, protectiveof Uncle Jack, and the embodiment of selfless decency.

Blakemore ha s fashione d th e play t o highligh t Australia n theme s whileretaining a Chekhovian ton e an d ironi c humour . Thu s D r Askey/Astrov' sconcern fo r ecolog y extends t o allowin g Aborigines t o squa t o n his land ,and hi s belie f i n th e shapin g o f a loca l identit y ha s le d hi m t o oppos eAustralian participatio n i n th e Grea t War . I n a ke y sequence , angr y ex -soldiers wrec k th e church hal l wher e Askey i s giving a lantern lectur e o nthe environment. In the farewell scen e between Astrov and Yelena in Vanyashe takes a penci l a s a souvenir ; i n Country Life D r Aske y an d Debora hsneak a final kiss in the house's fancy lavatory (claime d by Jack as the firstflush toilet in this part o f the country) , and when he accidentally tear s of fthe chain-handl e h e present s i t t o he r a s a memento . Thi s i s bot h awonderfully Australia n gestur e an d a marvellousl y Chekhovia n under -mining of sentimentality. The film's ensemble acting is impeccable.

August (1995) is a transposition of Uncle Vanya to the culturally isolatedNorth Wale s o f th e 1890 s wher e gradation s o f clas s ar e registere d b yaccent, ranging from the strong Welsh dialect of the workers to the received

158


Chekhov on screen

pronunciation o f the English visitors. The screenplay is by Julian Mitchell ,and th e fil m i s directe d b y Anthon y Hopkins , wh o himsel f play s th emiddle-aged failure , Uncl e Leuan . Th e frustrate d conservationis t an d GP,Dr Lloyd (Gawn Grainger) , tends to the poverty-stricken workers from thelocal slat e quarries , an d h e i s worshipped b y Sia n (Rhia n Morgan) , wh ohelps Uncl e Leua n ru n th e famil y estate . Th e intruder s fro m th e distan tmetropolis wh o disrup t th e househol d becom e th e selfish , self-centre dProfessor Blathwait e (Lesli e Phillips) , a loathsom e Englishma n fro mLondon, an d hi s secon d wife , Hele n (Kat e Burton) , a n America n fro mPhiladelphia wh o look s a s if sh e might hav e bee n painted b y John Singe rSargent.

Hopkins plays Leuan not as a sad, burnt-out man of mature years but asan angry , age d adolescen t wh o ha s resiste d growin g u p an d i s foreve rlarking aroun d an d pullin g face s behin d people' s backs . In a heavily cu ttext, h e end s u p dominatin g th e pla y i n a wa y tha t th e Vany a i nBlakemore's film doesn't. Consequently, the movie never quite achieves thatensemble effect b y which one judges a perfectly realise d Chekho v produc-tion. Bu t a t th e end , i n a self-abnegator y gesture , Hopkin s almos t with -draws from th e scene, his head buried in his hands, leaving the stage to hisniece. As Sian/Sonya, Rhia n Morga n give s a poignant performance . Mos tSonyas are so attractive that you wonder how Dr Astrov could have failedto notice them, an d a s if in awarenes s o f thi s th e actresse s emphasise th echaracter's rura l gaucheness . Morgan , o n th e othe r hand , i s neatl y self -contained and has a plainness that makes the doctor's indifference credible .But in close-up her eyes express a buried passion and a deep spirituality.

Far mor e remarkabl e tha n either , however , an d arguabl y th e greates tscreen Chekho v i s Vanya on 42nd Street (1994) , th e fina l fil m o f Loui sMalle, who died the following year . For nearly forty years , Malle fruitfull ycombined complementar y career s a s a documentaris t an d a directo r o ffeature films . I n 1981 , he brough t th e tw o side s togethe r i n My DinnerWith Andre, a n artfu l movi e purporting t o b e a dialogue i n a New Yorkrestaurant between the avant-garde theatre director Andre Gregory and theactor Wallac e Shawn . I t wa s i n fac t carefull y scripte d an d mad e wit himmense car e i n a n improvise d studi o i n Washingto n DC . Gregor y an dShawn are also involved in Vanya on 42nd Street, which presents itself as adiscreetly observe d documentar y recor d o f a run-through o f Uncle Vanya(in a fluent American versio n b y David Mamet ) a t the cavernous , disusedNew Amsterdam Theatre , buil t a t the turn-of-the-century an d once one ofBroadway's finest houses. Starting in 1990 , Andre Gregory an d hi s actor sintermittently rehearse d thi s productio n fo r severa l year s bu t neve r pre -sented i t t o th e public . Onl y a t th e en d d o w e ponder precisel y wha t w e

159


PHILIP FRENC H

have seen. Is this Vanya a work-in-progress? I s it the definitive accoun t ofsomething tha t neve r foun d a final form ? O r i s it a fresh creatio n fo r th ecinema, something existing in a ghostly limbo between stage and screen?

We first see the cast making their way through the raffish sidewal k crowdon 42nd Street . The y ar e accompanie d o n th e soundtrac k b y a cool jazzquartet, a kind o f music associate d wit h Mall e eve r sinc e h e persuade dMiles Davi s t o improvise a score fo r hi s firs t feature , Lift to the Scaffold(1957). Approaching the theatre, Gregory meets Wallace Shawn, who is toplay the titl e role , and take s a piece o f the hamburger he' s eating. Shawnintroduces hi m t o a Mrs Cha o (th e India n actres s an d cook , Madhu rJaffrey), daughte r of Chekhov's Bengal i translator . Mrs Cha o is , in effect ,the film's only fictional character , and it is to her that Gregory explains theplay durin g th e brief intervals . A s the stage o f the Amsterda m i s to odangerous to be performed on , the actors work in the theatre's gutted stalls,wearing thei r stree t clothe s an d usin g a table, a bench an d a few chairs .They are like Pirandellian ghosts, arising to bring an old play back to life.

Phoebe Bran d (a s the old Nanny) an d Larr y Pin e (D r Astrov) cha tinformally a t a table abou t thei r curren t wor k an d we scarcely notice theprecise moment when they switc h from theatrica l small-tal k t o Chekhov' sopening lines , fro m playin g themselves , as it were, to playing Chekhov' scharacters. Mall e work s clos e in to the actors , mor e ofte n cuttin g tha npanning. The lighting is harsh, but not grainy in a self-conscious documen -tary manner . While the pla y i s in progress , Mall e neve r cut s to the smal laudience, who only appear between acts.

There is nothing obviousl y or obtrusively avant-gard e abou t Gregory' sproduction or Malle's film. But the result is highly innovative. They succeedin making us experience in a new way Chekhov's great story of unrequitedlove, shattere d dreams , lie s an d truth-telling , selflessnes s an d stoicism.Rarely have Brechtian alienation techniques been used to greater effect. 9

While constantl y bein g kep t awar e of seeing a company of New Yorkactors at work in the 1990s , we become painfully engage d in the problemsand aspiration s o f the lat e nineteenth-century Russia n character s the y ar eplaying. Withou t transposin g Uncle Vanya t o th e United State s o rwrenching it from its historical context, Malle gives us, in effect, a modern-dress, demotic , America n Chekhov . Ye t no cheaply ironi c parallel s aredrawn betwee n th e actor s an d thei r stag e roles , an d Mall e an d Gregor yresist the temptation t o modulate (lik e Olivier's Henry V) into a full-scaleproduction with authentic decor on rural locations.

The cast is flawless. Julianne Moore is a strong, tragic Yelena. Her sceneswith Sonya (the heartbreaking Brooke Smith) have a rare intimacy. GeorgeGaynes, hitherto bes t know n a s the ditherin g commissione r in th e Police

160


Chekhov on screen

Academy serie s an d th e agin g matinee ido l smitte n b y Dusti n Hoffma n i nTootsie, bring s a revealingl y ligh t touc h t o Professo r Serebryakov . Larr yPine's Astrov recall s Jason Robard s Jr . a t hi s best , an d Wallace Shaw n i s amagnificently unsentimental , bitterl y comi c Vanya . A t th e en d w e fee l w ehave watched , becom e closel y involve d in , wha t i s a t onc e a n astonishin gpiece of theatre and an authentic cinematic experience.

NOTES

r Se e 'Variations of English titles', Appendix r .2 Ja y Leyda , Kino - A History of the Russian and Soviet Film, Londo n (firs t

published i960), r<?82 , p. 4r3 .3 Se e Appendix r .4 Leyda , Kino, p. 395.5 Wayn e C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, Chicago and London, 1961, p. 274.6 Th e Hollywood Productio n Cod e (know n informally a s the Hays Office Code) ,

adopted in r<?30 and enforced fro m ^ 3 4 to the mid-r96os, stated as the first ofits genera l principles : 'N o pictur e b e produce d whic h wil l lowe r th e mora lstandards o f those who see it. Hence the sympathy o f the audience shal l neve rbe throw n t o the side o f crime, wrong-doing, evi l o r sin.' As a consequence i twas necessary that malefactors mus t always be seen to pay for their misdeeds.

7 Se e chapter 4 in this volume.8 Als o known as Fatherlessness. See chapter 4 in this volume and Appendix r .9 Se e Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, translate d b y John

Willett, London, 1964, pp. 94-6, ^ 3 - 5, ^ r - 5.

r6r


14TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

Chekhov on the Russian stag e

Chekhov is often internationall y considere d 'th e Shakespear e o f the twen-tieth century'. In his homeland, his plays have become part and parcel notonly o f the Russian theatre bu t als o of the national lifestyl e o r psyche, aninexhaustible sourc e o f spiritua l endurance . W e tak e thi s s o muc h fo rgranted tha t w e assum e tha t i t ha s alway s bee n so , bu t thi s i s no t a naccurate view: Chekhov's climb to the stature of the author o f The Seagulland The Cherry Orchard was lon g an d difficult , whil e th e proces s o fcreating Chekhov's theatre was even more laborious and painful .

In literal terms, the history of Chekhov in the Russian theatre dates backto autum n 1887 , whe n hi s comedy , Ivanov, was premiere d a t th e Kors hTheatre, a private theatre in Moscow. In the following decade , theatres inMoscow, S t Petersburg an d i n th e province s produce d almos t everythin gthe young Chekho v wa s energetically writin g fo r th e stage . Although thi smay seem a good beginning, this period in Chekhov's career as a playwrightshould more appropriately be seen as a prologue.

Both Chekhov's full-length play s and the 'miniatures' or short plays wereproduced with varying degrees of success. He described the one-act plays as'jokes' or 'little scenes' and in letters referred t o them as 'vaudevilles' whichwere initiall y an d subsequentl y widel y performe d - an d wit h invariabl esuccess. The secret of their success was clearly evident: Chekhov introducedmany change s t o th e conventiona l vaudeville : omittin g th e traditiona lcouplets, adding 'true-to-life ' features , an d ridiculing the traditional plots ,often t o th e poin t o f absurdity , whil e basicall y observin g th e rule s o f th egenre (Letters, vol. 11 , p. 148).1 Actors and audiences alike were fascinate dby th e sharpl y delineate d characterisation , fas t dialogu e an d irresistibl ecomicality o f thes e plays . Afte r th e premier e o f The Boor [mor e usuall ytranslated i n Englis h a s The Bear] at th e Kors h Theatre , Chekho v com -mented: 'Th e audienc e wa s laughin g nonsto p an d th e performanc e wa sinterrupted b y bursts of applause . . . ' But at the same time he assessed theacting a s 'clumsy' , 'non-artistic ' an d 'lackin g subtlety' . (Letters, vol. in ,

1 6 2


Chekhov on the Russian stage

p. 50) , while the performers a t the Alexandrinsky Theatre' s productio n ofThe Bear le d Chekho v t o observ e that : 'Actor s neve r see m t o watc hordinary people . . . ' (Letters, vol. in, p. 291), a serious criticism.

Chekhov's critique reflected a n essential disagreemen t betwee n his thea-trical aesthetic s and the prevailing stage customs, which accepted artificia land careles s performance , whil e Chekho v presumabl y expecte d muc hgreater precisio n an d finesse. Another illustratio n o f thi s disparit y wa s inthe reactio n t o Chekhov' s full-lengt h plays . Th e earlies t o f the m wa suntitled (late r appearin g in repertoires under the title Platonov, or Father-lessness), unpublishe d an d unperformed i n Chekhov' s lifetime . Th e youngwriter brough t th e pla y t o th e Mal y Theatr e an d wa s turne d down ,apparently i n unpleasan t terms . Th e Mal y Theatre' s justificatio n fo r thi sdepended not only on mistakes resulting from hi s inexperience, but mainlyon the unusual length of the play, and its explicit and quite unprecedentedoutspokenness in exposing public behaviour. Also unique was the combina-tion of scepticism and cynicism in the central character , the village school-teacher Platonov, with his powerful ques t for justice. Platonov was rejectedby the theatre, and instead Platonov' s plac e was taken b y Ivanov, anothe rcomplex man, both in himself and in relation to others.

Ivanov ha d mor e luc k tha n it s predecessor , no t onl y becaus e o fChekhov's developin g professionalis m an d dramati c skills , bu t mainl ybecause o f th e brillian t performanc e o f Vladimi r Davydo v a s th e titl echaracter. He portrayed Ivano v as an average Russian intellectual: benign,soft-hearted an d weak-willed . Th e production' s ver y success , however ,virtually resulted in scandal: the sharp and grim plot, the central question s- deliberatel y lef t unanswere d b y th e autho r (question s suc h a s wh o isIvanov o r who i s responsible fo r hi s misfortunes?) wer e found fascinatin gby some - an d seemingly revolted others. As for Chekhov's own view of theproduction, h e criticise d i t fo r it s lac k o f precisio n an d fo r directoria lmistakes. Th e subsequen t histor y o f Chekhov' s play s i n performanc edemonstrated the validity of these criticisms.

After th e Moscow premiere, Chekhov rewrote the play, classified i t as 'adrama', sharpene d th e conflic t an d th e character s an d provide d tragi cdimensions t o th e characte r o r 'image ' o f Ivano v - fo r whic h reaso n h echanged th e final scene . I n th e meantime , an d contrar y t o hi s usua lapproach, he explained at great length, and persistently, the meaning of theplay in his letters (Letters, vol. in, pp. 109-16), something which he neverdid before or subsequently, and clear evidence of his need to be understood.The ne w version , produce d a t th e Alexandrinsk y Theatre , wa s mor esuccessful an d ha d a bette r audienc e response . Nonetheless , Chekhov' scomplex an d contradictory characterisatio n o f Ivanov , a man lacking 'th e

163


TATIANA SHAKH-AZIZOV A

energy o f life' , remaine d fo r man y year s on e o f th e moder n theatre' sgreatest enigmas. And for year s after th e play was first staged , Ivanov wasrepeatedly criticise d fo r bein g unstageable , an d it s autho r accuse d o famateurism.

Such accusations became more persistent when the Abramov Theatre inMoscow (another private theatre) produced Chekhov's comedy The Wood-Goblin (usually translated a s The Wood-Demon) in 1889 . The productionhad little, if any, success in its very short run, while even the author himselfdisliked his play. It had two features whic h were quit e uncharacteristic ofChekhov's play s an d neve r recurre d i n an y o f hi s othe r dramati c works :romantic rhetoric - an d a happy ending. The difficulty o f combining dramaand pros e with a n epi c qualit y i n th e sceni c element s (i n hi s letters ,Chekhov significantl y referre d t o The Wood-Goblin a s a 'comedy-novel' )made the play too heavy. The prose, and the over-abundance of characters,details and situations , took the play over . However, the experience o f TheWood-Goblin was not wasted and became the source of a new play - UncleVanya (1896). But before that, in 1895, there was The Seagull.

The 1890 s wer e extremel y eventfu l fo r Chekhov . Hi s talent s a s adramatist becam e muc h mor e mature , h e gaine d mor e freedo m an dcourage, an d he eagerly imbibed ne w trends i n the arts . Chekhov create dThe Seagull - th e pla y late r t o becom e th e symbo l and th e mirro r o ftwentieth-century theatre . Bu t tha t wa s ye t t o happen . Unti l then , an dsharing th e fat e o f man y innovativ e artists , Chekho v ha d t o endur e th eshattering fiasco o f The Seagull's premiere at the Alexandrinsky Theatre inAutumn 1896.

Chekhov's dramatic innovation in The Seagull was daring. He wrote theplay 'against al l the rules of dramatic art ' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 100), and yetstrongly hope d fo r success . He especially counte d o n the actres s who wascast t o pla y Nin a Zarechnay a an d wh o rehearse d he r par t wit h aw e an denormous poeti c powe r - Ver a Komissarzhevskaya . Sh e woul d late r b enamed 'th e Seagul l o f the Russian stage' , given the resemblances betwee nthe personalitie s an d fortune s o f th e actres s an d he r character , an d thei rcombined fate. 2 Bu t eve n Komissarzhevskay a coul d no t preven t th e pre -miere fro m bein g a disaste r (Letters, vol. vi , p . 231) . Th e failur e o f th eproduction seeme d to be the result o f a mistake and muddle: the premierehad bee n schedule d o n th e sam e da y a s a benefi t performanc e fo r aparticular comic actress, and the audience was therefore expectin g to havefun an d moc k The Seagull. Bu t tha t i n fac t coul d no t hav e bee n the rea lcause. The Seagull was doome d t o fail . Th e ol d conservative , traditiona lstage failed to pass the test set by the new drama. The play required carefu ldirection, innovative preparation and special performance techniques .

164



In one of his letters Chekhov wrote: 'I didn't do the casting. No new setswere made . Ther e ha d bee n onl y tw o rehearsal s an d th e actor s kep tforgetting thei r lines . Th e resul t wa s genera l pani c an d tota l depression .Even Komissarzhevskaya was not half as splendid as she had been in one ofthe rehearsals. . .' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 211). The powerful moo d of disasterand th e reactio n o f bot h audienc e an d critic s wer e suc h tha t Chekho vvowed: 'Never again shal l I write or direct plays' (Letters, vol. vi, p. 197).He di d no t believ e h e ha d a chance o f succes s an d h e wa s right : succes scould come only with the new theatre.

An encounter with such a theatre - th e Moscow Art Theatre - wa s soonto come. 3 Wit h th e MAT , Chekho v a t las t discovere d a communit y o fspirit, me t understandin g an d regaine d th e opportunit y t o restor e hi sreputation a s a dramatic writer . It was for the MAT that he broke his vowand wrot e tw o ne w plays : Three Sisters (1900) an d The Cherry Orchard(1903).

This alliance created prerequisites for the emergence of directors' theatre,which affirme d th e importanc e o f everythin g tha t happen s o n stage ,whether 'internal ' o r 'external ' truth , wher e actor s performe d a s a nensemble an d where characterisation wa s expected t o match th e complexand integral image of reality, of the world outside the theatre. This was theperiod o f perfec t harmon y betwee n actor s an d characters , stag e an dauditorium. Chekhov's plays were staged, performed an d attended by thosewho wer e themselve s 'Chekhovians' . Lif e depicte d i n thes e play s wa sfamiliar t o them , fo r i t wa s their life an d the y wer e abl e t o articulat e i tconfidingly, simply , wit h genuin e pai n an d concern . Thes e production sowed thei r char m t o a distinctiv e lyricism , an d a n inspire d moo d o ratmosphere. I t migh t appear , therefore , tha t i n thi s wa y an d only i n thi sway coul d Chekhov' s play s b e stage d an d hi s character s performed . Bu tthis has not been the case.

Chekhov's plays have already had a long life, responding and adapting tothe dramati c change s o f thei r context , whethe r theatrica l o r social . Theycontain 'messages ' to be discovered and meanings to be expressed by othergenerations. This 'otherness' - th e alternative to the established MAT style- wa s for a long time only theoretical, and not put into practice. Until themiddle o f thi s century , Chekhov' s play s wer e viewe d exclusivel y i n th econtext o f th e MA T production s whil e th e MA T remaine d th e mai nChekhovian theatre . Bu t thi s reputatio n ha d t o b e re-examine d an dreaffirmed, whic h the company has only recently done.

In Chekhov' s lifetime , an d i n the firs t decade s o f th e twentiet h centur yhis plays were widely staged acros s the country b y both metropolitan an dprovincial companies . Bu t trouble d time s wer e fas t approaching . I n th e

165



Soviet Russia o f the 1920 s and 1930 s Chekhov's plays did not fi t with thepredominant ideolog y o f socia l optimism . Th e publi c fel t increasingl yalienated from Chekhov' s drama and productions of his plays became rare:The Seagull was produced onl y once, Ivanov and Three Sisters each twice,while Uncle Vanya was not stage d a t al l (excep t fo r th e reconstruction o fthe ol d MA T production).4 The Cherry Orchard was playe d mor e often ,but mainly because i t proved more easily adaptable to predominant socia ltastes.

History repeate d itself : Chekhov' s vaudeville s wer e swiftl y gainin g i npopularity, largel y a s a resul t o f th e effort s o f suc h MA T 'offshoots ' a sYevgeny Vakhtangov an d Vsevolod Meyerhold . I n the early 1920s , Vakh-tangov dreame d abou t givin g grotesqu e shap e t o th e tragi c an d comi celements. H e wrote : ' I wan t t o d o The Seagull. Theatrically. A s i t wa sconceived b y Chekhov . . . Chekhov i s no t a lyricist , h e i s a tragedian.' 5

Vakhtangov di d no t stag e The Seagull, but a t hi s studio , whic h late rbecame know n a s the Thir d Studi o o f th e MAT , he twic e produce d TheWedding. The staging was sharp, vigorous, eccentric and a t the same timefilled no t s o much wit h mocker y a s with bitte r compassion . Meyerhold' s1935 production o f 33 Fainting-Fits (sometime s translate d a s 33 Swoons)at th e theatr e bearin g hi s name , clearl y lacke d tha t shar p contras t o fbitterness an d satire . I n Chekhov' s thre e shor t plays , Jubilee (sometimestranslated a s The Anniversary), The Bear and The Proposal, Meyerholdcounted 'thirty-three fainting-fits ' b y the characters. Under this title, ratherthan interpretin g a n existin g scrip t a s a director , h e create d hi s ow ncomposition wit h faintin g a s the key 'gag' . And th e performance becam eoverloaded with comic effects.

There had been a time when Meyerhold performe d Treple v in the MATproduction o f The Seagull and he clearly fel t som e inner affinit y wit h thischaracter. Meyerhold' s directoria l caree r bega n wit h a provincial produc -tion o f Three Sisters in 1902 . Bu t thirt y year s late r h e maintaine d tha t'Chekhov, with his The Cherry Orchard or Three Sisters, is remote from ustoday."5 Sovie t clas s theory , applie d t o th e art s an d literature , arouse dsuspicion about the very nature of Chekhov's characters with their predilec-tion for meditation, reluctance to act and inability to struggle.

But then time s change d again . Discarded value s wer e 'rehabilitated ' o rcame bac k int o fashion , an d wit h i t th e rediscover y o f Chekho v wa s i nsight. This happened i n the sam e place and i n the same way a s before: in1940, th e MA T stage d Three Sisters and reaffirme d th e immortalit y o fChekhov's characters an d the author's reputation a s a writer fo r al l times.In th e trouble d pre-wa r an d wa r years , renewe d production s o f ThreeSisters became symboli c o f the nation' s spiritua l resistanc e t o the ruthles s

166



and evil external powers. And the challenges of time and fate became moreintense. Th e 194 0 productio n o f Three Sisters lacked th e tragi c anguis hthat woul d b e discovered late r i n Chekhov' s plays . That 'other ' Chekhov ,with tints and colours that were absent from the lyrical staging of the MAT,was abou t t o arrive . Thi s 'otherness' wa s create d b y Alexande r Tairov' s1944 productio n o f The Seagull a t th e Kamern y Theatre , whic h wa sremarkable fo r it s highl y stylise d staging , an d th e unforgettabl e perfor -mance o f Alis a Koonen , wh o mad e he r Nin a Zarechnay a a profoundl ytragic character, waging a hopeless struggle in life and art.7

This tragi c elemen t wa s als o strongl y presen t i n Bori s Dobronravov' sperformance i n the title role of Uncle Vanya in the 1947 MAT production,as wel l a s i n Bori s Smirnov' s performanc e i n th e titl e rol e o f Ivanov i nMaria Knebel's 1955 production at Moscow's Pushkin Theatre.

Throughout the 1950s, the MAT style was waning: the internal resourcesfor self-renewa l wer e exhausted, an d it gradually lost its powerful gri p onthe interpretation and production style of many plays, including Chekhov's.Timed fo r Chekhov' s centennia l (i960) , th e MAT' s productio n o f TheSeagull was heavy and cold, demonstrating indifference an d routine. But atthe same time the Moscow Maly Theatre , which had not previously don eany o f Chekhov' s majo r plays , opene d wit h a n energetic , passionat e an dinnovative productio n o f Ivanov, directed b y Bori s Babochkin , wh o als oappeared in the title role. Babochkin's production continued once again thetradition o f stripping the play of the romantic colouring that went back tothe productions of Dobronravov and Smirnov. It seemed Babochkin felt nosympathy fo r hi s character, althoug h the scale of Ivanov's personality wasgiven full range and recognition. 'Throughout the play Ivanov is falling intoan abyss and there is no way of saving him.'8

Austerity, vigour an d strong tragic elements were the defining character -istics o f th e productio n interpretation s o f Chekhov' s play s i n th e 1960s .This wa s ho w hi s work s wer e see n b y director s o f differen t school s an ddifferent generations , usin g th e 'mirrors ' o f th e differen t plays . Th e ol dmasters wer e th e first to go : Babochkin wa s followe d b y Georg i Tovsto -nogov. I n hi s 196 5 productio n o f Three Sisters, at Leningrad' s Bolsho iDrama Theatre, the sisters were presented as tragic characters, gripped by aparalysis of the will. This tragic element was compellingly conveyed by theactors, an d Tovstonogo v a s directo r pushe d the m 't o sharpe n al l th econflicts tha t advance the action'.9 It is interesting that the audiences of themid-1960s could not grasp what Chekhov' s contemporaries identified wit hinstantaneously: wh y can' t th e sister s g o t o Moscow ? B y the mid-1960s ,such question s ha d t o b e explaine d an d performed - i n thi s wa y th eunderlying o r subtextua l ide a o f th e pla y ha d t o b e emphasise d an d

167



expressed. The Prozorovs' world , ligh t and clear in the beginning , becamecold and grim by the end, as though all life had drained out of it.

Symbol an d imager y becam e centra l t o th e ne w Chekho v theatre . I nMaria Knebel' s 196 5 productio n o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Centra lSoviet Arm y Theatre , Moscow , th e desig n n o longe r represente d a rea lhouse o r orchard . Onl y th e whit e curtains , fluttering lightl y lik e th echaracters' memories o r dreams , were used to suggest the orchard . In thisperiod o f 'angr y Chekhov' , thi s productio n seeme d unusuall y sof t an drestrained, but reference to the present day was contained in the characters'quiet an d melancholi c escap e fro m day-to-da y realities . Th e character saroused interest not because of their socia l status, or class as merchants oraristocrats, bu t b y thei r huma n characteristics : the y wer e quit e simpl yfascinating people.

The reactio n o f th e cultura l authoritie s - traditionall y suspiciou s (an dnot altogether without grounds) of innovative interpretations of the classicsas manifestations o f dangerou s fre e thinkin g - wa s b y this tim e virtuall yabsent. The main reason was that these innovative versions were the workof recognised grand masters whose challenge to tradition wa s not particu -larly daring. What they offered wa s an innovative view of the past - and ofpeople in that past . But 'next in line' were the younger artist s who neededChekhov's drama to speak for themselves about their time.

Thus Anatoly Efros'10 extensive Chekhovian cycle opened with the 1966production o f The Seagull at th e Lenkom Theatr e i n Moscow. Th e focu sand emphasis was on the sharp conflicts in that play on such contemporaryproblems a s alienation , th e disconnectio n o f huma n relationship s an dloneliness. The loneliness o f the artis t was a personal moti f fo r Efros , an dthe protagonis t i n hi s productio n wa s Treplev : young , defenceles s an dbetrayed by all, even by Nina Zarechnaya, and whose tragic ending seemedinevitable. Th e reactio n t o The Seagull was nothin g compare d t o th estormy respons e t o Efros ' 196 7 productio n o f Three Sisters at Moscow' sMalaya Bronnaya Theatre. The production was compellingly expressive ofpainful foreboding , o f anguish , youn g hope s an d bitte r disappointments .Characters an d spectator s wer e th e sam e people - sharin g th e sam e timeand space , th e sam e aspiration s an d th e sam e disappointments . Thei rhomes ha d lon g cease d t o b e fortresses , wer e lon g los t i n th e void ,surrounded b y the withered orchard. These people lived on an island, withcold winds blowing through it , waiting for thei r fate and , in the director' sconcept, the fate of people in exile. It was 'the exile of beautiful, intelligen tpeople'.11 Suc h wa s Efros ' thinkin g an d interpretation , readin g th e pla yand perceiving the world aroun d him, debarred from cultur e and aestheti cexpression and deprived of normal life.

168



The production expresse d the spiri t o f the time. The post-war 'thaw ' inRussia12 was coming to an end and the hopes i t had aroused proved to bedelusions. The ol d values could onl y be talked abou t wit h irony - an d inEfros' productio n ther e wa s muc h iron y an d anguish . It s messag e wa sperceived by those in the audience who shared the director's thoughts, andby thos e who , a t tha t time , ra n th e theatres . Chekho v wa s becomin gdangerous, but the classics cannot really be accountable, so the blame wasplaced o n the director wh o had allegedly distorted a classical masterpiece.Efros' productio n ha d a ver y shor t run , an d wa s the n censored , bu t it smessage has continued up to the present day.

The next generation to come to Chekhov's theatre shared the sentimentsof Efro s an d hi s audience . Leoni d Heifetz' s 196 9 productio n o f UncleVanya at the Central Soviet Army Theatre was permeated with sad irony.13

The narrow opening of the stage was the realm or area of 'unfreedom' o r a'prison', wher e peopl e wer e crammed , gaspin g fo r fres h air . Thi s lac k o ffreedom had sucked dry the soul of Uncle Vanya, and aroused young Sonyato protest , an d i n those two character s o f differen t generation s th e youngspectators recognised their fathers and themselves.

Thus with th e beginnin g o f th e 1960s , the Chekho v theatr e underwen ttruly revolutionary changes , however bizarre this may sound in relation tothis seemingl y mos t peacefu l o f Russia n playwrights . Bu t thi s playwrigh tbecame a rea l 'trouble-maker' , provokin g upheaval s i n consciousnes s i nparticular, an d i n th e art s i n general . Th e ol d norm s an d dogma s cam etumbling down, and there was an intensive search for new forms. The timechose Chekho v t o expres s itself . An d i t i s this , in part , whic h make s th eanalogy between Shakespeare and Chekhov.

In a Soviet writer' s nove l on e o f the character s says : 'Chekhov's wa y isthe wa y o f Russia n freedom , th e embodimen t o f th e Russia n democracy ,true an d humane, which never took shape.' 14 This refers t o Chekhov a s aperson and writer, but it may also be fully applied to his theatre. In Russia'sdistinctive context, theatre has always longed and struggled, spontaneouslyand persistently , fo r th e freedom o f the individual an d freedom o f expres-sion. Thi s tendenc y starte d durin g 'Th e Thaw ' an d continue d i n th efollowing decade s up to the present. Democracy called for equality , and sothe MAT was bound to lose its monopoly, but not just to another 'monopo-list'. Henceforth, n o one theatre had the privilege to monopolise Chekhov.Chekhov offere d equalit y o f right s an d opportunitie s t o al l theatres ,regardless o f rank o r artisti c style . The MAT also had the right to partakein this opportunity, and when the time came, it exercised this right.

Thus in the mid-1970s, Oleg Yefremov manage d to re-energise the MATand restore its reputation, thereby creating precedents for the realisation of

169



Chekhovian projects . Yefremov' s intentio n wa s to brin g Chekho v bac k t ohis native stage, but to do so in the spirit of the new times and on the basisof new knowledge, combined with what, in the MAT, is called the 'grain' oftradition.

Another aspec t of democracy is the balance betwee n the capital and theprovinces i n stagin g Chekhov' s theatre . Fo r som e tim e Chekho v wa sessentially a metropolitan author , bu t littl e b y little the provinces - wher ein fac t al l o f Chekhov' s play s ar e se t - gaine d mor e right s an d mor erecognition. Ther e ar e Chekho v Festival s hel d regularl y i n th e writer' sbirthplace, Taganrog , an d i n th e 1980 s thes e Festival s demonstrate d tha tinnovative an d unexpecte d vision s coul d com e fro m Siberia , fro m th emodest republi c o f Kalmykia 15 o r fro m th e industria l centr e o f Lipetsk .Such diversity, inherent i n Chekhov's plays , is the main source of freedo min his theatre. This portrait changes with the times: lyrical and melancholyChekhov, sarcasti c Chekhov , wis e Chekhov , crue l Chekho v . . . al l thes efeatures are present in the writer, and time chooses the one that suits it best.But the image becomes complete only when the span is the whole century.

Chekhov's play s tak e turns t o becom e symbols of the time. In the mid-1970s i t wa s th e tur n o f Ivanov, i n Mar k Zakharov' s Lenko m Theatr eproduction, whic h combined grotesque representation o f the socia l milieuwith a serious treatmen t o f th e mai n characters . Yevgeny Leono v playe dIvanov a s quit e a n ordinar y man , 'no t renowne d fo r extravagance' , soft -hearted, hones t an d ashame d o f livin g withou t belie f o r purpose . Ole gYefremov's Chekhovia n cycle at the MAT also began with Ivanov in 1976.As director and actor, Innokenty Smoktunovsky16 discerned in this play thedrama of consciousness and the tragedy of a remarkable man, 'the RussianHamlet', doomed to loneliness and misunderstanding.17 These two produc-tions raised an important problem of that time: the problem or question ofbelief, o f th e 'genera l idea ' tha t th e bes t people , whethe r outstandin g o rquite ordinary, cannot find - an d without which they cannot live.

Another moti f tha t permeate d staging s o f The Cherry Orchard in th e1970s wa s tha t o f eterna l values , whether beauty , oppresse d b y pragma -tism, o r suc h notion s a s home , family , tradition s o r th e past . I n Anatol yEfros' 197 5 productio n o f The Cherry Orchard at th e Mosco w Tagank aTheatre, th e pas t wa s symbolise d b y th e whit e branc h hangin g ove r th estage; by the family portraits, and by the cross on the family graveyard. Thestyle of the production was energetic, rapidly paced, with an abundance offarcical effects , i n th e centr e o f whic h wer e tw o tragi c figures . Fo r th eelegant an d ironic Ranevskaya, represente d b y Alia Demidova i n the styleof Ar t Nouvea u an d th e aesthetic s o f Russian Decadence , the ruin o f thecherry orchard was the collapse of the (her) world. And next to her was the

170



man wh o ha d unwittingl y betraye d her , who belonge d neithe r t o th e ol dnor th e ne w times , an d wh o wa s tormented b y inner conflicts . Lopakhi nwas performed b y Vladimir Vysotsky18 with almos t Shakespearean power .Here th e cherr y orchar d cease d t o b e merel y a natura l phenomeno n bu tbecame symboli c o f essentials , o f th e elements . I t n o longe r ha d t o b eliterally represente d o n stage , for it s meaning and its fate wer e written o nthe faces of people.

Valentin Pluchek , a t the (Moscow ) Satir e Theatre , directe d The CherryOrchard in the style of a chamber performance, jus t indicating the orchardby light-and-shadow pla y and concentrating o n 'the inner orchards ' o f thecharacters, first and foremost Lopakhin, sadly and ironically represented bythe acto r Andre y Mirono v a s a wise, loving , understanding ma n withou tthe power to change anything.

In the 1980s , it was the turn o f Three Sisters. Yur y Lyubimov's19 198 1production a t th e (Moscow ) Tagank a Theatr e wa s shar p an d sometime sclumsy, an d di d no t entirel y brea k awa y fro m tradition . Th e pas t wa screated b y the image o f old Moscow outsid e th e theatre , expressed i n therecorded voices of actors from productions of the Moscow Art Theatre andthe Bolsho i Dram a Theatr e (i n Leningrad , no w S t Petersburg) . Bu t no weverything wa s quit e different : th e audienc e ha d change d an d s o had th eactors. The large mirror downstage , placed a t an angle to the auditorium ,reflected bot h performer s an d spectators , showin g ho w simila r the y wer eand ho w differen t fro m thos e wh o cam e befor e them : anothe r epoch ,another atmosphere , othe r value s an d morals . Thus the seemin g romanceof the military, quartered in a provincial town, gave way to the grim imageof barracks existence : the resonance o f the rough an d appallin g realit y ofthe Afghanistan war .

In 1982 , Three Sisters was produce d b y bot h Efro s a t th e Malay aBronnaya Theatr e an d b y Galin a Volche k a t Moscow' s Sovremenni k(Contemporary) Theatre. Both had personal reasons for their choice. Efros'memories o f hi s ol d censore d productio n stil l rankle d an d h e wante d t orecreate the story of the sisters with young actors. Volchek was preoccupiedwith the problem o f the fate an d situation o f women, a female interpreta-tion but not a 'feminist' one.

In thi s wa y eac h o f Chekhov' s play s ha s take n it s tur n a t becomin gsymbolic o f th e time , excep t fo r The Seagull which ha s weave d it s wa ythrough th e entir e century , reflectin g th e stam p o f th e times , trend s i ntheatre and the individual experiences of the artists. It is, in itself, virtuallyabout the sources of conflict, struggle and progress in the theatre world.

The conflict surroundin g The Seagull originally started in the late 1960s.Boris Livanov's romantic and elevated version, emphatically detached fro m

171



the 'boredo m o f everyda y life ' a s presente d a t th e MA T i n 1968 , wa sclearly a reactio n t o Efros ' 'rough ' interpretation . The n Ole g Yefremo vresponded with the intentionally down-to-earth rendering of the play at theSovremennik i n 1970 , a s a n unseeml y stor y o f th e struggl e o f pett yambitions - an d the egos of small-minded selfis h people . And the responseto that version was to come later, initiated by Yefremov himself.

By the mid-1970s, Russian an d also international theatr e were swept bya wave o f productions o f The Seagull, reflectin g th e repentanc e o f yester -day's Treplev s - th e forme r avant-gard e artisti c rebel s wh o the n gav e uptheir protest to favour the establishment and the mainstream - an d becamesterile. Alexander Vilkin' s 197 8 production a t the Mayakovsky Theatr e inMoscow becam e a bitter an d aci d commentary o n thi s issue . In contrast ,Oleg Yefremov' s 198 0 productio n a t th e MA T was a n attemp t t o recon -struct th e play' s poetry . Afte r hi s first experience , th e directo r no wjourneyed throug h th e play, soaked in its poetry, and time, no doubt , ha dalso mad e hi m wiser . H e brough t bac k t o th e stag e th e beautifu l an denigmatic world o f nature and looked a t the people in it with compassion,understanding an d confidence . A t th e Lenko m Theatr e i n Leningrad ,Gennadi Oporko v ha d als o begu n b y presenting The Seagull as the cold ,grim and lifeless world o f 1973 , but by 1982 he changed this world into apoetic an d mysteriou s environment , create d o n a smal l stag e whic h wa sshared by both audience and performers.

So for a quarter o f our century, beginning in the 1960s , developments inChekhov productio n gathere d momentum , irrelevan t t o 'external ' factors ,whether anniversarie s o r socia l changes. The sources for sceni c interpreta -tions were found i n Chekhov's plays, his prose and letters. Chekhov was awriter fo r theatr e and film, fo r dram a and music . Almos t al l Russia ndirectors went throug h hi s 'schoo l o f theatre' . While sceni c artist s create dthe ric h an d fantasti c visua l world s o f th e plays , th e actor s foun d i n th echaracters the opportunity for self-expression , an d anticipated the compas-sionate response o f the audience . And then, suddenly , everything stopped .Froze.

Perestroika, whic h ha d begu n i n th e mid-1980s , stimulate d interes t i nother writers , an d othe r literar y an d dramati c genres . Everyon e wa sfascinated b y literature whic h ha d bee n censore d an d wa s now available .New classics , lik e th e wor k o f Andre i Platono v o r Mikhai l Bulgakov ,pushed Chekho v an d othe r 'old-timers ' int o th e background . A s i n th e1920s and 1930s , there was the sense that Chekho v was not a relevant o ruseful writer . This impression, however , wa s a delusion - an d short-lived .What had seemed a complete break turned ou t to be only a natural pause.When it was over, the theatre began its slow but steady return to Chekhov.

172



The first evidence came at the beginning of the nineties and was related tothe searc h fo r socia l resonances . Yury Yeremin, having lon g worked wit hChekhov's prose , staged a dramatisation o f Chekhov' s stor y 'War d No. 6 'at the Central Soviet Army Theatre. The message was absolutely unambig-uous: only the day before, the world itself had been a grim prison.

Then new young directors came to Chekhov's theatre. Their productions,as those of others before them, also sometimes reflected political tendencies,but the conflict wa s much broader. These 'perestroika' peopl e felt the needto mak e thei r ow n connectio n wit h Chekhov . Thus Leoni d Trushkin , fo rinstance, began his theatrical caree r in Moscow with a n eccentric produc-tion o f The Cherry Orchard i n 1990 . An d th e Pokrovk a Theatr e i nMoscow opened in 1992 with Sergei Artsybashev's chamber production ofThree Sisters: actors an d audienc e unifie d int o a distinctiv e Chekhovia n'family'. A year later, Alexander Kalyagin' s Et Cetera Theatre opened withUncle Vanya. A serie s o f Chekho v festival s swep t acros s Russia . Thes ewere democrati c or , i n othe r words , initiate d fro m 'below' , no t impose dfrom above . So, for instance, in the spring of 1992, a group of young actorsand directors organised the 'Back to Chekhov' Festival in St Petersburg. Inthe autumn of 1992 , Yekaterinburg was the venue for a children and youththeatre festival , calle d 'Betwee n Shakespear e an d Chekhov' . Late r i n th esame yea r somethin g quit e unprecedente d happene d i n Moscow : th erepertoire o f th e Firs t Internationa l Chekho v Theatr e Festiva l opene d i nMoscow - an d did not feature a single Russian production o f Chekhov. Sotheatre practitioner s go t togethe r t o hol d a n alternative festival, calle d'Playing Chekhov'.

This continued to expand and develop, recapturing the original scale andcomplexity o f the previous quarte r o f a century. Various kinds o f produc-tion, fro m differen t part s o f the country , wer e involved i n thi s proces s ofexpansion and reinterpretation, and these so-called 'plays of our time' weregradually performe d a t variou s theatres . Uncle Vanya was on e o f thes eplays, with si x premieres in 199 3 in Moscow alone , and i t was as if theseproductions wer e intended t o heal o r answer som e shared socia l 'wound' :namely, the position o f a man wh o found th e truth onl y when i t was toolate, turned his back on his old life but failed to find the way towards a newone. In this period of Russia's radical reassessment of values, this was trulya sor e subjec t an d i t received a particularly powerfu l expressio n i n MarkRozovsky's production at the Nikitsky Gates Theatre.

The sam e them e wa s presente d i n a n unusua l an d origina l devisedproduction b y Genriett a (Henrietta ) Yanovskaya , a t th e Mosco w Yout hTheatre, unde r th e rename d titl e o f Ivanov and Others. Yanovskay abrought in motifs, characters and characteristic lines from Chekhov' s other

173



plays. While the resul t wa s th e creatio n o f a complex an d bizarr e world ,nonetheless Chekhov' s them e o f a man wh o ha s los t th e meanin g o f lif eremained both intact and prevalent.

Three Sisters, written i n th e firs t yea r o f th e twentiet h century , ha sremained wit h u s throughou t th e century , an d i s no w stage d mor efrequently tha n before . Th e pla y meditate s o n wha t ha s happene d t opeople, t o Russi a an d t o th e worl d a s a whol e ove r virtuall y th e las thundred year s - an d i t wa s with thi s pla y tha t Ole g Yefremov complete dhis Chekhov cycle at the MAT in 1997. The Seagull continued its flight overRussia i n impatien t an d disturbin g anticipatio n o f it s centennia l anniver -sary. It has become common for many directors to regard The Seagull as acomedy, but a very special one in which the key 'comedian' is fate - an d theaudience is allowed to laugh at the characters, but only until the last act. Inthis final act everything is changed, the games, jovial o r cruel, come to anend and for the denouement the comedy is transformed int o drama.

Mark Zakharov' s 199 4 Lenko m productio n o f The Seagull featured awide variety o f performance styles , ranging from vaudevill e to tragedy. Intheatres acros s Russia , whethe r Vologd a i n the north o r Magnitogorsk i nthe Urals, productions of The Seagull are also done in many different styles ,ranging fro m dar k grotesqu e comed y t o ligh t an d lyrica l declaration s o flove for theatre , its world and its people. The 199 6 Maly Theatre produc-tion of The Seagull evolved from fu n t o deep melancholy. And The Seagullhas also returned to St Petersburg, where the centennial anniversar y of theplay's premiere was marked by a festival an d conference calle d 'The Flightof th e Seagull' . Thi s flight stil l continue s an d ther e i s n o tellin g wha tdistinctive features of our time may be reflected in it.

The twentiet h centur y i s a t a n end , an d w e ca n no w su m u p th edevelopment o f Chekhov' s theatre . Th e repertoir e o f th e Secon d Interna -tional Chekho v Theatre Festiva l (1996 ) included al l Chekhov's full-lengt hplays produce d i n Russi a an d elsewhere . A t th e Thir d Festiva l (1998) ,Chekhov's dram a wa s seen in the wides t possibl e context , a s if the worl dtheatre, o n th e ev e o f th e thir d millennium , wa s reviewin g th e principa lstages o f it s ow n development : classica l (antique ) dram a - Shakespear e -and Chekhov.

NOTES1 Al l quotations from Chekhov's works indicated in brackets are taken from N. F.

Belchikov an d others , eds. , Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh,Moscow, 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30Volumes, Moscow, 1974-83). Quotations are from the Letters.

2 Ver a Komissarzhevskay a (1864-1910 ) - on e o f th e mos t renowne d actresse s

174



of th e lat e nineteent h century , playin g bot h i n th e province s an d a t th eAlexandrinsky Theatre . Sh e als o opene d he r ow n experimenta l theatr e i nSt Petersburg. See chapter 15 in this volume and Selected Glossary.

