Published by ANU E Press [624134]

InterpretIng
Chekhov

InterpretIng
Chekhov
geoffrey Borny

Published by ANU E Press
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Email: [anonimizat]
Web: http://epress.anu.edu.au
National Library of Australia
Cataloguing-in-Publication entry
Borny, Geoffrey, 1942- .
Interpreting Chekhov.

ISBN 1 920942 67 X (pbk.).
ISBN 1 920942 68 8 (online).

1. Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich, 1860-1904 – Criticism and
interpretation. I. Title.

891.723
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Indexed by John Owen
Cover design by Teresa Prowse
Art work by Geoff Pryor
Printed by University Printing Services, ANU
This edition © 2006 ANU E Press

For Gabrielle

Table of Contents
Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………. v
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………….. ix
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1. Chekhov’s Vision of Reality ………………………………………………………………. 21
2. The Search for Form ……………………………………………………………………….. 57
3. Failed Experiments: The Early Plays ………………………………………………….. 93
4. The Seagull : From Disaster to Triumph ………………………………………………. 127
5. Uncle Vanya : ‘ A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’ …………………….. 169
6. Three Sisters : ‘Oh if we could only know!’ ………………………………………….. 195
7. The Cherry Orchard : Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form ………………….. 225
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………. 263
Select Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………… 267
Index ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 303
iii

Preface
It is no w common practice f or literary te xts to be taught in translation at
universities . The pla ys of Chekho v are taught not onl y by Russian scholar s but
also b y academics trained in such disciplines as English w ho ha ve little or no
knowled ge of the Russian langua ge. Under standa bly, man y scholar s who ar e
Russian langua ge experts question this practice and impl y that critical insight
into the w orks of a