3 Se e chapter 3 in this volume.4 'O n the Soviet Stage', Teatr 1, i960, pp. 163-4 .5 Yevgen y Vakhtangov, Materials and Articles, Moscow, 1951, p. 182.6 Vsevolo d Meyerhold, Articles, Letters, Speeches, Talks, in two volumes. Vol. 11 ,

1917-39, Moscow, 1968, p. 310.7 Alexande r Tairov (1885-1950), director, and his wife, the actress Alisa Koonen

(1889-1974) jointl y founde d th e Mosco w Kamern y (Chamber ) Theatre . SeeNick Worrall , Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage, Cambridge, 1989 .For a detailed description of Tairov's production o f The Seagull in 1944-5 , s e e

Vera Gottlieb, Chekhov in Ferformance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Theatre inFocus Series, Cambridge, 1984.

8 Bori s Babochkin, In Theatre and Film, Moscow, 1968, p. 200.9 Georg i Tovstonogov , The Range of Thoughts, Leningrad , 1972 , p . 220. Fo r

more o n Tovstonogo v se e chapte r 9 i n thi s volume , not e 7 an d chapte r 15 ,Selected Glossary.

10 Fo r more on Efros see chapter 11 in this volume, note 6 and chapter 15.11 Anatol y Efros, Rehearsal, My Love, Moscow, 1975, p. 64.12 Fo r more on the description 'The Thaw' see chapter 3 in this volume, note 10.13 Se e chapter 8 in this volume.14 Vasil y Grossman, Life and Fate, Moscow, 1988, pp. 264-5.15 Kalmykia , forme r Centra l Asia n Republi c o f th e Sovie t Union , neighbourin g

Kazakhstan, the capital of which is Elista.16 Innokent y Smoktunovsk y i s best known outsid e Russia for hi s performance o f

Hamlet i n Kozintsev' s award-winnin g fil m o f 1964-5 . Se e chapte r 3 i n thi svolume, note 11.

17 Se e chapter 3 in this volume, note 12.18 Vladimi r Vysotsk y (1938-80 ) wa s a charismati c an d famou s Russia n actor ,

poet and singer.19 Yur i Lyubimov, se e chapter 9 in this volume, note 8 and chapte r 15 , Selected

Glossary.

175


LAURENCE SENELIC K

Directors' Chekho v

A Selected Glossary giving details of directors/actors mentioned can befound at the end of this chapter.

Shortly before hi s death, when asked to name the actors he considered thebest interpreter s o f hi s plays , Chekho v cite d thre e member s o f th e S tPetersburg Imperia l Theatr e who had appeare d i n the first productions ofIvanov and The Seagull.1 Hi s slighting omissio n o f actor s o f the MoscowArt Theatr e reflecte d th e nineteenth-centur y attitud e tha t a playe r wa ssupposed t o enhance a playwright's word s through virtuosit y an d instinc-tive affinity . Howeve r gifte d th e Ar t Theatr e actor s ma y hav e been ,Chekhov regrette d tha t thei r individua l talent s wer e subjec t t o th e over -riding concept of a director.

The iron y i s tha t Chekhov' s ow n play s ha d themselve s evolve d fro mvehicles for histrioni c display into ensemble pieces , best implemented b y amasterful director . Hi s playwritin g caree r culminate d a t a time whe n th edirector was emerging as prime mover in the modernist theatre. In commonwith the Wagnerian notion o f Gesamtkunstwerk, the stagecraf t promote dby Appia, Craig , Stanislavsky an d Reinhardt required every component inthe mise-en-scene to b e integrate d an d controlle d b y a singl e vision .Chekhov's dram a benefite d fro m thi s development : actor s migh t giv eoutstanding performance s o f specifi c roles , bu t hi s plays rarel y caugh t o nwith audience s unles s package d b y a directo r int o a comprehensibl e an dcongruent format . A comparison of , say , the romanti c Hamlet s o f Kean ,Devrient an d Mochalov make s sense ; but t o compare the Ranevskayas ofValentina Cortese , Alia Demidova an d Jutta Lamp e to any advantage on emust se t them i n the context s create d b y Giorgi o Strehler , Anatol y Efro sand Peter Stein.2

The identificatio n o f Chekhov' s play s wit h th e origina l Ar t Theatr emises-en-scene wa s unavoidable . I n pre-Revolutionar y Russia , provincia lentrepreneurs, innovator s a t th e Stat e Alexandr a Theatre , an d youn g

176


Directors' Chekhov

directors suc h a s Meyerhold , Rostovste v an d Gaideburo v al l sedulousl ycopied Stanislavsk y when staging Chekhov: this entailed close attention tosurface realis m wit h a n emphasi s o n atmospheric s an d soun d effects .Between 190 5 an d 1937 , the MA T displayed it s masterpieces throughou tEurope an d th e Unite d States , whil e th e Pragu e Grou p o f Ar t Theatr edefectors propagate d thei r own versions of these productions. The residualimpression left by these effective an d well-acted stagings was that Chekhovwas idiosyncraticall y Russia n an d bes t lef t t o Russians ; i f non-Russian swere to stage him, imitating the Art Theatre as slavishly as possible wouldproduce th e bes t results . Directors wh o ha d falle n unde r th e Ar t Theatr espell, such as Eino Kalima in Finland an d Eva Le Gallienne in the US, didtheir best to transmit its allure by reproducing its externals.

Chekhov wa s als o transporte d i n th e baggag e o f post-Revolutionar yemigres, who validate d thei r artisti c passport s b y claiming t o b e kindredspirits. In this diaspora, Russian theatre practitioners advertised a link withthe Ar t Theatre tha t wa s ofte n factitiou s o r tenuous , bu t plausible . Somedirectors, amon g the m Pete r Sharoff , Richar d Boleslavsk i an d Le o Bul -gakov, were authentic products of the MAT studios, who had been exposedto Stanislavsk y a t differen t phase s o f hi s unceasin g experimentation .Whatever th e case , emigre and ersatz-Art Theatre Chekho v tende d t o b eretrospective and elegiac in tone, hearkening back to a paradise lost.

Even thos e refugee s wh o rejecte d th e Ar t Theatr e approac h o r neve rpractised it carried on under its banner. In England of the 1920s and 1930sTheodor Komisarjevsky wa s regarded as the leading Chekhovian, althoug hhe had twice failed to be admitted to the MAT and Stanislavsky loathed thebook Komisarjevsk y ha d writte n abou t hi s system . 'Komis' , a s h e wa sfamiliarly known , brough t a whiff o f modernist stagecraf t t o the commer-cial English theatre h e despised . His Chekho v wa s shrewdly calculate d t oappeal t o th e tast e o f th e averag e matinee-goer : b y cutting eccentricitie sand lon g speeches , historicisin g th e actio n an d emphasisin g th e lov einterest, an d castin g attractiv e youn g star s o n th e ascendant , h e len tChekhov th e appea l o f romanti c melodrama . Th e stag e wa s drenche d i nmoonlight and music laid on to underscore an ambience of wistful lyricism .Komis' conversion o f Chekho v int o prestigious consume r good s elegantl ydisplayed would be perpetuated in post-war Italy in the lush and decorativeproductions of Luchino Visconti.

Georgian-born George s Pitoef f introduce d a n equall y idiosyncrati cChekhov t o th e French , althoug h hi s asceticis m rarel y attracte d matine eaudiences. Influenced a s much by economic constraints a s by the 'Itineran tTheatre' o f hi s mentor Pave l Gaideburov , Pitoef f repudiate d th e cluttere dnaturalism of the MAT and situated his Chekhov amid black draperies and

177


LAURENCE SENELIC K

two-dimensional tree-trunks . Strippin g dow n a play t o a conflict betwee nthe sensitiv e artis t an d society , h e imbued hi s mises-en-scene with melan -choly an d tragi c foreboding . Althoug h h e rewrot e an d abridge d t o sui tFrench conventions, Parisians preferred t o regard these delicately wrough tetudes as exotic effusions o f a 'Slavic soul'.

The year s betwee n th e Worl d War s migh t b e calle d th e sentimenta lperiod o f Chekhovian production . For Western spectators , Chekhov was aman o f sorrows and acquainted with grief; whenever a director attempte dto brin g ou t th e comi c strain , critic s an d audienc e becam e confused .Would-be clone s of the MAT stagings cultivated protracte d pauses , turgidrhythms an d tears , an d wer e titivate d wit h star s i n th e leadin g roles .Informed b y the well-entrenched notio n that Chekhov was a psychologicalnaturalist of the so-called Ibsen school, the mises-en-scene were confined tobox-sets an d th e reproductio n o f 'everyday ' details , including th e obliga -tory samovar.

So long as these views prevailed, Chekhov' s works held little appea l fo rthe foremos t director s o f th e time . I n Bolshevi k Russia , wher e Chekho vwas dismisse d a s a n outmode d chronicle r o f a feckles s intelligentsia ,Vakhtangov's tragic-grotesqu e stagin g o f The Wedding (1921 ) faile d t oinfluence treatmen t o f the major plays . Meyerhold too k o n Chekhov onlynear th e end o f his long career, with a mechanically slapstic k renditio n ofthree vaudevilles.3 In Germany Max Reinhardt, possibly cowed by the auraof definitivenes s abou t th e Ar t Theatr e productions , neve r go t aroun d t oChekhov, and directors who did appreciate him, such as Jiirgen Fehling andHeinz Hilpert , failed t o infect audience s with their enthusiasm. Stanislavs-ky's leading admirer in the US, the Group Theatre under Harold Clurman ,abandoned a projecte d Three Sisters for it s lac k o f socia l relevanc e an dbox-office drawin g power.

To ri d itsel f o f th e cliche s o f gloo m an d doom , Chekhovia n stagin gneeded a divorc e bot h fro m th e historica l circumstance s reflecte d i n th eplays and from the obsolescent techniques of the Art Theatre. Nemirovich-Danchenko realise d thi s whe n h e mounte d a n optimisti c Three Sisters in1940. I n Russi a a generation later , th e popula r them e o f a n idealis t i n aworld o f cynica l compromise , foun d i n the play s o f Arbuzov , Rozo v an dVolodin,4 was read into Chekhov's drama. Ivanov in particular was revivedon a regular basis . Anti-domesticity was proclaimed by scenery that lackedwalls an d doors ; ruine d manor-house s wer e mad e t o loo k lik e skeleta lprisons, overgrown b y a Sleeping Beauty's garden o f lianas and brambles .This became a cliche of its own. (See Appendix 4.)

Unfortunately, afte r th e Second World War Chekhov suffere d i n Centraland Easter n Europ e fro m bein g impose d a s par t o f th e Sovie t cultura l

178


Directors' Chekhov

hegemony: he and Stanislavsky, now heavily alloyed with Socialist Realism,were thrust down the throats of the Czech, Polish, East German, Romanianand Hungaria n theatres . Littl e wonde r if , lef t t o thei r ow n devices , theysought t o discredi t an d supersed e th e MA T legacy . A t th e sam e time ,Samuel Beckett and the Theatre o f the Absurd offered model s for bringin gout th e symbolis t an d alogica l element s i n Chekhov , an d a spat e o f'metaphoric' stagings and ruthlessly anti-sentimental, even caricatural inter-pretations mushroomed al l over Europe. This Chekhov revival was chieflydue t o Otoma r Krejc a an d Giorgi o Strehler , bot h leftist s bu t o f quit edifferent stripe .

At the Divadlo z a Branou (Theatr e Behind the Gates ) in Prague, Krejcaworked closel y with hi s actors to explore what Gork y had called the coldand crue l Chekhov , a n impassiv e creato r wh o flung his character s int o ameaningless world . Withou t bein g a doctrinair e existentialist , Krejc achannelled hi s ow n experienc e a s a victi m o f Sovie t dominatio n int o aversion o f Chekho v tha t administere d th e shoc k o f recognitio n t o hi saudiences. Mountin g five Chekho v play s seventee n time s throughou tEurope in an increasingly unconventional manner , he became respected asthe director most closely acquainted with the subtleties of the text.

Strehler's earlies t Chekho v production s a t the Piccolo Teatr o d i Milanohad been political and satirica l in bent; his finest achievement, The CherryOrchard (1974), abstracted th e nostalgia o f Komisarjevsky an d Pitoef f b yenlarging i t beyon d th e private sphere . Strehleria n epigone s becam e mos tcommon i n Wester n Europ e an d th e English-speakin g world , wherea s i nCentral an d Easter n Europe , Krejca' s mode l o f the crue l grotesqu e domi -nated, particularly in the work of Peter Zadek, Roberto Ciulli and MatthiasLanghoff. The Romanian director , Andrei Serban, staging Chekhov in NewYork, Massachusetts and Japan as well as in his homeland, often seeme d toshuttle uncomfortably betwee n these two polarities. (See p. 143.)

Until recently, the English-speaking world has been largely impervious toinnovations an d radica l reform s i n Chekhovia n staging . Psychologica lrealism remains th e preferred model , and the Chekhovian estat e ha s beenfamiliarised a s th e ol d homestea d o r th e decaye d manor-house . Firml ysituated at the fin de siecle, he is a safe choice for repertory seasons, offerin gplum role s fo r actor s an d comfortin g th e spectator s wit h th e dramati cequivalent o f valeria n drops . Thi s ma y accoun t fo r th e larg e numbe r o fAmerican plays abou t Chekhov' s ow n life , in which he turns into , in NeilSimon's words , 'Th e Goo d Doctor' ; o r wh y Britis h dramatists , suc h a sTrevor Griffiths an d Howard Barker , feel the need to rewrite his plays in abrutal an d unambivalen t style , i n rebellio n agains t gentee l tradition s o fplaying Chekhov's own words.

179


LAURENCE SENELIC K

Under the pressure of postmodernist intellectual trends, Chekhov's statusas a readily recognisable cultural totem makes him vulnerable to all sorts ofco-optation. Directors bored with common-or-garden-variety Chekho v feelfree to shuffle th e dramatic structure to provide a metatextual gloss. Krejcaexperimented b y playing Act Four of The Seagull with interpolations fro mearlier act s t o compris e a montag e o f commentar y (Divadl o z a Branou ,Theatre Behind the Gates, 1972) . In Moscow, Yury Pogrebnichko reducedthe same work to an anthology of Chekhovian allusions (Teatr na KrasnoyPresne, Theatr e o f th e Re d Army , 1989 , 1992) . A n eve n mor e playfu lintertextualism was practised in Genrietta (Henrietta ) Yanovskaya's Ivanovand the Others (Moscow Youth Theatre, 1993) , filled with homunculi andin-jokes fro m th e whol e Chekho v canon . A s the millenniu m approaches ,Russian spectators , facing a n uncertain future , appreciat e these winks andnudges at a shared cultural experience. Elsewhere, the dichotomy still existsbetween productions which seek only to 'tel l the story ' to their public andan 'avant-garde ' whic h trie s t o appropriat e Chekho v an d assumption sabout him as media for its own messages.

The Seagul l

With it s awkwar d vestige s o f nineteenth-centur y stagecraf t an d it s inter -weaving o f artisti c debate s wit h lov e affairs , The Seagull needs carefu lbalance and an almost musical rendition to avoid coming off as melodramaor soa p opera . Confessin g tha t h e ha d n o ide a o f wha t th e pla y meant ,Stanislavsky use d i t a s a n exercis e i n nastroenie (atmosphere, mood) ; herecreated th e facture an d textur e o f everyda y lif e throug h lighting , soun dand behavioura l traits . However , sinc e th e Ar t Theatr e neve r toure d th eplay an d soo n droppe d i t fro m it s repertory, i t had les s impact tha n late rMAT stagings.

The standar d approac h take n t o The Seagull focusses o n th e conflic tbetween a younge r generatio n o f idealist s an d a n olde r generatio n o fhacks. Ho w director s dea l wit h Treplev' s Symbolis t pla y i n Ac t On eusually indicate s ho w seriousl y th e audienc e i s t o tak e hi s pretension s t oliterary talen t or , indeed , whethe r ar t o r lov e i s t o b e pre-eminent . Th econsensus share s Stanislavsky' s opinio n tha t Treple v wa s a mute , inglor -ious Pushkin kept down by the vile seducer Trigorin an d Nina a n inspiredtalent forge d b y suffering . Komisarjevsky' s moon-struc k Londo n produc -tion (Ne w Theatre , 1936 ) playe d u p th e them e o f youn g lov e thwarted .Pitoeff's tw o Parisia n production s (Theatr e de s Champs-Elysees , 1922 ;Theatre de s Mathurins , 1939 ) wer e threnodies , wit h Treple v a typ e o fmartyred artis t an d Nin a a n etherea l muse ; the late r stagin g finally made

180


Directors' Chekhov

Chekhov popula r i n Paris , suitin g th e moo d o f anxiou s yearnin g o n th eeve of war.

The Seagull could b e slanted t o protes t state-impose d uniformit y i n thearts. Aleksandr Tairov reopened hi s Kamerny Theatre in Moscow in 194 4with a Seagull distilled into a Platonic dialogue on art's eternal verities. Setagainst blac k drape s an d a white piano, its lines pruned t o keep the focu son aesthetic debate and Nina played by the middle-aged Alisa Koonen, theproduction was appreciated by the cognoscenti. Given Tairov's low prestigewithin th e Sovie t theatrica l hierarchy , i t was mainly ignored , however . Inhis firs t Seagull (Narodni Divadlo , Prague , i960) , Krejc a trie d t o mak eNina's gospel o f vocation the play's message, a didacticism he forswore i nhis late r work . Her e too , realis m wa s subjugate d t o th e play' s symbolis telements: Josef Svobod a replaced a constructed environmen t with pools oflight and leaf-patterns.

In th e post-Thaw 5 era , th e fashionabl e Sovie t literar y contras t o fadolescent ideal s wit h middle-age d compromis e maintaine d th e earlie rvalency, favourin g Treplev' s transcendenta l effort s ove r Trigorin' s work -manlike professionalism. When Anatoly Efros directed The Seagull in 1966(Lenin-Komsomol Theatre , Moscow) , th e childis h rebe l Treple v stoo dadrift ami d a hos t o f nasty , striden t elders , wit h eve n Nin a playe d a s asingle-minded careerist . Bori s Livanov' s restagin g fo r th e Ar t Theatr e(1968) pointed up the parallels with Hamlet, apotheosising the melancholyTreplev;6 wherea s Ole g Efremov's Seagull (Moscow, 1970) , intended a s apolemic agains t Livano v an d reflectin g th e squabblin g i n hi s ow n Sovre -mennik Theatre , isolate d eac h characte r i n hi s self-involvement . Afte rEfremov came to head the Art Theatre, he metamorphosed from Treplev toTrigorin: hi s Seagull there i n 198 0 wa s les s judgemental , suggestin g that ,even in extremis, one could go on living.

Leaders o f th e America n 'avant-garde' , suc h a s Andr e Gregor y an dJoseph Chaikin , sa w in the play the origin s o f thei r ow n creative striving ,and ther e wer e five majo r restaging s i n Ne w Yor k i n 197 5 alone ;Gregory's wa s th e mos t daring , paraphrasin g th e line s an d effacin g th eborder betwee n pas t an d present . Th e play' s subtitl e ' A Comedy ' wa sexploited b y Lindsa y Anderson , Jonatha n Mille r an d Elli s Rabb , wh orelished th e farc e o f Arkadina' s histrioni c behaviou r bu t coul d no tencompass th e whol e wor k withi n a comi c vision . A s usual , i t wa sEuropean director s wh o reformulate d th e pla y mos t drastically . Pete rZadek (Bochum , 1973 ) an d Antoin e Vite z (Paris , 1984 ) place d Treplev' splatform o n the apron , s o that th e audience o n stage mirrored tha t i n thehouse; th e interlockin g lov e affair s an d thei r attendan t frustration s wer egiven bloate d prominence . Livi u Ciulei , a Romanian directo r workin g i n

181


LAURENCE SENELIC K

the US , initiate d a much-imitate d practic e o f beginnin g th e pla y wit hTreplev's suicide , an d the n flashing bac k t o Ac t One . Robert o Ciull i(Miilheim, 1984 ) reduce d th e pla y t o a serie s o f startling , evocativ eimages: a blind Sorin feeling his way through velvet curtains, Nina dresse das Pierro t tie d t o a stake , th e lott o gam e playe d agains t a mountai n o fsuitcases around an empty bedstead.

The 'spell-binding' lake has also been made a central image, particularlyin Japan . Andre i Serba n (Shik i Theatr e Compan y o f Tokyo , 1980 ) an dHirowatari Tsanetosh i (Toky o Engeki , 1993 ) bot h situate d Treplev' s plat -form a t th e centr e o f a pool . There , i n Serban' s staging , h e 'drowne d hi sbook' an d committe d hara-kiri, fallin g fac e forwar d i n th e water . I nTsanetoshi's version , Nin a attempte d suicid e i n a moat o f pelluci d wate rthat purled and babbled throughout the play as a symbol of eternity. Morelike Vincent Crummies' (the itinerant theatre manager in Dickens' NicholasNickleby) 'practicabl e pump ' wa s th e liqui d elemen t o f Serge y Solyvov' sexpensive Seagull (Taganka, 1994) , an 'against interpretation ' counterblas tto th e deconstruction s o f Pogrebnichko . I n th e on-stag e lake , nake dworkmen swam, a half-naked Trigorin fished, and Treplev shot himself in aboat. Thi s retur n t o naturalis m dre w les s fro m Stanislavsk y tha n fro mHollywood.

Uncle Vanya

With it s smal l cast , boun d b y wha t Osi p Mandelshta m calle d 'propin -quity,'7 and its sharply focussed conflicts , Uncle Vanya has commonly beenpresented a s a domestic tragedy o r a passage d'armes between tw o stron gactors. Ho w th e pla y work s ha s ha d mor e t o d o wit h th e castin g o fVoinitsky an d Astro v tha n wit h an y overarchin g directoria l concept .Stanislavsky romanticised the country doctor, and his contemporaries too kthe play to b e a mirror o f the pligh t o f the provincial intelligentsia . Afte rthe Revolution, despit e officia l condemnatio n o f the subject matter , a newproletarian audienc e continue d t o wee p ove r th e suffering s o f Vanya an dSonya. The elements of despair made it a difficult wor k to incorporate intoSocialist Realism.

The play' s meanin g becam e deracinate d whe n i t lef t Russia n soil : earlyproductions in Germany, England, Ireland an d France were condemned ascollocations o f cranks . Th e first Vanya t o wi n succes s wit h a popula raudience wa s stage d i n 193 0 b y the Broadway produce r Je d Harris , whoshrewdly realised that, if properly rewritten and stellarly cast, Chekhov hadbox-office appeal . Th e scrip t provide d b y Ros e Caylo r eliminate d ambi -guities and introduced sentimentalities; the company headed by Lillian Gish

182


Directors' Chekhov

made Russian s see m familiar . I t inaugurate d America n all-sta r Chekhov ,which was to culminate in the artistic debacle of Mike Nichols' BroadwayVanya of 197 3 (Circle-in-the-Square , NY) . Pairing Nico l Williamso n an dGeorge C. Scott, it proved definitively that a mere assemblage of celebrities,without stron g directoria l exegesis , could provid e onl y a n incoherent an dcliche-ridden Chekhov.

Williamson's reviva l th e nex t yea r a t th e Othe r Place , Stratford-upon -Avon, di d demonstrat e tha t a n intimat e spatia l relatio n betwee n actor sand audienc e aide d th e play , allowin g a microscopi c examinatio n o fmotives an d reactions . Still , Vanya's success i n England i s invariably tie dto it s leadin g actors , a patter n se t b y Laurenc e Olivie r an d Ralp hRichardson a t th e Ne w Theatr e i n 1945 , an d confirme d b y Olivie r an dMichael Redgrav e a t th e Chicheste r Festiva l productio n o f 1962 . Despiteoccasional interpretations tha t advance the themes of environmentalism o rChristian fortitude , Vanya has remaine d a n actors ' showcase , whic h ha senjoyed a remarkable leas e o f life ove r the pas t decad e in films relocatin gthe characters' isolation to the New Zealand outbac k or the Welsh downs.Andre Gregory' s productio n o f a n America n versio n b y Davi d Mame t(Victory Theatre, New York, 1991 ) received a wide audience when filme dby Loui s Mall e a s Vanya on 42nd Street. Presente d a s a rehearsa l i nprogress, unenhance d b y perio d costume s o r elaborat e settings , th echaracters' raw emotions came across clearly. Mamet's English versions inwhich ambiguitie s tur n int o strongl y worde d assertion s brough t Chekho vcloser t o contemporar y American s who , lik e th e directo r Niko s Psachar -opoulos a t th e Williamstow n (Mass. ) Theatre , prefe r thei r Chekho v red -blooded and tempestuous.

Others broke the naturalistic mould more aggressively. The Uncle VanyaShow of New York's Irondale Ensemble Project in collaboration with the StPetersburg Salo n Theatre (1985-90 ) dismantle d th e play into a dementedcollage of vaudeville bit s concerning a Michigan radio host who thinks heis Chekhov's hero . This work-in-progress wa s a deliberate grafting o f popon to what was perceived as high culture. More overtly political in its useof farc e wa s th e Vanya of Eimunta s Nekrosiu s (Stat e Yout h Theatr e o fLithuania, Vilnius , 1986) . Meant a s a n attac k o n Russia n cultura l hege -mony, it reduced the characters to a set of antic monomaniacs; their actionswere undercu t b y a choru s o f floor-polishers whos e earth y horsepla ysardonically commente d o n th e absur d aspiration s o f thei r betters . Th ePolish directo r Jerz y Grzegorzewsk i (Warsa w Studi o Theatre , 1993 ) use drepetition, crampe d spatia l dimension s an d a n arres t o f time' s passag e t oobjectify th e characters ' predicaments : eterna l recurrenc e wa s th e point ,and nothing ever came to a definite conclusion.

183


LAURENCE SENELIC K

Three Sister s

Chekhov's first play written specifically for the Moscow Art Theatre, ThreeSisters, is more ambitiou s tha n it s immediate predecessors . The large an dvaried cast and the temporal span of seasons and years give it the sweep ofa novel . A play more suitabl e fo r a permanent repertor y compan y tha n afit-up troupe, it can satisfy a director's ambition to create a microcosm andorchestrate a fugue o f moods and genre-pieces . It was the most impressiveof th e MAT' s Chekhovia n staging s an d th e on e mos t closel y copie d b yRussian regiona l an d foreig n directors . Indeed , th e directo r o f th e firs tThree Sisters a t th e Pragu e Nationa l Theatr e wrot e t o Stanislavsk yrequesting detailed information o n the music and uniforms he had used.8

Pre-revolutionary Russia n audience s referre d t o attendin g th e Ar tTheatre productio n a s 'callin g o n th e Prozorovs' , an d accompanie d th eperformances wit h floods of tear s an d crie s o f 'Oh! ' a t the sisters ' disma lfate. Thi s attitud e wa s i n essenc e transferre d t o al l it s successors : th edonnee was that the sisters were admirable heroines, downed by provincialphilistinism an d th e ambition s o f tha t petty-bourgeoi s bitc h Natasha .Stanislavsky's and Kachalov's ennobling of Vershinin and Tusenbach madesure tha t n o iron y wa s hear d i n th e orator y abou t har d wor k an d th efuture. Predictably , Komisarjevsk y overdi d th e glamour , settin g the actio nin th e 1870s , turnin g Tusenbac h int o a handsom e juvenil e lea d an d th ewhole pla y int o a Pre-Raphaelit e tal e o f blighte d love s (Barne s Theatre ,London, 1926 ; revived 1929) . Pitoeff, afte r excisin g al l the long speeches,made the play a plaint for an irrecoverable past, indulging his own sense ofloss (Theatre des Arts, Paris, 1929) . A French director working in London,Michel Saint-Deni s too k a more objectiv e vie w o f the dram a and , rehear -sing a strong ensemble for a n unprecedented eigh t weeks, was delivered ofa well-balance d Three Sisters as stron g o n comed y a s i t wa s o n patho s(Queen's Theatre, London, 1938).

Nemirovich-Danchenko, eage r t o reclai m Chekho v a s a Sovie t author ,refurbished Three Sisters (1940) t o mak e a positiv e statement : costume swere spanking clean, vocal delivery clarion clear, the settings suffused wit hlight. Lik e thos e wh o regre t th e cleanin g o f th e Sistin e Chape l ceiling ,Westerners deplored the over-painting of a subtle grisaille with the primarycolours o f propaganda . Withi n Russi a itself , however , thi s Three Sistersrecalled a pre-Stalinist world of decency and honour; it gave licence to seekinspiration i n Chekhov, rather than dismissing him as an outdated chroni -cler o f defeatism . Th e onl y true successo r t o Nemirovic h i n the post-wa rUSSR, Georg y Tovstonogo v o f Leningrad' s Bolsho y Dramati c Theatre ,stripped down Art Theatre illusionism even further, enlargin g the play into

184


Directors' Chekhov

an epic which stranded the characters in space, while still endorsing faith inhuman potential (1965).

News o f th e renovatio n o f Stanislavsk y wa s slo w i n seepin g int o th eAmerican consciousness . Th e long-awaite d Actor s Studi o Three Sistersdirected b y Lee Strasberg (NY , 1963) was supposed to vindicate his brandof 'Method acting' , itself rooted in Russian emigre teachings of the 1920s .The narcissism an d ra w emotion i t generated reduce d th e play to a set ofacting exercises , a n unfocusse d displa y o f individual s indulgin g i n inco -herent mannerisms. The production reveale d not onl y the bankruptcy o f amisunderstood Ar t Theatr e model , bu t als o th e nee d fo r long-establishe densembles, rathe r tha n hastil y thrown-togethe r cast s o f disparat e back -ground, to do Chekhov justice.

The first 'cruel ' approach to Three Sisters came from Otomar Krejca. Hisproduction a t the Divadlo za Branou (1965 ) was superficially recognisabl e- fin-de-siecle costumes, military uniforms, whisker s galore; but Svoboda' sscenography reduce d th e settin g t o a fe w dominan t symboli c elements .Instead o f being understated, th e acting was hysterical an d violent . At thefinal curtain , discardin g th e typical statuesqu e tableau , th e sister s whirledaround th e stag e lik e blinde d birds , a s Dr Chebutyki n (playe d b y Krejc ahimself) soare d over the first row s of the audience on a swing, crowing 'I tdoesn't matter! It doesn't matter!'

Post-Krejca Europea n production s adopte d hi s critica l attitud e t o th esisters, re-examining thei r claim s t o mora l o r intellectua l superiorit y ove rtheir surroundings. Masha's adultery, Olga's squeamish gentility and Irina'sindifference t o he r suitor s wer e see n t o pu t the m mor e o n a pa r wit hNatasha. Lucian Pintilie's Paris production of 1978 turned them into facetsof a single archetypal woman , eroti c an d repressed . A younger generatio nof Russian s attacke d th e idee recue o f Three Sisters a s figurativ e o feverything stagnan t i n establishmen t culture . Efro s stage d a scandalou sSisters (Moscow, 1967 ) tha t provoke d angr y letter s t o editor s an d wa sultimately banned. His Prozorovs and their circle were deluded idealists, sococksure o f thei r ow n virtue s tha t the y wer e obliviou s t o thei r gradua labsorption by evil. It was a strong message to Soviet intelligentsia that theyhad le t their birthrigh t b e stolen. Yury Lyubimov's Three Sisters (Mosco wDrama Theatre , Malaya Bronnaya) , 1981) , set in an inhospitable barrack scum lecture-hall, offered anothe r sardoni c comment on Soviet life. As if inresponse to the recurrent cal l 'To Moscow! To Moscow,' he opened a wallof th e Tagank a Theatre , lettin g i n col d nigh t ai r an d a vie w o f th econtemporary capital . 'Yo u year n fo r Moscow? ' h e seeme d t o b e saying .'Well there it is, in all its noise and squalor. You aspire to a glorious future ?Is thi s wha t yo u ha d i n mind? ' Sixt y year s o f fals e aspiratio n wer e


LAURENCE SENELIC K

debunked i n on e moment . I n the Gorbache v era , Pogrebnichk o (Teat r n aKrasnoy Presne , Moscow , 1990 ) turne d Three Sisters into a museu mexhibit se t behin d velve t rope s i n a mas s o f antiqu e detritus , promptin gpost-Soviet spectator s t o com e t o grip s wit h a pas t tha t ha s lef t the mwashed up on the shoals of the present.

Regrettably, these innovations remained overlooke d o r ineffectual i n theEnglish-speaking world , eve n thoug h Krejca' s Three Sisters visited th eWorld Theatre Season in London in 1969. A number of British productions,especially thos e o f Jonatha n Mille r (Cambridg e Theatre , 1976) , Trevo rNunn (RSC, Warehouse, 1979), 9 and Mike Alfreds' Share d Experience Co.(1986),10 tried to take a more jaundiced view of the characters' aspirationsand self-justifications . Th e problem is that British and American audienceswant t o identif y wit h th e Prozorov s an d ar e loat h t o accep t production swhich d o no t favou r them . Th e outrage d reactio n t o th e Three Sistersstaged b y th e grea t Georgia n directo r Rober t Sturu a (Queen' s Theatre ,London, 1990 ) demonstrate d this : hi s anti-sentimenta l an d exuberantl yphysical approac h evoke d shudder s o f disgus t fro m th e critica l an dacademic establishments . Ye t thi s ver y approach , carrie d t o a n extrem emore recently by Eimuntas Nekrosius, is a valuable corrective, the allegedlyinadmissible inventiveness provoking fresh discoverie s in an overly familia rtext.

A wedding of Stanislavskian stagecraft t o an 'objective' attitude occurredin Pete r Stein' s productio n a t th e Berli n Schaubiihn e i n 1981 . In takin gpsychological an d environmenta l naturalis m t o thei r logica l extremes , heburst through realit y to reach anothe r dimension . When the cast suddenl yfroze in Act One, hearkening to the hum of the spinning top, it was as if themusic o f th e sphere s ha d penetrate d th e Prozoro v drawin g room . A t th esame time , Stein' s unflinchin g exposur e o f th e neurose s o f th e well-bre dsisters was meant to reflect on his own complacent bourgeois audience.

Of al l Chekhov's plays, Three Sisters has undergone the greatest numberof cultural transferences, rese t in the Caribbean, Chinatown and a Pennsyl-vania coal-minin g centre . Th e influenc e o f Becket t wa s eas y t o trac e i nSquat Theatre' s intentionall y borin g thirty-minut e versio n i n whic h thre emale actors stammered ou t the sisters ' lines (New York, 1980) ; in TadashiSuzuki's reduction of the play to an hour's worth of antiphony among threemen and five women, som e o f them pen t u p in baskets (SCO T Company ,1984); and , mos t blatantly , i n Hartmu t Wickert' s Kommen und Gehen(Tubingen, 1988) , contrastin g th e 'dangerou s zones ' o f silenc e wit h th ecover-up o f incessan t chatter . Give n th e centrality o f th e sorora l trio , theplay also has a special appea l to lesbian an d feminis t groups , which stressthe growing interdependency o f the sisters, from distanc e and alienation at

186


Directors' Chekhov

the start to solidarity by the finale. One of the most notorious deconstruc -tions ha s bee n th e Wooste r Group' s Brace Up!, directe d b y Elizabet hLeCompte (Ne w York , 1990) . T o addres s an d criticis e th e postmoder nsensibility, sequential narrative was made impossible by omnipresent noise,video screens , rapi d alternatio n an d juxtapositio n o f image s an d tim eframes.

The Cherr y Orchar d

Chekhov's last play is his most complex. For al l its grounding in reality, itpierces, in Andrey Bely's words, 'an apertur e t o eternity'.11 Th e audiencesof th e origina l Mosco w Ar t Theatr e productio n wer e mos t take n b y thesedulous reproductio n o f a lif e the y knew , bu t eve n the n ther e wer edissenters, amon g the m Bely , Meyerhold , an d th e Ukrainia n ar t criti cNikolaev, who complained tha t the plethora o f surface detai l occluded theplay's symbolic aspects . It was also clear, as Chekhov himself pointe d out ,that Stanislavsky' s castin g ha d unbalance d th e play : th e autho r ha dintended a comed y wit h Lopakhi n an d Charlott a Ivanovn a occupyin gcentral positions . Instead , Stanislavsk y a s Gae v an d Knippe r a s Ranevs -kaya, bot h pron e t o idealisin g thei r roles , directe d th e audience' s sympa -thies t o th e displace d gentry . Emigre nostalgia intensifie d thi s imbalanc eafter the Revolution.

Within Bolshevi k Russia , The Cherry Orchard wa s th e onl y majo rChekhov pla y t o b e revive d wit h an y frequenc y becaus e Lopkahi n an dTreplev could be made heralds of a brave new world. The most memorablerevision wa s tha t o f Andre y Lobano v (Simono v Studio , Moscow , 1934) :the Gae v famil y an d thei r dependant s wer e show n t o b e despicabl eparasites an d debauchees , an d Trofimov' s second-ac t harangue s wer edelivered in a bathhouse to a crowd of avid secondary-school students.

Abroad, The Cherry Orchard invariably aped the Art Theatre, both in itslook and in its values. Nemirovich-Danchenko attempted to set this right in1933, when he directed it for Tatiana Pavlowa's company in Milan to bringout more of Ranevskaya's stylish egoism and Trofimov's ineptitude . TyroneGuthrie's Old Vic production of 1933 also played up the comedy, due to hisown penchant for irreverence and a cast containing such talents as AtheneSeyler, Charle s Laughto n an d Els a Lanchester . Th e comed y tende d t obewilder Wester n critics , used t o a slow-paced an d reveren t treatmen t o fChekhov.

No seriou s rethinking o f The Cherry Orchard took place unti l afte r th ewar, whe n Giorgi o Strehle r approache d i t a s a timeless masterpiec e o n apar wit h The Tempest, Faust and The Magic Flute, sharing with them a n

187


LAURENCE SENELIC K

ability t o spea k o n a grea t man y level s t o a grea t man y issue s (Piccol oTeatro d i Milano , 1974) . Whereas Krejc a believe d tha t ever y directoria ldecision inevitably led down a path compromising the author' s intentions ,Strehler sough t t o conflat e al l th e level s o f meanin g i n th e play : th enarrative, the socio-historical and the universal metaphoric. The toys in thenursery, for instance, went beyond veristic props to become emblems of thecharacters' los t innocenc e an d th e arreste d developmen t o f thei r world .Strehler's production , particularl y hi s white-on-white deco r wit h it s over -head membran e o f petal s i n a diaphanous veil , breathin g wit h th e actor sand audience , had a n indelible effec t o n most Cherry Orchards thereafter.All ove r th e world achromati c costumin g an d scenery , a diaphanous sky -cloth o r groundcloth an d a toy train became indispensable accoutrements .Even Krejca' s Diisseldor f Orchard of 197 6 engulfe d th e character s i n aforest o f furnitur e unde r a luminou s whit e dustcover . Andre i Serban' sderivative stagin g i n Ne w Yor k i n 197 7 (Vivia n Beaumon t Theatre ) firstmade th e US take notic e tha t a n alternativ e approac h t o th e Ar t Theatr ewas valid; although most critics were ignorant of the European antecedentsof Serban' s mise-en-scene, they welcome d a brea k wit h th e traditiona lverismo. In fact, Serban' s directing lacked Strehler' s intellectual coherence:his dream-lik e imager y her e an d i n late r restaging s - a little gir l layin g aflower a t a factor y door , industria l worker s silhouette d agains t th ecyclorama - hinte d a t a politica l message , but , excep t fo r Trofimov' smessianic fervour being played straight, it remained inchoate. (See p. 143.)

The avoidanc e o f a politica l aspec t t o Chekhov' s work s ha s bee ncommon everywher e bu t i n the Sovie t bloc , where externa l circumstance sfilled even anodyn e production s wit h sous-entendus. A striking exceptio nto this neglect was The Cherry Orchard rewritten b y Trevor Griffith s an ddirected b y Richar d Eyr e (Nottingha m Playhouse , 1977) : a Marxis tcoarsening o f th e tex t enable d Trofimo v an d Lopakhi n t o becom e th eraisonneurs fo r a playwright wh o distruste d raisonneurs. 11 Less solemnly,two Eas t Germa n Brechtian s workin g i n Wes t Germany , Manfre d Karg eand Matthia s Langhoff , combine d politic s wit h caricatur e t o produc e aGeorge Grosz-lik e Orchard, a violen t farc e people d wit h selfis h vulgar -ians, analogue s o f th e smu g burgher s o f th e Federa l Republi c (Bochum ,1981).

Peter Brook' s Orchard (Bouffes d u Nord, Paris , 1981 ) preferred simpli -city: with no more elaborate scenography than the ramshackle theatre itselfand blu e Orienta l carpets , rolle d u p t o represen t trees , sprea d ou t a sgrounding for story-telling . The swif t pac e allowed no time for 'psycholo -gical' moments, pregnant pause s o r maudlin bathos . The fortuitousness o fthe characters' fates was suggested by blocking that seemed haphazard bu t

188


Directors' Chekhov

was in fac t carefull y arranged . Whe n i t toure d t o Moscow , thi s Orchardwas welcomed as an epiphany. It offered liberatio n from both Stanislavsky'sliteralism an d th e 'Aesopic ' metaphor s o f suc h a s Efros , whos e Tagank aCherry Orchard of 197 5 ha d bee n se t i n a graveyar d fille d wit h famil yportraits. Admiring the productions of Strehler and Brook, in which humanrelations continue d t o coun t whe n al l els e wa s devalued , th e Russian srecognised tha t Wester n Europea n Chekho v ha d a differen t geneti c cod efrom their own.

This lesson was driven home at the first Chekhov Festiva l in Moscow in1991 which saw three new Cherry Orchards.13 Peter Stein sought to make'indifferent nature ' itsel f a character , a t odd s wit h huma n passions ; hi sstaging was so illusionistic that i t brought bac k the real hay of Stanislavs-ky's secon d ac t an d s o symphoni c tha t i t le t event s unfol d i n rea l time .Serban recreated his New York staging with a Romanian cast , pushing thepolitical symbolis m i n th e directio n o f anti-Communis t rhetoric . Krejc aseemed to b e played out , hi s lates t Orchard devoid o f lyricism , colou r o rspecificity. In the wake of these examples, recent Russian Orchards, such asthat of Adolph Shapiro (St Petersburg BDT, 1992), are made object lessonsfor a society in disarray, whose Lopakhins ar e exemplary businessme n fo rthe era of free markets and privatisation.

When Mariy a Knebel , Stanislavsky' s las t pupil , cam e t o th e Abbe yTheatre i n 196 8 t o direc t The Cherry Orchard, the Dubli n actor s wer esurprised tha t sh e didn' t requir e a samova r o n stage. 14 The samova r ha dalways bee n the indispensable toke n o f Chekhov' s foreignness . I n the las tdecades, however , i n productio n afte r production , th e samova r ha s bee nsupplanted a s emblemati c pro p b y a n ol d Victrol a wit h a morning-glor yhorn. Chekho v i s stil l associate d wit h th e past , bu t no t a specificall yRussian or historic past. Whatever reality the estates and garrison towns ofChekhov's play s hel d fo r it s first audiences , the y hav e no w take n o n apolysemic existence . The y transcen d thei r origin s t o becom e wha t Davi dCole calls Mud tempus, a theatrical momen t i n which the even t doe s no tneed to be recreated because it is always happening.15 The world evoked ina Chekhov play by inventive modern director s confronts th e past with thepresent - sometime s b y painstakingl y reproducin g a bygon e age , a s i nStein's recen t Uncle Vanya, sometime s b y transferrin g i t t o analogou slocales, as in Seagulls se t in Martha's Vineyard o r Celti c Twilight Ireland ,sometimes b y shatterin g th e pla y int o artifact s o f a cultura l legacy , a s inBrace Up!. Interrupted meanin g an d fault y recollectio n ren d th e seamles sweb of the Stanislavskian simulacru m s o that Chekho v ou r contemporar yturns ou t t o hav e mor e i n commo n wit h Prous t an d Becket t tha n wit hGorky.

189


LAURENCE SENELIC K

NOTES1 A . Ya. Altshuller , 'Chekho v i Aleksandrinsk y teat r eg o vremeni, ' Russkaya

literatura 3 , 1968, p. 169 . The actors named were Davydov as Ivanov, Sazonovas Prince Shabelsky and Vera Komissarzhevskaya as Nina.

2 Th e exceptio n i s Ivanov, whose meanin g change s dependin g o n whethe r th eleading acto r portray s th e protagonis t a s a disillusioned idealis t (Vasil y Ka -chalov, John Gielgud , Innokenty Smoktunovsky) , a manic clown (Joh n Wood)or a perfectly ordinary person (Evgeny Leonov). See Selected Glossary.

3 Se e chapter 5 in this volume.4 Alekse y Arbuzov (1908-86) , Russian playwright . From his first succes s Tanya

(1939), his bittersweet comedies, balancing the needs of the individuals agains tthose o f society , had grea t appea l fo r Sovie t audiences . In the 1960 s his playsused nostalgi c theatrica l effect s t o get beyon d realism , an d in the 1970 s heopened a studio fo r youn g writer s which fostere d a whole generatio n o f ne wdramatists. Vikto r Rozo v (b . 1913) , Russia n playwright . Hi s pla y abou t ayoung man in wartime, Forever Alive (1956) becam e world famous a s the filmThe Cranes are Flying. Hi s greatest successe s in the Communist world came inthe 1960s and 1970 s with plays about generational conflict , th e elders compro-mised and the youth idealistic. Aleksandr Volodin (Aleksandr Lifshits, b. 1919),Russian playwright. Trained as a screen-writer, he used cinematic devices in hisplays. H e expande d th e routin e Socialist-Realisti c agend a b y exploring thepersonal aspiration s of his characters , an d move d awa y fro m uncritica l opti -mism to a tragi-comic vision inspired by Cervantes and Shakespeare.

5 Se e chapter 3 in this volume, note 10.6 Th e Hamlet analogy was taken to it s logica l extension b y Ron Daniels a t the

American Repertory Theatre , Cambridge , Mass., 1989 , when he directed bot hplays back-to-back with the same cast.

7 Osi p Mandelshtam , O pese A. Chekhova 'Dyadya Vanya' (1936) , Sobraniesochineny, Paris , 1981 , vol . IV , pp . 107-9 . Osi p Emilievic h Mandelshta m(1891-1938), Russia n poe t an d essayist , whos e fugitiv e remark s o n Chekho vare particularly insightful .

8 Sh . Sh. Bogatyrev, 'Chekho v v Chekhovslovakii,' Literaturnoe Nasledstvo 68,i960, pp. 760-2.

9 Se e chapter 9 in this volume.10 Se e chapter 11 in this volume.11 Andre y Bely , 'The Cherry Orchard', in Laurenc e Senelick , ed. , Russian Dra-

matic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, Austin, Tex., 1981.12 Se e chapter 10 in this volume.13 Se e chapter 14 in this volume.14 Mariy a Knebel, "Vishnevy sad' v Irlandii,' Teatr 5, 1969, pp. 158-66 .15 Davi d Cole , The Theatrical Event: a Mythos, a Vocabulary, a Perspective,

Middletown, Conn., 1975, p. 8.

1 9 0


Directors' Chekhov

SELECTED GLOSSAR YMIKE ALFREDS , English director who founded th e Shared Experience Company of

Oxford i n 1975 ; hi s specialit y i s turnin g panorami c literar y work s int odramatic experiment s i n actin g style . H e ha s directe d The Seagull, Crucibl eTheatre, Sheffield 1981 ; The Cherry Orchard, Roundhouse, London, 1982 andat Th e Nationa l Theatr e 1985 ; Three Sisters, Bloomsbury Theatre , London ,1986; an d The Seagull, Lillian Bayliss Theatre, London, 1991. See Appendix 2.

LINDSAY ANDERSO N (1923-94) , Englis h directo r an d critic , associate d wit h th eRoyal Court Theatre, London (1957-72), where, with a minimum of decor, hecreated th e firs t production s o f man y 'Angr y Youn g Writers' . Influence d b yBrecht an d th e America n musical , h e gravitate d t o film , wher e hi s absurdis tpanoramas o f Britis h lif e continu e t o confoun d reviewers . H e directe d TheSeagull, Lyric Theatre , Londo n i n 197 5 an d The Cherry Orchard, TheatreRoyal Haymarket, London in 1983.

HOWARD BARKER (b . 1946) , English playwright , widely produced o n the Fringe;an exponen t o f catastrophi c theatre , confrontational , accusator y an d theatri -cally eloquent . Withou t a specifi c politica l affiliation , hi s satir e attack s al laspects of capitalist society and its marginalisation of human beings. He wrotea version o f Uncle Vanya entitled (Uncle) Vanya for th e Wrestling Schoo l in1996. Se e Appendix 2.

ANDREY BEL Y (Bori s Bugaev, 1880-1934) , Russian poet and critic. Although Belywrote only two plays, the mysteries He That Is Come (1902) an d The Jaws ofNight (1903) , he was a leading theorist o f drama, now supporting the Symbo-list cause, now attacking it for it s lack of pragmatism. He worked closely withMeyerhold and later with Michael Chekhov.

RICHARD BOLESLAVSK I (Boksla w Ryszard Szredniecki, 1887-1937) , Polish actorand director , a charter membe r o f th e Moscow Ar t Theatr e Firs t Studio . Hesettled i n Ne w Yor k i n 192 2 an d throug h lecture s an d writing s introduce dStanislavsky's earl y idea s t o America n actors . Wit h Mari a Ouspenskay a h efounded th e America n Laborator y Theatr e (1923-30) , whic h taugh t thei rparticular bran d o f th e System ; h e late r move d t o Hollywood , wher e h edirected fifteen films .

PETER BROO K (b . 1925), English director. After a distinguished career at the RoyalShakespeare Company , Coven t Garde n an d in the commercial theatre , Brookbegan t o explor e th e avant-garde , firs t wit h hi s Theatr e o f Cruelt y seaso nresulting in his Marat/Sade (1964), and then with Orghast at Persepolis (1971) .In searc h o f a universa l languag e o f theatre , h e move d t o Pari s an d with a ninternational company has continued to experiment with the underlying mythsof mankind. He directed La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard) a t Les Bouffes d uNord, 1981 , whic h subsequently toured to Moscow. See Appendix 2.

LEO (LEV) BULGAKOV (1888-1948) . A member of the Moscow Art Theatre whenit visited the USA in 1922-4, he remained in New York with his wife, Barbara.For the rest o f his life, like so many emigres, h e capitalised o n his past in the

1 9 1


LAURENCE SENELIC K

Russian theatr e t o ek e ou t a n existenc e a s acto r (Provincetow n Playhouse ,Grand S t Theatre) , directo r (Yiddis h Ar t Theatre ) an d teache r (Bulgako vSchool of Stage Art).

ROSE CAYLOR , wif e o f th e America n write r Be n Hecht , abridge d an d rewrot eUncle Vanya to mak e Chekho v mor e presentabl e t o matine e goers . I n he rversion, nothing goes unsaid.

LIVIU CIULEI (b . 1923), Rumanian director , designer and actor, who after runnin gthe Bulandr a Theatr e i n Buchares t (1963-72) , worke d al l ove r th e world ,running th e Guthri e Theatr e i n Minneapoli s (1980-6 ) an d teachin g a t Ne wYork University . He returne d t o Rumani a i n 1990 . A believer i n retheatrica -lising the theatre, he promoted a syncretic style of staging, with the director asthe auteur, melding all elements to create an eclectic realism.

ROBERTO CIULL I (b . 1934) , Italia n director , workin g chiefl y i n Germany . H efounded th e Theater a n der Ruhr in Millheim (1982 ) a s a subsidised bu t fre eand sociall y engage d ensemble , dedicate d t o presentin g th e contemporar yrelevance o f plays . He promotes the primacy o f the acto r ove r the dramatist ,even though he chooses to stage highly literary drama.

HAROLD CLURMA N (1901-82) , American director. After studyin g with Copeau inParis, he co-founded th e Group Theatre in New York (1931 - 41) , devoted tosocial progress an d a Stanislavskian approac h t o ensemble acting . In 196 6 hewas appointed Directo r a t the Lincoln Cente r Repertory Theatre . An admirerof French and Russian culture, Clurman was able to adapt his principles to theuses of the commercial Broadway stage.

ALLA DEMIDOV A (b . 1936), Russian actress , who trained with Lyubimov and wasrecruited b y him into the Taganka. There sh e played leading parts in most ofhis productions: Elmir e i n Tartuffe, Gertrude i n Hamlet an d th e titl e rol e inTsvetaeva's Phaedra. Sh e has a n electrifyin g stag e presence , exudin g nervou senergy. See Appendix 2.

OLEG EFREMOV/YEFREMO V (b . 1927), Russian acto r and director . As co-founderof th e Sovremenni k (Contemporary ) Theatr e i n Moscow in 1958 , he was onthe cuttin g edg e o f youthfu l idealis m an d a cal l fo r simplicit y i n acting . I n1970 h e too k ove r th e moribun d Mosco w Ar t Theatre , wher e h e trie d t oinvigorate it s tradition s wit h greate r contemporaneity . O n hi s initiative , th eArt Theatre was divided into two separate institutions (1987) . Amongst manyother productions o f Chekhov' s work, h e directed Uncle Vanya for th e MATwhich visite d th e Nationa l Theatre , London , i n Septembe r 1989 . Se eAppendix 2.

ANATOLY EFRO S (1925-87) , Russia n director , studen t o f Mari a Knebel . Hi sproductions o f Radzinsk y an d Chekho v a t th e Lenko m Theatre , Mosco w(1963-7) create d a scandal; at the Malaya Bronnaya (1973-83 ) hi s inventive,improvisational treatmen t o f classic s an d modern s wer e accepte d mor e fo rtheir own values. He replaced Lyubimov a t the Taganka (1984-7) , a hopelesssituation which led to a fatal hear t attack. Amongst many other productions ofChekhov's work , h e directe d The Seagull a t Leni n Komsomo l Theatre ,

1 9 2


Directors' Chekhov

Moscow, in 1966 , and The Cherry Orchard at the Taganka Theatre , Moscowin 1975. See Appendix 2.

RICHARD EYR E (b . 1943) , Englis h director , whos e wor k i n Edinburg h an dNottingham won him a reputation a s a champion o f controversial ne w plays.For the National Theatre he developed successful musicals , and, on Peter Hall'sretirement in 1986, he was appointed Artistic Director there. His regime led tothe development of smaller units, often headed by adventurous younger talents,and to a more American flavou r i n the choice o f repertoire . He directe d TheCherry Orchard in a version b y Trevor Griffith s a t Nottingham Playhous e in1977. See Appendix 2.

PAVEL GAIDEBURO V (1877-1960) , Russian actor and director, a law student whowent into the theatre t o brin g culture to the people. In 190 5 he and his wife,the actres s Skarskaya , founde d th e Firs t Itineran t Dramati c Theatre , whic htook the best of the modern repertoire, including avant-garde Symbolis t pieces,to th e farthes t reache s o f th e Empire . H e wa s on e o f th e firs t t o esche wfigurative scener y for simpl e draperies . After th e Revolution, h e continued hisactivities, organising kolkhoz theatres and other travelling troupes.

ANDRE GREGOR Y (b . c. 1930) , a prime move r in the American theatrica l avant -garde o f th e 1960 s an d earl y 1970s . His six-acto r company , Th e Manhatta nProject, offere d psychedelic , cartoon-like , highl y energise d version s o f Lewi sCarroll, Becket t an d Chekhov , praise d fo r ingenuit y an d damne d fo r infanti -lism. Afte r man y year s a s a n actor , Gregor y returne d t o directin g wit h adeliberately unpolishe d Uncle Vanya which the n becam e Loui s Malle' s fil mVanya on 4.2nd Street. See Appendix 3.

TREVOR GRIFFITH S (b . 1935) , Englis h playwright , politicall y committe d t o aGramsci-inspired socialis t agenda , wh o admit s t o preferrin g televisio n t otheatre as a means of communicating with the working classes. His best play isprobably Comedians (1975) , whic h use s a grou p o f stand-u p comic s a semblems o f politica l actio n an d inaction . H e wrote a version o f The CherryOrchard, directed b y Richar d Eyre , a t Nottingha m Playhous e i n 1977 . Seechapters 9, 10, 15 and Appendix 2.

JERZY GRZEGORZEWSK I (b . 1939), Polish director and scenographer, who workedat many important theatres, eventually running the Studio Theatre and Galleryin Warsaw . H e ha s stage d mos t o f th e grea t Polis h playwrights , a s wel l a sworks b y Genet , Chekho v an d Shakespeare . H e i s considered a 'Poe t o f th eStage' by his colleagues, creating images which compete with origina l text. Hedirected The Seagull at Warsaw Studio Theatre in 1993.

TYRONE GUTHRI E (1900-71) , Englis h director , whos e wit , tast e fo r actio n an dmanipulation o f crowds breathe d ne w life into Elizabethan dram a a t the OldVic, Sadlers Wells and many other traditional houses . He pioneered the thruststage at the Stratford Shakespear e Festival, Ontario (1953-7 ) a n d t n e Minnea -polis Theatre (1963), inspiring the North American regional theatre movement.He directed Charles Laughton in The Cherry Orchard in 193 3. See Appendix 2.

JED HARRI S (1900-79) , American producer, notorious for his abuse of actors and

193


LAURENCE SENELIC K

his flai r fo r commercia l success . I n th e 1920 s h e mad e hi s fortun e backin gsharp-edged comi c melodramas, Broadway (1926), The Royal Family (1927)and The Front Page (1928) . Then, to confute hi s critics, he turned highbrow ,producing Uncle Vanya (1930), Our Town (1938) and The Heiress (1947).

VASILY KACHALO V (Shverubovich , 1875-1948) , Russia n actor , wh o joine d th eMoscow Ar t Theatr e i n 1899 . Although h e bega n i n suc h characte r role s a sJulius Caesar and Baron Tusenbach in Three Sisters, his good looks and velvetyvoice turned him into a kind of matinee idol and attracted female fan clubs. Hewas the natural choice to play Hamlet, Brand and Chatsky in Woe from Wit.Later in life, he was popular as a platform reader. See Appendix 2.

EINO KALIM A (1882-1972) , Finnis h director , wh o becam e familia r wit h Stani -slavski's work while a student in St Petersburg (1904-8) . Directing in Swedish,Norwegian an d Finnis h wit h a prolifi c repertoire , h e wa s instrumenta l i nintroducing Chekhov and psychological realism to the Scandinavian stage.

MANFRED KARG E (b . 1938). Beginning as an East German acto r an d playwright ,he gaine d internationa l fam e a s a directo r i n collaboratio n (1963-83 ) wit hMatthias Langhoff . The y ruthlessl y modernise d classic s an d reverse d thei rvalue systems, their deliberate perversity sometimes reaching mythical propor-tions.

MARIYA/MARIA KNEBE L (1898-1985) , Russia n actres s an d inspirin g teacher ,trained a t the Moscow Art Theatre Second Studio (1921) . She began directingat the Ar t Theatre i n 1935 , becoming chief directo r a t the Centra l Children' sTheatre, Moscow , 1955-60 . I t i s believe d tha t Knebe l preserve d man y o fStanislavsky's later ideas in a form unrevised by Soviet ideologues.

OLGA KNIPPE R (1868-1959) , Russia n actress , wh o create d th e leadin g femal eroles in the Moscow Art Theatre productions o f Chekhov' s plays; she marriedChekhov in 190 1 and as his widow gained iconic status in the Sovie t theatre.Praised fo r he r delicac y an d charm , sh e wa s eventuall y discounte d b yStanislavsky, wh o dislike d he r resistanc e t o hi s Syste m an d he r tendenc y t ooversweeten her roles. See Appendix 2.

THEODORE KOMISARJEVSKY/FYODO R KOMISSARZHEVSK Y (1882-1954) , Russia ndirector and writer who promoted the idea of a synthetic theatre that would seekthe appropriate style for each playwright. After emigrating to England in 1919,he naturalise d man y Modernis t Europea n theatrica l innovations , eve n a tthe Shakespear e Memoria l Theatre , Stratford , an d popularise d Chekho v b yadapting hi m t o th e romanti c tast e o f th e averag e playgoer . H e wa s bot h'teacher' an d husban d t o Pegg y Ashcrof t (1931-5 ) an d directe d he r i n TheSeagull in which she played Nina, May 193 6. See Appendix 2.

OTOMAR KREJC A (b . 1921), Czech director an d actor . Prominent in the Nationa lTheatre, Prague , h e bega n t o experimen t wit h hi s ow n ensembl e an d th escenographer Jose f Svobod a a t th e Divadl o z a Brano u (Theatr e Beyon d th eGates, 1965-72) . Ou t o f favou r wit h th e Czec h authorities , h e worke dthroughout Europe , disseminatin g a cruel , unsentimenta l Chekhov . Hi sfavourite technique s involved making a collage of classic texts and keeping the

<I9


Directors' Chekhov

whole compan y o n stag e durin g th e performance . H e returne d t o Pragu e i n1990. See Appendix 2.

JUTTA LAMP E (b . 1943), German actress , long associated with Peter Stein and theBerlin Schaubilhn e a s hi s leadin g lady . Alway s a dynami c an d versatil eperformer i n suc h role s a s Rosalind, Solvei g an d especiall y Titani a i n BothoStrauss' The Park (1984), she matured into a remarkably affecting Ranevskaya ,Alcmene and Virginia Woolf's Orlando.

CHARLES LAUGHTO N (1899-1962) , Englis h acto r an d director . Afte r a distin -guished career a s a character acto r on the West End stage, at the Old Vic andthe Comedie Francaise , Laughton becam e a Hollywood star . This was insuffi -cient to feed his considerable intellect, and he worked with Brecht on the worldpremiere o f Galileo (1947), eventuall y returnin g t o th e stag e t o pla y Under -shaft, Lea r an d Bottom . H e playe d Lopakhi n i n Tyron e Guthrie' s 193 3production of The Cherry Orchard, Old Vic, London. See Appendix 2.

ELIZABETH LECOMPT E (b . 1944) , artisti c directo r fro m 197 9 o f th e America nexperimental collective The Wooster Group, housed in New York's PerformingGarage. In collaboration, sh e and the members of the company compose playsheavily dependen t o n vide o technolog y an d th e wilfu l collisio n o f variou smedia. Texts are fragmented t o create a theatre reality restructuring the relationbetween performer an d audience.

EVA LE GALLIENN E (1899-1991) , America n actres s an d director . A n admirer ofBernhardt, Dus e an d Komissarzhevskaya , sh e trie d t o introduc e a seriou sliterary theatr e t o th e USA , foundin g th e Civi c Repertor y i n 1926 . Agains tgreat economi c odds , sh e manage d t o attrac t audience s t o respectabl e i funimaginative staging s o f Chekhov , Molnar , Ibsen , Hauptman n an d Schiller ,but failed to create a permanent company. See Appendix 2.

BORIS LIVANO V (1904-72) , Russian actor and director, a gifted leading man at theMoscow Ar t Theatre , wit h a penchan t fo r comi c characte r roles ; i n Nemir -ovich-Danchenko's Three Sisters (1940) hi s interpretatio n o f Solyon y a s aflamboyant figure of doo m becam e th e standar d reading . He was on e o f th efirst Sovie t directors to try and stage Dostoevsky's novels. See Appendix 2.

ANDREY LOBANO V (1900-59) , Sovie t director , whos e earlies t work , stage d a tSimonov's Theatr e Studi o i n Moscow , displaye d a coars e applicatio n o fMarxism t o th e classics . Later , h e becam e a straightforwar d reliabl e expo -nent o f Socialis t Realism , directin g th e first production o f Arbuzov' s Tanya

YURY LYUBIMOV/LIUBIMO V (b . 1917) , Russia n acto r an d director , th e guidin ggenius o f the Taganka Theatr e i n Moscow. Somethin g o f a licensed rebel , hegalvanised audience s i n th e 1970 s wit h production s usuall y base d o n non -dramatic materia l an d featurin g stunnin g visua l metaphors : Ten Days ThatShook the World, Hamlet with the chansonnier Vysotsky in the lead, and TheMaster and Margarita. Force d into exile, he repeated many of his successes inEuropean and American cities, but after hi s return to Russia in 1992 he seemedout of touch with a post-glasnost world.

195


LAURENCE SENELIC K

LOUIS MALL E (b . 1932) , French film-maker . Firs t associate d wit h th e New Waveof th e 1960s , hi s film s wer e distinguishe d b y fantasy , breathles s comed y(Zazie dans le Metro, i960: Viva Maria, 1965 ) an d a n interes t i n juvenil esexuality (Le Souffle au Coeur, 1970; Pretty Baby, 1978) . Hi s experiment swith Andr e Gregory , th e two-hande d My Dinner with Andre an d Vanya on42nd Street, mak e a virtu e o f restraine d simplicity . Se e chapte r 1 3 an dAppendix 3.

DAVID MAME T (b . 1947) , America n playwrigh t an d director , co-founde r o f th eSt Nicholas Theatre , Chicago , wher e h e bega n hi s career . American Buffalo(I975) propelle d him to the first rank o f dramatists , and his subsequent workhas bee n characterise d b y staccato , jargon-fille d dialogue , psychologica l vio -lence, power games and an obsession with macho one-up-manship. He adaptedUncle Vanya for film in 1990, directed by Gregory Mosher. See chapter 1 3 andAppendix 3.

VSEVOLOD MEYERHOL D (1874-1940) , Russian director and actor. Apprenticed atthe Moscow Art Theatre, before the Revolution Meyerhold was known for hisexperiments in hieratic Symbolist staging and commedia dell'arte techniques aswell as sumptuous mountings o f classical dram a an d opera . After th e Revolu-tion, he promoted a proletarian theatre, with constructivist, functional scenery ,acting base d o n biomechanics , an d text s fragmente d int o abstractions . H ecreated 33 Swoons in 193 5 consisting o f The Proposal, The Bear and Jubilee(The Anniversary). See Appendix 2.

JONATHAN MILLE R (b . 1934) , Englis h directo r an d physicia n wh o cam e t oprominence a s a membe r o f th e satirica l revu e Beyond the Fringe. Workin gusually wit h subsidise d companies , bot h dramati c an d operatic , h e prefer sunconventional readings and sharply detailed characterisations. Director of theOld Vic from 1987-9 , hi s ambitious programme faile d commercially , an d hehas freelanced eve r since. He directed The Seagull at Nottingham Playhouse in1968, and Chicheste r Festiva l Theatre in 1973 ; Three Sisters, Yvonn e ArnaudTheatre, Guildford, 1976 , and The Cherry Orchard. See Appendix 2.

PAVEL MOCHALOV (1800-45) , Russian actor, known as the Russian Kean, becauseof hi s erraticall y impassione d performances . A s leading ma n o f th e Mosco wMaly (Little) Theatre, he was worshipped by the merchant class, but sniffed a tby the cognoscenti for his lack of physical and emotional control.

EIMUNTAS NEKROSIU S (b . 1952) , founde r o f th e Lithuania n Yout h Dramati cTheatre (1985) , note d fo r hi s rock musicals . He becam e acclaime d whe n hi swork was seen throughout th e USSR in the 1980s , an d the world tou r o f hisUncle Vanya was a triumph . Hi s untrammelle d imaginatio n an d th e visua lpolyphony of his stage metaphors contribute to the exhilaration o f his produc-tions.

VLADIMIR NEMIROVICH-DANCHENK O (1850-1943) , Russian directo r and play-wright. Co-founder o f the Moscow Art Theatre (1896), he was more politicallyengaged and artistically advanced than his partner Stanislavsky. He introducedChekhov to the Art Theatre, created a brilliantly simple staging for a two-part

196


Directors' Chekhov

Brothers Karamazov (1910), an d cannil y navigate d th e theatr e throug h th eshoals of Soviet bureaucracy. See Appendix 2.

LAURENCE OLIVIE R (1907-89) , Englis h acto r an d director , lon g considere d th eparagon o f Shakespearea n players , th e Hamle t o f th e 1940s , bu t als o th edefinitive Macbeth , Coriolanus , Oedipus, Titus Andronicus and Archie Rice inThe Entertainer. Director o f th e Chicheste r Festiva l (1962-5 ) an d o f th eNational Theatre , Londo n (1962-5) , Olivie r endowe d hi s characterisation swith polishe d technique , physica l agilit y an d sardoni c humour . H e playe dVanya in W. G. Fay's 1927 production, Birmingham Repertory Production; hedirected The Proposal at the Old Vic, London, 1949; in 1963 he directed UncleVanya, Chichester, 1962 , an d the n a t th e Nationa l Theatre , 1968 , where h eplayed Astrov t o Michae l Redgrave' s Vanya. He directe d Three Sisters a t theNational Theatre in 1967, designed by Svoboda. See Appendices 2 and 3.

TATIANA PAVLOW A (1893-1975) , Russia n actres s an d director , who ha d studie dwith Stanislavsky , bu t during the Russian Civi l War emigrated t o Italy , wherein 1 9 21 sh e bega n he r ow n troupe . Engagin g suc h compatriot s a s Nikola iEvreinov an d Pete r Sharoff , sh e introduce d Italian s t o Ostrovsk y (he r fa -vourite), Chekhov, Gorky and Tolstoy.

GEORGES PITOEF F (Georg y Pitoev , 1884-1939) . Georgian-bor n director , expa -triated to Paris in 1922 , where he and his wife Ludmilla expanded the Frenchrepertory wit h minimalis t production s o f Chekhov , Pirandello , Shakespear eand Shaw. Believing in the artis t a s visionary, Pitoeff , who m Coctea u called asaint o f the theatre , imbued hi s performances wit h a luminous mysticism. SeeAppendix 2.

NIKOS PSACHAROPOULO S (1928-89) , Greek-bor n America n director . A dramaprofessor a t Yale University, he founded th e Williamstown (Mass. ) Theatre in1955, as a place where established actors could perform th e classics during thesummer season . Th e annua l recurrenc e enable d Psacharopoulos , whos e styl eran to the emotional, to stage more Chekhov productions than any other NorthAmerican director.

RALPH RICHARDSON (1902-83) , English actor , who won fame as the bewilderedprotagonist o f J. B. Priestley's enigmatic dramas. With Olivier , he co-managedthe Ol d Vic, London (1944-7) , when he was seen as the super b exponen t ofCyrano, Falstaf f an d Peer Gynt. He played Vershinin in Three Sisters in 1951,Aldwych Theatre , London , directe d b y Pete r Ashmore . H e ripene d int o a nexceptionally mellow performer of Pinter, Osborne and Storey. See Appendix 2.

IVAN ROSTOVSTEV/ROSTOVSK Y (1873-1947) , Russia n directo r widel y experi -enced on provincial stages. After the Revolution, he organised the first MoscowWorkers' Theatre an d simila r enterprise s throughou t th e USSR, settling even-tually in Yaroslavl. One of the most important Sovie t directors outside the bigcities, h e wa s distinguishe d fo r hi s production s o f Ostrovsky , Chekho v an dGorky, which sedulously reproduced life before the Revolution.

MICHEL SAINT-DENI S (1897-1971) , Frenc h actor , directo r an d pedagogue . Firs tworking for his uncle Jacques Copeau, he founded th e Compagnie de s Quinze

197


LAURENCE SENELIC K

(1930-1), then moved to England, where he ran the Theatre School at the OldVic (1946-52). His teaching became widely disseminated when he directed theCentre National Dramatique d e L'Est Strasbourg and then the Juilliard Schoolin New York. Saint-Denis' main concerns were with the actor' s virtuosity andthe discovery of style, the appropriate conduit for the play's form an d content.He directed Peggy Ashcroft a s Irina in a 1938 production o f Three Sisters andas Ranevskaya in The Cherry Orchard in 1961. See Appendix 2.

ANDREI SERBA N (Andre j Serban , b. 1943), Rumanian director , a student of Ciuleiand a n assistan t o f Brook , he made hi s name in the Off-Broadway theatr e ofNew Yor k (1969-89) , befor e returnin g t o Rumani a i n 1990 . Hi s syncreti capproach downplaye d th e lexica l meanin g o f th e dialogu e i n a n attemp t t otransform th e spoke n wor d int o emotiona l music . Consequently , hi s mos trecent work has been in opera. See Appendix 2 and p. 143 .

ATHENE SEYLE R (1899-1990) , English actress , witty and sprightly , a specialist inhigh comedy. Over the course o f a long career (1909-66 ) sh e played mos t ofthe leadin g role s i n Shakespearean , Restoratio n an d eighteenth-centur ycomedy, finishing up with Arsenic and Old Lace. Her handbook, The Craft ofComedy (1944) , i s stil l a usefu l guid e t o actors . Sh e playe d Ranevskay a i nTyrone Guthrie's The Cherry Orchard at the Old Vic, London, 1933 and againin 1941 . Se e Appendix 2.

ADOLF SHAPIR O (b . 1939) , Ukrainian-Jewis h director . Takin g ove r th e artisti cmanagement o f th e Stat e Yout h Theatr e o f Rig a i n 1964 , h e becam e th eyoungest chief director in the Soviet Union. Strongly influenced b y Vakhtangovand Italia n Neo-Realis t films , th e teaching s o f Mari a Knebe l an d Michae lChekhov, h e trie d t o provid e 'complicate d theatr e fo r th e young' , expressin glife's contradictions and a complex inner life. He also introduced Brecht to theLatvian stage . H e directe d The Cherry Orchard a t th e Bolsho y Dramati cTheatre, St Petersburg in 1992.

PETER SHAROF F (Pyot r Sharov , 1886-1969) , Russia n emigre director . Afte rworking as an actor with Stanislavsky and Meyerhold, he became a member ofthe expatriate Pragu e Grou p o f the Moscow Ar t Theatre . His productions ofChekhov, Gogol and Ostrovsky perpetuated Art Theatre traditions of disciplineand ensemble in Italy (where he became a citizen), West Germany, Austria andHolland.

SERGEY SOLYVOV , a forme r colleagu e o f Yur y Lyubimov , wh o wreste d th eTaganka Theatr e awa y fro m hi m i n th e perio d followin g th e collaps e o f th eSoviet Union. For nouveau riche audiences, he staged grossly luxurious produc-tions, claiming he was humanising Chekhov.

KONSTANTIN STANISLAVSK Y (Alekseyev , 1863-1938) , Russia n acto r an d di -rector, co-founder o f the Moscow Art Theatre (1896) . As a director, he stressedsubtext, ensembl e playin g an d th e creation o f atmosphere ; thi s approac h ha sproved successfu l i n stagin g Chekhov , bu t no t Shakespear e an d Moliere .Seeking a source o f inspiratio n fo r th e acto r tha t woul d preven t tensio n an dlead to enhanced creativity , he was constantly formulating a System, which at

198


Directors' Chekhov

first relie d o n emotiona l memory , bu t late r emphasise d physica l action . Se eAppendix 2.

PETER STEI N (b . 1937), German director , co-founder o f the collective Schaubilhn eam Hallesche n Ufe r i n Eas t Berli n (1970) , whic h becam e on e o f th e grea ttheatres o f Europe . Stei n insiste d o n hi s compan y researchin g th e socio -historical milieu of every play, but in time moved away from politica l activismtowards a more aesthetic historicised style . His justification t o his critic is thatremembering is a political act . He directed Three Sisters a t Berlin Schaubilhnein 198 4 and The Cherry Orchard, which played at the International Chekho vFestival, Moscow, in 1992. See Appendix 2.

LEE STRASBER G (1901-82) , Galician-bor n America n directo r an d actor , leadin gapostle o f Stanislavsk y i n th e US . Afte r studyin g wit h Boleslavski , h e co -founded th e idealistic Group Theatre (1931) and in 1949 began to teach at theActors Studio, New York. More important as a pedagogue than as a director, heinspired severa l generations o f actor s with his highly individualized version ofthe Method, exhorting them to find their personal instrument. See Appendix 2.

GIORGIO STREHLE R (1921-97) , Italian director , co-founder o f the Piccolo Teatrodi Milan o (1947 ) an d artisti c directo r o f th e Theatr e d'Europe , Pari s(1982-9). A socially committed Brechtian, he was undogmatic in style, expertat finding exquisite visua l metaphor s i n hi s production s o f Goldoni , Shake -speare an d Chekhov . A strai n o f melanchol y ra n throug h hi s bes t work ,deriving fro m frustratio n a t th e inabilit y t o expres s al l o f life' s multiplicity .See Appendix 2.

ROBERT STURU A (b . 1938), Georgian director, who infused world classics with thetemperament and colour of Caucasian folklore. The underlying principle of hisproductions i s rhythm, an d th e staging i s almost choreographed t o a musicalsoundtrack. H e i s bes t know n i n th e Wes t fo r hi s terrifyingl y totalitaria nRichard III (1979). See Appendix 2.

TADASHI SUZUK I (b . 1939), Japanese director, noted for his intercultural amalgamsof play and production style. Working with texts by Shakespeare, Chekhov andGreek tragic poets, he borrows devices from Noh and Kabuki and themes frompop an d classica l musi c t o provok e dissonanc e i n reception . I n 198 2 h efounded th e Tog a Festiva l t o showcas e hi s ne w work an d advanc e hi s actor -training method . H e directe d bot h The Cherry Orchard and Three Sisters i nToga in 1986.

JOSEF SVOBOD A (b . 1920) , Czec h scenographer , lon g associate d wit h Otoma rKrejca at the Prague National Theatre and the Divadlo za Branou, though from1963 h e worked outsid e Czechoslovakia . Considerin g scenograph y a s both aparticipant i n an d a function o f th e dramati c action , h e prefer s architectoni cspaces, complicated lighting and unusual building materials to express the playand implement the actors' movement. He designed Olivier's Three Sisters at theNational Theatre, London, in 1967. See Appendices 2 and 4, and chapter 12.

ALEKSANDER TAIRO V (Kornblit , 1885-1950) , Russia n director . Leade r o f th eKamerny (Chamber ) Theatre , Moscow (1914-49) , he insisted on the primacy

199


LAURENCE SENELIC K

of the actor's physicality an d musical principles in staging. His repertoire waseclectic, preferrin g non-Russia n authors : Kalidasa , Wilde , Scribe , Racine ,Claudel, O'Neill , Shaw ; hi s highl y stylise d production s usuall y feature d hi swife, Alisa Koonen. He directed The Seagull at the Kamerny Theatre, Moscow,1944-5. See Appendix 2.

GEORGY (GEORGI ) TOVSTONOGO V (1913-89) , Russia n director , th e imposin ghead of the Bolshoi Dramatic Theatre (BDT) , Leningrad from 1956 . Withoutabandoning realism, he found a way to synthesise Stanislavsky, Meyerhold andBrecht, imbuing the classics with a lush lyricism and ensemble playing. Adeptat bot h th e tragi c an d grotesque , h e rediscovere d Dostoevsky , Gork y an dChekhov for post-war Soviet audiences. See Appendix 2.

HIROWATARI TSANETOSHI , Japanes e director , whos e Toky o Engek i ensembl etoured a curiously hybrid Seagull to Russi a i n 1993 . It respectfully sough t t oengraft deepl y rooted national images on to a venerated foreign author .

EVGENY/YEVGENY VAKHTANGO V (1883-1923) , Russia n acto r an d director ;studied wit h Stanislavsk y bu t preferre d fantasti c realism , a sharpl y etche dgrotesquerie grounded in genuine emotion. His masterpieces were Strindberg' sErik XIV wit h Michae l Chekho v (1921) , Anski' s The Dybbuk stage d i nHebrew with the Habima Theatre , an d Gozzi' s Princess Turandot, a triumphof modernise d commedia dell'arte (both 1922) . H e directe d Chekhov' s TheWedding in 1921. See Appendix 2.

ANTOINE VITE Z (1930-90) , Frenc h director , actin g teacher , poet , a studen t o fRussian capabl e o f makin g hi s ow n translations . H e bega n a s a Brechtia napostle of people's theatre but , a s director o f the Theatre National de Chaillot(1981-8) an d the Comedie Francaise (1988-90), developed a more elitist ideaof mystica l artificiality . Inspire d b y postmoder n notion s o f disruptio n an dmontage, h e ofte n encourage d actor s t o pla y agains t th e text , an d offere dinterpretations o f coruscating if opaque intellectuality. He directed The Seagullat the Theatre National de Chaillot in 1984. See Appendix 2.

GENRIETTA (HENRIETTA ) YANOVSKAY A (b . 1941), Russian director , who worksin clos e collaboratio n wit h he r husban d Kam a Ginkas . A student o f Tovsto-nogov, she is housed in the Moscow Art Theatre of the Young Spectator, whereher stylise d approac h satirise d traditiona l Sovie t attitudes . A n Absurdis tadaptation (1987 ) o f Bulgakov' s Heart of a Dog (1925 ) bes t displaye d he rpenchant for mordant and expressive stage pictures.

PETER ZADE K (b . 1926) , Germa n directo r educate d i n England . Considere d a nenfant terrible, Zadek shocke d audience s a t th e man y Wes t Germa n stat etheatres he ran with his unconventional, provocative stagings . Telling the storyis his motto, but in the process he tends to displace the emphasis. He directedThe Cherry Orchard at Stuttgar t Staatstheate r i n 196 8 an d The Seagull inBochum in 1973 . His 1996 Vienna Cherry Orchard became a play about fou rwomen in pursuit of happiness.


i6DONALD RAYFIEL D

Chekhov's storie s and the plays

Even t o thos e wh o loathe d Chekhov' s plays , hi s unorthodo x dram a wa smarked b y th e technique s o f a short-stor y write r wh o refuse d t o limi t hi simagination t o th e confine s o f th e stag e o r mee t it s demand s fo r intrigue ,denouement, climax , le t alon e recognis e it s genre s o f comed y an d tragedy .An all-controlling author-narrato r refuse d t o get off th e stage. In Novembe r1889 th e actor-manage r Lensk y tol d Chekho v afte r th e rejectio n o f TheWood Demon b y th e Imperia l Theatr e Committe e no t t o writ e plays : 'I'l lsay one thing: write long stories . Your attitude t o the stage and t o dramati cform i s to o contemptuous , yo u respec t the m to o littl e t o writ e a drama .This for m i s more difficul t tha n narrativ e form , bu t you , forgiv e me , hav ebeen too spoile d b y success to study dramati c form proper ly . . . o r to com eto love it.' 1

The histor y o f Russia n dram a i s made , however , o f fool s wh o rushe d i nwhere angel s feare d t o trea d an d force d actor s an d audienc e t o tak e fro mthe stag e what wa s previously found i n lyrics o r in novels . Chekhov wa s a ttimes activel y hostil e t o th e theatr e (whic h h e ha d describe d a s a beer -garden and its denizens as 'Machiavellis i n skirts') . Only when Nemirovich -Danchenko an d Stanislavsk y forme d th e Moscow Ar t Theatre , an d showe dthe same desire to repress actors ' egoism and cliches and the same refusal t olet existin g stagecraf t confin e drama , coul d Chekho v us e o n dram a th etechniques with which he had revolutionised shor t stories . Understatement ,ambiguity, inconsequentialit y mak e th e Chekhovia n shor t story : i t point sto, bu t refuse s t o ope n th e cupboar d wher e th e skeleto n i s concealed ; i tpeters out .

Many scene s typica l o f th e Chekhovia n shor t stor y ar e fundamenta l t ohis plays : for instance , th e non-proposal , whe n a couple ar e lef t alon e i n agarden o r a roo m an d fai l t o agree , i s typical : w e fin d i t i n Ac t Tw o o fUncle Vania an d Ac t Fou r o f The Cherry Orchard i n a for m recognisabl efrom 'Verochka ' o f 188 7 t o Tonych ' o f 1899 . Th e structur e o f hi s prose ,from hopefu l sprin g t o despairin g autumn , i s applie d t o drama . Off-stag e

203


DONALD RAYFIEL D

noises - th e night-watchman bangin g a rail - tha t punctuat e Uncle Vaniaare found i n storie s suc h a s 'M y Life' . Th e smel l o f fis h waft s acros s th estage a t the end of Act Three in The Cherry Orchard just a s it punctuatesthe conversation o f the hero of 'The Lady with the Little Dog'. Moonlightchanges th e moo d o f The Cherry Orchard as i t doe s tha t o f Tonych ' o r'The Bishop'.

There ar e als o difference s s o regula r betwee n th e play s an d th e storie sthat they imply a deliberate link. For instance the doctor, with the exceptionof the eponymous hero in Tonych' , is a martyred hero in Chekhov's prose.In each successive play (excepting The Wood Demon), however, the doctorbecomes more clownish, more uncaring. In both narrative prose and dramathe doctor is god, but the divinity of the Professor o f Medicine in 'A DrearyStory' belongs to a different pantheo n tha n the god represented b y DoctorChebutykin. They are united only in their inability to help.

There are , however , concession s t o th e stag e i n Chekhov' s transitio nfrom pros e to drama. In all the plays but The Cherry Orchard (although itsports both rifle an d revolver) a gunshot is a crucial event . Guns rarely firein Chekhov' s prose , an d deat h come s mor e insidiously ; fo r th e play s th einstrument o f deat h (eve n i f i t misse s it s target ) i s dramaticall y graphic .Likewise, a main motor of action in comedy, the servants who exceed theirrole, i s rarely foun d i n Chekhov' s prose , bu t i s the ke y to th e comedy ofeven serious drama, like Three Sisters.

Nevertheless, Chekhov's plays can best be understood throug h the shor tstories whos e characters , situations , technique s an d eve n phrase s the yrecycle. This association appears in the first of Chekhov's major plays to bestaged, Ivanov, a play written to a challenge from a theatre director , ratherthan nurtured by Chekhov's own work.

Our understandin g o f Ivanov gain s fro m placin g i t wit h Chekhov' s'Jewish' storie s o f th e mid-i88os , fro m 'Th e Slough ' (wher e a Jewis hmoneylender swindle s and seduces her Russian creditors) to 'Tumbleweed '(1887) wher e th e Jewis h hero , converte d t o Christianity , i s a cripple dwanderer. In the late 1880s, when pogroms first shook Russia and measuresto enforce the 'pale of settlement' in Moscow were underway, Ivanov was,like severa l Chekho v stories , a counter-attac k o n antisemitism . Lik e'Tumbleweed', i t deal s wit h th e baptise d Jew : Sarra-Anna , lik e th ewandering Aleksandr in that story, is, as a baptised Jew, in the same gulf asthe 'doctore d hors e an d pardone d thief', 2 cu t of f fro m he r family , an dinfected wit h tuberculosis . The play' s sympath y fo r th e Jewish victim i s acounterblast t o th e anti-Semiti c letter s Chekho v wa s the n receivin g fro mSuvorin's son Alexey Alexeyevich, who saw Jews in Russia a s 'five millio nbarrels of dynamite under the Kremlin',3 as a sexual and financial threat to

204


Chekhov's stories and the plays

the nation . I f suc h storie s a s 'Th e Slough ' contribute d t o tha t vie w of theJew, then Ivanov was an act of contrition, for the Jew is seen as victim, notoppressor. Th e sensitivitie s o f Russia n audience s sho w i n th e reaction sreported fro m performance s i n the provinces, where spectator s yelled out ,'Jew girl, get what's coming to you.'4

Unlike Ivanov, The Wood Demon wa s no t commissione d b y a theatre,and it s material , a s wel l a s th e circumstance s o f it s composition , sho wChekhov vacillatin g betwee n nove l an d drama . Initiall y a collaboratio nwith Alexe y Suvorin , Chekhov' s frien d an d publisher , i t i s lade n wit hbiographical materia l (fro m th e Suvori n family an d fro m th e Lintvariovs ,with whom the Chekhov s wer e spendin g the summe r o f 1888) . Commonbiographical sources link this play to stories written at that period (notabl y'A Drear y Story') , jus t a s common source s lin k The Seagull to th e stor y'Ariadna'.

The Wood Demon i s organically linked wit h stories , already written o rbeing composed , tha t ste m fro m Chekhov' s journe y i n 188 7 t o Kharko vand Taganrog . Tw o group s o f stor y relat e t o The Wood Demon. Firstly ,stories that Chekhov wrote after his first return to the steppes and woods ofhis childhoo d - 'Panpipes' , 'Fortune' , an d 'Steppe ' - ar e a valedictor ycelebration o f nature, irreversibly destroye d b y human myopia an d greed .The 'woo d demon' , a ma n wh o franticall y save s forest s an d repair s th eecology, bot h natura l an d human , reflect s th e autho r dismaye d b y th edisappearance o f a childhood idyll . The wood demon's speeches reflect th eauthorial person a o f th e storie s o f 188 7 an d 1888 . Th e othe r storie srelevant to The Wood Demon ar e stories o f alienation: notably ' A DrearyStory'. Chekhov worked on 'A Dreary Story' at the same time as The WoodDemon. The tragic first-person story and the melodramatic, idyllic comedyshare, despit e divergen t genre s an d moods , bot h protagonist , a n elderl yprofessor tormenting himself and his family, and many scenes and images.

The cult of nature in The Wood Demon was original in drama: it is theworld's first 'green' play. Chekhov raised his conservationist's message fromhis stories where the narrator cite s the laments o f simpl e countrymen an dhere, in the play, made it the arguments of educated men. In 'Panpipes' thehero complains , 'The y ar e cuttin g th e forests , an d the y ar e burnin g an ddrying u p an d nothin g ne w grows . Whateve r doe s gro w i s cu t dow nstraight away ; it sprouts today and tomorrow before yo u can blink peoplehave felled it.' 5 Thi s is lifted int o the Wood Demon' s ple a to Serebriakov :'Don't d o i t . . . T o fell a thousand trees , to destro y the m fo r th e sak e oftwo o r thre e thousan d rouble s . . . s o tha t posterit y wil l curs e ou rbarbarity!'6 Th e pla y take s u p theme s fro m Russia' s agricultura l an dhorticultural journals, the threat of deforestation an d consequent degenera-

2 0 5


DONALD RAYFIEL D

tion in human life . The message of The Wood Demon, however clumsy, isthat the destruction o f the environment an d of people's lives by selfishnessare closely linked processes.

When in autumn 189 6 Chekhov, by miraculous surgery, extracted UncleVania from th e debri s o f The Wood Demon h e reinforced th e play's linkswith the earlier stories . We have the motif o f greyness standing for stiflin gprovinciality that we are to find in stories of the 1890s . In Act Three of theplay Elena burst s out : 'instead o f human being s grey spots wander about ,you hear only trivialities, when they only know that they eat, drink, sleep' .The colou r gre y typifie s th e close d worl d o f th e Chekhovia n heroine :Elena's complaint anticipates the despair of the Lady with the Little Dog inthe story o f tha t name , and explains (a s in the story ) he r susceptibilit y t othe cynical enchanter.

For Astrov's conservation speech Chekhov strengthened the motifs of theWood Demon (the n called Dr Khrushchiov) an d returne d t o hi s stories oflate 1887 . Specific phrase s ar e to b e found i n 'Panpipes' . The narrative inthis stor y begin s wit h th e Woo d Demon' s moti f o f th e youn g birc h tree ;then the ranch-manager Melito n complains tha t ove r forty year s the birdshave been dying out, that once they had been more than the eye could takein (vidimo-nevidimo) - exactl y th e sam e flocks of bird s vidimo-nevidimothat Astro v cites . Meliton ends with the same message lamenting destruc -tion: compar e hi s 'Whateve r grows , the y hac k i t down , s o withou t en duntil nothin g mor e i s left' t o Astrov' s ' A frozen hungr y sic k human bein g. . . destroys everything, not thinking of the morrow. Almost everything isnow destroyed.'

In recycling earlie r stor y material , Chekho v raise s dialogu e from narra -tive to drama, and language from peasant to intellectual register: he talks of'degeneration', o f 'struggl e fo r existence' , a neo-Darwinia n vocabular ywith which Chekhov had endowed hi s Darwinist von Koren in 'The Duel'(1891). Th e battl e betwee n activis t Astro v an d quietis t Uncl e Vani a ha smany phase s tha t ste m fro m th e conflict , als o betwee n th e outlook s o fscience and of art , betwee n von Koren and Laevsky in that story . Anothernew factor i n Uncle Vania is that we now have a geographical co-ordinate :the Serebriakovs have decided to flee to Kharkov, a town which also figuresat th e en d o f ' A Dreary Story ' wher e i t typifie s th e squalo r i n which th edisillusioned professor faces up to his imminent death.

The Seagull, however, though written before the making of Uncle Vania,is the first completely Chekhovian play: it owes nothing to the influence ofothers - o f Korsh or Suvorin - no r to considerations of performance. In themaking of The Seagull none of Chekhov's acto r o r theatre-director friend shad eve n the limited sa y which Davydov had i n the shapin g o f Ivanov or

206



Svobodin i n th e birt h pang s o f The Wood Demon. Th e makin g o f TheSeagull shows a story write r reckles s o f the demand s o f anothe r medium ,confronting th e incomprehension of actor and audience.

The Seagull i s even more intimate tha n man y storie s o f the first half o fthe 1890s , for i t not onl y reproduces phrases , situations an d characters ofChekhov's friend s an d associates , but , uniquel y i n th e author' s work ,satirises himself . Eve n mor e tha n th e storie s 'Th e Grasshopper ' o r'Ariadna', The Seagull incorporates, recognisabl y fo r thos e wh o wer einvolved and for their intimates, many persons and situations in Chekhov'sown privat e life . Despit e th e warnin g Chekho v ha d receive d fro m Lik aMizinova afte r publishin g 'Th e Grasshopper' , tha t h e di d no t appreciat ewhat pai n h e cause d b y transposing pas t relationship s int o art , Chekho vwent further. Hi s intense love life of the winter of 1893-4, t n e suffering s o fLika Mizinova , pregnan t i n exile , th e relationshi p wit h Potapenko , hi sfellow write r (an d love r o f Mizinova) , th e attention s o f othe r women ,notably Lidia Avilova, even the past of the Suvorin household (wher e a soncommitted suicide in circumstances like Treplev's) were publicly exhibited.Not onl y i n th e writing , bu t i n th e production , The Seagull was a ninstrument for distancing others, as had 'Ariadna' in the previous year. As aletter t o friends , The Seagull differ s fro m th e intimate storie s onl y in tha tthose who provided the material for fiction were to be confronted wit h thatfiction no t individuall y an d i n private , i n thei r homes , bu t i n public ,together, i n th e auditorium . Th e differenc e betwee n dram a an d narrativ eprose is in both text and reception.

The parallel s whic h th e tex t o f The Seagull offers wit h Chekhov' s ow nwriting ar e well known. Treplev in an envious monologue complain s tha tTrigorin has a set of tricks which make his writing easy: 'He has the neck ofa broken bottl e shinin g o n a weir an d the dark shado w o f a mill-wheel -and there you have a moonlit night ' - a passage from Chekhov' s 'Wol f o f1886. In January 1896, Lidia Avilova gave Chekhov a medal inscribed withpage and line numbers from his last book: Chekhov consulted the book andfound th e line s i n hi s 'Neighbours ' o f 1891 , 'If yo u shoul d nee d m y life ,come and take it.' He gave that line to Trigorin's book, Days and Nights, towhich Nina refers o n a medallion, giving page and line numbers. Chekhovlent Avilova' s meda l t o th e actres s Komissarzhevskai a fo r th e Petersbur gproduction. There ar e parallels to o with Chekhov' s ow n letters: Trigorin'scomplaint to Nina about his life being a compulsive process, 'I must write,I must write, I must write' , repeats word-for-word phrase s o f a letter fro mChekhov to Mizinova in 1894.

It is not just auto-reference tha t links The Seagull to Chekhov's prose. Itsphilosophical venture s ech o Chekho v th e narrator . Th e passing o f huma n

207


DONALD RAYFIEL D

life ove r futur e era s int o a lonel y battl e betwee n goo d an d evil , th edevelopment o f Treplev's play-within-a-play fro m a catalogue o f creaturesto a cosmic vision of death reminds us of passages in 'Panpipes' of 1887 orRagin's musings in 'Ward No. 6'. It will develop into the satanic noises andlights of the story 'An Incident in Practice'. The effects o f Konstantin's play,the horn, the sulphur and the glowing red eyes, are effects fro m Chekhov' sprose. They recal l th e panpipes o f 188 7 an d anticipat e th e devil' s eyes in'An Incident in Practice'.

In literar y allusion , too , The Seagull i s strikingl y intertextual . Mos tprominent o f al l i s Maupassant . Maupassant' s storie s ar e reflecte dthroughout Chekhov' s development . The put-upon prostitut e o f 'Boul e deSuif' is found i n early pieces such as 'The Chorus Girl ' or 'A Man Friend' ;Maupassant the ardent fisherman is reflected in Chekhov's stories (e.g. 'TheBurbot'); Maupassant's melodramati c story of the destructive supernatura lforce 'L e Horla ' echoe d i n 'Th e Blac k Monk' . Maupassan t i s singled ou tfor prais e anonymousl y i n ' A Drear y Story' , wher e th e Professo r o fMedicine prefer s 'Frenc h writers ' to inhibite d Russia n contemporaries . In'A Woman' s Kingdom ' Maupassan t i s praise d wit h extravaganc e tha tverges on satire as a 'locomotive that runs you over'. The very opening linesof The Seagull continue thi s tribute , fo r th e exchange, 'Wh y d o you wearblack' - 'I' m in mourning for my life', is distilled Maupassant's Bel-Ami. InAct One Treplev compares his horror o f vulgarity with Maupassant's panicattack a t the sight of the Eiffel Tower . Act Two quotes Maupassant's travelwritings Sur I'eau, while th e plo t lin e o f a youn g woma n seduce d an dabandoned b y a n olde r man , recapture d b y a n olde r woman , follow s aMaupassant pattern . The Seagull, more tha n reflectin g Chekhov' s prose ,has a common source with it.

Similarly, Shakespeare's Hamlet saturates Chekhov' s prose as much as itdoes The Seagull. Most of Chekhov's prose up to 1895 quotes and pondersHamlet. Chekhov uses Hamlet's line of bewilderment, when faced wit h anactor merging with his role, 'What's Hecuba to him and he to Hecuba?' Itis no t jus t th e Hamle t rol e o f th e Russia n intellectual , tor n betwee n th estate he hates and the people he stands above; it is Hamlet, bemused by art,tormented b y sexuality , the love r o f th e sea , who i s so close to Chekhov .The hero of 'Tumbleweed' and Laevsky in 'The Duel' are Hamlets. Hamletis no t quit e purge d i n The Seagull; Lopakhi n parodie s i t i n The CherryOrchard, but after The Seagull it disappears from Chekhov' s late prose.

While th e writer' s predicamen t i s not discusse d anywher e i n Chekhov' spublished work , apar t from The Seagull, hi s prose reverts severa l times tothe miserie s o f a provincia l actor . Th e earl y work , suc h a s ' A Mean s o fSobering Up ' o r 'Th e Wallet' , treat s th e predicamen t grotesquel y o r

208



farcically. I n 'A Dreary Story' , however, i t is serious. Katia, the professor' sward, lik e Nin a i n The Seagull, returns, change d beyon d recognitio n t omeet agai n th e ma n wh o i s mos t fon d o f her . He r privat e lif e an d he rillusions abou t stardom are destroyed. Nina in The Seagull is less wreckedthan Katia. Full of stamina, intoxicated b y the joy of acting, as she travelsfrom on e provincia l backwate r t o another , sh e i s nevertheless a s much avictim of the theatre as Katia in 'A Dreary Story' . The later prose also seesthe provincial theatre as hell - whethe r the foyer o f the opera in 'The Ladywith the Little Dog' o r the debut o f Kleopatra, dumbstruc k an d pregnant ,in 'My Life'.

In The Seagull Chekhov concludes a theme he had repeatedly turned to:the suicide , o r suicida l protest , o f th e adolescen t intellectual . I t wa sbroached a s a possible continuation t o the story o f a boy, 'The Steppe' ; itwas firs t realise d i n 'Volodia' , wher e Chekhov' s fina l versio n add s a fata lrevolver shot to the adolescent's initial protest against his mother's love life- a stor y whic h distresse d Suvorin , whos e so n Volodi a ha d committe dsuicide (followin g hi s mother' s example) , afte r hi s fathe r ha d ignore d th ecomedy h e had jus t written . Konstanti n Treplev' s suicid e wa s sufficientl ylike that o f the real an d fictiona l Volodi a t o upse t Suvori n afte r watchin gthe play's first performance. Suicide in The Seagull is a device to end a play,or a t leas t a third act , a s in Platonov, Ivanov o r The Wood Demon. I t isperhaps significant tha t after The Seagull Chekhov never uses suicide in theplots of his plays and in only one later story , 'On Officia l Business ' does iteven have secondary meaning.

The Seagull o n 1 7 October 189 6 flopped: Chekhov wrot e n o new playfor nearly five years. Only after tw o triumphs a t the Moscow Art Theatre,in 1898 and 1899, was Chekhov's confidence restored and the Moscow ArtTheatre's pressur e fo r a ne w pla y sufficientl y strong . Three Sisters wascomposed i n a differen t atmosphere : Chekho v n o longe r neede d t o tak etheatrical conventions by the horns. Nor does he use biographical materia ldirectly: i f anything , Three Sisters anticipates , rathe r tha n reflects ,Chekhov's own marriage and family conflicts. More important was the factthat hi s creativ e energ y wa s no w spen t no t i n writin g ne w work , bu t i nselecting an d revisin g al l th e forme r wor k tha t coul d b e retrieve d fro mperiodicals t o b e republished , unde r a ver y stringen t contract , b y Adol fMarx i n Petersburg . Th e positiv e effec t wa s tha t Chekho v reviewe d an drecycled earlie r themes , an d Three Sisters shows th e influenc e o f pros eexcavated from th e past, as well as anticipation o f the few stories Chekhovwas to write.

English element s construc t Three Sisters. A biograph y o f th e Bronte swhich Chekhov had read in 189 5 is one; so is The Geisha, an operetta b y

2 0 9


DONALD RAYFIEL D

Sidney Jones. The third English (o r American element ) was the music-hal lsong 'Tarara-boom-deay' , whic h sprea d fro m Americ a i n 189 1 t o al lEurope i n countless variations . In English (an d i n French ) it s verses weresung by a louche schoolgirl ('Not too shy and not too bold, Just the sort forsport I' m told' ) whil e a n enthusiasti c mal e choru s sing s 'Tarara-boom -deay'. I n Chekhov' s wor k th e refrai n becam e a euphemis m fo r sexua lintercourse: in Russian versions the text was sadder. The main verse mightbe the story of a man fallen int o depravity an d the chorus a bitter lament .The phrase 'Tarara-boom-deay ' ha d already served Chekhov as a leitmotifin the story o f 189 3 'Bi g Volodia an d Littl e Volodia', where littl e Volodiaseduces the heroine (wh o is married t o a Colonel) to thi s motif. Later thesong wa s orchestrate d a s a n artiller y regimenta l march . Already , i nChekhov's mind it was associated with a military setting (which he had firstused in 'The Kiss' of 1887) and with seduction. Undoubtedly, the officers ofChekhov's fictional battery in Three Sisters, as they leave the northern townwhere the y have enchanted , an d disenchanted , th e thre e Prozoro v sisters ,march ou t t o th e tun e o f 'Tarara-boom-deay' , th e ver y son g tha t D rChebutykin sing s (as all Chekhovian males sing) to heighten the distress ofthe heroine to whose sexual liaison it alludes.

The onl y Chekho v pla y se t i n a town , Three Sisters uses Chekhov' sprovincial-town material . Kulygin, the Latin teacher, in his sycophancy, 'i ncase anything migh t happen' , transpose s Beliko v i n 'Th e Man i n a Case' .The contrast between Natasha an d the three sisters is the contrast betwee npredator an d prey that recur s in Chekhov's late prose, and continues o n amore genteel level the rivalry of sisters-in-law s o deadly in 'In the Ravine'of 1899. Even Natasha's green belt links her with the imagery of green thatconnotes deat h - th e gree n dres s an d eye s o f th e kille r Aksini a i n 'I n th eRavine', features which make her seem like a wolf in a sheep-fold. Natashabreeds her sisters-in-la w roo m b y room fro m th e house ; Aksinia doe s thesame thing , despit e he r sterility , b y scaldin g he r sister-in-law' s bab y t odeath. Bot h Natash a an d Aksini a destro y th e househol d int o whic hmarriage ha s brough t them , an d leav e the males o n which th e househol donce relie d a s helples s degenerates . Ol d Tsybuki n an d Chebutyki n shar emore than the last syllables of their surnames: they end the story or the playin useles s senility . Similarly , th e so n o f th e household , th e policema nAnisim i n 'I n th e Ravine' , lik e Andre i th e would-b e professo r i n ThreeSisters, i s disgrace d an d sidelined . Lik e Startse v i n Tonych' , Andre idegenerates scene by scene, fatter an d more ill-tempered as the bourgeoisieenvelops him ; lik e Chekhov' s lat e heroines , th e thre e sister s los e thei raccomplishments: Masha stop s playing the piano, Irina forgets he r Italian:school-teaching or marriage degrades the heroine.



Nature too is doomed in Three Sisters as in all Chekhov's late work. Theavenue of firs and the maple, doomed in Act Four of Three Sisters, like thebirches i n Ac t One , giv e wa y t o Natasha' s flower-beds. This contras t o fnoble tree s an d ignobl e flower-beds i s foun d i n 'Th e Hous e wit h th eMezzanine' and the unfinished 'Disturbin g the Balance'.

The ideologica l structur e o f Three Sisters reverts t o storie s fro m 'Th eDuel' to 'M y Life' . Th e philosophising o f Vershinin an d Tuzenbakh take sover the arguments of N. and Lida in 'The House with the Mezzanine' andof Misail and Blagovo in 'My Life'. The same discussion between 'activist 'and 'quietist' , whether activit y is needed to bring about the millennium, orwhether som e great possibilit y i n the futur e wil l lead u s there, makes th econversation o f Vershini n an d Tuzenbak h i n fron t o f th e sister s a futil emating display just as the artist and Lida Volchaninova argu e their politicsonly to possess the soul of the nubile, vulnerable Misius. The dichotomy of'My Life ' i s strongl y re-enacte d i n Three Sisters. Tuzenbakh's thirs t fo rmanual work, his 'dropping-out ' fro m hi s barony an d his army career, hisslow-witted goodness repeat, tragically and absurdly, the process by whichMisail seek s moral peace ; Vershinin's affai r wit h Masha an d hi s desertio nof her, his indifference t o the present and speculations abou t the future ar eBlagovo's.

Much of Three Sisters was recycled into prose. Chekhov's last story, 'TheBride' (or, more accurately, 'The Fiancee') is set in the same northern town.It too has three women, though arranged vertically as grandmother, motherand daughter (not horizontally as three sisters), of which one tries to escapefrom a strangling relationship to the metropolis. Here too an unviable malecalled Andre i play s th e violi n a s a hobby . Her e too , th e girl' s mento rentreats her to run away 'withou t lookin g round' (bez ogliadki), using thesame phras e an d ton e tha t Chebutyki n gives , to o late , t o th e trappe dAndrei in Three Sisters.

'The Bride' is a bridge between Chekhov's last two plays. It gives to TheCherry Orchard as muc h a s i t take s fro m Three Sisters. The malleabl eheroine, Nadia , ha s th e temperamen t o f Mash a i n Three Sisters and th evulnerability of Ania in The Cherry Orchard. Her ragged-trousered philan -thropist-mentor, Sasha, gives the same advice, spouts the same anarchism andis a s patheticall y dependen t a s Trofimo v i n The Cherry Orchard. MuchCherry Orchard material comes from 'Th e Bride': the escape from a familyheritage, from a neurotic mother and a ruined garden; the heroine who listensto a tubercular intellectual denouncing 'stench , bedbugs, cockroaches? Justlike twenty years ago, no change.' 'The Bride' ends ambiguously, not showingus an y final scatterin g t o th e winds , bu t th e visio n o f th e futur e whic henchants the heroine incorporates the same utopianism as Trofimov's.


DONALD RAYFIEL D

This las t pla y summarise s al l tha t Chekho v eve r wrote . Cherr y orchard sgo back to childhood memorie s o f southern Russi a befor e th e deforestatio nof th e 1880s . I n 'Th e Steppe ' (1888 ) th e boy' s firs t sight s o n leavin g tow nprefigure tw o element s i n The Cherry Orchard, th e graveyar d an d th echerry trees:

the cosy , green cemetery , walled i n b y cobblestones; you coul d se e cheerfu lwhite crosses and headstones over the wall, they were hidden in the greeneryof the cherry trees and in the distance they seemed like white spots. Egorushkarecalled that when the cherries flowered, these spots of white merged with thecherry blossom and became a sea of white; and when the cherries ripened, thewhite headstone s an d crosse s woul d b e spattere d wit h spot s a s scarle t a sblood. All day and all night Egorushka's father an d grandmother slep t underthose cherry trees behind the cemetery wall.7

The mos t famou s effec t o f th e play , th e breakin g string , ha s a history .The imag e occur s i n th e epilogu e o f Tolstoy' s War and Peace, warnin g o frevolt t o come . Chekho v refer s t o i t i n hi s firs t play , an d the n i n storie s o fthe steppe . I n Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard, whe n Gae v i s silence d b yyounger listeners , w e hea r th e famou s 'nois e o f th e breakin g string' .'Suddenly ther e i s a distan t sound , a s i f fro m th e sky : th e soun d o f abreaking strin g - dyin g away , sad ' (Ac t Two , The Cherry Orchard). Thi ssound come s fro m Chekhov' s storie s o f th e stepp e undermine d b y min eshafts an d hidde n cables . Gae v an d Trofimo v los e credibility , attributin gthe nois e t o a hero n o r a n eagle-owl : Lopakhi n show s hi s solidarit y wit hthe autho r b y identifyin g th e noise : 'Somewher e a lon g wa y off , i n th emines, a winding cable has parted. '

'Fortune' has an ol d shepherd , lik e Firs, who remember s ominou s noises ,and the 'broken string ' of The Cherry Orchard:

In the quiet air , scattering over the steppe, a sound passed. Something in thedistance groane d dreadfully , struc k a ston e an d ra n ove r th e steppe , goin g'Takh, takh , takh. ' Whe n th e soun d die d away , the ol d man looke d inquir -ingly at Pantelei, who was standing unmoved, motionless. 'It's a bucket that'sbroken away in the mine shafts,' said the younger man.8

'Tumbleweed' expand s the significance o f the broken cable .

You've seen people being lowered into the seam itself. You remember, whenthe horse is got going and the wheel made to turn, then one bucket goes overthe pulley into the seam and the other comes up? Well, I got into a bucket, Ibegin to go down and you can imagine, suddenly I hear 'trrr' . The chain hasbroken and I flew hell bound.9

The pros e o f 1887- 8 i s sometime s close r tha n th e earlie r play s t o TheCherry Orchard. Th e them e o f th e nunner y fo r whic h Vari a long s recall s



the poetr y o f the monaster y o f Sviaty e Gor y o f those earlie r stories , just a sLopakhin's teasin g her , a s Hamlet tease s Ophelia , i s a device used in earlie rworks.

The primar y sourc e i n Chekhov' s pros e fo r The Cherry Orchard i s ' AVisit to Friends' , whic h Chekho v wrot e i n Nice . Perhaps becaus e h e wrot eit i n Franc e an d ha d considerabl e annoyanc e ove r th e proofs , Chekho vtook a dislik e t o thi s piece , th e onl y lat e stor y tha t h e exclude d fro m hi sCollected Works. Possibly , h e wa s embarrasse d b y parallel s betwee n th echaracters an d th e Kiselio v family , no w facin g ruin , o f Babkino ; certainly ,he re-use d fundamenta l element s o f th e plot , speeche s an d setting s i n TheCherry Orchard fiv e years later .

Readers hav e n o ground s fo r regardin g ' A Visi t t o Friends ' a s inferio rwork. Th e stor y take s u p th e them e o f 'Verochka ' o f 1887 . A loving ,beautiful gir l attract s th e hero , ye t h e canno t fin d i n hi m th e respons e tha tthe girl and the scene ought to arouse, and he flees. This theme is elaboratedin Tonych ' a t th e en d o f th e year , an d scene s o f Tonych' , especiall y th emoonlit wai t i n a cemeter y a t night , follo w o n fro m ' A Visit t o Friends' ,whose hero , th e lawye r Podgorin , reluctantl y accept s a n invitatio n t o sta ywith the Losevs . He knows the y hope h e will bai l them fro m thei r financialmess by marrying Tatiana Loseva' s sister , Nadezhda .

The Losevs ' bankruptc y an d th e auctio n arrange d tha t summe r fo r thei restate make the background les s simple than tha t o f 'Verochka' , linkin g th estory instea d wit h th e irresponsibilit y an d doo m tha t overhan g Gae v an dRanevskaia's cherry orchard. Expected to give money and advice, Podgorin isinhibited, jus t a s Lopakhin, the play implies, realises that b y marrying Variahe will have to bail out the orchard's owners . In the story the mood of love isspoilt no t onl y b y thi s ill-conceale d imminenc e o f disaster ; anothe r guest ,Varia, onc e clos e t o Podgorin , casuall y recite s poem s sh e use d t o know .Quotation i s common i n al l Chekhov' s work ; her e the poetry i s disturbing .Varia speaks Nekrasov's lines about the railway, for Nekrasov and Chekhov adouble-edged symbo l o f linking and breaking , of progress an d oppression :

Straight is the track: the embankments are narrow,There are poles and rails and bridges,

And by the sides, nothing but Russian bones?The Russian people have borne enough,They've borne this iron road as well -

They'll bear the lot - an d lay out for themselvesA broad clear road with their chests . . .10

Nekrasov i s jus t a s disturbin g i n Ac t Tw o o f The Cherry Orchard: abeggar, wit h hi s verse s abou t 'you r sufferin g brother' , make s Ranevskai a

213


DONALD RAYFIEL D

spill her purse . With lines from Nekrasov , likewise , the marching worker sof 'O n Officia l Business' , the oppresse d o f 'I n th e Ravine' , burs t int o th egentry's nightmares. In 'A Visit to Friends' Podgorin cannot respond to theallurements of Nadezhda, just as Lopakhin is morally paralysed when shutinto the nursery with Varia. There is a nocturnal scene in the garden, one ofChekhov's finest evocations of moonlight (lik e the moonlit end of Act Twoof The Cherry Orchard) a s Nadezhda waits . The black shadow of a statuecontrasts wit h he r whit e figur e an d create s a n illusio n o f peac e an dmelancholy. The birds - corncrakes , quail and cuckoo - mak e the same callto life as they do in 'Peasants ' and 'I n the Ravine'. But Podgorin feels onlyhis 'inability to take' - th e weakness of the Chekhovian hero. He longs fora woman who will fit in with the ideas of the Nekrasov poem, offering no tlove bu t 'new , high , rationa l form s o f life' , promisin g somethin g o f th edream-world 'o n the eve of which we are perhaps now living and of whichwe sometime s hav e a premonition' . Th e drea m o f th e future , whic hcaptivates Podgorin as it does Trofimov in The Cherry Orchard, blinds thishero a s wel l t o th e presen t an d make s hi m impotent . H e i s not save d byprescience of 'new forms'; he is damned by his 'inability to take'. Podgorinthus combine s th e cautio n o f Lopakhi n wit h th e puritanica l idealis m o fTrofimov.

Ranevskaia eve n achieves tragic grandeur when she echoes the words ofthe heroine of 'A Visit to Friends' by appealing to the memory of the dead,from he r grandfathe r t o he r son . Sh e declare s t o Trofimov : ' I wa s bor nhere, my father an d mother live d here , my grandfather? I love this house.Without the cherry orchard I can't make sense of my life.' Likewise , TaniaLoseva declare s t o Podgorin : ' I swea r t o yo u b y al l tha t i s sacred, b y thehappiness o f my children, I can't live without Kuzminki ! I was born here,this i s m y nest , an d i f the y tak e i t fro m me , I shan' t survive , I'l l di e o fdespair.' An d to this plea bot h males offer th e same trite consolation o f ' anew life' . Eve n mor e tha n Chekhov' s othe r plays , The Cherry Orchardsynthesises the predicaments o f every story of loss and disillusio n into onefinal black comedy, whose solution for a lost cause are the blows of the axe.

NOTESThe transliteratio n use d i s th e Britis h one , a s use d i n The Slavonic and EastEuropean Review. The storie s discusse d ar e to b e found i n Hingley's The OxfordChekhov, Wilks ' four-volume collectio n for Penguin , and the revised translation ofConstance Garnett' s stories , b y th e autho r o f thi s chapter . Detail s o f thes ecollections ma y b e foun d i n th e Bibliography . Se e Appendi x i fo r variation s o ftranslation and titles.

214



1 A . P. Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem Moscow, 1974-87 : sochine-niia, Works (henceforth: Soch.) xn, 385.

2 Ivanov, Act One, Scene iv (Soch. xii, 14).3 Se e Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka: fond 331 opis' 5 9 item jia-b

(letters from A. A. Suvorin to A. P. Chekhov), Autumn 1888, p. 21 .4 Se e Perepiska A. P. Chekhova i O. L. Knipper vol. 1 , Moscow, 1934 , p. 211.

Newspaper cutting attached to Chekhov's letter of 14 October 1900.5 Soch. vi, 277.6 The Wood-Demon, Act Three, Scene xn, (Soch. xn, 177).7 The Steppe, ch. 1 (Soch. vn, 14).8 Soch. vi, 215.9 Soch. vi , 260.

10 Soch. x, 13. Quoted from Nekrasov's poem Zheleznaia doroga.

2 1 5


CYNTHIA MARS H

The stage representation ofChekhov's women

This is not the innocuous subject it may seem at first glance. Representationin ar t ha s a lon g an d debate d history ; representatio n i n th e theatr e i scomplex and is now being systematised b y performance theory . Moreover,isolating wome n character s entail s anothe r specialise d are a o f criticism .Feminist approache s t o literatur e an d th e theatr e hav e ensure d closel yargued views from both male and female critics, who have been made waryof gender-centred interest s and judgements. I find mysel f in the position ofa woman schola r writing about women. It is almost certain that I will fai lto mee t th e expectations , whethe r negativ e o r positive , o f a t leas t som esections of the readership o f this book. I shall approach thi s topic wishingneither to engage with the heavily jargonised language used in performancetheory, no r t o assum e a stanc e whic h i s feminis t o r anti-feminist , bu t t oacknowledge and to have learnt from each one.

In its essence, representation encompasse s notions o f mimesis (imitatio nof reality) , comprehensivenes s i n relatio n t o existin g socia l norms , an dformal issues . Di d Chekhov' s representatio n o f hi s wome n character sconform wit h these existing norms? Di d hi s representing proces s confor mwith existing theatrical convention? O r did he offer a radical alternative inboth areas ? The approach her e rests on a concept o f representation whic hcovers th e whol e proces s fro m creatio n throug h t o perception . I n th erepresenting proces s th e creativ e par t i s separat e fro m perceptio n i n tha tthe agent of each is separate. The artist creates (and in so doing represents),the receiver perceives (an d in so doing tests an d completes the representa -tion). Th e 'gap ' whic h result s fro m thi s divisio n (o r a s th e languag e o fsemiotics view s it , th e differenc e betwee n signifier and signified), i t i sargued, ensure s th e endles s variet y o f interpretatio n t o whic h ar t i ssubject.1 Did Chekhov utilise this 'gap' to mould audience perception?

The genre and perio d o f his plays offer th e major determinin g facto r i nan analysis of Chekhov's representation of his women characters. Chekhov'splays ar e generally regarde d a s realist wit h som e naturalist influence . Th e

216


The stage representation of Chekhov's women

latent implicatio n o f representatio n t o b e comprehensiv e o f differen tsocial types i s as important a s mimesis o f contemporary reality . We need,therefore, firstly to categorise the women characters to test the comprehen-siveness o f th e representation ; secondly , i n response t o ou r gender-drive ntheme, we need to examine ho w the determining characteristi c o f female -ness, sexuality , i s deal t wit h i n the plays . For ou r thir d poin t w e turn t oformal issues : realist/naturalist theatr e a t the end of the last century restedon a paradox which frequently dre w audience attentio n t o itself, the needto appea r rea l withi n a patently artificia l environment . W e need, then , t oexplore ho w th e wome n character s participat e i n thi s self-reflection ,particularly examinin g tha t 'gap ' i n th e representin g proces s betwee ncreation an d perception . Fourthly , w e shal l discuss , agai n fo r th e reaso nthat w e ar e i n a gender-determined category , whethe r ther e i s significan tfunction ascribe d t o gende r i n th e representin g proces s an d whethe r w earrive at a different readin g of the plays if we locate gender at the centre ofour analysis. In conclusion, we shall consider whether the stage representa-tion o f th e wome n character s wa s use d b y Chekhov a s par t o f a radica lagenda no t s o much to make a social point , a s to change the form o f hisplays.

For presen t purpose s w e shal l concentrat e o n Chekhov' s fou r majo rplays: The Seagull (Chaika), Uncle Vania (Diadia Vania), Three Sisters (Trisestry) an d The Cherry Orchard (Vishnevyi sad). Afte r a disastrou sperformance a t th e Aleksandrinski i Theatr e i n S t Petersburg i n 1896 , thefirst was revived in the opening season o f the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT)in 1898-9 . The other three were al l given premieres a t the MAT, and thefinal tw o were written for the MAT, often with specific performers in mind.These factor s ar e importan t t o th e representationa l proces s fo r th e parti -cular slant they have on the mise-en-scene.2 The MAT was admired for thethorough attempt s a t authenticit y o f it s productions , base d o n extensiv eresearch int o period , local e an d manner s fo r determinin g desig n an dpresentation. Thi s artistic agend a ha s tended t o affec t perceptio n no t onlyof Chekhov' s plays bu t als o his approach t o theatre . Their radica l aspect shave been masked.

The first ste p i n ou r assessmen t o f th e wome n characters , then , i s t oestablish what kind of categorisation is possible and appropriate. There is awide range of age, and differing sociologica l types among the women in thefour majo r plays . Th e younges t ar e Nin a (The Seagull), Irina (ThreeSisters), Ania an d Duniash a (The Cherry Orchard), while th e oldes t ar eMariia Vasil'evn a an d Marin a (Uncle Vania) and Anfis a (Three Sisters),and ther e ar e tw o middle-age d heroines , Arkadin a (The Seagull) andRanevskaia (The Cherry Orchard). Th e othe r wome n ar e al l i n thei r

217


CYNTHIA MARS H

twenties: Mash a (The Seagull); Elena an d Soni a (Uncle Vania); OlgaProzorov, Mash a Kuligin a an d Natash a (Three Sisters) and Vari a (TheCherry Orchard). Polin a (The Seagull) an d Charlott a (The CherryOrchard) are o f indeterminat e age , excep t tha t Polin a ha s a grown-u pdaughter. I n terms o f sociologica l typ e we have servant s (Marina , Anfisa ,arguably Varia ) an d som e o f these servin g women ar e non-speaking part s(The Seagull, Three Sisters: Natasha's nursemai d an d maid) . Ther e ar eestate holders (Arkadina, Ranevskaia, Sonia), daughters of the military (thethree sisters) , an estate manager' s wif e (Polina) , provincial teachers ' wives(Masha Medvedenko , Mash a Kuligina ) an d a provincia l mis s (baryshnia,Natasha). Finally , there ar e teachers : Olga an d the n Irina , wh o aspire s tobecome a teacher (Three Sisters, Ac t Four) whils t workin g a s a clerk i n atelegraph offic e (Irin a - Three Sisters, Act Two) , a governess (Charlotta) ,actresses (Arkadina , Nina) an d a passing stree t entertainer (Three Sisters).These last five categories are the only ones who could be said to earn theirliving.

Chekhov's representatio n o f wome n i s problematised her e sinc e few ofthese sociological niches sum up the type of person involved. In most casesthere i s a discrepancy ; th e perso n i s ill-suite d t o th e jo b sh e hold s o r i sthirsting t o fre e hersel f fro m th e relationship implied . Thu s bot h Masha shate their status as teachers' wives, and both Olga and Irina find the workof a teache r an d telegrap h offic e clerk , respectively , onerou s an d unful -filling. Only th e servant s an d actresse s see m satisfied ! Ther e ma y b e adeeper point to this general dissatisfaction whic h would raise a question ofcomparison: ar e th e wome n mor e dissatisfie d i n genera l tha n th e men ?There ar e poten t example s o f mal e dissatisfactio n i n Konstanti n (TheSeagull), Vani a (Uncle Vania), Tuzenbac h an d Chebutykin (Three Sisters),but notabl y i t i s th e me n wh o ar e drive n t o act s o f violenc e agains tthemselves in reaction to their situation. 3 Th e sociological pictur e appear sto reflec t th e times in that wome n ar e more economically dependen t tha ntheir male counterparts. Chekhov, however, asks his audience to admire theactresses an d entertainers , th e teachers , th e governes s an d th e telegrap hclerk b y making clea r th e fac t tha t the y ar e forced int o low-pai d o r low -esteem occupations if they need or seek financial independence. In this viewof women Chekhov denies existing norms of representation. We might alsoadd tha t whil e ag e rang e seem s comprehensive , th e sociologica l rang e i srestricted to the relatively well heeled, their associates and their servants.

With family roles, the representation appears as comprehensive as that ofage and is not dictated by convention or prejudice. There are grandmothers,mothers, wives , aunts , nieces , sister s an d daughters , granddaughter s an dstepmothers. Ther e ar e faithfu l an d unfaithfu l wive s an d mistresses , fe w

218



good mother s bu t prominen t ba d one s - fo r example , Arkadina (Seagull),Mariia Vasil'evn a (Uncle Vania) and Ranevskaia (The Cherry Orchard) -and grandmothers , substitut e mothers , bu t notabl y n o ba d daughters .Good mothers tend to inhabit th e off-stage world , o r perhaps ar e idolisedbecause o f thi s - suc h a s Sonia' s mother , th e thre e sisters ' mother ,Ranevskaia's mothe r o r Iasha's mother (The Cherry Orchard); Natash a i nThree Sisters seems a goo d mothe r bu t he r solicitud e usuall y ha s othe rmotives. Father s an d husband s ten d t o b e absen t suc h a s Konstantin' sfather, als o Arkadina's husband; the sisters ' father, Prozorov ; Ania's father ,also Ranevskaia's husband , an d he r Parisian love r (The Cherry Orchard);or remote - Sonia' s father, Serebriakov , in Uncle Vania.

We have chosen next to consider female sexuality since the fact that mostof th e narrative s are , a t thei r simples t level , abou t lov e make s sexualit ygermane to the representation of the women. We find their sexuality treatedwith insigh t an d exhibitin g som e differenc e fro m th e expecte d norms . Aswe might suspect , however , o f a male write r o f thi s perio d i n a genre a spublic as theatre, the sexuality of women is mostly explored through thei rrelationships with men or through the absence of such relationships. Thereare a number o f differen t level s of sexualit y which seem to b e determinedby age : th e rang e include s unawareness , unfulfilment , manipulatio n an dnegation. T o begi n wit h w e find , a s w e migh t als o expec t fro m a lat enineteenth-century writer , a range of innocents, or sexually unaware: Nina,Sonia, Irina , Olga , Ani a an d Varia . Eac h o f the m experience s traum abecause o f her gender bu t to a varying degree . The major differenc e fro mthe expected norm comes in Chekhov's ironic treatment o f the outcome ofthe trauma . Nin a become s th e falle n woma n (bu t regenerate s herself) ;Sonia loves but is not loved in return; Irina is loved but does not love (andloses the person she might have loved, namely Tuzenbach); Olga would liketo lov e (bu t become s a headmistress) ; Ani a love s (bu t i s denied lov e an dtold sh e must b e 'above love'). 4 Varia i s expected to love but lacks sexualattraction an d fail s t o elici t a proposal . A t th e nex t leve l th e wome n ar esexually awar e bu t thei r desire s remai n unfulfille d o r ar e no t recognised :Masha, Polina , Elena , Mash a Kuligin a an d Duniasha . Bot h Masha s ar emarried to the wrong person - bot h teachers , Polina to an estate manager.They eac h lov e anothe r ma n bu t i t i s unclea r whethe r the y ar e al lunfaithful. Duniash a loves Iasha in vain. Elena, perhaps the most perceptiveand moder n study , know s th e powe r o f he r sexualit y t o attrac t an d i sangered tha t thi s seem s t o b e the onl y wa y sh e i s perceived b y men. Sherefuses to be unfaithful, eve n though unhappily married.5

Beyond this level come the sexually active women who are clearly shownto manipulat e other s t o achiev e thei r desires : Arkadina , Natash a an d

2 1 9


CYNTHIA MARS H

Ranevskaia. They are all mothers, but regarded as poor or at least not idealmothers - particularl y Natasha . Lover s ar e par t o f th e norma l cours e o fevents fo r thes e women . Arkadin a an d Natash a ar e condemned , bu tRanevskaia i s largely condoned . I n he r th e nor m i s overturne d a s sh e ispresented a s a victim of her inability to control her sexuality: her lover hasspent all her money, she loses the orchard to Lopakhin because he loves herand ha d possibl y though t t o contro l he r b y it s purchase . Sh e i s amaze dwhen sh e find s Trofimo v imperviou s t o he r sexua l advances. 6 Sh e i sundoubtedly place d a t th e centre o f th e pla y while sh e is in the grip o f adilemma. There is a clearly marked turning point, however, in the final ac twhen she remarks tha t he r health ha s improved an d sh e is sleeping better .She is back in control, no longer a victim, and much less interesting to theaudience.

Finally, ther e ar e th e elderly , Marii a Vasil'evna , Marin a an d Anfisa ,whose sexuality has been negated. Mariia Vasil'evna's sexuality is ironisedin her unquestioning devotion to Serebriakov whom the play unmasks as afraud; the other two are represented as in an apparently sexless old age.

The remaining woman character in this category is the most challenging,and provides the major variatio n from th e predictability we foresaw abou twomen characters ' relationships. Charlotta i s as uncertain o f her sexualityas she is of her origins . She acts the siren with Pishchik in Act One of TheCherry Orchard but she is clearly unimpressed b y his reaction, o r she canmasquerade a s male by sporting hunting gear and gun in Act Two, and inthe brief sequence in the ball scene of Act Three where she appears in maleattire and undertakes a carnivalesque, male role as magician. She parodiesmotherhood b y dumping he r imaginar y cryin g bab y i n Ac t Four , an d b yhaving apparentl y transferre d he r affection s t o he r dog . Ther e i s n oexploration o f he r feeling s fo r othe r women . Sh e i s presente d a s remot efrom them as she is from the male characters.

The representatio n o f femal e sexuality , then , i s unconventiona l fo r th eperiod. Ou r thir d poin t o f discussio n i s whethe r th e wome n character scontribute t o an d referenc e th e artificialit y o f th e theatrica l exercis ecommon in realist and naturalist theatre, given their range and the dramatictreatment o f female sexuality . If they do , there is a direct poin t o f contac twith th e forma l aspect s o f th e plays . On e particula r techniqu e use d b yChekhov invites his audience to challenge the characterisation. H e sets uphis character s i n parallel . Th e implie d counterpoin t i s ofte n ironi c an dinvites audience interrogation o f the behaviour o f the individuals involved .For example, among the women characters Arkadina i s paired with Nina ,as Masha i s with Polina (The Seagull); Elena and Sonia form a parallel, asdo Marii a Vasil'evn a an d Marin a (Uncle Vania); Natasha i s juxtapose d



with Masha (and possibly, as we shall argue, with Olga and Irina); Anfisa iscounterpointed t o th e dea d sisters ' mothe r (Three Sisters); Ranevskai a i spaired wit h Duniasha , an d Ani a wit h Varia , leavin g Charlott a ou t o n alimb, though there are possibly implied comparisons with Ranevskaia (TheCherry Orchard). Such nea t pairing s als o operat e amon g th e mal e char -acters, Konstanti n an d Trigori n (The Seagull), Astrov an d Vani a (UncleVania), for example . Ground s ar e usuall y provide d t o dra w th e paire dcharacters together, and the irony stems from difference s i n personality anddestiny. For example, Duniasha's ladylike behaviour i s seen as a parody ofRanevskaia's, but her attempt to gain a lover fails miserably ; or take Soniaand Elena, who are drawn together b y age and location, but Elena defend sherself fro m lov e while Soni a desperatel y seek s it . This kind o f treatmen tinvites th e audienc e t o isolat e eac h character . Perceptio n o f thi s artific eleads to a questioning of the representation.

The interesting parallel set-up between Natasha an d the three sisters is astrong indicatio n o f Chekhov' s awarenes s o f th e complexit y o f femal esexuality a s wel l a s a devic e t o indicat e th e artificialit y o f th e theatrica lexercise. Eve n i f w e fin d th e crudenes s o f th e approac h disappointin g(preferring perhaps to see the complexity explored within the parameters ofone individual) , th e presentatio n o f three sister s seem s a n attemp t t ocapture th e muhifacetednes s o f thi s complexit y an d o f th e role s wome nplay. Nowhere is this paralleled in the treatment o f the men. The sisters areunited by familial bonds , by their orphaned state , by their commonly helddream o f Moscow , b y their genera l togethernes s i n the actio n an d i n therelationships tha t hav e developed a s a result o f thei r mutua l unhappiness .Denying he r sexua l attractiveness , Olg a ha s assume d th e materna l role ,while having no children of her own, and acknowledging that there is littlelikelihood sh e eve r will . He r teachin g o f youn g peopl e enable s he r t osublimate he r sexuality , bu t sh e find s teachin g burdensome . Mash a i sdiscovering th e powe r o f he r physica l attractivenes s an d th e emotion s o freal love . She is also discoverin g tha t thi s experienc e whe n foun d wit h alover who will leave her wil l only intensify he r unhappiness an d her senseof entrapment . Irin a (i n denia l o f th e potenc y o f he r sexualit y afte r he rbrush wit h Solenyi ) ha s chose n marriag e t o a ma n sh e doe s no t lov e i norder t o achiev e safet y an d independence . Bu t sh e i s denie d eve n tha tdifficult solutio n by Tuzenbach's untimely death.

Together th e thre e mak e a poten t stud y o f differen t aspect s o f femal esexuality and social roles in their subjugation o f real feelings and search forsurrogate forms of fulfilment. Thi s powerful interrelatio n among the sistersmay also provide a reason for the exaggeration of Natasha. Not only is sheexaggerated to counterbalance th e integrated strengt h o f the sisters , but in


CYNTHIA MARS H

direct contrast to them she represents the type of woman who is willing toexploit he r sexualit y t o achiev e her mostl y materia l aims . She gains fro minhabiting a mal e worl d whic h wil l happil y respon d t o he r desires . He rassertiveness leads her to victimise those who do not exploit their sexuality,something she , an d perhap s th e mal e societ y sh e inhabits , despises .Chekhov's exploratio n o f th e sexualit y o f th e thre e sister s reveal s th elimitations placed on those who find no means, or desire, to integrate witha successfu l thrustin g mal e world . Thos e wh o rea d th e sisters ' stat e a sundermined b y their apparen t inabilit y t o bu y a train ticke t an d mov e toMoscow ar e missing the point . Thos e who rejec t thi s successfu l thrustin gmale world know that the path to female fulfilment doe s not lie in escape toMoscow or wherever. The play does not sugges t where i t does lie, but thereassertion o f th e sisters ' drea m o f Mosco w agains t th e diminishin gpossibility o f realisatio n emphasise s i t a s a consciou s metapho r fo r thei rlonging for fulfilment. Thu s the manner in which female sexuality is treatedthrough the representation o f the three sisters invites the audience not onlyto challeng e contemporar y view s an d expectation s o f wome n bu t als oaffects the formal aspects of the play.

We shoul d examin e whethe r Chekhov' s treatmen t o f mal e sexualit y i sany different. Whil e there is no obvious parallel to the three sisters, certainof the male characters pose questions for a patriarchal society . Konstantin(The Seagull), Vania (Uncle Vania), Andrei, Chebutykin, Tuzenbach (ThreeSisters), Gaev and Trofimov (The Cherry Orchard) could al l be said to fi tthis framework fo r their denial of contemporary values. Thus this aspect ofthe stage representation of Chekhov's women, challenging current norms offemale behaviour , may be seen as prophetic of change that may well come,and mor e surprisingly , perhaps , may lead to a reconsideration o f som e ofthe male characters.7

It is no less significant tha t Chekhov began his mature exploration o f thefemale psych e with two actresses, Arkadina an d Nina. Any representationin the theatre has to be viewed in relation to the physicality (use of the bodyfor characterisatio n an d t o affec t th e audience ) o f th e perso n playin g th erole. Chekhov is toying with spectacle and physicality in The Seagull whenhe counterpoint s th e established , matur e Arkadin a wit h th e aspiring ,youthful Nina , and then juxtaposes this Nina with the older and wiser butnone the less still aspiring Nina at the end of the play. In addition, Arkadinadirectly foregrounds he r physicality by comparing her apparent youth withthe seeming age of Masha at the beginning of Act Two of The Seagull.8 Thewords ar e addresse d t o Dor n a s th e on-stag e audience . I s Chekho vtitillating o r challengin g th e mal e gaz e b y thi s gesture ? O n on e level ,staging the competitive spirit between the two women is titillation, but this



invitation t o gaze is subverted b y the clarity with which in its final scene sthe play condemns the theatre for its treatment of Nina.

In Uncle Vania the poin t i s more obviousl y made . Elena's grea t beaut y(or shoul d w e sa y poten t sexua l awarenes s an d inactivity ) i s contraste dwith Sonia's plainness (o r should we say sexual innocence and activity). Bythis, the audience is invited to focus o n the physicality of the two actressesplaying the roles. Beauty attracts the male: Elena attracts Vania and Astrov,but Sonia fails to attract Astrov. The interesting point being made is that inthis cas e th e femal e (Elena ) repulse s advances , bu t throug h a clever tric kalmost falls prey to the male in Act Three.9 Looked at in this light, the playis a challeng e t o mal e demand s fo r beaut y i n women . Bu t a s a tragedy ,Uncle Vania asks the audience equally to condemn the view that the plainwoman ha s he r fait h an d shoul d endur e (an d suppor t th e me n i n thei rgrief). It is no accident that the play's title Uncle Vania implies the voice ofSonia, since she is the only one who has the right to refer to Vania as uncle.There is, however, a double edge: not only does the word 'uncle ' imply thedisplacement fro m bein g an individual i n his own right o f the eponymoushero, bu t i t als o denie s to the equally sufferin g Soni a an y claim t o centr estage in the family o r the theatrica l event . Thei r tw o tragedies ar e playedout side by side.

To sta y wit h Soni a fo r a moment , a recen t reviewe r asserte d wit hreference t o her that 'n o actres s wil l convincingly play the part o f a n uglygirl'.10 Not only is there an in-built assumption tha t female performer s ar enot, or cannot be, ugly, but that it is ugliness which drives the characterisa-tion of Sonia. Chekhov's implied invitation to separate the actress from therole leads to interrogation o f the validity of a naturalist oriented theatre. Itis possible that Chekhov knew the members of the theatre audiences of hisown da y to o well . H e challenge d th e mal e gaz e an d it s obsessio n wit hbeauty, bu t equally the challenge was thrown t o female vanity . Perceivingthe women character s a s objects o f the male gaze , desirable o r otherwise ,and a s object s likel y t o caus e wome n t o dissociat e fro m them , offer s th eaudience a moment i n which to questio n th e reality o f wha t i s presented.By providing suc h moment s Chekho v wa s bringin g th e whol e proces s o frepresentation withi n a naturalis t an d realis t framewor k int o question ,distancing his audience from th e given performance an d allowing them toengage their critica l judgement. The male characters ar e subject t o simila rmoments, bu t thes e opportunitie s ste m rarel y fro m mal e physicality, butfrom dwindlin g economi c resource s an d diminishin g status , bot h a t odd swith society' s concep t o f masculinity . However , tha t i s materia l fo r aseparate study.

Physicality o f th e actresse s i s focusse d upo n i n anothe r way . Chekho v

223


CYNTHIA MARS H

was already beginnin g to distur b th e conventions o f realis t representatio nin Three Sisters. The obvious sculpting o f the sisters at the end of the playraises issue s abou t th e physicalit y o f th e actresses , an d th e relationshi pbetween them a s actresses and the characters bein g created. Some see thissculpting a s a deliberat e classica l reference. 11 However , i f w e vie w thi sposing a s statue s throug h th e prism o f representatio n the n i t become s a nironising of the vicarious, the 'standing for ' inheren t to drama, rather thana presentation o f the real. On the one hand, Chekhov could b e seen to bedivorcing th e signifie r fro m th e signified , a s actres s cease s t o b e th echaracter alread y create d i n th e play ; o n th e other , i n posin g the m h ereaches fo r a momen t o f petrificatio n wher e signifie r i s onl y wha t i ssignified. I n bot h case s Chekho v i s manipulatin g th e 'gap ' i n th e repre -senting process betwee n presentation an d perception. What i s noteworthyis that in both approaches the artificiality o f the theatrical process is clearlyperceptible. At this point in any performance th e play breaks away from itspresent fictiona l worl d sinc e th e sister s ar e attemptin g t o penetrat e th emystery o f th e future . A s a final e thi s i s a strok e o f genius : the fictiona lworld create d b y the play i s questioned, an d beyon d that , th e audienc e isinvited to question the values attached to women (and actresses) in the realworld it inhabits.

Similar reference to the artificiality o f the theatrical undertaking is foundwith increase d frequenc y i n Chekhov' s fina l play , The Cherry Orchard.Previously Chekho v ha d subscribe d overtl y t o a realis t an d naturalis ttheatre. In The Cherry Orchard imitation o f reality is put unde r pressure ,an approach in which the women characters play a seminal role. Firstly, asalready noted, there is the engagement o f sympathy for Ranevskai a whos eactions are reprehensible but condoned. She is a bad mother; a woman whoallows he r sexualit y t o lea d he r int o problem s whic h caus e he r t o los econtrol o f the situation ; the woman wit h a lover who deceives her , whomshe loves but has tried to leave; the seducer of students, the liar and cheat,who disappear s t o Pari s wit h th e aunt' s mone y (an d th e residu e o fLopakhin's payment from the sale of the beloved orchard) a t the end of theplay; the social snob unable to respond to the plain affection o f her forme rserf; th e woma n employe r wh o ha s no t organise d a positio n fo r he rdestitute governess; and the mother who is probably deserting her teenagedaughter. I s the audienc e reall y mean t t o accep t tha t thes e negativ e trait sare countermanded o r excused by her nostalgia for her childhood and grieffor a so n drowne d year s before ? A t th e ver y least , thes e tw o contrastin gemotions should make her feel ambivalent in her nostalgia, if not confused .And are these negative traits compensated by the fact that for three quartersof th e pla y sh e i s presente d a s a victi m o f circumstance s beyon d he r

224



control? Surel y Ranevskai a raise s a questio n mar k ove r conventiona lcharacterisation of women and conventional attitudes to women.

Secondly, again as noted above , there is Charlotta, whose cross-dressingmakes u s questio n no t onl y he r sexuality , bu t eve n he r reality . Wha t i sCharlotta's representativ e functio n withi n a realis t theatre ? Sh e ca n b edismissed as a comic addition, an entertainer, bu t these descriptions hardlycontain he r eccentricity . He r functio n i s t o rais e a questio n mar k ove rrealist theatr e a s much a s ove r femaleness . He r cross-dressing , he r uncer -tainty a s to wh o sh e is , her rootlessnes s (eve n a t th e en d o f th e pla y he rfuture remain s the most uncertain) , al l threaten th e stability o f the realist ,and mor e especiall y th e naturalis t framework , wher e characte r i s deepl ydependent upo n environmen t an d wome n regarde d a s particularl y con -tained within it. Of all the women characters, possibly of all the characters,Charlotta i s th e on e wh o mos t force s th e pla y t o regar d itself , an d t oexploit that gap in the representation betwee n the creative process and theperception. Th e point s abou t thes e tw o wome n character s ar e par t o f aseries of others which increasingly threaten the stability of the fictional an dstage world s o f The Cherry Orchard. Just a s th e sociologica l pictur e i sfragmenting s o th e stag e worl d question s th e desirabilit y o f th e photo -graphic representatio n o f realit y implie d b y close d set s an d prosceniu march frames. Open landscapes, absent cherry orchards, breaking strings andthe abandonmen t an d imminent destructio n o f the orchar d an d the houseraise endles s questio n marks . The ga p betwee n signifie r an d signifie d ha sbegun to widen.

We have alread y implie d response s t o th e fourt h questio n w e wis h t oraise. If we locate gender a t the centre o f our analysi s o f Chekhov's majo rplays do we reach interpretations which disturb the apparent verisimilitudeof th e representation ? Firstly , w e hav e commente d tha t th e character s(female) wh o ar e force d int o low-paid , low-estee m employmen t shoul dengage ou r admiratio n an d thu s rais e question s abou t th e patriarcha lsociety of the time and the limitations i t imposed. Secondly , i t i s apparen tthat som e o f th e mal e character s migh t als o b e see n t o b e rejectin g th evalues o f the patriarcha l societ y they inhabit . Resignation , despai r and/o rsuicide ar e frequentl y symptom s associate d wit h thi s rejection . Certainl ythe audienc e i s invited t o despis e the thrusting mal e or thos e who believ ethemselves s o t o be : suc h a s th e Trigorins , Serebriakovs , Protopopovs ,Vershinins (possibly ) an d Lopakhin s o f Chekhov' s fictiona l pla y worlds .Therefore, i t seems, Chekhov enables his audience to take a critical view ofthe gender-prescribed value s of his day. In these respects the representationof th e wome n character s play s a radica l rol e a t odd s wit h th e norm s o fimitation and verisimilitude.

2 2 5


CYNTHIA MARS H

My conclusion is , therefore, tha t through the women characters, as wellas raisin g som e question s o f sociologica l an d politica l importance ,Chekhov invites interrogation o f existing theatrical practice . Chekhov waswriting a t a perio d whe n melodram a wa s a popula r form . Muc h o f hi stheatre wa s aime d a t rethinkin g melodramati c conten t an d th e melodra -matic mode of performance. The stereotypical view of women proposed inmelodrama wa s interrogated through the women characters he included inhis plays. It is also notable tha t h e used a woman character , Charlotta , t otake th e questionin g furthe r an d interrogat e th e realis t an d naturalis ttheatre t o whic h he had himsel f subscribed . I t would b e inappropriate t oclaim Chekhov as a writer with an understanding o f feminist issues . Whatwe ca n clai m i s tha t th e treatmen t o f th e wome n character s contribute ssignificantly t o a wider theatrical agend a addresse d in the major plays . Hebrought hi s audience s face t o face wit h a paradox, th e paradox o f realis tand naturalis t 'representation' . Chekhov' s attentio n t o th e for m o f hi stheatre i s hi s mos t underrate d an d unexplore d quality , an d ye t b y con -fronting thi s paradox, exemplified her e in the representation o f his womencharacters, h e opene d theatr e t o Modernis m an d t o th e experimentatio nthat has marked and thrilled the twentieth century.

NOTESUnless otherwise attributed, translations are my own, and from N. F. Belchikov andothers, eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh,Moscow, 1974-8 3 (Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes,Moscow, 1974-83) . This system of transliteration is that of System iv, The Libraryof Congress.

1 Stephe n J. Greenblatt, ed, Allegory and Representation, Baltimore and London,1981, p . ix; se e Elain e Aston , Georg e Savona , Theatre as Sign System: ASemiotics of Text and Performance, Londo n an d Ne w York, 1991 , pp. 5-10 ,for discussion of semiotic terminology in relation to theatre.

2 Fo r discussion of this term, see Patrice Pavis, 'Towards a Semiology of the Mise-en-scene' (1980) , Languages of the Stage, New York, 1993, p. 134.

3 Carolin a De Maegd-Soep, Chekhov and Women: Women in the Life and Workof Chekhov, Columbus, Ohio, 1987, p. 77.

4 The Cherry Orchard, A. P. Chekhov, 'Vishnevy sad', Works, Letters i^j^-H^,Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem, vol. XII, Moscow, 1978, p. 227.

5 Elen a to Vania after he has expressed his desire to speak of his love at the end ofAct One: 'This is unbearable', p . 74; Elena to Astrov in Act Four: 'Al l I ask isone thing: think bette r o f me. I want you to respect me' , Uncle Vania, Works,vol. XIII , p . 110 .

6 Ranevskai a t o Trofimov: 'You'r e no t abov e love, just green behind the gills asold Fir s woul d say . Fanc y no t havin g a mistres s a t you r age!' , The CherryOrchard, Works, vol. XIII , p. 235.

226



7 Fo r the sexual connotations of the song 'Tarara-boom-deay' in Three Sisters, seechapter 16 in this volume.

8 Arkadin a to Masha and Dorn: 'Let's stand side by side. You're twenty-two. I'mnearly doubl e that . Evgeni i Sergeich , who look s the younger o f u s two?', TheSeagull, Works, vol. XIII , p. 21 .

9 Astro v suddenly turns the tables on Elena in their scene in Act Three by accusingher o f mountin g a cunnin g pla n t o catc h him. H e classifie s he r a s a 'bir d o fprey', then even more demeaningly as a 'beautiful fluff y weasel' . He sees himselfas a 'wis e ol d sparrow ' fo r havin g guesse d he r plan ! (Uncle Vania, Works,vol. XIII , p . 96) .

10 D . Rayfield , Revie w o f fil m Vanya on 42nd Street, The Slavonic and EastEuropean Review, 74, 2, 1996, p. 395.

11 R . Peace, 'Chekhov' s "Moder n Classicism"' , The Slavonic and East EuropeanReview, 65, 1, 1987, pp. 22-3.

227


i8VERA GOTTLIE B

Chekhov's comedy

'First o f al l I'd ge t my patients in a laughing mood - an d only then would Ibegin to treat them.'1

Chekhov's word s su m u p th e motivatio n fo r hi s comedy : laughte r a smedicine, an d a vita l prerequisit e fo r an y treatmen t o f hi s fello w huma nbeings. Implicit i s the sens e tha t laughte r - an d comedy - ar e restorative ,and that the objectivity and detachment which laughter may produce couldinoculate u s agains t suc h huma n disease s a s pomposity , hypocrisy , self -centredness, laziness, or - the worst of all - wasting life.

It i s Doctor Chekhov wh o wrote thos e words , an d beneat h the m lie s aserious bu t non-judgementa l sens e tha t laughte r i s curativ e an d healthy .Chekhov's comedy is therefore no t only a stylistic feature i n his works, butis also a vital part of his philosophy. It is the point where content and formmeet, the one usually inseparable from th e other . And this, in turn, relatesto the subject matte r o f his works - no t the artificial an d complex, thoughenjoyable, plo t line s o f farce s b y Labich e o r Feydeau , o r thei r third-rat eimitators, bu t th e dail y lives o f ordinar y people . As he put i t himsel f i n amuch-quoted letter :

Why write that a person gets into a submarine and goes to the North Pole tofind some kind o f reconciliatio n wit h humanity , whil e a t th e sam e time thewoman he loves hurls herself of f th e neares t belfr y wit h a theatrical shriek ?All this is untrue an d doe s not happen in real life. On e must write simpl y -about how Pyotr Semyonovich got married to Marya Ivanovna. That's all.2

This approac h informe d al l o f hi s work , an d i s particularl y eviden t i n aseries o f newspape r article s h e wrot e ove r 1883-5 , calle d Fragments ofMoscow Life (Oskolki), i n which h e deal t wit h ever y possible aspec t o f lif ein Moscow whether :

the positio n o f sho p assistant s an d factor y workers , th e hig h death-rat eamongst th e poor , th e insanitar y condition s o f th e house s an d streets , th e

228


Chekhov's comedy

unsatisfactory stat e o f th e cobble d roads , th e high-hande d attitude s o f th ewater-carriers, th e extortio n o f th e undertakers , th e uncivilise d manner s ofthe merchants, the absurd customs of the middle classes, the vulgarity o f thepopular press , th e villain y o f th e professiona l me n wh o won' t repa y thei rdebts t o th e Societ y fo r Aidin g Need y Students , th e craz e fo r champio nrunners, hypnotists , mediums an d 'thought-readers' , th e lamentable stat e ofthe theatre and actors . . .3

- a 'sociologica l survey ' perhap s equalle d onl y b y Zol a i n France , an dDickens in England. And the point where fact an d fiction blend to producethe particula r kin d o f 'heightene d realism ' whic h wa s characteristi c o fChekhov's writings.

My use of the phrase 'non-judgemental ' abov e must b e contrasted wit hthe mora l purpos e whic h pervade s th e work s o f Tolstoy , an d motivate swriting as seemingly diverse as Anna Karenina (1873-77 ) ~ a nd hi s storiesfor children . As Tolstoy wrote in the preface t o hi s Improving Stories forChildren (1887): 'a writer does not write the truth who describes only whathas happened and what this or that man has done, but he who shows whatpeople do that is right - tha t is, in accord with God's will, and what peopledo wrong - tha t is, contrary to God's will'.

Chekhov's approach , clarifie d afte r hi s journe y i n 189 0 t o th e pena lcolony o f Sakhalin , wa s a rebutta l o f Tolstoy' s philosophy . I n 189 4 h ecrystallised th e difference s no t onl y betwee n himsel f an d Tolsto y - bu tbetween hi s ow n writin g an d tha t o f th e majorit y o f Russia n classica lliterature fro m Pushki n an d Lermontov onwards , where literature an d ar thad, t o varyin g degrees , bee n th e mean s o f carryin g a 'message' , and ofexpressing th e writer' s ow n commitment . Thu s i n anothe r ofte n quote dletter, Chekhov wrote:

Tolstoy's philosoph y move d m e deepl y an d possesse d m e fo r si x o r seve nyears. It was not so much hi s basic ideas which had a n effect o n me . . . i t washis wa y o f expressin g himself , hi s commo n sense , an d probabl y a kin d o fhypnotism too . Bu t no w somethin g i n m e protests . Prudenc e an d justic e tel lme ther e i s mor e lov e fo r mankin d i n electricit y an d steam , tha n i n chastit yand vegetarianism. 4

In this sense , Chekhov wa s more 'i n tune ' wit h Ibsen , who wrote : ' I onlyask. My task is not to answer' (Letter in Rhyme).5

The 'morality ' implici t i n comedy i s a complex area , an d on e which i snot altogether clarifie d b y Henri Bergson's Laughter or George Meredith' sAn Essay on Comedy. 6 Instead , i t mus t b e see n withi n th e contex t o fRussian literature an d the art s in general - a context whic h placed o n theartist a particula r responsibility . A s Chekho v sai d abou t th e writing s o fGogol: 'I t i s essential tha t Gogo l i s not brough t dow n t o th e leve l o f th e

2 2 9


VERA GOTTLIE B

people - bu t tha t th e people ar e brough t u p t o the leve l o f Gogol.' 7 Thissense o f obligatio n inform s almos t al l Russian literatur e o f the eighteent hand nineteent h centuries , a resul t o f th e vas t disparit y betwee n th earistocracy an d landowning classes - an d the peasants, only released fro mserfdom i n 1861 . In som e instances , writer s suffere d imprisonmen t an dexile ( a fate no t invente d b y the Stalinis t regime) ; in othe r cases , suc h asthat o f Maxim Gorky , there was constant police surveillance. Although hehad been nominated, the Tsar refused t o authorise Gorky' s membership ofthe Academy of Sciences, causing both Chekhov and Korolenko to resign inprotest. Thi s wa s on e o f severa l majo r disagreement s betwee n Chekho vand his publisher and friend, A. S. Suvorin. The other row concerned Zola'sdefence o f Alfre d Dreyfus , th e Frenc h Jewis h arm y office r accuse d o ftreason and sent to Devil's Island - th e French equivalent o f Sakhalin. Theissue wa s on e whic h separate d th e reactionarie s fro m th e progressive sthroughout Europ e - an d th e fac t tha t Chekho v cam e ou t publicl y i nsupport o f both Gork y an d Zola illustrate s clearly his political stanc e andbelief in protest, a factor which in turn relates to his philosophy.

The relevanc e o f this , in a chapte r o n comedy , i s to se t th e contex t o fsocial an d eve n politica l though t whic h informe d Chekhov' s writing s -though equally, it is evident that a t no time did he lose the detachment andobjectivity either of a doctor - a man of science - o r of a detached observerand analys t o f hi s contemporary Russia . I t i s almost impossibl e t o detec tChekhov's dislik e o f a character i n his plays - except , perhaps , o f Ivanov,Natasha i n Three Sisters and Yasha in The Cherry Orchard. With most ofhis characters, their three-dimensionality result s in a 'realistic' perspective,with decent and weak aspects to each character, and no sense of the 'blackand white' which informed th e stereotypic characters and plots of many ofthe contemporary popular comedies.

But th e significanc e her e i s tha t Chekho v wa s no t writin g 'popula rcomedies' - a facto r whic h goe s som e wa y t o explainin g th e negativ ereactions to the first performances o f some of his plays. Accustomed to thestereotypic, audience s foun d dept h an d dimensionalit y o f character ;looking fo r conventiona l plots , hi s audience s ofte n foun d play s whic hseemed t o hav e n o plo t a t al l (althoug h thi s wa s les s true o f th e one-ac tvaudevilles); expectin g th e physicalit y and escapis m o f farce , Chekhov' saudience foun d themselve s require d t o observ e peopl e ver y muc h lik ethemselves. Thus, to turn roun d a quotation originall y applied to Beckett :'Chekhov's audience are Chekhov characters in a Chekhov situation. ' Andseeking escapism, the audience ofte n foun d themselve s viewin g character swho themselve s wer e longing for 'escape' . This i s true o f Nyukhin i n Onthe Harmfulness of Tobacco; o f Vanya, Astrov and Sonya in Uncle Vanya;

230


Chekhov's comedy

of Andrey in Three Sisters - and the whole concep t o f 't o Moscow ' a s animage of escape in the sisters ' longing for anothe r an d better life. It is alsotrue o f Nin a an d Konstanti n i n The Seagull, an d eve n Mash a an dMedvedenko, whil e i t i s a majo r leitmoti f i n The Cherry Orchard, withvariations o n th e them e fro m Charlott a Ivanovna , Dunyasha , Vary a an dLopakhin, albei t differently , an d from Any a and Trofimov, agai n individu-ally motivated and treated.

All of this may not immediately seem to relate to the question of comedy.But th e 'comedy ' lie s i n th e disparit y betwee n aspiratio n an d reality , o rbetween desir e an d fulfilment . I n mos t cases , ther e i s littl e t o sto p th echaracters fro m doin g wha t the y wan t - excep t themselves . An d this ,centrally, i s where the keynote o f Chekhov' s comed y lies . Thus, in one ofthe many disagreements between Chekho v and Stanislavsky ove r interpre-tation, Chekhov reportedly said:

Take my Cherry Orchard. - Is it my Cherry Orchard? Apar t fro m tw o orthree parts , nothing in it is mine. I am describing life, ordinar y life , and notblank depression . They either turn me into a cry-baby o r into a bore. Theyinvent somethin g abou t m e out o f thei r ow n heads, whateve r the y like ,something I never thought o r dreamed about . This is beginning to make meangry.8

Or t o quot e perhap s th e most significant commen t Chekho v mad e abou tcomedy and his theatre work :

You tell me that peopl e cry at my plays. I've heard other s say this too. Bu tthat i s not why I wrote them . I t is Alexeyev [Stanislavsky ] wh o made mycharacters into cry-babies. All 7 wanted was to say truthfully t o people: 'Havea loo k a t yourselve s an d see how bad and dreary you r live s are! ' - Theimportant poin t i s that peopl e shoul d realis e tha t sinc e when the y do , theywill most certainly create another, a better, life for themselves. I shall not liveto see it, but I know tha t i t will be quite different , quit e unlik e our presentlife. And as long as this different lif e does not exist, I shall continue to say topeople again and again: 'Please, understand tha t your life is bad and dreary!'- Wha t is there to cry about in this?9

These word s soun d lik e Vershini n o r Astrov . Fo r Chekhov , th e philoso -phical cor e o f his 'comedy' i s that o f a doctor who knows ther e i s a cure -yet everyon e i s sitting an d wailing abou t th e disease. To this, however , a sordinary mortal s we might well protest a fear o f death. But it is not the fearof deat h whic h concern s Chekho v (excep t i n the manner an d timing o f it):it i s the fear of life whic h h e exposes, an d presents a s 'comic ' i n tha t thecure potentially lie s in our own hands .

When Nemirovich-Danchenk o wrot e t o Chekho v tha t 'ther e ar e too

231


VERA GOTTLIE B

many tearfu l character s i n th e pla y [The Cherry Orchard]', Chekho vreplied:

Where are they? There is only one such character - Varya , but that is becauseshe i s a cry-bab y b y nature , an d he r tear s shoul d no t arous e an y sens e ofgloom i n th e audience . I ofte n pu t dow n 'throug h tears ' i n m y stag edirections, bu t tha t show s onl y th e moo d o f th e character s an d not th etears.10

If one looks more closely at the 'deaths' in the plays, there are a number offacets whic h clarif y Chekhov' s philosophy . A t th e en d o f The Seagull, agifted youn g ma n commit s suicid e - ye t th e pla y i s calle d ' a comedy' .According t o Davi d Magarshack , Chekhov' s respons e t o thi s wa s tha t ' afailure who runs away from lif e is not the subject of a tragedy'.11 This mayseem somewhat harsh , but it does relate to Chekhov's endless plea that weshould improve our lives ourselves, and that there is much to be done. Andto ensur e tha t w e ar e properl y - dramaticall y - prepared , Chekhov' sdirections state that Konstantin tears up his manuscripts 'fo r two minutes':a long time in stag e term s - an d i n rea l time , melodramatic . I n the sam eplay we have the dying Sorin:

SORIN. You'r e spoilt, that's why you talk like this. You've always had whatyou wanted , s o life doesn' t matte r t o you , you jus t don' t bother . Buteven you'll be afraid o f dying.

DORN. Fea r of death's an animal thing. You must get over it. It only makessense to fear death if you believe in immortality and are scared becauseyou've sinned . But you aren' t a Christian fo r a start, an d then - wha tsins hav e yo u committed ? You'v e worke d fo r th e Departmen t o fJustice12 for twenty-five years, that's all.

SORIN. [laughs ] Twenty-eight.13

In Uncle Vanya there i s Professo r Serebriako v whos e suppose d ill-healt hhas caused Dr Astrov to ride some distance in haste, leaving his wretchedlypoor peasan t patients . Serebriako v i s clearl y a hypochondriac , bu t wha temerges i s Astrov's tormented memor y o f a patient's deat h h e was unableto avoid - an d horror a t the conditions o f the patients he normally treats ,the peasant s an d workers . Thi s i s contraste d o n th e on e han d wit hSerebriakov's self-centrednes s - an d Vanya' s depressio n o n th e other , amelancholy or depression arising from the sense of a wasted life. Again, DrAstrov i s quit e acerbi c wit h Vanya , no t merel y t o ge t bac k th e morphin eVanya stole and so stop a suicide, but because in contrast with most of hispatients, the landowning gentry live rather well . This is not to minimise ordeflect th e rea l unhappines s o f th e character s but , a s Astro v put s i t t oVanya:

232


Chekhov's comedy

Those who live a century o r two afte r u s and despise us for leadin g lives sostupid and tasteless, perhaps they'll find a way to be happy, but as for us . . .In our whole district there were only two decent, civilised people - you and I.But ten years or so of this contemptible, parochial existence have completelygot u s down . Thi s filthy atmospher e ha s poisone d ou r bloo d an d we'v ebecome as second-rate as the rest of them.14

The evidenc e o f th e plays , th e storie s an d Chekhov' s letter s suggest sagain an d agai n tha t wha t h e calle d 'th e sa d comicalit y o f everyda y life 'was th e subject , whil e th e treatmen t wa s a strong dos e o f comed y o r sens eof proportio n - an d wit h that , th e hop e o f a bette r future . This , anothe rleitmotif i n th e works , i s articulate d b y Vershinin an d Tuzenbac h i n ThreeSisters, b y Trofimo v and , albei t differently , b y Lopakhi n i n The CherryOrchard.

Death itsel f i s th e subtex t o f hi s shor t pla y Tatyana Repina, a wor kwhich remain s rathe r a myster y withi n th e Chekho v canon . Usin g th econventional theme of the discarded mistress committing suicide in front ofher love r an d hi s brid e (thi s tim e i n th e church) , Chekhov , i t seems ,intended it as a private joke between himself an d Suvorin, who had writtena mediocre four-ac t pla y called Tatyana Repina, both base d initiall y o n atrue story. 15 Wha t seem s clear , however , i s tha t Chekho v wrot e i t a s asupposed 'fifth ' ac t to Suvorin's play. Written in 1889, it exposes on the onehand Chekhov' s attitud e t o melodramati c gestures , an d o n th e othe rdemonstrates i n a way tha t th e conventiona l drama s an d opera s d o not ,that taking poison i s extremely unpleasant an d painful . Whethe r a parodyof Suvorin's play or (to name the best example of the formula) Dumas ' TheLady of the Camellias, or of a romance b y Turgenev o n the sam e theme,Clara Milich (1882) , the mai n poin t ma y b e summarise d thus : 'Chekho vwrote tha t neithe r Adashe v ( a characte r i n Suvorin' s play , missin g fro mChekhov's, whos e sol e functio n seem s t o b e makin g lon g speeches ) no ranyone else should pronounce long monologues on the necessity of living -in front o f someon e who i s dying o f poison, an d therefore sufferin g fro mdreadful stomac h pains.' 16 Chekhov' s criticis m wa s o f excess , o f melo -drama, an d th e manne r o f dyin g - particularl y give n th e socia l an dtheatrical custo m o f th e tim e whic h demande d tha t th e sinfu l woman b epunished, whether through Dumas ' tuberculosis or - i n Wilde's hands - b yleaving for America ! Thus the convention i s evident i n work a s diverse asthe ending of Anna Karenina, or the plays of Scribe, Sardou or Pinero and,of course , Sha w an d Wilde , bot h o f whom , lik e Chekhov , als o use d th econvention t o inver t an d s o subvert a theme b y then s o well-worn tha t i tcould, particularl y i n opera , becom e almos t comicall y unrea l i f 'willin g

2-33


VERA GOTTLIE B

belief i s suspended . It s relevanc e here , however , i s Chekhov' s us e o fcomedy to make a serious point, and as a different perspectiv e on death.

The other theme which relates to comedy in the plays (and the stories), isthe constan t refrai n o f ' I coul d hav e . . .'- an d thi s to o become s bot h aphilosophical statemen t and a comic technique. Perhaps one of the clearestexamples i s i n Chekhov' s stor y 'I n Moscow ' (' V Moskve') . I n TatyanaRepina, written tw o year s earlier , Chekho v debunke d th e myt h o f peopl e'doing a Tatyana Repina ' - here , he present s fo r critica l appraisa l peopl ewho se e themselve s a s Hamlet . Thi s i s no t Shakespeare' s Hamlet , bu tthe popula r nineteenth-centur y Russia n ide a o f Hamle t whic h Turgene vanalysed i n hi s lectur e o f 1858 , Hamlet and Don Quixote: Hamle t wa sviewed a s passive, resigned, incapable o f action an d typifying people , likeChekhov's Ivanov , wh o 'don' t solv e problems ' bu t 'cav e i n unde r th eweight'.17 Such characters are aimless, exhausted from doing nothing - an duseless. As the Moscow Hamlet says of himself:

I a m a Mosco w Hamlet . Yes . I g o t o houses , theatres , restaurants , an deditorial offices in Moscow, and everywhere I say the same thing:

'God, how boring it is, how ghastly boring!'And the sympathetic reply comes:'Yes, indeed, it is terribly boring.'

But then he says himself:

And yet I could have learned anything . If I could have got the Asiatic out ofmyself, I coul d hav e studie d an d love d Europea n culture , trade , crafts ,agriculture, literature, music, painting, architecture, hygiene. I could have hadsuperb roads in Moscow, begun trade with China an d Persia, brough t dow nthe death-rate , fought ignorance , corruption an d al l the abominations whichhold us back from living . . . Yes, I could have! I could have! But I'm a rottenrag, useless rubbish. I am a Moscow Hamlet. . .18

Such characters , fo r Chekhov , wer e no t th e subjec t o f traged y bu t o fcomedy. Agai n an d agai n i t i s th e character s themselve s wh o usuall yprovide the only major obstacl e to self-fulfilment o r enjoyment, t o living asdistinct fro m merel y existing , an d i n thi s wa y th e traged y i s usuall ypresented as either avoidable - o r not 'tragic' in the first place.19

In The Empty Space, Peter Broo k writes : 'Brech t an d Becket t ar e bot hcontained i n Shakespear e unreconciled . W e identif y emotionally , subjec -tively - an d yet at one and the same time we evaluate politically, objectivelyin relatio n t o society.' 20 Th e sam e i s tru e o f Chekho v - or , a s Trevo rGriffiths pu t it , Chekhov' s play s 'ar e bot h subjectivel y painfu l an d objec -tively comic'.21 This is partly the philosophical motivation for the comedy,while the nature of the comedy, or the comic effects , ar e designed to take

2-34


Chekhov's comedy

the spectato r fro m close-u p t o long-shot , o r vic e versa . I t i s thi s whic hcreates th e contrapunta l natur e o f Chekhov' s structure , wher e on e conver -sation wit h on e grou p o n stag e counterpoints another , wit h th e actio noverlapping bu t th e dialogu e precisel y harmonise d t o 'interrupt ' on econversation fro m whic h a t times onl y a laugh o r soun d may b e heard - a sat th e en d o f The Seagull, wher e ther e ar e tw o distinc t groups : tw ooverlapping actions , bu t contrapunta l speec h o r soun d whe n Arkadin a an dthe other s pla y lott o - whil e Dor n take s Trigori n t o on e sid e (o r - mor eexactly - downstage ) t o say : '[Droppin g hi s voic e i n a n undertone. ] "Ge tIrina ou t o f her e somehow . Th e fac t is , Constantin e ha s sho t himself. " -Curtain.'22

Examples o f thi s techniqu e ar e manifold , an d use d t o differen t effec t -sometimes workin g t o deflate , a s i n Three Sisters whe n Olga , a t th ebeginning o f Act One , say s to Irina: ' I felt s o happy an d excited , I felt I justhad to go back home to Moscow' - afte r which , from th e group comprisin gTuzenbakh, Chebutyki n an d Soliony , Chebutyki n says , wit h referenc e t osomething quit e different : 'No t a chanc e i n hell' , an d Tuzenbak h replies ,'Absolute nonsens e o f course. ' Th e effec t i s virtually musica l - a leitmoti fcounterpointed b y another theme , an d i n this way i t acts a s an unconsciou scommentary o n th e aspiration , expresse d virtuall y a t th e openin g o f th eplay, to go to Moscow - an d lead a different life .

This i s partl y wha t Pete r Broo k mean s whe n h e write s i n The EmptySpace:

Any page of The Three Sisters gives the impression of life unfolding as thougha tape-recorder had been left running. If examined carefully i t will be seen tobe buil t o f coincidence s a s grea t a s i n Feydea u - th e vas e o f flower s tha toverturns, the fire-engine tha t passes at just the right moment; the word, theinterruption, th e distan t music , th e soun d i n th e wings , th e entrance , th efarewell - touc h b y touch, the y creat e throug h th e languag e o f illusion s a noverall illusion of a slice of life. This series of impressions is equally a series ofalienations: each rupture is a subtle provocation and a call to thought.23

There is , however , a majo r differenc e no t onl y i n philosoph y bu t conse -quently als o i n th e functio n o f th e comed y i n Feydea u o r Becket t - or ,indeed, i n Michae l Frayn , som e plays b y Alan Ayckbourn , o r othe r writer sof comed y wher e th e mechanisti c result s i n a muc h mor e physica l kin d o ffarce an d wher e th e fatalisti c destroy s fre e will. 24 The poin t i s really mad eby Ionesco in his essay Experience of the Theatre:

The traged y o f ma n i s pur e derisio n . . . I hav e neve r understoo d th edifference peopl e make betwee n the comic and the tragic . As the 'comic ' is anintuitive perceptio n o f th e absurd , i t seem s t o m e mor e hopeles s tha n th e'tragic'. The 'comic ' offer s n o escape.

2-35


VERA GOTTLIE B

And Ionesco - autho r o f what he named 'tragi c farces' - present s a world,for example, in The Chairs, where 'life i s nightmarish, painful an d unbear-able, lik e a ba d dream' , an d i n whic h frenzie d actio n i s performe d b ymechanical beings. 25 In this philosophical an d theatrical worl d there is nosuch possibility a s free will , no question o f choice and , ultimately , no realdanger of human responsibility and culpability. This is not Chekhov's farce,or comed y - o r philosophy . S o th e mechanisti c chao s of , fo r example ,Michael Frayn' s fil m scrip t o f Clockwise, or hi s highl y successfu l farce ,Noises Off (1982) , ha s mor e t o d o wit h th e dehumanisatio n an d heart -lessness of the farce vehemently attacked b y Shaw, reacting to the flood ofFrench farces on the English stage from the 1870s onwards. As Shaw put it:'To laugh without sympathy is a ruinous abuse of a noble function . . . ' Werarely laugh at Chekhov's characters; usually, we laugh with them. Even inJubilee (The Anniversary), the chaos, physicality and farcical tablea u - ha sbeen created by humans, not mechanical beings. Again, it was the mechan-istic, highl y physica l an d ofte n brilliantl y time d farce s originatin g wit hScribe, Labich e an d Feydeau , whic h gre w int o a philosoph y increasingl yopposed t o Chekhov's . Thi s philosoph y an d thi s theatr e wer e aptl yanalysed by Kenneth Tynan in his celebrated attack o n Ionesco in 1958 , inwhich h e describe d Ionesco' s landscap e a s 'tha t blea k ne w worl d fro mwhich the humanist heresies of faith in logic and belief in man will foreve rbe banished'.26

Ionesco's view is completely opposite to Chekhov's. In Chekhov's works,whether plays or stories, there is no sense of an overriding 'fate' o r 'God' or'power' superio r t o hi s character s an d wha t the y ma y b e capabl e of ;equally, there i s nothing mechanisti c o r automaton-lik e abou t th e charac-ters: i t i s up t o Nyukhi n i n On the Harmfulness of Tobacco whether h erebels - o r continue s t o liv e miserably . Vany a an d Sony a ar e bot hdisillusioned an d hurt a t the end of Uncle Vanya - bu t they settle down tomake th e bes t o f wha t the y have , an d to work! Whil e th e en d o f TheCherry Orchard still pose s th e directo r th e mos t profoun d philosophicaldecision: d o w e se e a forgotte n Fir s locke d i n t o a n empt y boarded-u phouse, an d lef t t o die ? Wha t i s the them e an d 'tone ' o f th e final musicalmotif at the end, punctuated by the sound of chopping?

Perhaps tw o quotations , neithe r o f which ma y safely b e identified wit hChekhov's ow n views , illustrat e th e differenc e betwee n th e tw o kind s o ffarce, the two kinds of comedy - an d the very different philosophica l basesfor comedy . In the stor y 'Thre e Years' , Chekhov' s characte r Yartse v says :'Life, my friends, i s very short - an d we must make the most of it. ' And inThe Cherry Orchard, Chekhov as always avoids the stereotype an d 'gives 'to th e 'ne w man' , Lopakhin , th e sensitiv e an d responsibl e line : 'the Lor d

236


Chekhov's comedy

gave us these hug e forests , thes e boundles s plains , thes e vas t horizons , an dwe who live among them ought to be real giants'. 27

Chekhov illuminate s an d demonstrate s huma n absurdit y - bu t i n a nessentially realisti c contex t i n whic h huma n behaviou r struggle s wit h itsel fin a defined society , no t wit h a n undefined , hostile , 'mechanised ' force , lik ethe suffocatin g growt h i n Ionesco' s Amedee - Or How To Get Kid of It.There is, however , a 'nightmarish ' realit y fo r Chekhov' s character s (se echapter 8 , Leonid Heifetz o n Uncle Vanya), an d few would no w argue wit hIonesco's basi c premise : 'N o societ y ha s bee n abl e t o abolis h huma nsadness, no political syste m can delive r us from th e pain o f living, from ou rfear o f death , ou r thirs t fo r th e absolute ; i t i s th e huma n conditio n tha tdirects the socia l condition, not vice versa.' 28

The philosophica l argumen t rest s o n definition s o f 'th e huma n condi -tion': determined , inevitabl e an d henc e impotent - o r subjec t i n some area sto human control , however fallible , an d to the changeable huma n organisa -tion of the socia l condition, an d hence potentially potent .

The technique s wor k throug h th e relationshi p o f on e componen t o rorganic elemen t wit h another ; throug h antithesis , parody , farce , th e us e o rreversal o f conventions , th e incongruou s o r th e grotesque , th e deflatio n o fcharacter a t a moment o f 'drama ' o r self-dramatisation , throug h th e under -cutting o r defusing o f atmosphere an d the acceleration - o r more frequentl y- th e deceleration o f rhyth m an d pace . An d mor e ofte n tha n not , aChekhov character turn s ou t to be not Hamlet , bu t Tartuffe .

NOTESTranslations ar e th e author' s an d quotation s fro m th e letter s ar e fro m AntonChekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 30 tomakh, Moscow, 1974-83,(Anton Chekhov, Collected Works and Letters in 30 volumes, Moscow ,1974-83), unless otherwise indicated.

1 Lette r to Nikolai Leykin, 20 May 1884.2 Quote d in A. S. Dolinin, 'Parodiya li, 'Tatyana Repina' Chekhova?', an article in

A. P. Chekhov, Zateryannye proizvedeniya, Leningrad , 1925 , p. 60. (See VeraGottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, Cambridge, 1982, p. 212, notes 30-1).

3 Fro m Fragments - (Splinters) - of Moscow Life, 1883-5 ; Oskolki, AntonChekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v }oi tomakh, Moscow ,1974-1983.

4 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 27 March 1894.5 Trans . Michae l Meyer , Henrik Ibsen, vol . n, A Farewell to Poetry, London,

1971, p . 210 .6 Laughter by Henri Bergson and An Essay on Comedy by George Meredith are

to be found in one volume: Comedy, intro. Wylie Sypher, New York, 1956.7 Lette r to Nemirovich-Danchenko, 2 November 1903.8 Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A. P. Chekhova, v 20 /

237


VERA GOTTLIE B

tomakh, ed . S . D . Balukhat y an d others , Moscow , 1944-51 , vol . xix ,pp. 257-8 . Quoted in David Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York,i960, p. 14.

9 Reporte d by the writer Alexander Tikhonov in 1902, in Chekhov v neizdannykhdnevnikakh sovremennikov, i n Literaturnoe nasledstvo 68 , Moscow , i960 ,PP- 479-8o.

10 Lette r to Nemirovich-Danchenko, 23 October 1903.11 Quotatio n from Chekhov' s notebooks in Magarshack, Chekhov the Dramatist,

pp. 193-4 .12 Fro m what historians of the period have written about Tsarist autocracy, police

surveillance, the legal and penal systems, it may be that Sorin is not completelywithout culpability in his job at the Department of Justice, a point perhaps moreimmediate fo r Chekhov' s contemporar y audiences . Se e Bibliograph y fo r th ehistorical context of the plays.

13 The Seagull, trans, an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol . n,Oxford, 1967 , Act Four, p. 271.

14 Uncle Vanya, trans, an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, vol. in,Oxford, 1964 , Act Four, p. 60.

15 Se e Gottlieb, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, pp. 133-46 .16 Ibid. , p. 136.17 Lette r to A. S. Suvorin, 30 December 1888.18 Th e translation o f A Moscow Hamlet (V Moskve) (1891) is my own, and from

Anton Chekhov, Collected Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v^oi tomakh, vol . 11 , pp. 500-7 .

19 Th e titl e characte r i n Platonov (otherwis e know n a s Fatherlessness - se e TheOxford Chekhov, Hingley , vo l 11 , Appendi x 1 , pp . 282-3 ) i s th e earlies texample o f the 'type ' in Chekhov's plays .

20 Pete r Brook, The Empty Space, Harmondsworth, 1968 , p. 98.21 The Cherry Orchard - A New English Version, Trevo r Griffiths , London , 1978 ,

p. vi . and see chapter 1 0 in this volume.22 The Seagull, ed. , and trans. Hingley, p. 281.23 Pete r Brook, The Empty Space, p . 89 .24 Discusse d a t greate r lengt h i n Ver a Gottlieb , Why this Farce? in New Theatre

Quarterly 7 , 27, August 1991 , pp. 217-28 .25 Eugen e Ionesco , Notes and Counter-Notes, trans . Donal d Watson , London ,

1964, p. 113 .26 Ibid. , p . 92 .27 The Cherry Orchard, trans , an d ed . Ronal d Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov,

Vol. in , Oxford, 1964 , p. 170 .28 Ionesco , Notes and Counter-Notes, p . 95 .

238


APPENDIX i

Chekhov's works: primary sources from the Russian -Variations of English Titles from the Russian

The Oxford Chekhov, trans. Ronald Hingley:vol. i (1968) Short Plays;vol. 11 (1967) Platonov, Ivanov, The Seagull;vol. in (1964 ) Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, The Wood-

Demon;vol. iv (1980) Stories: 'The Steppe' , 'An Awkward Business', 'The Beauties', 'The

Party', 'A Nervous Breakdown', 'The Cobbler and the Devil', 'The Bet', 'Lights';vol. v (1970 ) Stories 1889-1891: 'Th e Princess' , ' A Drear y Story' , 'Thieves' ,

'Gusev', 'Peasant Women', 'The Duel';vol. vi (1971) Stories 1892-1893: 'M y Wife', 'The Butterfly', 'Afte r the Theatre',

'In Exile' , 'Neighbours', 'Ward Number Six' , 'Terror' , 'An Anonymous Story' ,'Fragments', 'Th e Stor y o f a Commercia l Venture' , 'Fro m a Retired Teacher' sNotebook', 'A Fishy Affair' ;

vol. VI I (1978 ) Stories 1893-1895: 'Th e Tw o Volodyas', 'The Blac k Monk' , ' AWoman's Kingdom', 'Rothschild's Fiddle', 'The Student', 'The Russian Master' ,'At a Country House', 'The Head Gardener's Story', 'Three Years';

vol. VII I (1965 ) Stories 1895-1897: 'Hi s Wife', 'Patch' , 'Th e Order o f St Anne','Murder', 'Ariadne' , 'Th e Artist' s Story' , 'M y Life' , 'Peasants' , 'Th e Savage' ,'Home', 'In the Cart';

vol. i x (1975 ) Stories 1898-1904: ' A Har d Case' , 'Gooseberries' , 'Concernin gLove', 'Docto r Startsev' , ' A Cas e History' , 'Angel' , 'Ne w Villa' , 'O n Officia lBusiness', 'A Lady with a Dog', 'At Christmas' , 'In the Hollow', 'The Bishop','A Marriageable Girl' , 'Al l Friends Together', 'Th e Cripple' , 'Poor Compensa -tion', 'A Letter'.

Chekhov Stories, trans. Ronald Wilks:'The Kiss and Other Stories' (1982) (an d 'Peasants' , 'The Bishop', 'The Russian

Master', 'Man in a Case', 'Gooseberries', 'Concerning Love', 'A Case History','In the Gully', 'Anna Round the Neck');

'The Duel and Other Stories' (1984 ) (an d 'M y Wife' , 'Murder' , 'Th e Blac kMonk', 'Terror' , 'The Two Volodyas');

239


APPENDIX I : CHEKHO V S WORK S

'The Party and Other Stories' (1985) (an d 'A Woman's Kingdom', 'M y Life' , ' AProvincial Story', 'An Unpleasant Business', 'A Nervous Breakdown');

'The Fiancee and Other Stories' (1986) (an d 'On Officia l Business' , 'Rothschild'sFiddle', 'Peasant Women', 'Three Years', 'With Friends', 'The Bet', 'New Villa','At A Country House', 'Beauties', 'His Wife', 'The Student').

Some of the early storie s may be found in :Constance Garnett , trans . The Tales of Anton Tchekhov (i n 1 3 vols.), London,

1916-22Nora Gottlieb, Early Stories, London, i960, and New York, 1961Patrick Miles and Harvey Pitcher, Anton Chekhov, Early Stories, London, 1994Constance Garnett, trans, (revised D. Rayfield), The Chekhov Omnibus, London,

1994.

For furthe r title s o f translation s o f primar y source s i n English , se e selec tbibliography.

This i s no t intende d a s a definitiv e lis t o f Chekhov' s storie s bu t include ssome o f th e major one s mentione d i n thi s Companion. Give n the disparat eEnglish an d America n translation s o f th e titles , an d bearin g i n min d th erequirements o f the non-Russian reader , the editors decide d a chronologica lorder woul d provid e th e mos t coheren t metho d o f locatin g a particula rstory. The Russia n reade r i s served b y the origina l Russia n titl e i n bracket swith the date of a particular story .* denote s availabl e i n Hingley , The Oxford Chekhov, an d Hingley' s title /translation.W. yea r o f publicatio n denote s availabl e i n Wilks , Penguin , e.g . Stor y W .1986.F denotes either filmed o r part o f a film script (se e chapter 1 3 in this volumeand Appendix 3) .

'Belated Flowers/Th e Flower s ar e Late ' F/'Tard y Flowers/Belate d Blossom' *('Tsvety zapozdalyye', 1882) and F

'The Butterfly*/ The Grasshopper' ('Poprygunya' , 1882 ) and F'A Live Chattel/A Living Chattel'* ('Zhivoy tovar', 1882)'The Mistress' ('Barynya', 1882 )'29 June' ('Dvadstat devyatoye iyunya', 1882)'An Unwanted Victory/Unnecessary Victory'* ('Nenuzhnaya pobeda' , 1882)'The Daughter of Albion' ('Doch Albiona', 1883) and F'The Deat h o f a Clerk/Deat h o f a Pett y Official/Th e Deat h o f a Governmen t

Clerk'* ('Smer t chinovnika', 1883 ) and F'Fat and Thin' ('Tolsty i tonky', 1883)'In Autumn'* ('Osenyu' , 1883) . See the play 'On the High Road' (1885)'On Christmas Night' ('Vrozhdestvenskyu noch' , 1883)

240



'ATragic Actor' ('Tragik', 1883)'A Chameleon' ('Khameleon' , 1884 ) and F'Romance with Double-Bass' ('Roman s kontrabasom', 1886) and F'The Shooting Party'* ('Drama na okhote', 1884-85) ( F = 'Summer Storm')'The Burbot' ('Nalim' , 1885 )'A Christmas Dream' ('Son svyatochnyy', 1885)'A/The Dead Body' ('Myortvoye telo', 1885)'Grief/Sorrow'* ('Gore' , 1885)'A Horse's Name/A Horsey Name'* ('Loshadinaya familiya' , 1885 )'The Huntsman' ('Yeger', 1885)'The Mirror' ('Zerkalo' , 1885)'On th e Road/On th e High Road' * ('N a bolsho y doroge' , 1885 ) an d se e under

plays'The Wallet' ('Bumazhnik', 1885 )'Warrant Office r Prishibeyev/NC O Prishibeyev/Sergean t Prishibeyev' * ('Unte r

Prishibeyev', 1885)'A Cure for Hangovers/A Means of Sobering Up' (Sredstvo ot zapoiya', 1885)'Agafiya' ('Agafya' , 1886 )'Calchas'* ('Kalchas', 1886) , and see Swan Song (Lebedinaya pesnya, 1887-8)'The Chorus Girl' ('Khoristka', ]'Easter Eve' ('Svyato y nochyu','A Man' s Friend/ A Gentlema n Friend/ A Ma n Friend ' ('Znakom y muzhchina' ,

1886)'Misery*/Unhappiness/Heartache' ('Toska' , 1886 )'Motley Tales/Stories' ('Pyostryye rasskazy', 1886)'The Nigh t Before th e Trial ' ('Noc h pered sudom' , 1886) . See play o f the same

name, 1890s'The Nightmare/A Nightmare'* ('Koshmar', 1886 )'On the Way' ('Na puti' , 1886)'Practical Jokes' ('Shyutochki' ,'The Schoolmaster' ('Uchitel' , i f'The Slough/The Quagmire' ('Tina', :'The Witch' ('Vedma', 1886 )'The Wolf ('Volk' , 1886)'In the Twilight/In the Dusk/At Dusk'* ('V sumerkakh', 1886-7 )'The Enemies/Enemies'* ('Vragi', 1887)'Fortune' ('Schastye', 1887)'The Kiss' ('Potseluy', 1887 ) and W 198 2'One Among Many' ('Odin iz mnogikh', 1887) . See the play A Tragic Role'Tumbleweed/Thistledown/Uprooted'* ('Perekati-pole' , 1887 )'Rusty/Kashtanka' ('Kashtanka' , 1887 ) and F'Illegal*/Lawlessness' ('Nazakonnyi*/Bezzakonie' , 1887 ) and F'Typhus'* ('TiP, 1887)'An Unpleasant Business/A Bad Business' ('Nedobroye delo' , 1887) an d W. 1985

241



'Verochka' ('Verochka' , 1887 )'Volodia/Volodya' ('Volodya' , 1887 )'Panpipes' ('Svirel', 1887-88 )'An Awkward Business/An Unpleasantness'* ('Nepriyatnost' , 1888 )'Beauties/The'* ('Krasavitsy', 1888 ) and W. 198 6'The Bet'* ('Pari', 1888 ) and W. 198 6'The Cobbler and the Devil' ('Sapozhnik i nechistaya sila', 1888)'Lights'* ('Ogni', 1888)'A Nervous Breakdown*/The Seizure' ('Pripadok', 1888 ) and W. 198 5'The Party'* ('Imeniny', 1888) and W. 1985'The Steppe'* ('Step', 1888)'Children' ('Detvora', 188 9 - a collection)'A Drear y Story*/Th e Ordinar y Story/ A Borin g Story ' ('Skuchnay a istoriya' ,

1889)'The Princess'* ('Knyaginya', 1889 )'Gusev'* ('Gusev', 1890)'Gloomy People'* ('Khmuryye lyudi', 1890)'Thieves'* ('Vory', 1890)'The Duel'* ('Duel', 1891 ) and W. 198 4'Peasant Women'* ('Baby', 1891 ) and W. 198 6'After the Theatre'* ('Posle teatra', 1892)'In Exile'* ('V ssylke', 1892)'My Wife'* ('Zhena' , 1892 )'Neighbours'* ('Sosedi' , 1892)'Terror/The Terror'* ('Strakh' , 1892 ) andW. 1984'Ward No 6'* ('Palata No.6' , 1892)'An Anonymous Story'* ('Rasskaz neizvestnogo cheloveka', 1893)'Two Volodyas*/Bi g Volody a an d Littl e Volodya ' ('Volody a bolsho y i Volodya

malenky', 1893) and W 198 4'At a Country House'* ('Vusadbe', 1894 ) and W 198 6'The Black Monk'* ('Chorny monakh', 1894) andW. 1984'The Head Gardener's Story'* ('Rasskaz starshego sadovnika', 1894)'Rothschild's Fiddle/Rothschild' s Violin' * ('Skripk a Rotshilda' , 1894 ) an d W

1986'The Russian Master/The Teacher of Literature'* ('Uchitel slovesnosti' , 1894) and

W 198 2'The Student'* ('Student' , 1894 ) and W 198 6'AWoman's Kingdom'* ('Babye tsarstvo', 1894) and W. 198 5'Anna Roun d th e Neck/Ann a o n m y Neck/Th e Orde r o f S t Anne/Rank s an d

People' ('Anna na sheye', 1895), W. 1982 and F'Ariadne'* ('Ariadna', 1895 )'His Wife'* ('Supruga ' 1895 ) andW 198 6'The Murder/Murder'* ('Ubiystvo' , 1895) andW 198 4'Patch'* ('Beloloby' , 1895 )

242



'Three Years' ('Tri goda', 1895) and W. 1986'The Artist's Story*/The House with a Mezzanine' ('Dom s mezoninom', 1896)'My Life: A Provincial Story'* ('Moya zhizn', 1896) and W. 1985'Home/In the Home-stead'* ('Vrodno m uglu' , 1897)'Peasants* /The Peasants' ('Muzhiki', 1897 ) and W. 1982'In the Cart'* ('Na podvode', 1897)'All Friend s Together*/ A Visit t o Friends/With Friends ' (' U Znakomykh' , 1898 )

andW. 1986'A Cas e History*/A n Inciden t i n Practice ' ('Slucha y i z praktiki' , 1898 ) an d W.

1982'Concerning Love' ('O lyubvi', 1898), andW. 1982'Gooseberries'* ('Kryzhovnik', 1898) , and W. 1982'A Hard Case*/A Man in a Case' ('Chelovek v futlyare', 1898 ) and W. 1982 and

F'Ionytch/In the Town of S. (F) /Doctor Startsev'* ('Ionych', 1898 ) and F'Lady with a Little Dog/A Lady with a Dog'* ('Dama s sobachkoy', 1899) and F'Matter of Service/On Official Business' * ('Po delam sluzhby', 1899) and W. 1986'The New Villa/New Villa'* ('Novaya dacha' , 1899) and W. 1986'The Cripple' ('Kaleka', 1900 )'In the Ravine /In the Hollow*/In the Gully' ('Vovrage', 1900) and W. 1982'The Bishop'* ('Arkhierey', 1902 ) and W. 1982'The/A Marriageable Girl*/The Bride/The Fiancee' (Nevesta, 1903) and W. 1986'Poor Compensation'* ('Rasstroystvo kompensatsii' , 1902-3) fragmen t

Plays

Four-act: The Oxford Chekhov, trans. Hingley, vols. 11 and inFatherless (Bezottsovshchina, iSyy-SiyPlatonov (Platonov, 1880-1?) . H.Vol. IIThe Wood-Demon (Leshy, 1889) . H.Vol. IllIvanov (Ivanov, 1887-9) . H.Vol. IIThe Seagull*/Seagull (Chayka, 1896) . H.Vol. IIUncle Vanya (Dyadya Vanya, 1890-6). H.Vol. IllThree Sisters (Tri sestry, 1900-1) . H.Vol. IllThe Cherry Orchard (Vishnyovy sad, 1903-4) . H.Vol. Ill

One-Act: Hingley, Vol. IThe Beaf'IThe Boor/The Brute (Medved, 1888)The Proposal (Predlozheniye, 1888-9)On the High Road (Na bolshoy doroge, 1885). Based on the story 'I n Autumn '

('Osenyu'), 1883Swan Song (Calchas) (Lebedinaya pesnya - Kalkhas, 1887-8) Base d o n stor y

'Kalchas', 1886Tatyana Repin (Tatyana Repina, 1889)

243



A Tragic Role"'/The Reluctant Tragedian/A Tragedian In Spite of Himself -subtitled A Holiday Episode (Tragik po nevole - Iz dachnoy zhizni, 1889-90) .Based on story 'One among Many', ('Odin iz mnogikh', 1887)

The Wedding (Svadba, 1889-90) . Based on stories 'The Wedding Season', 1881;'Marrying for Money', and 'A Wedding with a General', both 1884

The Anniversary*/Jubilee (Yubiley, 1891). Based o n stor y ' A Defenceless Crea -ture' ('Bezzashchitnoye sushchestvo' , 1887)

Smoking is Bad for You1''/On the Harmfulness of Tobacco/The Evils of Tobacco(O vrede tabaka, 1903)

The Night Before the Trial (Noch pered sudom, 1890s) . Based on story of samename, 1886.

Other versions/translations o f the plays may be found i n Michael Frayn ed .Chekhov Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard,

The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Bear, The Proposal, London, 1988.

See alsoThe Wood-Demon in translation by S. S. Koteliansky, London, 1926,

andDavid Magarshack , ed . an d trans . The Seagull, London , 1952 ; Platonov, New

York, 1964 ; Four Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The CherryOrchard, New York, 1969.

French version s b y Patric e Pavi s wit h notes/introduction , he Livre dePoche:

La Mouette (The Seagull), Paris, 1985.Oncle Vania (Uncle Vanya), Paris, 1986.La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Paris, 1988.Les Trois soeurs (Three Sisters), Paris, 1991.M(o)uettes, The Seagull (contemporary version of The Seagull), Brussels, 1999.

For other translations/versions/adaptations se e selected bibliography .

Selected non-fiction

The Island of Sakhalin* /Sakhalin (Ostrov Sakhalin, 1891-4).Chekhov, A . P. , 'Thing s Mos t Frequentl y Encountere d i n Novels , Storie s an d

Other Suc h Things ' ('Cht o chashch e vseg o vstrechayetsy a . . .', 1880 , i nCollected Works/Letters, 1944-51, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem A. P.Chekhova v zoi tomakh, ed . S . D. Balukhaty an d others , Moscow 1944-51 ,vol. 1, 1880-2, pp. 17-18.

244


APPENDIX 2

Selected stage productions

The following i s a selected lis t of some of the major internationa l produc -tions of Chekhov, including British and Russian premieres. A more detailedproduction histor y is given by R. Hingley in The Oxford Chekhov, vols. i,II, an d in , L . Senelick in The Chekhov Theatre, N. I . Gitovich i n Letopiszhizni i tvorchestva, A. P. Chekhova, and in the Glossary afte r chapte r 1 5in thi s volume . Director s an d designer s ar e give n fo r mos t productions ,though the absence o f a director sometime s indicates how the significanc eof thei r contributio n wa s stil l bein g define d a t th e beginnin g o f th etwentieth century. Central role s and the actors who played them are givenin bracket s fo r mos t performances , an d venue s ar e occasionall y supple -mented b y the name o f the theatre company performing , i f i t differ s fro mthe residen t company . Gues t production s whic h visite d Britai n ar e als oindicated. Transliteration follows tha t of each particular production. Manyof thes e production s ar e referre d t o i n th e followin g chapter s i n thi svolume: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18.

Notation: Dir./s . denote s director/s ; des . denote s designer ; trans , denote stranslator; adapt, denotes adaptation/version; rep. denotes repertoire; ed./s.denotes editor/s. NT/RNT is short for the National Theatre/Royal NationalTheatre (th e name changed wit h th e Royal Charte r grante d i n 1988 ) an dRSC is short fo r th e Royal Shakespeare Company . MAT denotes Mosco wArt Theatre/MXA T i n Russia n (MKhA T Moskovski i Khudozhestvenny iAkademicheskii Teatr/Moscow Art Academic Theatre).* denotes a British premiere+ denotes Russian premiere.

1886 + O vrede tabaka (On the Harmfulness of Tobacco), Korsh Theatre,Moscow, writte n fo r th e comi c acto r L . I.Gradov-Sokolov (1845-90) .This wa s a privat e theatr e owne d b y F. A. Korsh (1852-1923) , whic hopened afte r th e abolition o f the monopoly o f the Imperial Theatres . It


APPENDIX 2 : SELEC T STAG E PRODUCTION S

was ru n a s a commercia l rathe r tha n a n artisti c enterprise . Chekho vwrote six distinct versions of this play over the period 1886-1903.

1887 + Ivanov (first version) , first performance a t Saratov, between 1 0 and19 November . Firs t majo r productio n a t Kors h Theatre , Moscow , 1 9November, dir. M. V. Agramov, V. N. Davy do v (Ivanov).

1888 + Lebedinaya pesnya (Swan Song), Kors h Theatre , Moscow , 1 9February, for the comic actor V. N. Davydov (1849-1925).

1888 + Predlozheniye (The Proposal), Krasnoye Selo Theatre, St Petersburg,9 August , writte n fo r an d dir . I . L . Leontyev , M . Ilinskay a (Natasha) ,P. Svobodin (Lomov), K. Varlamov (1848-1915) (Chubukov).

1888 + Medved (The Bear), Korsh Theatre, Moscow, 28 October, dir . andacted b y N . N . Solovtso v (1856-1902 ) (Smirnov) , Nataly a Rybchins -kaya (Popova).

1889 Ivanov, Imperial Alexandrinsk y Theatre , S t Petersburg, 3 1 January,V. N. Davydov (Ivanov), M. G. Savina (1854-1915) (Sasha) .

1889 Tragik po nevole (A Tragic Role/A Tragedian in Spite of Himself), 4May, amateu r productio n writte n fo r K . Varlamov ; thi s rol e wa s als oplayed by M. I. Bibikov at the Petersburg German Club, 1 October.

1889 Leshy (The Wood-Demon), Abramov Theatre , Moscow, 2 7 Decem-ber, another private theatre, as the play had been rejected by the ImperialAlexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburg.

1891 Predlozheniye (The Proposal), Imperia l Mal y (Little ) Theatre ,Moscow, 20 February.

1896 + Chaika (The Seagull), Imperial Alexandrinsk y Theatre , S t Peters-burg, 1 7 October, dir . E . P . Karpo v (1857-1926) , des . A . Yanov ,A. Diuzhikova (Arkadina) , Ver a Komissarzhevskay a (Nina) , N . F.Sazonov (Trigorin), K. Varlamov (Shamrayev) and Davydov (Sorin). Thisproduction was a failure bu t was followed b y successful performance s inKiev, Taganrog, Astrakhan and other provincial cities.

1898 Chaika (The Seagull), MAT , Moscow , 1 7 December , dir . K . S .Stanislavsky, des . V A . Simov, O . L . Knipper (Arkadina) , V E . Meyer-hold (Treplev), K. S. Stanislavsky (Trigorin).

1898 + Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), Nizhn y Novgoro d Dramati cTheatre, October-November, an d other Russian theatres, e.g. in Odessa,Kiev, Tiflis, Saratov.



1899 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya) MAT, Moscow, 2 6 October, dir . K. S.Stanislavsky, des . V. A. Simov, O. L. Knipper (Yelien a Andreyeevna) , K.S. Stanislavsky (Astrov), A. L. Vishnevsky (Vanya).

1900 Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), amateu r productio n fo r a'Chekhov Evening' at the Moscow Hunt Club.

1901 + Tri sestry (Three Sisters), MAT, Moscow , 3 1 January , dir . K . S .Stanislavsky, V. V. Luzhsky, des. V. A. Simov, O. L. Knipper (Masha) , K.S. Stanislavsky (Vershinin).

1902 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Ivanov, Chaika (The Seagull), DyadyaVanya (Uncle Vanya), Kherson , September-Octobe r season , dir .V. Meyerhold.

1902 Chaika (The Seagull), Imperia l Alexandrinsk y Theatre , Moscow ,16 November, dir . Mikhail Yegorovic h Darsky , Khodotov (Konstantin) ,M. G. Savina (Arkadina), L. V. Selivanova (Nina) , I. Shuvalov (Trigorin),K. Varlamov (Sorin).

1903 + Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), Imperial Alexandrinsky Theatre,St Petersburg, November , one night only as a curtain-raiser fo r a benefi tperformance, E. I. Levkeyeva (Merchutkina), K. Varlamov (Khirin).

1904 Yubiley (Jubilee/The Anniversary), Maly (Little ) Theatre , Moscow ,December. Benefi t fo r Olg a Ossipovn a Sadovskay a fo r on e nigh t only ,playing with a repertory Gogol production.

1904 + Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), MAT, Moscow, 1 7 January,dir. K. S . Stanislavsky, des . V A . Simov, O . L . Knipper (Ranyevskaya) ,K. S. Stanislavsky (Gayev).

1904 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Kherson , 4 February , dir .V Meyerhold , V Meyerhold (Trofimov) .

1904 Ivanov, MAT , Moscow , 1 9 October , dir . V I . Nemirovich -Danchenko, des . V A . Simov , V I . Kachalo v (Ivanov) , O . L . Knippe r(Anna Petrovna), K. S. Stanislavsky (Shabyelsky).

1904 Svadba (The Wedding), Komissarzhevskaya Theatre , S t Petersburg ,dir. Nikolai Arbatov (given name Arkhipov), des. Vrachev.

1904 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Artistic Society's Theatre, Tiflis, Fellowship ofNew Drama, 26 September, dir V Meyerhold (revival of 1902 production).

1904/5 Chaika (The Seagull), reviva l a t Komissarzhevskay a Theatre ,St Petersburg, dir. Molchanov, Vera Komissarzhevskaya (Nina) .

247



1905 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Imperia l Alexandrinsk yTheatre, Moscow, dir. Yuri Ozarovsky.

1909 "The Seagull, Royalty Theatre , Glasgow , 2 November , dir . Georg eCalderon.

1910 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Imperia l Alexandrinsky Theatre , Moscow,dir. Yuri Ozarovsky.

1911 *The Bear, Kingswa y Theatre , London , 1 3 May, dir . Lydia Yavors -kaya, trans. Arthur A. Sykes.

1911 *The Cherry Orchard, Aldwych Theatre , London , 2 9 May , dir .Kenelm Foss, trans. Constance Garnett .

1912 The Seagull, Little Theatre , London , 3 1 March , trans , an d dir .George Calderon, des. Maurice Elvey.

1914 "'Uncle Vanya, Aldwych Theatre , London , 1 1 May, dir . Gu y Rath -bone, trans. R. S. Townsend.

1916 *The Proposal, Birmingham Repertor y Theatre , Birmingham , 1 8March, dir. John Drinkwater.

1916 The Seagull, Bandbox Theatre , Ne w York , 2 2 May , Washingto nSquare Players, trans. Marian Fell, des. Lee Simonson.

1917 *The Wedding, trans. Julius West, and "Swan Song, trans. Marian Fell,Grafton Galleries , London, 14 May, dir. Nigel Playfair, des. Michel Sevier.

1920 A Triple Bill: The Bear, "On the High Road and The Wedding, dir.Edith Craig , S t Martin' s Theatre , London , 2 5 January , Doroth y Mas -singham (Popova) , Josep h A . Dod d (Smirnov) . (Edit h Crai g wa s th edaughter o f Ellen Terry and Edward William Godwin , siste r o f EdwardGordon Crai g who had designe d Hamlet fo r th e MAT - an d a leadingfeminist theatre manager and director.)

1920 "Three Sisters, Royal Court Theatre, London, 8 March, dir . and des.Mme Ver a Donne t (dir . o f Ar t Theatre) , trans . Harol d Bowen , Feli xAylmer (Solyony), Harcourt Williams (Vershinin).

1920 "The Cherry Orchard, St Martin' s Theatre , London , 1 2 July , dir .Mme Ver a Donnet , Edit h Evan s (Charlotta) , Hesket h Pearso n (Tro -fimov), Feli x Aylmer (Semyonov-Pishchik).

1921 + Chekhovsky vecher (Chekhov TLvening: The Wedding, The Anniver-sary; Thieves), Third Studi o o f th e MAT , Moscow, 1 5 November , dir .Yevgeny Vakhtangov, des. Isaac Rabinovich.



1921 Uncle Vanya, Cour t Theatre , London , 2 7 November , dir . Fyodo rKomissarzhevsky/Theodore Komisarjevsky , 'Komis' , (brothe r o f Ver aKomissarzhevskya, h e emigrate d fro m Russi a i n 191 9 an d wa s briefl ymarried t o Peggy Ashcroft) . Cathlee n Nesbit t (Helena) , Irene Rathbone(Sonya), Leo n Quartermain e (Vanya) . H e anglicise d hi s name , a sabove.

1925 The Cherry Orchard, Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith , London , 2 5May, dir. J. B. Fagan, des . Edgar Brickell , trans. George Calderon, JohnGielgud (Trofimov) .

1925 The Seagull, Little Theatre, London, 19 October, dir. and des. FyodorKomisarjevsky (Theodore) , John Gielgud (Treplev).

1925 *lvanov, Incorporate d Stag e Society , Duk e o f York' s Theatre ,London, 6 December, dir . and des . Theodore Komisarjevsky (a s he wasnow known , thoug h man y calle d hi m 'Komis') , trans . Maria n Fell ,Robert Farquharson (Ivanov).

1926 Uncle Vanya, Barnes Theatre , London , 1 6 January , dir . Theodor eKomisarjevsky, trans . Constance Garnett, John Gielgud (Tusenbach).

1926 Three Sisters, 14t h Street Theatre, New York, 26 October, dir. Eva LeGallienne, des. G. E. Calthrop, Eva Le Gallienne (Masha). US premiere.

1927 Uncle Vanya, Birmingham Repertory Theatre , Birmingham, 2 April,dir. W. G. Fay, des. Hugh Owen, Laurence Olivier (Vanya).

1927 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), MAT, Moscow, dir. V I . Nemirovich-Danchenko.

1928 The Cherry Orchard, Bijou Theatre , Ne w York , 5 March , Jame sFagin (Gaev), Glen-Byam Shaw (Trofimov).

1928 The Cherry Orchard, Garrick Theatre , London , Pragu e Grou p o fMKAT, 11 April, dir. M. N. Germanova. Guest production.

1928 Uncle Vanya, Garric k Theatre , London , Pragu e Grou p o f MKA T(Moscow Art Theatre) , 3 0 April, dir. M. N. Germanova. Gues t produc-tion.

1928 The Cherry Orchard, Barne s Theatre , London , 2 8 September ,Martita Hunt (Carlotta), Charles Laughton (Epihodov).

1928 The Cherry Orchard, Civi c Repertor y Theatre , Ne w York , 1 4October, dir . Eva L e Gallienne , des . Aline Bernstein , Ev a L e Gallienn e(Varya), Alia Nazimova (Ranevskaya) .

2-49



1928 worl d premier e o f Chekhov' s untitle d pla y (generall y know n a sPlatonov or Fatherlessness) i n a version b y Rene Fiilop-Mille r entitle dDer unnutzige Mensch Platonoff (That Useless Person Platonov),Preussisches Theater, Gera, south-east Germany, dir. Helmut Ebbs.

1929 The Seagull, Arts Theatre , London , 1 6 January , dir . A . E . Filmer ,trans. Constance Garnett , des . James Whale, John Gielgud (Konstantin) ,Miriam Lewes (Arkadina), Valerie Taylor (Nina).

1929 Les trois soeurs (Three Sisters), Theatr e de s Arts , Paris, 3 February,dir. and des. Georges Pitoeff.

1929 Three Sisters, Fortun e Theatre , London , 23r d October , dir . and des .Theodore Komisarjevsky , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Glen-Bya m Sha w(Tusenbach).

1930 Uncle Vanya, Cort Theatre, New York, 15 April, dir. Jed Harris, des.Jo Mielziner.

1930 The Seagull, Fortune Theatre , London , 2 5 September , dir . Phili pRidgeway, trans . Constanc e Garnett , Miria m Lewe s (Arkadina) , Glen -Byam Shaw (Konstantin).

1931 The Proposal and *The Anniversary, Kingswa y Theatre , London , 7December, Prague Group of MKAT, (MAT), dir. P. Pavlov. Guest produc-tion.

1931 The Cherry Orchard, Kingsway Theatre , London , 2 1 December ,Prague Group of MKAT, dir. P. Pavlov. Guest production.

1933 The Cherry Orchard, Civi c Repertory Theatre , New York, 6 March,dir. Ev a L e Gallienne , des . Aline Bernstein , Ev a L e Gallienn e (Varya) ,Alia Nazimova (Ranevskaya) . This was a revival of the 1928 production.

1933 The Cherry Orchard, Old Vi c Theatre , London , 9 October , dir .Tyrone Guthrie , des . Frederic k Crook e an d Sophi a Harris , Mariu sGoring (Epihodov) , Els a Lancheste r (Carlotta) , Charle s Laughto n(Lopakhin), Roger Livesey (Simionov-Pischik), Flora Robson (Varia).

1935 Three Sisters, Old Vic, London, 12 November, dir. Henry Cass.Z935 33 Obmoroka (33 Fainting Fits: The Proposal, The Bear, Jubilee),

Meyerhold Theatre, Moscow, 25 March, dir. V E. Meyerhold, des . V A.Shestakov.

1936 The Seagull, Ne w Theatre, London, 2 0 May, dir. and des . Theodore

2 5 0



Komisarjevsky, Pegg y Ashcrof t (Nina) , Edit h Evan s (Arkadina) , Joh nGielgud (Trigorin), Martita Hunt (Masha).

1937 Uncle Vanya, Westminster Theatre, London, 5 February, dir. MichaelMacowan, trans . Constanc e Garnett , des . Pete r Goffin , Alexi s Franc e(Sonya), Lydi a Sherwoo d (Yelena) , Ceci l Trounce r (Astrov) , Harcour tWilliams (Vanya).

1938 Three Sisters, Queen's Theatre , London , 2 8 January , dir . Miche lSaint-Denis, des . Motley ( a desig n tri o consistin g o f Margare t ('Percy' )Harris, he r siste r Sophi e an d Elizabet h Montgomery) , lightin g des .George Devine , Pegg y Ashcrof t (Irina) , Georg e Devin e (Andrey) , JohnGielgud (Vershinin) , Alec Guinness (Fedotik) , Michael Redgrave (Tusen-bach), Glen-Byam Shaw (Soliony).

1938 The Seagull, Shubert Theatre , Ne w York , 2 8 March , dir . Rober tMilton, des . Robert Edmon d Jones , Lyn n Fontaine (Arkadina) , Sydne yGreenstreet (Sorin), Uta Hagen (Nina), Alfred Lunt (Trigorin).

1939 La Mouette (The Seagull), Theatre des Mathurins, Paris, 17 January,dir. and des. Georges Pitoeff.

1939 Three Sisters, Longacre, New York, 14 October, dir. Dwight Wiman.

1940 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), MAT , Moscow , 2 4 April , dir . V . I .Nemirovich-Danchenko, des. V. V. Dmitriev.

1940 Firs t performanc e o f Platonov in English, entitle d Fireworks on theJames, Provincetown Playhouse, Massachusetts, USA, dir. McCormick.

1941 The Cherry Orchard, Ne w Theatre, London, 2 8 August, The SurreyPlayers, dir . Tyrone Guthrie , des . Frederick Cooke , James Dal e (Lopa -khin), Nicholas Hannen (Gaev) , Athene Saylor (Ranevskaya).

1942 The Three Sisters, Barrymore Theatre , New York, 21 December, dir .Guthrie McClintic , des . Motley, Judith Anderso n (Olga) , Ruth Gordo n(Natasha), Alexander Knox (Tusenbach).

1944 Chaika (The Seagull), Kamern y (Chamber ) Theatre , Moscow ,January-February, dir . Alexande r Tairo v (1885-1950) , des . E . Kova -lenko and V. Krivosheina (Act One), Alisa Koonen (1889-1974) (Nina) .

1945 Uncle Vanya, New Theatre, London, Old Vic Company, 1 6 January,dir. John Burrell , des. Tanya Moiseiwitsch, Margare t Leighton (Helena) ,Laurence Olivie r (Astrov) , Joyc e Redma n (Sonia) , Ralp h Richardso n(Vanya), Sybil Thorndike (Marina), Harcourt Williams (Serebryakov).

2 5 1



1948 17 Gabbiano (The Seagull), Piccolo Theatre, Milan, 24 November, dir.Giorgio Strehler, des. Gianni Ratto, trans. Enzo Ferrieri.

1949 The Proposal, Ol d Vic, London, 2 8 February, dir . Laurence Olivier ,des. Roge r Furse , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Pete r Cushin g (Lomov) ,Peggy Simpson (Natasha).

1954 The Cherry Orchard, Lyri c Theatre , Hammersmith , London , 2 1May, dir. John Gielgud, des. Richard Lake, trans. Ariadne Nicolaeff an dJohn Gielgud.

1954 La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Theatr e d e Marigny , Paris , 7October, dir . Jean-Louis Barrault , des . Wakhevitch, Jean-Louis Barraul t(Trofimov), Marie-Helene Daste (Charlotta).

1955 17 Giardino dei Ciliegi (The Cherry Orchard), Piccolo Theatre, Milan,13 January, dir. Giorgio Strehler, des. Tanya Moiseiwitsch, trans. VirginiaPuecher and Barbara Parfiliev .

1956 Ce Fou de Platonov [Platonov], Bordeau x Festival , May , dir . JeanVilar, Jean Vilar (Platonov).

1958 *A Tragedian in Spite of Himself, Toynbee Theatre , London , 1 2April, dir. Dmitri Makaroff.

1958 The Cherry Orchard, Sadlers Wells , London , 1 5 May , MAT , dir .V Ya . Stanitsyn. Guest production.

1958 Uncle Vanya, Sadler s Wells , London , 2 0 May , MAT , dir . M . M .Kedrov. Guest production.

1958 Three Sisters, Sadlers Wells , London , 1 6 June, MAT , origina l dirs .V I . Nemirovich-Danchenk o an d I . M . Rayevsky . Gues t productio nfrom rep.

1959 Don Juan (in the Russian Manner) ["'Platonov], Nottingha m Play -house, Nottingham, 6 April, dir. Val May, des. Marsh King , trans. BasilAshmore.

1959 Platonov e altri [Platonov], Piccol o Theatre , Milan , 2 7 April , dir .Giorgio Strehler, des. Luciano Damiani, trans. Ettore Lo Gatto.

1960 Platonov, Royal Cour t Theatre , 1 3 October, dir . George Devine andJohn Blatchley , des . Richar d Negri , lightin g Richar d Pilbrow , trans .Dmitri Makaroff , Re x Harriso n (Platonov) , Rache l Robert s (Ann aPetrovna).

2 5 2



1961 The Seagull, Malmo Cit y Theatre , Sweden , 6 January, dir . Ingma rBergman.

1961 The Cherry Orchard, Aldwyc h Theatre , London , 1 4 December, dir .Michel Saint-Denis , des . Abd'Elkade r Farrah , trans . Ariadn e Nicolaef fand Joh n Gielgud , Pegg y Ashcrof t (Ranyevskaya) , Jud i Denc h (Ania) ,John Gielgu d (Gayev) , Ia n Hol m (Trofimov) , Georg e Murcel l (Lopa -khin), Dorothy Tutin (Varia).

1962 Uncle Vanya, Chichester Festiva l Theatre , Chichester , 1 6 July, dir .Laurence Olivier, des. Sean Kenny and Beatrice Dawson, Sybil Thorndike(Marina), Laurenc e Olivie r (Astrov) , Michae l Redgrav e (Vanya) , Joa nPlowright (Sonia).

1963 Uncle Vanya, Old Vic, London, National Theatre, 19 November, dir.Laurence Olivier , des . Sea n Kenny , trans . Constanc e Garnett , Michae lRedgrave (Vanya), Laurence Olivier (Astrov), Joan Plowright (Sonia).

1964 *On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, The Littl e Theatre , London , 2 8April, dir. Ralph Wilton.

1964 The Cherry Orchard, Aldwych Theatre, London, 2 9 May, MAT, dir.V Ya. Stanitsyn. World Theatre Season guest production.

1965 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Gorki Theatre , Bolsho i Dram a (BDT) ,Leningrad, 23 January, dir. Georgi Tovstonogov, des. Sofia Yunovich.

1965 Three Sisters, Aldwych Theatre , London , Actor s Studi o Theatr e(USA), 13 May, dir. Lee Strasberg. Guest production.

1965 Ivanov, Phoenix Theatre , London , 3 0 September , dir . John Gielgud ,des. Rouben Ter-Arutunian, John Gielgud (Ivanov).

1966 Chaika (The Seagull), Leni n Komsomo l Theatre , Moscow , dir .Anatoly Efros, des. V Lalevich and N. Sosunov.

1967 Three Sisters, Old Vic, London, NT, 4 July, dir. Laurence Olivier, des.Josef Svoboda , trans. Moura Budberg, Anthony Hopkins (Andrey) , JoanPlowright (Masha), Robert Stephens (Vershinin).

1967 Tri sestry (Three Sisters), Malay a Bronnay a (Mosco w Drama )Theatre, Moscow, dir. Anatoly Efros, des. Diukgin and Chernova.

1969 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), Central Soviet Army Theatre (now theRussian Arm y Theatre) , Moscow , dir . J. Heifetz . Se e chapter 8 in thi svolume.

2-53



1969 Three Sisters, Aldwyc h Theatre , London, 2 8 April, Otomar Krejca' sTheatre Behind the Gate, dir. Otomar Krejca. World Theatre Season.

1970 Chaika (The Seagull), Aldwych Theatre , London, 5 May, MAT, dir.Boris Livanov, des. E. Stenberg. World Theatre Season guest production,originally produced at MAT in 1968.

1970 Chaika (The Seagull), Sovremenni k (Contemporary ) Theatre ,Moscow, June-July, dir. Oleg Yefremov, des . Sergei Barkhin.

1970 The Seagull, Art s Theatre, Cambridge, 21 July, dir. Richard Cottrell ,des. Keith Norman, trans. Richard Cottrell, Lila Kedrova (Arkadina).

1973 The Seagull, Chichester Festiva l Theatre , Chichester , 2 3 May , dir .Jonathan Miller, trans. Elisaveta Fen, des. Patrick Robertson.

1973 Uncle Vanya, Joseph E . Levine Theatre , New York , June 1973 , dir.Mike Nichols , trans . Alber t Tood , Juli e Christi e (Yelena) , Lillia n Gis h(Marina), George C. Scott (Astrov), Nicol Williamson (Vanya).

1973 The Wood-Demon, Art s Theatre , Cambridge , 1 0 September , dir .David Giles , des. Kenneth Mellor , trans . Ronald Hingley , Ian McKellen(Khruschov).

1974 *Tatyana Repina, Mul l Littl e Theatre , Scotland , dirs . Barri e an dMarianne Hesketh, des. Barrie Hesketh, trans. Ronald Hingley.

1974 17 giardino de ciliegi (The Cherry Orchard), Piccolo Theatre, Milan,21 May, dir Giorgio Strehler , des . Luciano Damiani , trans. Luigi Lunariand Giorgio Strehler.

1975 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Taganka Theatre, Moscow, 30June, dir . Anatoly Efros , des . Valery Levental , Alia Demidova (Ranevs -kaya), Vladimir Vysotsky (Lopakhin).

1975 Vishnyovy sad (The Cherry Orchard), Sovremennik (Contemporary )Theatre, Moscow, dir. Oleg Yefremov, des . Sergei Barkhin.

1976 Ivanov, MAT, Moscow , December , dir . Ole g Yefremov , des . DavidBorovsky, Innokenty Smoktunovsky (Ivanov). See Appendix 4.

1976 Three Sisters, Yvonne Arnau d Theatre , Guildford , 2 0 April , di rJonathan Miller, des. Patrick Robertson, trans. Elisaveta Fen.

1977 The Cherry Orchard, Vivian Beaumon t Theatre , Ne w York , 1 7February, dir . Andre i Serban , des . Sant o Loquasto , Mery l Stree p(Duniasha), Irene Worth (Ranevskaya). (See p. 143).

2-54



1977 The Cherry Orchard, a ne w Englis h versio n b y Trevo r Griffiths ,Nottingham Playhouse , Nottingham, 1 0 March, dir . Richard Eyre , des.John Gunter, from a trans, by Helen Rappaport, Brian Glover (Simeonov-Pischik), Dave Hill (Lopakhin), Antony Sher (Epikhodov), Bridget Turner(Ranevsky). This production was reproduced for BBC television in 1981.

1978 The Cherry Orchard, i n a versio n b y Pete r Gill , fro m a litera ltranslation b y Ted Braun, Riverside Studios , Hammersmith , London , 6January, dir. Peter Gill, des. William Dudley.

1978 The Cherry Orchard, NT, 1 4 February , dir . Pete r Hall , des . Joh nBury, trans . Michae l Frayn , Alber t Finne y (Lopakhin) , Be n Kingsle y(Trofimov), Robert Stephens (Gayev).

1978 Three Sisters, Residenztheater , Munich , 2 2 June , dir . Ingma rBergman. Guest production.

1979 Three Sisters, Th e Othe r Place , Stratford-upon-Avon , RSC , 2 9September, dir . Trevor Nunn, des . John Napier, trans. Richard Cottrell ,Suzanne Bertis h (Masha) , Jane t Dal e (Olga) , Edwar d Petherbridg e(Vershinin), Emily Richard (Irina) , Timothy Spal l (Andrey) , Susan Tracy(Natasha). (See chapters 9 and 11.)

1979 Uncle Vanya, a ne w versio n b y Pa m Gems , Hampstea d Theatre ,London, 2 2 November, dir . Nancy Meckler, des . Alison Chitty, MauriceDenham (Serebryakov) , Nige l Hawthorn e (Vanya) , Ian Hol m (Astrov) ,Susan Littler (Yelena), Alison Steadman (Sonya).

1980 Chaika (The Seagull), MAT, Moscow, July, dir . Oleg Yefremov, des .Valery Levental , (restagin g o f 197 0 Sovremenni k production) . Se eAppendix 4.

19 81 The Seagull, Share d Experience Company , Oxford , Crucibl e Studio ,Sheffield, 1 2 September , dir . Mik e Alfreds , Gillia n Barg e (Arkadina) ,Philip Osment (Konstantin) , Philip Voss (Dorn).

1981-83 La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), Les Bouffes d u Nord (1983) ,Paris, 1 2 March, dir . Peter Brook , des . Chloe Obolensky , fro m a literaltrans, b y Lusi a Lavrova , adapt . Jean-Claud e Carriere , Niel s Arestru p(Lopakhin), Maurice Benichou (Trofimov) , Irin a Brook (Ania) , NatashaParry (Ranevskaya) , Miche l Piccol i (Gaev) . Toure d internationall y fo rseveral years, including to Moscow and New York.

19 81 The Seagull, Roya l Court , London, 8 April, dir. Max Stafford-Clark ,des. Gemma Jackson, adapt. Thomas Kilroy, Anton Lesser (Konstantin),

2-55



Anna Masse y (Arkadina) , Ala n Rickma n (Trigorin) , Harrie t Walte r(Nina). (See chapter 7.)

1981 Die Drei Schwestern (Three Sisters), Berlin Schaubiihne, West Berlin,dir. Peter Stein, des. Karl Ernst Herrman.

1981 Three Sisters (Tri sestri), Tagank a Theatre , Moscow , dir . Yur iLyubimov, des . Yur i Konenko , Ali a Demidov a (Masha) . (Se e chapter s12, 14, 15 and Appendix 4).

1982 The Cherry Orchard, Roun d House , London (Oxfor d Playhouse) , 5August, dir . Mike Alfreds, des . Nadine Baylis , trans. Lilia Sokolova an dMike Alfreds, Alison Fiske (Ranevskaya).

1984 The Seagull, Tyl Theatre , Prague , dir . Otoma r Krejca , des . Jose fSvoboda. (See chapter 12 and Appendix 4.)

1984 Wild Honey [versio n o f Platonov], trans , and adapt . Michael Frayn ,NT, London , 1 9 July, dir . Christophe r Morahan , des . John Gunter , Ia nMcKellen (Platonov). (See chapter 11.)

1984 La Mouette (The Seagull). Theatre Nationa l d e Chaillot , Paris , 9February, dir. and trans. Antoine Vitez, des. Yannis Kokkos. (See chapter12 and Appendix 4.)

1985 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), MAT, Moscow, February , dir . Ole gYefremov.

1985 The Seagull, a new English version b y Tania Alexander an d Charle sSturridge, Oxford Playhous e Company , Oxford an d then Lyric Theatre,Hammersmith, London, 22 April, dir. Charles Sturridge, des. Eileen Diss,transferred t o Queen' s Theatre , London , 2 August , Vaness a Redgrav e(Arkadina), Jonathan Pryce (Trigorin).

1985 The Cherry Orchard, NT , London, 1 6 December, dir . Mike Alfreds ,des. Paul Dart, trans . Lilia Sokolov a an d Mike Alfreds , Sheil a Hancoc k(Ranevskaya), Ia n McKelle n (Lopakhin) , Laurenc e Rudi c (Trofimov) .(See chapter 11. )

1986 Three Sisters, Share d Experienc e Theatr e Company , Bloomsbur yTheatre, London , 1 April, dir . Mik e Alfreds , trans . Mik e Alfred s wit hNikita Stavisky , des . Pau l Dart , Chlo e Salama n (Irina) , Lesle e Udwi n(Masha), Philip Voss (Chebutykin), Holly Wilson (Olga).

1987 Uncle Vanya, King' s Theatre , Edinburgh , 12-1 3 August , (BDT) ,Leningrad, dir. Georgi Tovstonogov. Edinburgh Festival guest production.

256



1988 Trinidad Sisters (version Three Sisters), Donmar Warehouse, London,9 February , dir . Nichola s Kent , des . Popp y Mitchell , trans . Mustaph aMatura.

1988 The Sneeze, plays and stories by Anton Chekhov, trans, and adapt, byMichael Frayn , Aldwyc h Theatre , London , 2 7 September , whic h con -sisted of Drama (the story of 1887) , The Alien Corn (story 'In a ForeignLand', 1885) , The Sneeze (story 'Death of a Government Clerk/Official' ,1883), The Bear, The Evils of Tobacco, The Inspector General (from thestory 'A n Aw l i n a Sack' , 1885) ; Michae l Codro n Productio n a t th eTheatre Royal , Newcastle , 2 3 August , an d Aldwyc h Theatre , London ,with Rowa n Atkinson , Chery l Campbell , Timoth y West , dir . Ronal dEyre, des. Mark Thompson.

1989 Three Sisters, Old Vic, London, Katona Jozsef Theatre , Budapest, 13July, dir. Tomas Ascher. Guest production.

1989 Dyadya Vanya (Uncle Vanya), RNT, London, MAT , 1 4 September ,dir. Oleg Yefremov, des . Valery Levental. Guest production.

1989 Ivanov, in a version by Ronald Harwood, Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, 7February, transferre d t o Th e Stran d Theatre , London , 1 0 April , dir .Elijah Moshinsky , des . Mark Thompson , Ala n Bate s (Ivanov) , Felicit yKendall (Anna Petrovna).

1990 Three Sisters, Roya l Court , London, 2 4 July, dir . Adrian Noble , des.Bob Crowley , trans . Ros e Culle n an d Fran k Guinness , Sorch a Cusac k(Olga), Sinead Cusack (Masha), Niamh Cusack (Irena).

1990 Piano, after Chekho v an d base d o n the origina l fil m An UnfinishedPiece for Mechanical Piano b y N . Mikhalko v an d A . Adabashian ,Cottesloe Theatre , RNT , London , 8 August , a ne w pla y b y Trevo rGriffiths, dir . Howard Davies , des . Ashley Martin-Davis . Cas t include dPenelope Wilton , Stephe n Moor e an d Stephe n Rea . (Se e chapter s 4and 13 )

1990 Three Sisters, Queen's Theatre , London , 1 1 December , Rustavel iCompany, Georgia , USSR , gues t dir . Rober t Sturua , des . Giorg iMeskhishvili, adapt . Nikola s Simmond s fro m a translatio n b y Hele nMolchanoff, Jerem y Northam (Andrey) , Vanessa Redgrave (Olga) , LynnRedgrave (Masha), Jemma Redgrave (Irena). Guest direction and design.

1991 The Seagull, Barbican, London , RSC , 1 July , dir . Terr y Hands ,des. Johan Engels , Simo n Russel l Beal e (Konstantin) , Susa n Fleetwoo d(Arkadina).

257



1992 Cherry Orchard, Berlin Schaubiihne, West Berlin, dir. Peter Stein, des.Christopher Shubiger .

1992 The Cherry Orchard, BDT , St Petersburg, dir . Adolphe Shapiro , des.Eduard Kochergin.

1993 Uncle Vanya, Cottesloe Theatre , London , RNT , 2 5 February , dir .Sean Mathias, des. Stephen Brimson Lewis, Ian McKellen (Vanya).

1994 The Cherry Orchard, premiere d a t Odeon-Theatr e d e L'Europe fo rthe Internationa l Workshop , th e Borders , Paris , April , dir . Le v Dodin ,des. Eduard Kochergin.

1994 August, a n adaptatio n o f Uncle Vanya, Theatre Clwyd , Mold , 2 5October, dir. Anthony Hopkins, des. Eileen Diss.

1995 The Cherry Orchard, versio n b y Peter Gil l from a n original transla -tion b y Ted Braun, Swa n Theatre , Stratford-upon-Avon , RSC , 28 June,dir. Adrian Noble, des. Richard Hudson.

1996 Three Sisters, Lyri c Theatre, Hammersmith, London , 7 May, Out ofJoint Company, dir. Max Stafford-Clark, des . Julian McGowan.

1996 (Uncle) Vanya, Almeida, London, The Wrestling School , 19 June, ina version by Howard Barker, dir. Howard Barker, des. Robin Don.

1997 A Play without a Title [Platonov], Mal y (Little ) Theatre , S t Peters-burg, Weima r Theatre , Germany , dir . Le v Dodin , des . Alexe i Porai -Koshits. Played at London's Barbican Theatre, 1998.

1997 Ivanov, Almeida , London , 1 9 February , dir . Jonatha n Kent , des .Tobias Hoheisel, trans. David Hare, Ralph Fiennes (Ivanov), Ian McDiar-maid (Kosykh), Harriet Walter (Anna Petrovna).

1997 The Seagull, The Old Vic, London, Peter Hall Company , 9 May, dir.Peter Hall , des . Joh n Gunter , trans . To m Stoppard , Felicit y Kendal l(Arkadina), Michae l Penningto n (Trigorin) , Davi d Yellan d (Dorn) ,Dominic West (Konstantin).

1997 The Wood-Demon, Playhouse, London, 1 8 June, dir. Anthony Clark ,des. Joel Froomkin, Abigail Cruttenden (Yelena) , Brian Protheroe (UncleZhorzh), Philip Voss (Serebryakov).

1998 Uncle Vanya, Young Vic , London , RSC/Youn g Vi c co-production ,1 April , dir . Katie Mitchell , des . Rae Smith , trans . David Lan , Stephe nDillane (Vanya).

258



1998 The Seagull, Wes t Yorkshir e Playhouse , Leeds , 2 9 October , dir . Jud eKelly, des. Robert Innes-Hopkins , Ian McKellen (Dorn) . (See p. 132. )

2000 The Cherry Orchard, September , RNT , dir . Trevo r Nunn . (Se echapter 9) .

2000 The Cherry Orchard, dir . Steve Unwin, des . Pamela Howard , Prunell aScales (Ranevskaya), English Touring Company .

2-59


APPENDIX 3

Selected screen versions

(See also chapter 1 3 in this volume, and Jay Leyda, Kino, A History of theRussian Film, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973.)photo, denotes cinematic photographer.* denote s titl e an d furthe r detail s includin g date s o f publicatio n i nAppendix 1.

1911 Romance with Double Bass* (Roman s kontrabasom), prod. Path eFreres, France, dir. Kai Hansen, des. Sabiwsky, photo. Georges Meyer.

1912 Ward No. 6* (Palata No. 6), prod. Stern and Co., and Varyag, Russia,dir. Boris Chaikovsky, photo. Ivan Frolov.

1914 The Daughter of Albion* (Dock Albiona), prod. Russian Ribbon, dir.Boris Glagolin, photo. A. Pechkovsky.Illegal (Bezzakonie*), prod. Russian Ribbon, dir . Boris Glagolin, photo .A. Pechkovsky.

1917 The Flowers are Late* (Tsveti zapozdaliye), prod . Vengero v an dGardin, Russia , dir . Bori s Sushkevich , des . Serge i Kozlovsky , photo .A. Stanke.

1929 Ranks and people (Chiny i liudi), from thre e storie s b y Chekhov ,prod. Mezhrabpomfilm , USSR , dir . Yako v Protazanov , co-dir . Mikhai lDoller, des . Vladimir Yegorov , photo. Konstantin Kuznetsov , wit h Iva nMoskvin.

1938 The Bear* (Medved), prod. Belgoskino, USSR, dir . Isidor Annensky ,des. L. Putiyevskaya, photo. Y. Shapiro.

The/A Man in the Case* (Chelovek v futlyare), prod . Sovietskay aBelorus, USSR , dir . Isido r Annensky , des . L . Putiyevskaya , photo .Y. Shapiro.

2 6 0


APPENDIX 3 : SELEC T SCREE N VERSION S

1944 The Anniversary (Yubiley), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Vladimi rPetrov, photo. Vladimir Yakovlev.The Wedding* (Svadba), prod . Tbilis i Studios , Georgia , dir . Isido rAnnensky, photo. Yuri Yekelchik.The Bear*, prod. Dynamic Films Inc., USA, dir. Nathan Zucker.

1955 The Gadfly/The Butterfly*/ The Grasshopper (Poprygunya), prod.Mosfilm, USSR , dir . Samso n Samsonov , photo . F . Dobronravo v an dV Monakhov .

1959 A Work of Art (Khudozhestvo), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir .M. Kovalev.

1960 The Lady with the Little Dog* (Dama s sobachkoi), prod. Lenfilm ,USSR, dir. Joseph Heifetz, with Alexei Batalov and Iya Savvina.

1964 Three Sisters (Tri sestry), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Samso nSamsonov.Three Sisters, prod. Ely Landau-Actors Studio Inc., USA, dir. Paul Bogart.

1968 The Seagull*, prod. Warner Bros, USA, dir. Sidney Lumet, with JamesMason, Vanessa Redgrave, Simone Signoret, David Warner.

1970 Three Sisters*, prod . El y Landa u Organizatio n Inc. , USA , dir .Laurence Olivier , wit h Ala n Bates , Dere k Jacobi , Sheil a Reid , Joa nPlowright, Louise Purnell, Laurence Olivier.The Seagull* (Chaika), prod. Mosfilm, USSR, dir. Juli Karasik.

1972 Uncle Vanya* (Dyadya Vanya), prod. Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Andre iKonchalovsky.Belated flowers* (Tzvety zapozdalye), prod. Mosfilm, USSR, dir. AbramRoom.

1976 An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano (Mekhanicheskoepianino), prod. Mosfilm , USSR , dir . Nikita Mikhalkov , wit h Alexande rKaliagin, Elena Solovei, Oleg Tabakov.

1977 The Shooting Party (Drama na okhote), prod . Mosfilm , USSR , dir .Emil Loteanu.

1983 The Cherry Orchard*, Trevor Griffiths ' version , prod. BBC TV, dir.Richard Eyre , des . Susa n Spence , wit h som e o f cas t fro m 197 7 Not -tingham Playhouse production (see Appendix 2).

1990 Uncle Vanya*, prod. BBC/WNET , UK/USA , adapt . Davi d Mamet ,dir. Gregory Mosher, with Ian Bannen, Ian Holm.

2 6 1


APPENDIX 3 : SELEC T SCREE N VERSION S

1992 Three Sisters,* prod. Hunni a Jatekfilmsstudio , Hungary , dir . AndorLukats.

1994 Vanya on 42nd Street, prod. Mayfair Entertainment , UK , dir . LouisMalle, origina l stag e production directe d b y Andre Gregory , screenpla yadapt. Davi d Mamet , wit h Andr e Gregory , Madhu r Jaffrey , Juliann eMoore, Wallace Shawm, Brooke Smith.

1996 August, adapt , fro m Uncle Vanya*, prod. Granad a Films/Majesti cFilms, UK , dir . Anthon y Hopkins , writte n b y Julia n Mitchell , wit hAnthony Hopkins and Leslie Phillips.

2 6 2


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y

This ha s bee n compile d wit h th e emphasi s o n th e dramati c works . Fo rRussian an d othe r critica l source s o n Chekhov , se e endnotes t o chapters .Transliteration follows that of the given title.

Chekhov's Russia: social/historical context

Bruford, Walte r H. , Chekhov and His Russia, A Sociological Study, 2n d edn ,Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1948 ; reprinted Archon Books, Hamden,Conn., 1971.

Charques, Richard , The Twilight of Imperial Russia, Oxfor d Universit y Press ,Oxford, 1958.

Figes, Orlando, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, Jonatha nCape, London, 1996; Pimlico, Random House, London, 1997.

Fitzlyon, Kryil , an d Tatian a Browning , Before the Revolution, A View of Russiaunder the Last Tsar, Allen Lane, London, 1977.

Katkov, George , Erwi n Oberlander , Nikolau s Poppe , Geor g Vo n Rauch , eds. ,Russia Enters the Twentieth Century, Methuen, London, 1973.

Obolensky, Chloe, The Russian Empire, A Portrait in Photographs, Jonathan Cape,London, 1979.

Roosevelt, Priscilla , Life on the Russian Country Estate, A Social and CulturalHistory, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1995.

Seton-Watson, H., The Decline of Imperial Russia, Methuen, London, 1952.Turkov, Andrei , ed. , Anton Chekhov and His Times, trans . Cynthi a Carlil e an d

Sharon McKee, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, 1995.

Chekhov's Russia: theatre context

Amiard-Chevrel, Claudine, Le Theatre Artistique de Moscou (1898-1917), Edition sdu Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1979.

Bakshy, Alexander, The Path of the Modern Russian Stage and other Essays, Ceci lPalmer and Hayward, London, 1916.

Bassekhes, A., Khodozhniki na stene MXAT, Vserossiyskoe teatralnoe obshchestvo,Moscow, i960.

Benedetti, Jean, Stanislavski: A Biography, Methuen, London, 1990.

266



Braun, E., Meyerhold, A Revolution in Theatre, Methuen, London, 1995.Brodsky, A., ed., Moskovskii Khodozhestvennyi teatr vtoroi, Moscow, 1925.Davydova, M., Ocherki istorii russkogo teatralno-dekoratsionnogo iskusstvo xvm-

nachala xx vekov, Moscow, 1974.Freidkina, L., Dni igody VI. I. Nemirovicho-Danchenko, Moscow, 1962.Gitovich, N . I. , Letopis Zhizni i tvorchestva, A. P. Chekhova, Gos. Izd. Khudoz-

hestvennoy literatury, Moscow, 1955.Gortchakov, N., Vakhtangov, Metteur en scene, Moscow, n.d.Hapgood, E. , trans, and ed., Stanislavsky's Legacy, Theatr e Arts Book, New York,

1958; reprint Methuen, London, 1981.Knipper-Chekhova, Olg a Leonardovna , Correspondence: I8<)6-I<)S9, Moscow ,

1972.Leyda, J., Kino, A History of the Russian Film, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973.Lunacharsky, A., O teatre i dramaturgii, vol I, Moscow, 1958.Markarova, M. , T. Modestova, eds. , Pesi A. P. Chekhova v Moskovskom khodoz-

hestvennom teatre, Moscow, 1961.Markov, P., ed., A. Ya.Tairov, VTO Moskva, Moscow, 1967.Marshall, H., The Pictorial History of the Russian Theatre, Crown Publishers Inc.,

New York, 1977.Meyerhold, Vsevolod, Theatre naturaliste et theatre d'atmosphere, in his Ecrits sur le

theatre, L'Age d'homme, trans. Beatrice Picon-Vallin, POK, Lausanne, 1973-92.Mikhalsky, F. , ed. , Moskovskii khodozhestvennyi teatr v sovetskoi epokhe,

Moscow, 1974.Moser, Charle s A. , ed., The Cambridge History of Russian Literature, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1989.Nemirovich-Danchenko, V . I., My Life in the Russian Theatre, trans. J. Cournos ,

Bles, London, 1937; reprint London, 1968.V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko - Teatralnoe nasledie, Moscow, 1954.

Pichkhadze, L., ed., Moskovskii khodozhestvennyi teatr, Moscow, 1978.Polyakova, E. , ed., Stanislavskii, Moscow , 1977 ; English edition Foreign Language

Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977.Pozharskaya, M. , Russkoe teatralno-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa xix, nachala

xx vekov, Moscow, 1970.Rudnitsky, K., Meyerhold the Director, ed. S. Schultze, trans. G. Petrov, Ann Arbor,

Mich., USA, 1981.Russian and Soviet Theatre, Tradition and the Avant-Garde, trans . Roxan e

Permar and ed. Lesley Milne, Thames and Hudson, London, 1988.Russkoe rezhisserskoe iskusstvo 1898-1907, Moscow, 1989.

Sayler, Oliver M., Inside the Moscow Art Theatre, first published Brentano's , NewYork, 1925 ; reprinte d an d facsimil e editio n Greenwoo d Press , Westport ,Conn., 1970.

Schuler, Catherin e A. , Women in Russian Theatre, the Actress in the Silver Age,Routledge, London and New York, 1996.

Senelick, Laurence , ed. , National Theatre in Northern and Eastern Europe,1746-1900, Cambridg e Universit y Pres s Serie s Theatre in Europe: A Docu-mentary History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991.

Shakh-Azizova, T . K. , Chekhov i zapadno-yevropeyskaya drama yego vremeni,Nauka, Moscow, 1966.

267



Simonov, Ruben , Stanislavsky's Protege, Eugene Vakhtangov, trans. M . Goldina ,DBS Publications Inc., New York, 1969.

Sokolova, N. , V . Ryndin , B . Volkov, eds. , j o let khodozhniki teatra, Moscow,1969.

Solovyeva, Inna , ed. , Rezhisserskie ekzemplyary K. S. Stanislavskogo, vol. in,1901-4, Isskustvo, Moscow, 1983.

Stanislavski, C, My Life in Art, trans. J. J. Robbins, Bles, London, 1962.Stanislavsky, K., Sobranie sochinenii v vostni totnakh, Moscow, 1969.Stroeva, M . N. , Rezhisserskiye iskaniya Stanislavskogo 1898-1917, Moscow ,

1973. Rezhisserskiye iskaniya Stanislavskogo lyij-iy^H, Moscow , 1977.Svobodin, A. P., ed., Teatr 'Sovremennik', Moscow, 1973.Toporkov, V . O. , Stanislavski in Rehearsal, trans . C . Edwards , Routledge , Ne w

York, 1979; reprint 1998.Tovstonogov, G. , Quarante ans de mise en scene, Foreign Language s Publishin g

House, Les Editions du Progres, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976.Van Gyseghem, A., Theatre in Soviet Russia, Faber and Faber, London, 1943.Varneke, B.V. , History of the Russian Theatre, Seventeenth through Nineteenth

Century, trans. Bori s Brasol , reprin t edn . Bell e Marti n (fascimil e o f 195 1edition), Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1971.

Vendrovskaya, L. , G . Kaptereva , eds. , Evgeny Vakhtangov, trans. D . Bradbury ,Foreign Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1982.

Voitsekhovskaya, N . K. , D . M . Shvarts , eds. , Teatr imeni Gorkogo, Leningrad ,1968.

Worrall, Nick, The Moscow Art Theatre, Routledge, London, 1996.Yuzovsky, Yu., Razgovor zatianulsia za polnoch, Moscow, 1966.Znosko-Borovsky, E., Russkii teatr nachala XXveka, Prague , 1925.

Selected primary sources in Russian

Balukhaty, S . D. , an d others , eds. , Collected Works/Letters, Polnoe sobraniesochinenii i pisem A. P. Chekhova v 20/ totnakh, Moscow, 1944-51 .

Belchikov, N . F. , and others , eds. , Anton Chekhov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii ipisem v }oi tomakh, Moscow, 1974-83.

Chekhov, Anton, Chto chashche vsego vstrechayetsya . . . , 188 0 (A. P. Chekhov,Things Most Frequently Encountered in Novels, Stories and Other SuchThings), Works/Letters, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v 3oi tomakh,Moscow, 1974-83, vol. 1, 1880-2.

Yelpatyevsky, S . Y., and others , eds. , Chekhov in the Memoirs of his Contempor-aries, Chekhov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, Moscow, 1954.

Yermilov, V. V., and others, eds., Collected Works/Letters, Anton Chekhov, Sobraniesochinenii i pisem v izi tomakh, Moscow, 1960-4.

Selected primary sources in Russian: letters and other works

Chekhov, M. P., Anton Chekhov i yego syuzhety, Moscow, 1923.Vokrug Chekhova. Vstrechi i vpechatleniya, Moskovsk y rabochy , Moscow ,

1980.

268



Chekhov, Al. P., Pisma A. P. Chekhovu yego brata Aleksandra Chekhova, ed. I. S.Yezhov, Moscow, 1939.

Chekhova, Maria P., Iz dalyokogo proshlogo, Moscow, i960.Derman, A. B., ed., Perepiska A. P. Chekhova i O. L. Knipper, vol. I, 1934, vol. 11 ,

1936, Moscow.Surkov, Ye. D., ed., Chekhov i teatr: pisma, felyetony, sovremenniki o Chekhove-

dramaturge, Isskustvo, Moscow, 1961.Vinogradov, V . V. an d others , ed. , Literaturnoye nasledstvo: Chekhov, Moscow,

i960.

Selected primary sources in English: plays

Alexander, Tania, and Charles Sturridge, eds., trans. The Seagull, Amber Lane PressLtd., Oxford, 1986 .

Ashmore, Basil, ed., Don Juan (in the Russian Manner), P. Nevil, London, 1952.Baukhage, Hilmar, ed., The Boor [sic. The Bear], Samuel French, New York, 1915.Baukhage, Hilmar, and Barrett H. Clark, eds., A Marriage Proposal [The Proposal],

Samuel French, New York, 1914.Bentley, Eric , an d Theodor e Hoffman , eds. , trans. , The Brute, and Other Farces

(The Harmfulness of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Brute, A Marriage Proposal,Summer in the Country (eds . note : mor e usuall y know n a s The ReluctantTragedian or A Tragic Role), A Wedding, The Celebration (more usuall yJubilee or The Anniversary)), Grove Press, New York, 1958.

Bristow, Eugene K., ed., Anton Chekhov's Plays, Norton Critica l Edition, Norton ,New York, 1977.

Butler, Hubert, ed. , The Cherry Orchard, Baker International Play Bureau, Boston,1934-

Calderon, George , ed. , trans. , Two Plays by Tchekhof, London, 1912 ; Cape ,London, 1928.

Caylor, Rose, ed., Uncle Vanya, Covici, Friede, New York, 1930.Cournos, John, That Worthless Fellow Platonov, Dutton, New York, 1920.Covan, Jenny, ed., The Cherry Orchard, Brentano's, New York, 1922.

The Moscow Art Theatre Series of Russian Plays, Brentano's, New York, 1922.Uncle Vanya, Brentano's, New York, 1922.

Dunnigan, Ann , ed. , The Major Plays (Ivanov, The Sea Gull, Uncle Vanya, TheThree Sisters, The Cherry Orchard), Signet, New York, 1964.

Fell, Marian, ed. , Plays by Anton Tchekoff, Scribner' s Sons , New York, 1912-16 ;Duckworth, London, 1913.

Ivanoff, Brentano's, New York, 1923.Five Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1939.Six Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1949.

Fen, Elisaveta, ed., trans., Three Plays, The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, Ivanov,Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1951.

Chekhov Plays, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1954 .Frayn, Michael, Wild Honey, the untitled play by Anton Chekhov [Platonov] i n a

version b y Michae l Frayn , post-productio n edition , Methuen , Londo n an dNew York, 1985.

Frayn, Michael, ed., trans., Chekhov Plays: The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters,

269



The Cherry Orchard, The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Bear, TheProposal, Methuen, London, 1988.

The Sneeze, translated an d adapte d b y Michae l Frayn , contain s th e play s TheBear, The Evils of Tobacco, Swan Song, The Proposal, an d dramatisations ofthe stories 'Drama' (1887) , The Alien Corn (story 'In a Foreign Land', 1885) ,The Sneeze (fro m th e stor y 'Deat h o f a Governmen t Clerk' , 1883) , TheInspector General (fro m th e stor y 'A n Aw l i n a Sack' , 1885) , Methuen ,London, 1989.

Garnett, Constance , ed., trans., The Cherry Orchard, and Other Plays, Chatt o andWindus, London, 1923; Seltzer, New York, 1924.

Plays, Chatto and Windus, London, 1925-1928.Plays, Modern Library, New York, 1930.The Three Sisters, and Other Plays, Chatto and Windus, London, 1923.

Gems, Pam, Uncle Vanya, A New Version, Eyre Methuen, London, 1979.Gielgud, John, version o f Ivanov from a litera l translatio n b y Ariadne Nicolaeff ,

Heinemann, London, 19 66.Gill, Peter, version of The Cherry Orchard from a literal translation by Ted Braun,

Oberon, London, 1995.Gottlieb, Vera, trans, and adapt. A Chekhov Quartet, two plays and two short stories,

dramatised version o f 'A Moscow Hamlet' , from th e story 'V Moskve', 1891,and 'Accounts', from the story 'Razmaznya', 1883 , with Swan Song and On theHarmfulness of Tobacco, Harwood Academic, GMBH., Amsterdam, 1995.

Griffiths, Trevor , ed., The Cherry Orchard, Pluto Press Limited, London, 1978.Piano, Faber and Faber, London, 1990.

Guthrie, Tyrone, and Leonid Kipnis, eds., The Cherry Orchard, Minnesot a Dram aEditions, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1965.

The Three Sisters, The Avon Theater Library, Avon, New York, 1965.Uncle Vanya, Minnesota Drama Editions, University o f Minnesota Press , Minn.,

1969.Harwood, Ronald, version of Ivanov, Amber Lane Press Ltd., Oxford, 1989 .Hingley, Ronald , ed. , trans. , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Vols., vols. i-in , Th e

Plays; vols . rv-ix , Th e Selecte d Storie s 1889-190 4 (exclude s earl y stories) ,Oxford Universit y Press , Oxford/Ne w York / Toronto/Melbourne , 1965-80 .See Appendix 1 .

Twelve Plays, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.Iliffe, David, ed., The Seagull, Samuel French, London, 1953.Jarrel, Randall, ed., The Three Sisters, Macmillan, New York, 1969.Kilroy, Thomas, adapt., The Seagull, The Gallery Press, Loughcrew, Meath, Ireland,

1993.Koteliansky, S . S. , ed. , Tchekoff's Plays and Stories, introduction Davi d Magar -

shack (The Cherry Orchard, The Seagull, The Wood-Demon, Tatyana Repina,On the Harmfulness of Tobacco, and storie s include : 'My Life' , 'Th e Hous ewith the Mezzanine' , 'Typhus' , 'Gooseberries' , 'I n Exile' , 'The Lad y with th eToy Dog' , 'Goussiev' , ' A Mosco w Hamlet' , 'A t th e Cemetery' , 'A t th e Pos tOffice', 'Schulz' , 'Life is Wonderful', ' A Fairy Tale'), J. M. Dent, London, 1937,reprinted 1946.

The Wood-Demon, Chatto and Windus, London, 1926.Magarshack, David, ed., trans., The Seagull, D. Dobson, London, 1952.

270



Platonov, Hill and Wang, New York, 1964.Four Plays: Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, Hil l an d

Wang, New York, 1969.Mamet, David, adapt., The Cherry Orchard, Grove, New York, 1985.

adapt. Uncle Vanya, Grove, New York, 1985.Mandell, M. S., ed., The Cherry Garden, Yale Courant, New Haven, Conn., 1908.Mitchell, Julian, August (adaptation of Uncle Vanya), Amber Lane, Oxford, 1994 .Nicolaeff, Ariadne, and John Gielgud, eds., trans., Chekhov Plays, Hartsdale House,

New York, 1935.Nine Plays by Anton Chekhov, Caxton House, New York, 1946.

Senelick, Laurence , ed. , trans. , The Cherry Orchard, Arlingto n Hous e Memorial ,Arlington Heights, 111., 1977.

The Cherry Orchard and The Seagull, Arlington Hous e Memorial , Arlingto nHeights, III, 1977.

Szogy, Alex, ed., Ten Early Plays, Bantam, New York, 1965.West, Julius, ed., The Seagull, Hendersons, London, 1915.

Four Short Plays, Duckworth, London, 1915, reprinted 1950.Plays by Anton Tchekoff, Duckworth, London, 1916; Scribner's Sons, New York,

1916.Five Famous Plays, Duckworth, London, 1939.

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, ed., trans., The Cherry Orchard, The Avon Theater Library,Avon, New York, 1965.

The Portable Chekhov, Viking, New York, 1947; 2nd edn, 1968.Young, Stark, The Seagull, Scribner's Sons, London and New York, 1939.

Three Sisters, Samuel French, New York and Los Angeles, 1941.The Cherry Orchard, Samuel French, New York, 1947.Best Plays, Modern Library, New York, 1956.

For French editions with information an d commentary by Patrice Pavis see:Pavis, Patrice, ed., La Mouette (The Seagull), traduction d'Antoine Vitez, commen-

taires et notes de Patrice Pavis, Actes Sud, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 1985.Oncle Vania (Uncle Vanya), traduction e t preface d e Tonia Galievsk y e t Bruno

Sermonne, commentaire s e t note s d e Patrice Pavis , Le Livre d e Poche , Paris,1986.

La Cerisaie (The Cherry Orchard), traduction d'Elen a Pavis-Zahradnikov a e tPatrice Pavis, Le Livre de Poche, Paris, 1988.

Les trois soeurs (Three Sisters), traduction de Jean-Claude Huens, Karel Kraus etLudmilla Okunieva , introduction e t notes de Patrice Pavis, Le Livre de Poche,Paris, 1991.

M(o)uettes, The Seagull, a contemporar y versio n writte n b y Pavis , Degres ,Brussels, 1999.

Selected primary sources in English: stories

Garnett, Constance , trans. The Tales of Anton Tchechov (in 13 vols.), Chatto andWindus, London, 1926.

(revised Rayfield, D.,) The Chekhov Omnibus, Everyman, London, 1994 (but not

271



'Panpipes', 'Fortune' , 'Tumbleweed' , 'Th e Kiss' , 'Neighbours' , 'Th e Grass -hopper', 'Big Volodia and Little Volodia', and 'Ariadna').

Gottlieb, Nora , Chekhov: The Early Stories, The Bodle y Head , London , i960 ;Anchor Books, Doubleday 8c Company, Inc., Garden City, N.Y, 1961.

Hingley, Ronald , The Oxford Chekhov in 9 Vols., vol IV-IX , Th e Selecte d Storie s1889-1904 (exclude s earl y stories) , Oxfor d Universit y Press , Oxford/Ne wYork/Toronto/Melbourne, 1965-80 .

Miles, Patrick, an d Harvey Pitcher , Anton Chekhov Early Stories, Oxford's Worl dClassics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999 .

Wilks, Ronald, The Kiss and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982.The Duel and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984 .The Party and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1985.The Fiancee and Other Stories, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1986 .See Appendix 1 for full list of stories.

Selected primary sources in English: letters and other works

Benedetti, Jean , trans , an d ed. , Dear Writer - Dear Actress: the Love Letters ofAnton Chekhov and Olga Knipper, Methuen, London, 1996.

The Moscow Art Theatre Letters, Methuen, London, 1991.Chekhov, Anto n P. , The Island: A Journey to Sakhalin, introductio n b y

Irena Ratushinskaya , trans . Luba an d Michae l Terpak , Centur y Hutchinson ,London, 1987.

Friedland, Louis S., selected, trans., ed., Letters on the Short Story, the Drama andOther Literary Topics by Anton Chekhov, 2nd edn, reprinted Dove r Publica -tions, New York, 1966.

Hellman, L. , ed. and introduction , The Selected Letters of Anton Chekhov, trans.S. K. Lederer, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1955, reprinted 1984.

Karlinsky, Simon , selection , commentar y an d introduction , The Letters of AntonChekhov, trans. Michael Henry Heim in collaboration wit h Simo n Karlinsky,Harper and Row, New York, 1973.

Koteliansky, S . S. , an d Phili p Tomlinson , trans , an d ed. , The Life and Letters ofAnton Tchekhov, 2nd edn, 1925; reprinted Benjamin Blom, New York, 1965.

Yarmolinsky, A., selected, trans., ed., Letters of Anton Chekhov, Viking Press, NewYork, 1973.

Secondary sources in English: biographies and memoirs

Avilova, Lidiya, Chekhov in My Life: A Love Story, trans . D. Magarshack, Green -wood Press, Westport, Conn., 1971.

Callow, Philip, Chekhov - The Hidden Ground, Constable, London, 1998.Chukovsky, Kornei , trans. Pauline Rose , Chekhov the Man, Hutchinson an d Co. ,

London, 1945.Elton, Oliver, Chekhov (The Taylorian Lecture), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1929 .Garnett, Edward, Chekhov and his Art, London, 1929.Hingley, Ronald , Chekhov, A Biographical and Critical Study, George Alle n an d

Unwin, London, 1966.A New Life of Anton Chekhov, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976 .

272



Koteliansky, S . S. , trans , an d ed. , Anton Tchekhov, Literary and TheatricalReminiscences, 2nd edn, 1927; reprinted Benjamin Blom, New York, 1965.

Koteliansky, S . S. , an d L . Woolf , trans. , Reminiscences of Anton Chekhov byM. Gorky, A. Kuprin, and I. A. Bunin, B. W. Huebsh, New York, 1921.

Lafitte, Sophie , Chekhov 1860-11)04, trans. M. Budberg and G. Latta, Angus andRobertson, London, 1974.

Magarshack, David , Chekhov: A Life, Faber, London, 1952 ; reprinted Greenwoo dPress, Westport, Conn., 1970.

Melchinger, Siegfried, Anton Chekhov, Frederick Ungar, New York, 1972.Nemirovsky, Irene , A Life of Chekhov, trans. E . d e Mauny , Gre y Wall s Press ,

London, 1950.Priestley, John B., Anton Chekhov, International Textbooks, London, 1970.Pritchett, V. S., Chekhov: A Spirit Set Free, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1988.Rayfield, Donald, Anton Chekhov: A Life, Harper Collins, London, 1997.Saunders, Beatrice, Tchehov the Man, Centaur Press, London, i960 .Senelick, Laurence, Anton Chekhov, Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1985.Simmons, Ernes t J. , Chekhov, A Biography, The Universit y o f Chicag o Press ,

Chicago and London, 1962.Toumanova, Princes s Nina Andronikova , Anton Chekhov: The Voice of Twilight

Russia, Columbia University Press, New York, c. 1937; reprint i960 .Troyat, Henri , Chekhov, trans, from th e French b y Michael Henry Heim, Dutton ,

New York, 1986.Yermilov, Vladimir , Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-11)04, Foreig n Language s

Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1956.

Authored/edited critical books on Chekhov

Allen, David, Performing Chekhov, Routledge, London, 1999.Balukhaty, Sergei , ed. , 'The Seagull', produced by Stanislavsky, trans . Davi d

Magarshack, Dennis Dobson Ltd., London, n.d.Balukhaty, S . D., Problema dramaticheskogo analiza: Chekhov, Academia, Lenin -

grad, 1927.Balukhaty, S. D., and N. V. Petrov, Dramaturgiya Chekhova, Kharkov, 1935.Berdnikov, G. P., A. P. Chekhov: ideynye i tvorcheskie iskaniya, Moscow, 1970.

Chekhov-dramaturg: traditsii i novatorstvo v dramaturgii A. P. Chekhova,Isskustvo, Moscow, 3rd revised reprint, 1972.

Barricelli, Jean-Pierre, ed., Chekhov's Great Plays, a Critical Anthology, New YorkUniversity Press, New York, 1981.

Brahms, Caryl , Reflections in a Lake, A Study of Chekhov's Four Greatest Plays,Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1976.

Bruford, W . H. , Anton Chekhov, Yal e Universit y Press , Ne w Haven , Conn. ,1957-

Bunin, I. A., O Chekhove (Concerning Chekhov), trans. M. A. Aldanova, ChekhovPublishing House, New York, 1955.

Chudakov, Alexander P. , Chekhov's Poetics, trans. E. Cruise an d D . Dragt, Ardi sPublishers, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1983.

Clyman, Toby W., ed., A Chekhov Companion, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn.,1985.

273



Debreczeny, Paul, and Thomas Eekman, eds. , Chekhov's Art of Writing, A Collec-tion of Critical Essays, Slavica Publishers, Columbus, Ohio, 1977.

Eekman, T., ed., Anton Cechov, 1860-1960, Some Essays, E. J. Brill, Leiden, i960.Efros, Nikolai , 'Tri sestri' i 'Vishnevy sad' v postanovke Moskovskam Khudozhest-

vennom teatra, Svetozar, Petrograd, 1919.Ehrenbourg, Ilya, A la rencontre de Tchekhov, Didier-Forum, Paris, 1969.Emeljanow, Victor , ed. , Chekhov, The Critical Heritage, Bosto n an d Henley ,

London, 1981.Erlich, V., ed., Twentieth-Century Russian Literary Criticism, Yale University Press,

New Haven, Conn., 1975.Gerhardi, William, Anton Chekhov, A Critical Study, Macdonald, London , 1923;

reprinted with preface by Michael Holroyd, 1974.Gottlieb, Vera, Chekhov and the Vaudeville, A Study of Chekhov's One-Act Flays,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.Chekhov in Performance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Chadwyck-Healey, Cam -

bridge, 1984.Hahn, Beverly , Chekhov, A Study of the Major Stories and Flays, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1977.Hulanicki, L., and D. Savignac, eds. and trans., Anton Cexov As a Master of Story-

Telling, Mouton, The Hague, 1976.Jackson, Rober t Louis , ed. , Chekhov, A Collection of Critical Essays, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967.Katzer, J. , ed. , A. P. Chekhov, 1850-1960, includin g Maxi m Gork y an d Olg a

Knipper-Chekhova, Foreig n Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers,Moscow, i960.

Lantz, K. A., Anton Chekhov, A Reference Guide to Literature, G . K. Hall 8c Co.,Boston, 1985.

Lakshin, V . Ya. , E . A . Polotskaya , T . K . Shakh-Azizova , an d others , eds. , Che-khoviana: statyi, publikatsii, esse, Nauka, Moscow, 1990.

Llewellyn Smith , Virginia , Anton Chekhov and the Lady with the Dog, Oxfor dUniversity Press, Oxford, 1973.

Lucas, F. L., The Drama of Chekhov, Synge, Yeats and Pirandello, Cassell , London,1963.

de Maegd-Soep, Carolina, Chekhov and Women, Women in the Life and Work ofChekhov, Slavica Publishers Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1987.

Magarshack, David, Chekhov the Dramatist, New York, Hill and Wang, i960.The Real Chekhov, An Introduction to Chekhov's Last Plays, George Allen and

Unwin, London, 1972.Meister, Charles W, Chekhov Bibliography. Works in English by and about Anton

Chekhov; American, British, and Canadian Performances, McFarlan d & Co.,Jefferson, Nort h Carolina, 1985.

Chekhov Criticism, 1880 through 1986, McFarlan d & Co. , Jefferson , Nort hCarolina, 1988.

Miles, Patrick , Chekhov on the British Stage 1909-1987 (An Essay in CulturalExchange), Sam and Sam, England, 1987.

Miles, Patrick , ed . Chekhov on the British Stage. Includes Appendix compiled byeditor: A Chronology of British Professional Productions of Chekhov's Playsi<)o<)-i<)<)i, Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1993 .

274



Nilsson, Nils Ake, Studies in Chekhov's Narrative Technique, Stockholm, 1968.Paperny, Z. S., 'Chayka' A. P. Chekhova, Khudozhestvennaya literatura , Moscow,

1980.Vopreki vsetn pravilam: pyesy i vodevili Chekhova, Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1982.

Paperny, Z . S. , an d E . A . Polotskaya , an d others , eds. , Chekhov i mirovayaliteratura, vol. I: Chekhov in France; Chekhov in Germany; Chekhov inAustria; Chekhov in England; Chekhov in Ireland; Chekhov in Belgium,Moscow 1997.

Peace, Richar d A. , Chekhov, A Study of the Major Flays, Yale University Press ,New Haven, Conn., 1983.

Pitcher, Harvey , The Chekhov Flay, A New Interpretation, Chatto an d Windus ,London, 1973.

Chekhov's Leading Lady, John Murray, London, 1979.Rayfield, Donald , Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art, Barne s an d Noble , Ne w

York, 1975.The Cherry Orchard: Catastrophe and Comedy, Twayne Publishers , New York,

1994.Senelick, Laurence, The Chekhov Theatre - a Century of the Plays in Performance,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.Shestov, L., Anton Chekhov and Other Essays, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966.Speirs, Logan, Tolstoy and Chekhov, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971.Stroyeva, M., Chekhov i Khudozhestvenny teatr, Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1955.Styan, J . L. , Chekhov in Performance, A Commentary on the Major Plays,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971.Trudeau, Lawrence J., ed. , Drama Criticism, Criticism of the Most Significant and

Widely Studied Works from all the World's Literatures, vol. IX , A SpecialVolume Devoted to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov 1860-1904, Gal e Research ,Detroit and London, 1999.

Tulloch, John, Chekhov, A Structuralist Study, Macmillan, New York, 1980.Valency, Maurice , The Breaking String, The Plays of Anton Chekhov, Oxfor d

University Press, New York, 1966.Vilenkin, V. L., ed., Stanislavsky, K. S., A. P. Chekhov v Moskovskom Khudozhest-

vennom teatre, Izd. Muzeya MKhATa, Moscow, 1947.Wellek, Rene , an d D . Nonn , eds. , Chekhov: New Perspectives, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.Winner, Thomas, Chekhov and His Prose, Holt , Rinehart and Winston, New York,

1966.Worrall, Nick, File on Chekhov, Methuen, London, 1986.Yermilov, V. , Dramaturgiya Chekhova, Sovetski y pisatel , extende d fro m 1948 ,

Moscow, 1954.

Essays and chapters in collections

Barrault, Jean-Louis , 'Pourquoi "La Cerisaie,"', Cahiers Renaud-Barrault , Paris ,1954-

Bely, Andrey, 'The Cherry Orchard', i n Laurenc e Senelick , ed . Russian DramaticTheory from Pushkin to the Symbolists, University o f Texa s Press , Austin ,

275



Bentley, Eric, 'Craftsmanship i n Uncle Vanya', in his In Search of Theater, Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1953.

Braun, Edward , 'Stanislavsk y an d Chekhov' , i n hi s The Director and the Stage,Methuen, London, 1982.

Brustein, Robert , 'Anto n Chekhov' , in his The Theatre of Revolt, An Approach tothe Modern Drama, Little, Brown, Boston, 1964.

Corrigan, Robert W., 'The Drama of Anton Chekhov', in T. Bogard and W. I. Olivereds., Modern Drama, Essays in Criticism, Oxfor d University Press, New York,1965.

'The Play s of Chekhov' , i n his The Theatre in Search of a Fix, Delacorte Press ,New York, 1973.

Gassner, John , 'Chekho v an d th e Russian Realists' , i n hi s Masters of the Drama,Random House, New York, 1940.

Gilman, Richard, 'Chekhov', in his The Making of Modern Drama, Farrar, Strauss,and Giroux, New York, 1975.

Golumb, Harai , A Badenweiler View of Chekhov's End(ings): Beyond the FinalPoint, Proceedings of the Chekhov International Symposium, October 1985.

Gottlieb, Vera, 'The "dwindling scale" : the Politics of British Chekhov' , i n PatrickMiles, ed. , an d trans. , Chekhov on the British Stage, Cambridge Universit yPress, Cambridge, 1993.

'Chekhov i n Limbo : Britis h Production s o f th e Play s o f Chekhov' , i n Hann aScolnikov an d Pete r Holland , eds. , The Play Out of Context, TransferringPlays from Culture to Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.

Guthrie, Tyrone , ' A Director' s Vie w o f The Cherry Orchard', in T . Guthri eand L . Kipnis, eds. , The Cherry Orchard, University o f Minnesot a Press ,Minneapolis, 1965.

Holland, Peter , 'Chekho v an d th e Resistan t Symbol' , i n J. Redmond , ed. , Dramaand Symbolism, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , 198 2 (Theme s i nDrama Series).

Knipper-Chekhova, Olga , 'The Last Years', in J. Katzer, ed., A. P. Chekhov, 1860-1960, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Progress Publishers, Moscow, n.d.

Lewis, Allan, 'Th e Comed y o f Frustration - Chekhov , "The Cherry Orchard"', inhis The Contemporary Theatre: The Significant Playwrights of Our Time,Crown Publishers, New York, 1962.

Mann, Thomas , 'Chekhov' , i n Donald Davi e ed. , Russian Literature and ModernEnglish Fiction, A Collection of Critical Essays, Universit y o f Chicag o Press,Chicago and London, 1965.

'Essai sur Tchekhov', in his Esquisse de ma vie, Gallimard, Paris, 1967 (1956).Maurois, Andre , 'Th e Ar t an d Philosoph y o f Anto n Tchekov' , i n hi s The Art of

Writing, trans , fro m th e Frenc h b y Gerar d Hopkins , Th e Bodle y Head ,London, i960.

Meyerhold, Vsevolod , 'Naturalisti c Theate r o f Mood' , i n Edwar d Braun , ed. ,Meyerhold on Theatre, Methuen, London, 1969.

Moravcevich, Nicholas , 'Wome n i n Chekhov' s Plays' , i n J . P . Barricell i ed. ,Chekhov's Great Plays, a Critical Anthology, New York University Press, NewYork, 1981.

Shevtsova, M., 'Chekhov in France, 1976-79 : Productions by Strehler, Miquel and

276



Pintile', in Ian Donaldson, ed. , Transformations in Modern European Drama,Macmillan, London, 1983.

'The Three Sisters in Frenc h an d Russia n (Theatr e d e l'Enfumerai e an d Teat rTembr)', i n he r ow n Theatre and Cultural Interaction, Sydney Studies , Uni-versity of Sydney, 1993.

Strehler, Giorgio, Notes de mise-en-scene sur 'La Cerisaie' de Tchekhov, Un TheatrePour la Vie, Fayard, Paris, 1980.

Styan, J. L., 'Naturalistic Shading' , in his The Dark Comedy: The Development ofModern Comic Tragedy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968.

Tynan, Kenneth , 'Theatr e i n Moscow' ; 'The Cherry Orchard', 'Three Sisters','Uncle Vanya' an d 'The Troubled Fast' in hi s Tynan on Theatre, Penguin,Harmondsworth, 1964 .

Williams, Raymond, 'Anton Chekhov', in his Drama from Ibsen to Brecht, HogarthPress, London, 1968; revised paperback 1987.

Winner, Thomas G. , 'Myth a s a Device in the Works of Chekhov' , in B. Slote, ed.,Myth and Symbol, Critical Approaches and Applications, Universit y o fNebraska Press, Lincoln, 1963.

Worrall, Nick , 'Stanislavsky' s Productio n o f Chekhov' s Three Sisters', in Rober tRussell an d Andre w Barrat t eds. , Russian Theatre in the Age of Modernism,Macmillan, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, 1990.

Journal articles

Allen, David, 'Exploring the Limitless Depths: Mike Alfreds Directs Chekhov', NewTheatre Quarterly 8 , 2 , Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , Novembe r1986, pp. 320-35.

'David Jone s Direct s Chekhov' s Ivanov', New Theatre Quarterly 15 , Augus t1988, pp. 232-46 [Reconstruction of RSC production].

'Jonathan Mille r Direct s Chekhov' , New Theatre Quarterly 17, February 1989 ,pp. 52-66 [Reconstruction of Miller's Three Sisters].

Bentley, Eric, 'Chekhov As Playwright', Kenyon Review 7, 1949, pp. 226-50.Bunin, Ivan, 'Chekhov', Atlantic Monthly 188, 1951, pp. 59-63 .Chudakov, Alexander P., 'Newly-Discovered Works by the Young Chekhov', Soviet

Literature 10, 1975, pp. 134-42 .Clayton, J . Douglas , 'Cexov' s Djadja Vanja and Traditiona l Comi c Structure' ,

Russian Language Journal 40, 136-7, Spring-Fall 1986 , pp. 103-10 .Clyman, Toby W, 'Chekhov' s Victimized Women' , Russian Language Journal 28,

1974, PP- 2.6-31.Conrad, Joseph L., 'Sensuality in Cexov's Prose', Slavic and East European Journal

24, 1980, pp. 103-17 .'Unresolved Tensio n i n Cexov' s Stories , 1886-1888' , Slavic and East European

Journal 16, 1972, pp. 55-64 .Corrigan, Rober t W. , 'Som e Aspect s o f Chekhov' s Dramaturgy' , Educational

Theatre Journal j , 1955 , pp. 107-14 .Cousin, Geraldine , 'Revisitin g th e Prozorovs' , Modern Drama 40, 3 , Fal l 1997 ,

pp. 32-5-33-

277



Efros, Anatolij , 'Energy , Enervation , an d th e Mathematic s o f Intrigue' , Anatoli jEfros i n discussio n wit h Spence r Golub , Theatre Quarterly, 7, 26 , Summe r1977, pp. 28-33.

Fodor, A. , 'I n Searc h o f a Sovie t Chekhov' , Journal of Russian Studies 21, 1971,pp. 9-19 .

Gerould, Danie l C , 'The Cherry Orchard a s a Comedy' , Journal of GeneralEducation 11, 1958, pp. 109-22 .

Gilman, Richard , 'Ivanov, Prologue to a Revolution', Theatre 22, 2 , Spring 1991,pp. 14-2.7 .

'Broadway Critic s mee t Uncle Vanya, Theatre Quarterly 13 , Februar y 1974 ,pp. 67-72 [America n critics' mistaken reviews of Mike Nichol's Uncle Vanya].

Glenny, M. , 'Tovstonogo v i n Th e Sovie t Theatre' , Bulletin of the Great Britain-USSR Association 14, Autumn 1966.

Golub, S. , 'Actin g o n th e Run : Efro s an d th e Contemporar y Sovie t Theatre' ,Theatre Quarterly, 7, 26, Summer 1977, pp. 18-28.

Gorky, Maxim , 'Wha t Chekho v Though t o f It' , English Review 8 , 1911 ,pp. 256-66 .

Gottlieb, Vera , Why This Farce?, New Theatre Quarterly 27 , 7 , Augus t 1991 ,pp.217-28

Hahn, Beverly , 'Chekhov' s The Cherry Orchard', Critical Review 16 , 1973 ,pp. 56-72. .

Hristic, Jova n '"Thinkin g wit h Chekhov" , th e Evidenc e o f Stanislavsky' s Note -books', New Theatre Quarterly 42, 11, May 1995, pp. 175-83.

'Time i n Chekhov : th e Inexorabl e an d th e Ironic' , New Theatre Quarterly 3,August 1985, pp. 271-82.

Kramer, Kar l D. , 'Chekhov a t th e End o f th e Eighties , The Questio n o f Identity' ,Etudes Slaves et Est-Europeennes 11 , 1966, pp. 3-18 .

Lahr, John , 'Pinte r an d Chekhov , Th e Bon d o f Naturalism' , Drama Review 13 ,1968, pp. 137-45.

Mann, Thomas, 'Anton Chekhov', Mainstream 12 , 1959, pp. 2-21.McDonald, Jan , 'Productio n o f Chekhov' s Play s i n Britai n Befor e 1914' , Theatre

Notebook 34 , 1980, pp. 25-36.Merlin, Bella , 'Whic h Cam e First : th e Syste m o r The Seagull?', New Theatre

Quarterly 59, August 1999, pp. 218-27.Saint-Denis, Michel , 'Chekho v an d th e Moder n Stage' , Drama Survey 3 , 1965 ,

pp. 77- 81.Senelick, Laurence , 'Lake-Shore Bohemia , The Seagull's Theatrica l Context' , Edu-

cational Theatre Journal 29, 1977, pp. 199-213.Shakh-Azizova, Tatiana , ' A Russia n Hamlet , Ivanov and Hi s Age' , Soviet Litera-

ture, 1980, pp. 157-63.Shevtsova, Maria, 'Resistance an d Resilience: an Overview of the Maly Theatre of

St Petersburg', New Theatre Quarterly 52, November 1997 , pp. 299-317.'Drowning in Dixie: The Maly Drama Theatre Plays Chekhov Untitled', Theatre

Forum 13, 1998, pp. 46-53 .Silverstein, Norman , 'Chekhov' s Comi c Spiri t an d The Cherry Orchard', Modern

Drama 1, 2, September 1958, pp. 91-100.Smith, J. Oates , 'Chekho v an d the "Theate r o f th e Absurd", Bucknell Review 14,

1966, pp. 44-58.

278



States, Bert O., 'Chekhov's Dramatic Strategy', Yale Review 56, 1967, pp. 212-24.Styan, J. L. , 'The Idea o f a Definitive Production , Chekho v In and Out o f Period' ,

Comparative Drama 4, 1970, pp. 177-96 .'The Delicate Balance, Audience Ambivalence in the Comedy of Shakespeare and

Chekhov', Costerus 2, 1972, pp. 159-84 .Szewcow, Maria (Shertsova , Maria) , 'Anatoli j Efro s direct s Chekhov' s The Cherry

Orchard and Gogol's The Marriage, Theatre Quarterly, 26, 1977, pp. 34-46.Tulloch, J. , T . Borvill an d Andre w Hood , 'Re-inhabitin g "The Cherry Orchard",

Class and History in Performing Chekhov' , New Theatre Quarterly 52, Vol 13,November 1997 , pp. 318-28.

Vickers, Sylvi a 'Space , Genr e an d Methodolog y i n Ma x Stafford-Clark' s Tourin gProduction o f Chekhov' s Three Sisters', New Theatre Quarterly 57 , 15 ,February 1999, pp. 45-57.

Wilson, Edmund , 'Seein g Chekho v Plain' , New Yorker 22 , Novembe r 1952 ,pp. 180-98 .

Winner, Thomas G., 'The Chekhov Centennial Productions in the Moscow Theatres',Slavic and East European Journal 5, i96i,pp. 255-62 .

279

$&+-J .4 3. %0 *8 �'-%'.6

'��>� 9� I'�� (� � <9I�G:'�� E�� !��F G?� HH�<HH� ;>H

'�� ;:G� ;:='� � �� $�� G<'� �� <:'�� E#� �� 8� �� :�� '�� 8� �� :��F <G?�I

�� J�� =� <:� G=�?� GI� H<� H;�H>� HG� HH� H? ��I� <:: ��>� <H;� <H>� <HH

�� J�� J�� &��)�� =� <<;� <9I

�� :�� :�� ;<: �� I� <>� ;:9 �� =� ;H� ;:? �� J�� &�� A�J�� 6��;9� ;<<

�� ;:?

�� , �� 6��7� ;:��J' H� ?� <G:�� I�� E��F� �� =� <>� <9� <?� ;;� ;9�G� ;I� >:� ><� GG� GG��>� GI� H:� H;� H>�9� HG� HH� H? ��G� I�� <<� HI ��<I� I<� I>� IG� I=� <:9� <:?�<:I ��H� <<: ��<:� <<<�<<I� <;: ��;;�<;<� <;>� <;G� <;=� <;I� <>:� <><� <>;��G �� H� <>> ��<< �� <;� <>9� <>H�<>?� <9;� <9> E��F� <99� <9G�H� <GH�<H;� <HG� <HH� <H?� <=<� <=>� <=I� <?=�I�;:>� ;:9� ;:?� ;<<�9� ;<=� ;<?� ;<I� ;;:�;;<� ;;;� ;;9� ;;G� ;;H ��9� H� ;>:� ;><�;>;� ;>>� ;>H� ;>? ��;<� ;=

�� 6�� ;:?�� =

�� I

�� , '�� <9I� #�� <

�� E#�F <G9 �� >�� ' I�� , � �� J�� , � ��,> �� ?� <G:

�� ;<<�� !�� B�� C E�� F 9?

�� I� <:� ;:H� ;:?� ;<<�� ' =� ;>� ;:9� ;:G� ;:H� ;:?�;:I

�� I�� I

&�� =� ?&�� E�� F 9>� 9=� <H>&��)�� !�� E�� F9?

&�� ;:G� ;<;&��J&�� , �� ) ��,�B��C H� I� ;;?

6�� <:6�� <G>� ;:=6�� 9� <:

$�� 'J�� ;:� <G:E#� �� F� ;<:� �� < �� >

$��5� (�� ' =$�� )�� 77�� J�� '��5�� =� I� ;>� ;<<

"�� <9I� #�� <�� >

;?:



http://www.cambridge.org/0521589177

"� '�� G?"� �� '� ;:?"� �;�� <:"� �� <<"� �� $��*�� ;<"� �� J"� �� $��) <<� <>� ;<� ;=�;<:� ;<9

"�� J"�� J"� �� )� �, �J�� =� <G>� ;:>� ;:9� ;<:� ;<>

"�� , �� J�� "�� '!�� <:� <G ��<>� ;<

"�� =� I� <<� ><� >>�G� >I ��<;� 99�G:� =:�?� <:I ��H� <<<� <;<� <9;� <99�<9H� <H;�9� <HH� <H=� <=:� <=>� <=H� <=?�<?:� <I: ��;� ;:9� ;:G� ;:H� ;:I� ;>:�;>9� �� 9� ;H>

!�� E�� '��F G?� HH�<HH� ;>H

9�� E#� � � �� F <9I9�� I� ;<:

�� )�� 'J�� =� <>� ;>� G:�<G;�>� <G9� ;:H� ;:I� #� � �� >

�� ' =

�� &�� ' ;:?�� , �� 8�� ' ;:?�� ;>�� 9)$� !�� ) $�� ;>9�� I� <:�� 9� <:� ;<�� ,�J' �� ,� ;>� G<� G9� <;<�;:9� ;:I� ;<<

(�� ;:=(�) :�� <<(�� ,�� GI(�� ' I�,> � ,� �� I�� (�� 9�� ,> �� <I� ;:I� ;<9�� $��,�� , �� J�� ,� K�� G?� H>� HG� HH� ;>:� ;>H

�� $�� <?� G?� GI�� %�� <?

�� ;:G� ;:H� ;:?�� 9�� =� <<� ;;� ;<9

�� %�� <:�� E�� ,��#�� #� '�8�>�� ,� �� F9>� G>�GG

�� E�� &�� '�� %�� ,�� L �7�� ,, 2 ��8�� !�� B�� CF �� 9>�GG� GG ��>� GI�H?�I ��<H� =:� <<<� <;<� <;>� <;9� <;=�<><� <>; ��9� <GG�H� <H>� ;:I� ;>? ��<IE#�� '� 8�>�� ,� �� >F

�� <:�� !�� ;>�� <:� G?� H:� H;� HG� HH� H? ��I�<HH

�� ,�� ' B�� ,�C <;<

�� B�� ' �� C G?

�� , �� <9I�� 5� :�� =�� ;9� G<�� B9�� 2 >��C 9� <9I

�� <<� <;� <I�;>� ;H� ;I� >:� >;� >>� >G�H� 9: ��<9� 9I�G:� H;� HG� HH� H? ��G� =;� =G� ?:�I:� <:;�<:I ��H� <<<� <<H� <;<� <;;� <;>� <;G�<>:� <><� <>; E��F� <>> �� ? �� <<�<>9� <>=�9:� <9;� <99� <9G� <9H� <G>�9�#�� <G=� <H;� <H9� <HH� <H=� <H?� <=<�<=;� <=9� <=H� <?:�;� <?I� ;:G� ;:H�I�;<=� ;<?� ;<I� ;;:� ;;<� ;;;� ;><� ;>;�;>G� �� 9� ;H9� ;HG E��F

�� ;:�� <G:� <G<� <G;� <G?� �� >

�� <:�� ;:9� ;:G��) =�� 9� =� <:� <<� <?� ;;� ;:G� ;:I� ;<;�� 9�)�� G=� G?� H>� H9�G� H=� H? ��I ��<<� <;<� <;H

�� G?� ;>>� ;>9�� 9�� &�?�� (�� H<�H9

� ��

;?<




�� <>� <?�I� ;9� ;G� ;I� >:�><� >;� >=� >? E��F� 99� 9G� 9I� G?� GI�H:� H;� H>� H9� H? ��G �� I� ?I� I<� I9�<:<�?� <:I ��G� H� = �� ?� <<: ��I� <<<�<<H� <;<� <;;� <;G� <;?� <>:� <><� <>>��<<� <>9� <>=� <9:� <9<� <99� <9G� <9H�<G>� <GH� <G=� <HG� <HH� <H=� <H?� <=<�<=>� <=9� <=?� <?9�=� ;:9� ;:I� ;<:�;<<� ;<=� ;<I� ;;:� ;;<� ;;;� ;;9� ;;G�;>:� ;><� ;>>� ;>G� �� ,� >�� >

�� K�� ;>� ;9� ;H� G<� ;>H� ;9>�� ' B�� C G?� H>� HG� HH

��)�� ;:9� ;:?� ;<;<F�� !�� 9

8� �� :��J:�� B�� '��C ��;;�>� ;I� >:� ><� >;� >H�=� 99� G;� G?�GI� H:� H>� H9� HG� H=� ?I� I<�<::� <:H�<:=� <:?� <:I ��H� <<<� <<H� <;<� <;;�<;H� <;=� <;?� <>:� <><� <>; ��G� <>>��<: �� <<� <>9� <>G� <>H� <9:� <9;�

<G9� <G=� <G?� <H:� <H9� <HH� <H=�<HI�<=>� <?;�>� <?I� ;:>� ;:9� ;:H�;<=� ;<I� ;;:� ;;<� ;;;� ;;>� ;;G� ;>:�;><� ;>;� ;>H� ;>=� �� ,� >�� >

8�)�� :� �� '� <<;:�� ;:>� ;<>� ;9;:�� &�� ' <<;� <<>� ;<>� ;<9:�� ;:I� ;9;

%�� ;:?%�� (�# 0 =� <:� ;:� <=>� ;:?%�� G?� H<� H;� H>� H? ��<<� <><�<HH� <=?

%�� $�� E�� !� ��4��F 9H� G:� GG� <;<� <;>� <;=� <>; ��9�<GH

%�� <?%��, ;:=%��5� 9�� ' ;:?%��*�� B�� %�� 6��C 99�<:=� <:?� <;<� <H9� ;:>� ;:9� ;:G�H� ;:=�;:I

� ��

;?;




,-&- �" $&+-J

�� E+��F ?>� I: ��<:� <?I�� E!�� F <H9� �� $�� >;� I;� <:: ��>O0� /�� $�� <=HO$�� ;:>

� �� 0 �� <>� <G ��<<� ;>:� �� <:;� <:I ��>� <;<� �� 0�� <?G�� E�� !��FG:� G;

�� <?I�� <=<�� 0�� 9� <9 ��9�� A$�� 0�� E0� /��F <;�<H>� <H9� <=G� ;<=

�� !�� <;<�G� <;=�I� <><�<>; ��G� <?H� <I<

�� <I< ��H�� "�� <?<� <I<�� "�� H��K$�� ?:�>� ?=� ??�� $�� <G:O �� E#�F <G:

�� 5 =:� <>=�� <>H� <>I� <9=� <9= ��=� <=H�� $�� ?H��(�� <=?� <I: ��9O �� E��F<I: ��9

�� 4�� <G=�� &�� <=:�� <:<� <:;�� E��F <>> ��?�� 0�� <=>�� *�� 9?�� !�� >�� GG� <G?�� "�� ;:=

�� HH� ;>G�(�� E��F >

*�� I� >I ��<9� <<>� <<9� ;<>*�� *�� <H=)*� � �� 4�� E0�/��F <=>

*�� <9� G9*�� !�� =;*�� <9;*�� 0� *� <<?*�� '�� <=I� <I<*�� 0�� >>� <9;*�� E"��F <?9*�� =H� =? ��G*�� <G;*�� <G9**� �� <;<*+�� *�� +�� * �� 0�� G=� HG� H=� ?>� <9<�<9;� <=I� <?H� <?I� ;>:� ;>9� ;>GO%�� ,� 6�� HG�H

*�� GG*�� E��F <;<*�� <?=� <I: ��<<� <I<*�#� �� G=�G?� <H9*�� &� �� ;=*�� $�� <9I*�� '�� ;;I� ;>= ��HO �� E��F ;;I

*�� &� 9=� GH ��?*�� ><� <99*�� -�� <:<*�� 0 ��R�� <?H*�� 3�� *�� 0�(�� <:I ��G)*�� 0�� 4��<=>

*�� !� �� G:

;?>




*�� 0� <G>*�� !� �� <>G� <G?�IO ��,� E#�F <G?�I

*�� <>; E��F*�� 2�� 9?*�� ;9� ;=� ;?*�� *�� <=G ��?*� �� <?<� <??*�� &�� /�� E ��!�� -�� F <<?

*�� <==� <I<*�� +��A+�� E,��F ��A*+� E"��A0� /��F <H=� <=<�<?9� <?IO �� <9<

*�� E*��F +�� E!�� F <:: ��>� <9<

*�� 0�� <G9*�� <9I*�� 3�� <G<*�� 4�� 9?*�� <G<*�� +�� >9� <9;� �� 9�;H>

*�� &�� "� E/��F E�� *��F<<: ��<:� <9? ��;=� <?I

� � 8� M E�� 3�� ,��F <9H�<?=� <?I

*�� /�� <H:*�� -�� GH ��;9*� �� *�� <:I ��?� <<<� <<H� <>G�<9=� <H:� <H<� <??� ;>9O ,�� <<H� <<=

*�� -�� %� ?9� ?G� ?=*�� 4�� $�� <G;*�� <GI� <?;� <?>*��R� ;:I*�� /�� E�� "� *�� &��F�� I>� <:9� <:I ��;� <<: ��<:�<9G�H� <9? ��;=� <??�I� <I<� ;>9� ;>G�;>? ��;:� ;>O �� ;>9�G

*�� !�� >? E��F� <9G*�R �� ,�� ==� =?�I ��HO%��7� �=H�==� =?�I ��H

*�� !�� <G>� <G9*�� "� <==� <I<*�� !�� <=;*�� $�� <>*�� %�� <GI

�� /�� <;<�� 2�� <>I�� 2�� !� <G;�� E"��F <:I ��9� <?H�� <G9� <GG

�� "�� G�� <?H�� ?;� ?>�� <=�� <?;� <I;�� ?9� ?H� <?I�� %�� /��E!�� F� I<� <H?� <HI� <=>

�� -� �� =:�� !�� <I: ��9�� 2�� <?<�� !�� <::�� 4��A4�� <>� ;H�� I: ��<>�� -� <G<�� <::�� E�� F H<�� !� �� E�� F 9� >I��=� <9I

�� &� ��A&�� E�� F <9 ��>� >I ��<9

�� /�� 8�� E�� F>� 9� G� H

�� !�� E�� F >� <<� <<9�� .�� E�� F <9I�� 4�� E-��F <9:�<?>

�� <?H�� 4�� G<�� <G<O �� , ��' �� E�� #�F <G<

�� 3�� <::�� K��K��K0L�� E&� 8��F <?>�� "�� <?<� <I;�� <=I� <?;� <I;�� 3�� E ��F ><�� 5 <9IO 8� �� 5"�� E#�F <9I

�� <<: ��<H�� 2�� <9H�� 2�� <9I�� E�� /�� !�� !��F <;I� <>> ��I

�� '�� <=?� <I;�� 3�� +�� <?I�� <99 �� 5�� GI� H:�� 2�� <99�� 9I�� 6�� <=H�� <:>� <:I ��G� <;;

��

;?9




�� /�� 9�� -�� ,�� <>I� <99� <9=� <9?��<I� <=H

�� <;� <=� <I� ;G�� 0�� ?<�� E0��#��F <;<�( � �� 9?� <=I� ;H9

+�� 2�� <:I ��G+�� <I: ��H�� E#� � �� !��F <G9�G�� (�� E�� %��F<G=

+�� "�� <G;+�� /�� <;<+�� H� ;:H+�� '�� G;� GG+�� !�� <H:+�� 6�� ;:H+ �� <<9� <=:+ 2�� ?H+�� <=:� <=H� <I;+�� $�� <G ��<; �� <>� ;>:+�� ,�� 9?+�� "�� <=H+� �� <?;� ;;IO(� ��(� �� <?;

+�� 0�� <>> ��<:+�� (� *�� E�� ,�� /��F <=I� <?:� <?G

+�� 6�� <>?+�� *�� >;� <H=+�� "� GG� <:I ��=O �� !�� E!+�F� 0� /�� GG

+�� E �� F<<;

+�� 2�� 9=� 9?�� @��;�� +�� 4�� !�� ?� ;;� GG� I?� <<:��?� <;?O �� <:I�<:��?

��I�� H+�� A�� <:� <G ��<<+�� <G ��<;� ;>:+�� 0��K!�� <>=+�� ;>>O �� , �� ;>>

+�R �� <??

-�� ,�� E�� ,��F <:<� <=I-�� -�� <=?� <=I-�� 4�� <G:-�� 4�� <;<

-�� .�� E�� 8��F <?<�<I;

-�� <:I ��?� <;9� <>;�>��H� <>> ��<;� <9<� <H?� <HI�=;� <=G��<<� <=H� <?<� <?G� <?I� <I;

-�� 8�� <<-�� $�� >I ��<:-�� ;:?-�� <::-�� E �� <?H<F 9=� <<;-� �� E!�� F <=>-�� <9H-�� GH ��;>� <??� 

�� 9H� 9I�G:� G?� GI� H;� HH�=� ?:� <;H�<;=� <=:� <?>� <??� ;;?� ;>:� ;>G� ;>H�;>=

4��L�� ,�� ?>4�� 3�� <G<O �� <G<&�� <?=4�� 2�R �� <=?4�� ,�� 9H� HH� H=� ;;?� ;>G� ;>H4�� .�� <<?� <<I4�� $�� 4��<=>

)4�� 0�� 4�� <=94�� /�� <>H)�� ;I� <><� <>9� <>H� <9G4�� %�� <G?&�� , �� ) ��,� B��C H� I�;;?

4�� <G:� <GH� <?;� ;<>� ;;I4�� !� �� 9H� 9I� G:� HH� <<9� <<G�<<H� <<=� <<?� <;<� <;;� <;>� <;9� <>;��9� <GH� ;>G� ;>HO �� )�� ;>HO(��,, ;>HO%�� $�� 9H� G:� GG� <;<� <;>�<;=� <>; ��9� <GH

4�� /�� 4��K!�� 5 9?

,�� /�� <==� ,�� 6�� <;,�� ,�� <H:,�� /� <;<� <;;,�� ?H,�� <:I ��=� <?H,�� 0�� <G:,�� E�� -�� 3�� ,��F<9� 9?� GG� <9I� <G:� <G<� <=?� <?;

,�� 2�� <I: ��;,�� +�� <;<,�� /�� <;<,�� "�� <?;�>

;?G

��




,$�$0 E0�� $�� 0��A �� 0�� 0 ��F >I ��=�<:I ��=

,�� *�� <9I,�� <99� <9G,�� &�� <;� <I� ;=� GG� <>> ��H�;;I�>:O �� <>> ��HO ��6�� "��

,�� .�� ?>,�� 6�� <G=,�� E �� F <<;,�� '�� ,�� $�� ?,�� !�� >H� >=� <?H,�� !�� <;� <>� <G ��<<� ;G� G9� GI�<>H� <9I� <=I� <?I� ;>:O �� , ��*�� ;G

,�� "�� *+� E*��+�� F E0� /��F

,�� 6�� >I ��<;� H? �� 9� H �� <G�<:I ��=� <=G ��=� ;>? ��;9

,�� ,�� <GI,��A,�� >� 9� <<� ;:� ?I� <9H,�� 5 <9G� <G=� <GI� <H:� <?<�<?>� 

,��#�� G;�G� <<I� <=I� <??�� ;>9� ;>? ��;<O �� E�� !��F 9>� G>�GG

,�� +�� I� <?� ;:,�� !�� 9H�=� G:,�� 6�� <=G ��<9O ��,� ��&�� E��F <=G ��<9

,�� <=?,��(� ,�� <??,�� 2�(�� )�� <<: ��<<

,�(��(�� 2�(� <?>� 6�� G:,�� 2�� <>; ��9,�� <?=� 

'�� <99$�� E�� 0��F �� >9� >I��<< ��<;� =G� <=:� <=G ��<H� <=H� <I:��H� ;:?� ;<>� ;>9� ;>=

'�� %�� <9I'�� 2�� <G?'�� 2� <?;� '�� 9?'�� 0�� E10�F <99'�� ,�� <>I'�� &�� <G?'��(� 2��A2�� G:� <G;�>� <G9

'��(� "�� <:I��?� <HI� ;>=

'�� -�� H'�� %�� -�� <99'�� <G:'�� '��( <=?'�� <;<� ;>? ��<>� <9� <I� ;;�;=

'�� <9IO �� E#�F <9I'�� <::� <>; ��>'�� +�� <H<'�� <G:'�� <G:� <G<� <G9� <?;'�� /�� A'�� .�# �� <G;� <H< ��H

'�� <GIO '�� E#�F <G?�I'�� -�� -�� <G<'�� /�� '�� <G=� <=I'�� /�� E"��F <;G

$�� '�� <><� <>> ��<9� <>9� <>=�<GH� <=?� ;;I� ;>= ��GO '� �� , �� <>> ��<9� <GHO ' ��5� $�� <>9O�� ;;I

$��K'�� <;<� <>; E��F$�� -��Q� ;>G�H� ;>=� ;>? ��;G� ;H�;?O '��A��A� 2 � $�) �� 6�� , "�;>=O �� ;>HO )-�� E�� F ;>G� ;>? ��;G� ;H

$�� ?:�9� $�� ?9� ?H� <;>� <?;�<?I

$�� 4� 0�� ?>$�� -�� E&� 8��F <?>$�� GG$�� IH$�� !�� I<$�� >$�� <==� �� ,��$�� "� <G>

2�� !�� <H:2�� '�� <G=O �� $�� E#�F <G=

2�� <G ��<>� ;G� GG� <9;� <=I� <?;2�� 99� 9=� <G ��<;� <G:� ;:9�G� ;>:O )�� ;:9

2�� 0�� ;<:O �� 6�� E��F ;:I

%� �� 6�� <?9� <I9� <I: ��;%�� -�� <==� %�� <=:� <=G ��<G%�� <:

��

;?H




%�� <GG%�� E��F �� E!�� F <>?�<H=� <=G ��=� <?<� ��

%�� %�� <9;%�� 8�� <G9%�� !�� <??� %�(�� <:%�� -�� <=H%�� !�� ?>%�� !� �� >;%�� "�� <;G� <>> ��?%�� 2�� <;<� <><� <>; E��F%�� 0�� <9:%�� <<>� <<I�;: ��?� <G<� ;:G� ;:H%�� <;>%�� 8� >G%��(�� I<%�� !�� <<>%�� ;<>%�� !�� <9;%�� !�� >;� >I ��=� <H=� <H?� <?I�<I: ��<9� <I9

%��K��A%�� .��"�� E�� F <>� >:� HI��<I� IH� <<?� <;: ��<=� <>:� <>> ��<<�<?=� <I9

%��(�� 9%� �� -�� <9;%�� 8�� <9;� <9HO �� 9

%�� !�� <=>%��B�� <==� <=I� <?:� <?9�<I9

%��(�� 6�� <H9�G� <=9�G ��;�;:=

%�� <G9%�� E�� F <H=� <=G ��=�<?<

%�� 6�� <;� <>� <G ��<<� ;>:%�� %�� ;H%�� 4�� ;:H%�� E!�� F <:: ��>� <H;%�� <:%�(�� ,�� >I ��<<� <=G ��<H%�� $�� &�� <>?%�� /�� 9%�B T�� .�� <>I� <=I� <?:� <?<�<?G� <?H� <??� <?I� <IGO �� 9� ;H9

%�� &�� >I ��<:%�� E!��F <9:%�� $�� <>� ;? ��<H� H:%�� !�� <9:

"�� -��Q�K!�� HH� H=� ;;?� ;>H"�� ,�� ?>"�� 4�� <GG"�� !�� <99"�� 2�� <=H� <IG"�� +�� <>> ��<:"�� -�� <?="�� 3�� E$��F ?;"�� 9?"�� !�� <=I� <??)�� H:�<� <;G"�� <?=� <IG"�� >G" � L� �� G"�� -��(�� <9H� <?=� <IG" ,�� -�� <==� <IG"�� 4��( G"�� 6�� $�� ;:� ;H"�� E"��F <=;"�� A"�� %�� E!�� F >9� <H?� <=:� <=9� <?<

"�� ;:>"�� "�� !�� <<H� <;: ��<="�� 8��A-�� >9� <=9� <I: ��;"��K0 �� $�� <<"�� !�� ;;I"�� &�� ;:"�� &�� ;>= ��<"�� 6�� >G� >=� >? E��F� <>>��<;� <9;� �� 9� ;H9

"�� $�� <<� ;H� >=� >I ��<9O$��*�� E��F ;H

"�� 2�� <G:� <H< ��;"�� +�� <9:� <9;"�� <G:"�� E&� 8��F <9;"�� 6�� <G="�� ;:G"�� <=:"��(�� 4��( G� <GG"�� &�� &�� >;"�� *�� >>� <=<� <?<� <IG"�� <?=� <IG"�� <>; ��>"�� $�� <G="�L�� 0�� <9;� <9> E��F"�� *�� <GG"�� -� <G?"�� -�� <G;O(�� E#�F <G;"��5K/�� 5�� =:"��5 �� ,�� <<<

;?=

��




"�� <G=O �� E#�F <G=�� >

"�� 0�� <G>"�� 4�0�"� ?<"�� E'��F <<: ��? �� I"�� &� E"��F <:?"�� 8��A8�� <:>� <:I�<:��?� <9G� <=<� <=G ��<I� <?G� <IG

!�� >!�� !�� <<G� <>9!�� +�� ;>;� ;>? ��?�� &�� <?=!�� <=9!�B�� E*��F <9G!�� +�� 9?!�� *�� E!�� +��F <9<� <H?� <=<� <?G

!�� <G>!�� "�� <GH� <GI�H:� <?>� <IHO ��,� �� ,,�� E#�F <H:O�� E#�F<GHO�� )�� '��A E#�F <GIO:�� 4<�� E#�F <GI�H<� <?>

!�� E!�� F 9>� <:: ��>� <H>�<H=� <=9

!�� E0� /��F E!+�F GG� �� +��

!�� +�� <GI� <?>� <IH!�� .�� <::� <?;� <I: ��=!�� 0�� <GG!�� /�� E�� F <>> ��I!�� /�� 0� /�� <<?!��K+�� ;� ;G=

!�� ;:I!�� <<<� <??!�� 2�� <G>!�� !�� <G9� <GG!�� 0�� <;<!�� ,�� ;:?O ��*�� ;:?O �� , ;:?O �� $�� ;:?O �� 5�� ;:?

!�� 6�� 9?!�� E!�� F <=;!�� 6�� >:� <9I! %�� 0�� $�� 9I�<:;�>� <>; E��F� <>> ��<9O �� """E#�F <>; ��>

! �� 2�� <;<!�� >!�� <<� <;� <I� ;<� 9: �� <9� <<<� <<>�� 99� 9G� 9I� G:� G;� G?� H=�<;>� <G:� <==� <?:� ;:G� ;:?� ;;H� ;>;�;>>

!�� ,�� ;;I� ;>= ��HO '� �� ;;I

!�� <:I ��H� <?G!�� 6�� ;I� HH� H? ��<G� =?�<>?� <HH� <=G ��H� <==� <=?� <?=� <IHO ==�)�� E== &�� &��F HH� H? ��<G� <HH

!,! E!�� ,�� !��F <G:!��(�� 2� <>G!�� &�� =� <<!�� &�� G:� G;� G>� <><� <G9�H�� >O �� E#�F <GHO�� E#�F <G9�GO '�8�>�� ,� �� E#� �� ,��#��F G:�;� <><� <GG�H� �� >

!�� 9?� <G=� <?=!�� /�� !�� 2�� E+�F <:;� <:I ��9� <?<� <?H�<IH

!�� <=<!�� 2�� <GI!�� %�� <>> ��<:!�(�� "�� <<� ;:=!� �� /�� <=H� <IH�� <==� ;;H!��Q� E�� ,,�F G?� GI!�� ,�� ?;!�� 2�� <H:!�� 9I� <;<� <>; ��9!�� <GI!�� H� I� <<� <>� <9� <=� ;<� ;;� ;>� ;9�;=�? ��<<� ;I� >:� ><� 9>� G9� ?;� I<� <:G�<<>� <;>� <><� <>=� <9<� <G<� <G>� <G9�<GH� <G?� <H;� <H>� <H=� <=<� <?<� <?G�<?I� ;:9� ;;<� ;;;� ;;?� ;><� ;>9� ;>GO!�� 1�� H

!�� E!��A!%��A!%��F�� <<� <;� <>� <H ��<H� ;I�9:� >?E��F� 9>� =?� I;� I>� IH� <:: ��>� <:I��H� <<9� <>> ��<<� <>9� <>G� <9:� <9;�<9=� <HG� <HH� <H=� <HI�=:� <=<� <=;�<=9� <=H� <?<� <?9� <?=� ;:>� ;:I� ;<=�� >� ;H>� ;H9O /��,�� !�� <==O 0�� <==O ��0�� <HH

!�� 8�� A8�� /�� E�8�7F <=>� <?:

!��#� G:!�� -��B�� <99!�R �� <?;!�� 4�3� <9IO � �� :��L� E#�F<9I

��

;??




!�� *�� <::!�� >G

&�� 6�� GG&�� 0� $�� <<9&�� 2�� <:=� <:I ��G� <<: ��<;&�� +�� E&�� /��F <?<� <?9

�� E��A��F <>9� <9H� <?:�� <:� ?=&�� E"�� &�� F 9I� G:� <;<� <>; ��9�<9:� <G9� <GH

�� ;I� H<� HG� =:� =;� =H� =?� I;�<:9� <:G� <:I ��H� <;9� <>9� <>G� <>H�<>I� <9:� <==� <=?� <?;� <?>� <?H� ;<H�;<=� ;;:� ;;>�H

&�� <>G&�� 0� <G?&�� &�� H� <<9� ;<>�<9� ;<G ��<:&�� -�� <?>� <?H� <IH&�� <:?� <<: ��<9&�� K+�� 6�� <<� ;H�;I� ><� >;� G=� H9� <:I ��H� <=?� <?9� <?=�<IH� ;:>� ;><�;� ;>? ��<:

&�� 6�� >>� >G&� �� E&� 8��F<GI�H:

&� �� E"��F <?:� <?>(�) �� E(�� 0� 0��F I� <G ��<<� GI

&� 8�� 0�� 4�� <9>E��F

&� 7�� GG� <?>&� �� <:<&� ;<>&� �� !�� <?>&�� ,�� E!�� F <=>&�� <?=&�(�� &�� <?&�� /�� E&��F 9?� G?��;>� <??

&�� <:&�� <;<�<><� <>> ��<9� <?H

.�� E �� F<<;

.�� <<: ��<:� <9H

.�� 2� L�� G

.�� 6� E"��F <?=

.�� "�� <9:� <G>�9� <GH� <H:� <?>�<I=O$�� : E#�F <H:

.�&�� -�� <G>O ' �� 5� !�� (�� <G>

.�� E��$��F ;<>

.�� ,�� <=;

.� �� E�� F <GG� <GH

.�� H

.�� I;

.�� /�� E0��K��K��-�� 0��F <:I ��G�<?>

.�� 2�� E�� F <<: ��I/�� ?H� <<=� <;: ��;;� <=?� <?:� <?<�<?G� ;<I� ;;9� ;HG

/�� *�� >:/�� /�� ;;H ��;/�� <?=� <I=/� � � �� ;;= ��<</�� *�� <<;/ �� ,�� <9I/�� <?H/�� <=;� <=>/�� ,�� &� 8�� <9H/� <I/�� 2�� GG/�� ,�� <9 ��9/�� -�� <:I ��G/�� &�� <<>/�� "�� <GI�� E�� ,��#��F 9>� G>�G/� �� !� �� <GH/� �� !�� E!��F <=I� <??/�� "�� <H:� <H</�� 3�� HH� ;>>O �� HH

/�� '�� G=� <>G/�� "� �� <?G/�� "�� <H:/�� '�� /��R�� ,�� <==� <=I� <?:� <?9�<I=

/�� <=;/�� !� �� GI� H:/�� E"��F <:?� <<: ��<H)/�� 4�� <=>/�� ,�� 6�� ;H/�� 2�� <G9/�� 6�� <=</�� %�� <I/�� 8�� <?:� <?;� <?H/�� E!�� F <=>/�� I<� <=I�� ' �� E#�F <H:�</�� 8�� G=� GI

;?I

��




/�� -� �� /�� <<>)�� <:9� <<: ��<</�� >9� >G� >H�� GG� <>I� <9H� <G<� <?:/�� $�� <<� ;:=/�� >>� 9?� <=I� <?9� ;H9/�� 0�� >I ��<:/��(�� .�� <9IO 9��E#� � �� F <9I

/�K �� <?9/�� !�� 9� <9 ��9/��(�� 8�� <9IO �� E#� � �� '�� (� �F <9I

/�� ?;/�� !�� <?I/�� /�� E!�� F 9?/�� !�� >G/�� &�� <?>� <I=/�� E&� 8��F <9G/�� "�� <G9/�� ;>� <?:� ;;IO �� 7� $�� ;>

/�� /��( <:/�� E!�� F <H=/�� E/��F 9?

P�� E"��F <?9� <?HP�� /�� <>H

�� -�� <?< �� 0�� <>� ;H �� /�� ??� I: ��<> �� !� �� G: �� $�� <G ��<> �� 0��B�� <GHO�� (�� &�� E#�F <GH

�� $�!� >> ��#�� +�� <<G� <;: ��;;�;;= ��<:

�� G>� H9� ?I� <>H� <9= ��=� <9? ��;:�<9I� <=I� <?<� <I: ��9� ;<H� ;<=� ;;:�;;>�H� ;;I

�� !� �� <?> �� 6�� <G> �� !�� <=H� <=? �(�� 9? �� $�� ;: �� <: � �� -�� <:I ��G � �� <?>� <I= �� 2�� 2�� <H<

�� 9? �� <GHO ��N�� + ��"�� E �� F <GH

�� <=I� <?< �� &�� <9> E��F �� I;� <>H� <9H� <9= ��= � 9? �� 4�� +� <:: �� 2�R �� <99 �� $�� <==� <I=)�� <:<� <:9� <:=� �� *�� E"��F 9?� ?:� <<:��I� <G9

�� &�� E"�� &�� F G;� <:?� <>;� <>> �� I�� <9

�� 0�� <:<� <;<� <>>��<:� <?>� <?H

�(�� 6�� <=?� <I: ��9O &�� '��E��F <I: ��9

�(�� !�� <=> �� 0�� <G; �� ;G� ;=� ><� <<?� <G<�<G;� <G9� <GH� <=H� <==� <?;� <?9� <?=O. �� >:

�� B�� C <G ��<<

0�� ;>0��K+�� !� �� <?9� <I=0�� 9� <:� <9� <G ��<>� <=� ;<� ;;� ;=�;;I� ;>:

0�� E0� /��F <?>0�� G0�� 0�� <G>� <G90�� 0�� 4�� 4�� GG0�� ,�� <G;� 0�� /�� G0�� <<>0�� 6� �� ;>>0�� 2�� 0�� <GI0�� E!�� F <=<0�� $�� <G;0 � �� ,�� <G=� <G?0 �� GG0 �� /�� <9H0 �� I?� <;?0 �� ,�� <?>0 �� -��Q� ;>>� ;>H)0 �� $�� 4�� <=9

0�� "�� 0�� <9;� <9> E��F�<=I� <?;� <??� <?I� <I?

��

;I:




0�� 6�� <9;0�� 0�� E'��F �� <I0�� <?=� <I?0�� 3�� ?I� <:>� <:?�<;<� <;;� <;>� <><� <>; ��>� <>G� <H;�<HI� <=<� <=>� <=9� <I: ��9� ;:?� ;>9O$�� <?<� <I: ��H� ;:?� ;>9� ;>=O�� """ E#�F <>; ��>O �� <?=O �)��,�� (�� <:;

0��K�(�(�� 0�� <?I� <I?0�� -�� <?H0�� /�� <==� <I?0�� ,�� *�� ?>� <>=� <9I�;>>� ;>H

0�� 3�� <GI� <H:� <H<0�� <;<0�� *�� ?>0�� 0�� <>GO �� <>G0�� !�� <>> ��H0�� &�� <9:0�� <?;0�� !�� 9?0�� 9� <:� <9� <=� <?� <<9� <G<� <=:0�� +�� E�� +�� 0��F <G:�;O$��5� �� E#�F <G:O �� E#�F <G:�;O �� '��E#�F <G<

0�� +�� E+�� 0�� F<G:

0�� 0�� <G>0�� <:0�� 2�� <G;O �� <IGH�<I?H<G;O )0�� "�� E��F <G;

0�� &�� <=I0�� 0�� E!�� F <?=0�� 6�� <<9� <>G� <>H� <>?� <>I� <9H�<9=� <9= ��9

0�� &�� H0�� <;<0�� 0�� *�� <H=0�� *�� <H:0�� $�� >9� >G� >I ��<<�<G9� <=:� <=G ��<H� <I: ��;

0�� 8�� >0� �� >;� <>I� <=I� <?;�<I: ��9

0� �� G?0�� "�� <;<� <>; ��G0�� "�� <G>0�� -�� <GG0�� &� &� G?

0�� 0�� <?;� <I?0�� <>G0�� %�� <G>0�� GG0�� E��F ��E!�� F >>� >G� I;� <=<� <=;� <?<

0�� >0�� <:I ��G� <;<0L�� E&� 8��F <?H0� /��A/��A"�� I� <;� <=�;>� ;9� <<?� <G;� <H;� <=<� <=;� <=>� <=9�<?9� ;:=� ;:I� ;<=O $�� E�� $�� F <=HO!�� /�� <<?

0��K�� !�� ?:� <:>� <<: ��I0�� 2�� <9�G ��9� >;� >I ��<:�I>� <::� <:I ��=� <>; ��H� <>I� <GH� <?9�;>:

0�� E�� F� %�� ;H� ;I� >:� ><� >;� >>� HI ��<I� IH�<:: ��9� <:>� <:H� <:I ��H� <<9� <<H� <<=�<;I� <>9� <>G� <>H� <>=� <>?� <>I� <=H�<==� <=?� <=I� <?:� <?;� <?9� <?G� <?H�<?=� <?I� <I?� ;:>� ;><O�� ,� �� '�<>=

0�� 6�� >>0�� 8�� 6�� E"��F<?>

0�� /�� <=H� <?H� <?I� <II0�� -�� <9:0�� <G90�� E+��A+��F 9� H� <=� <?� ;;� ;<;0�� <;<0�� " �� <?G� <II0�� E-��F <:<� <;<� <?>0�� ,�� <=H� <=I� <?=� <??�<?I� <II

0�� <>I0�� !�� 9?0�� E �� F <<;0�� <?H� <II0�� $�� 8�� >;0��(�� "�� <>0��5� 4��( �� G0�� <9=0�� *�� <9I0�� E��0�� F ;:9

0�� 0�� I� <:� <<� <;� <G��<<� 9: ��<9� G?� GI� ?:� ;:9� ;:G� ;:H�;:=� ;:I� ;>:� ;>>� ;>= ��9� ;>? ��<=

0�� 6�� E�� 0�� F;:I

;I<

��




0�(�� <?H� <II0�(�� E0�.�F <?H0�� 2��A2�� <>I� <9:� <9;�<G9� <?<� <II� �� 9� ;H9

0�� G<0�� /�� <<� ;:=0�� <G>� <G=�)�� 9?0��(�� <G:0��A0�� H9� HG� =:� ?>�9� ?=�<<G� <>9�H� <>?� <9? ��<I� <=I� <?:� <?<�<?I

0�� 2�� <G<0�� 2�� !� ?>� ?9� ?H� I: ��<:0(�� 9IO ' �� 9I0(�� /�� =<

�� E!�� F <:I ��?� <><�<9G� <=:� <=<� <?;� <?G� <?I

�� >�H� <=� 9>� <<?� <=:� ;:G�� E��F <>?� <>I� <H=�<=G ��=� <?<� ;::

�� E!��Q�� !��Q�F ;>=

�� <?� ;9� �� /�� $�� ;H�� .�� E6� �(�� $��F <99�� &�� <>)�� >>� >I ��<:� <:I ��=� <HI� <?<�� >;� <=I��5�N�� E/��F <>H��5�N�� E/��F �� 9�;HG

��5�N�� .�� =:��5�N�� E/��F <?9��5�N�� K-��5� E/��F <?:��5�N�� !�� E/��F <?:��5�N�� "�� =:��5�N�� &�� /�� 9?�� E�� %��/�� !�� F I<� <H?� <HI� <=>� <?:�<?H

)�� $�� 4�� <=9

�� !�� <99� <9G�� +�� <G;O �� , �� <G;

�� <:�� 2�� <9H�� -�� <?;�� <<9O �� %��E��F <<9

�� "� <;� ;H� ;=� ;? ��<?� ;;IO '��

9�� ;;I� ;>>O "�� ,�� ;;IO%� �� ;<;

�� <:�� E#�F <H<�� ,�� E,��F <:>� <:I ��=�� ?� <9<� <9H� <H=� <=G ��I� <?9� ;::

�� 0�� <:I ��G�� %�� ><O �� 5�� ><

�� "�� <=>�� '�� <?;� ;::�� <>� <G ��<<� <<<� <<>� <<?� <G;� ;>:�;>? ��<;O �� $$ <<<O �� $$$<<<� <<;O &� �� $$ <<>

�� E��F <9:��R�� <?H�� <:�� 2�� <<?�� $�� 0�� ?� <;� >I ��<;�;>>� ;>9O �� ;>>O )'�� +�� P�� E�� <?G?F >I ��<;� ;>9

�� 9?�� >� I<� I9� IG� IH�� !�� H�� E/��F <>I� �� 9� ;H9

�� %�� 9H� 9?� ;>H

1�� 0�� E,��F <G<8� �� :�� )� �� <?>8�>�� ,� �� '�E#� � �� !�� ,��#��FG:�;� <><� <GG�H

1�� <I� <=9

6�� -��A8�� <HH� <=G ��G�<=?� ;::

6�� E!�� F 9?�� =� <:� 9H� G=�I� H<� HG� H=� <;9�<;=� <><� <9G� <G:� <H;� <HH� <=9� <=?�<?>� ;>:

6�� <G>6�� >G� >H6� �� -�� ?G6� �� E&� 8��F �� <?>6�� 2�� 9?6�� <=;6�� &�� I;6�� "� �� <GG� <==6��(� �� <?<� ;::6�� *�� E&� 8��F <9>E��F� <??

6�� ,�� <=<

��

;I;




6�� <=?� <I: ��96�� !�� <G>6�� <=9�� !�� <G=� <G?O ��6�� E#�F <G=O ��;�� E#�F <G=

6�� E$��F I6� �� &�� 9� <9 ��>6�� 6�� <=<� <=G ��<?

3�� <>9� <9=� <=HO6��)�� <=H

3�� <G?3�� $�� E$�� <I<I�;<F ??3�� $�� 9?� GG3�� E�� 0�� 0��F <?H

3�� +�� <G>3�� 0�� <?>3�� +� <GI3�� 2�� <G93�� <G:3�� GG3�� ,�� E�� ,��F <??3�� 8�� /�� E"��F �� <;<� <><� <>; E��F

3� �� '�� <?H%�� $�� E�� 4��F 9H� G:� GG� <;<�<;>� <;=� <>; ��9� <GH

3�� .� �� ?>� ?H� ;>>3�� 0�� 3�� ?H3�� G>� G9O�� G>

3�� <>G3�� &� �� <?>3�� E!�� F <?>3�� 2�� <H< ��I3��#�� /� ?>3�� 2�� <I: ��;3�� ,�� <9H� <?=O � � 8� M <9H�<?=� <?I

3�� 0�� E"��F <:;� <?H3�� &� � <9= ��<G

8�� <;� <>� ;9� ;H� ;= ��<<� <>> ��<<�<G>

8�� ,�� E'��F <=>� <?:�;::O "�� <=>� <?:

8�� E8��F <:� H;� <<9� <<=� <;:��;;

8�� "�� <<8�� 3�� *�� GH� ?>� ?9� ?H� ?=� ??8��A-�� .�� E�� -��F�� >>� >G�?� >? E��F� <HI�=:� <=;�<=9� <?<� <I;� �� 9� ;H>�;H9

8�� <=>8�� 8�� <=>8�� 8�� >H8�� 6� E"��F <>> ��<:8�� 0�#� �� <9<

7�� /�� <=I� <?<� ;::7�� !�� >9� <=:� <=97�� ,�� H7�� -�� <G ��<;� ;;I� ;>:

;I>

��

Date post:	28-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fahime-sh
View:	466 times
Download:	18 times

Companion to Chekhov

Documents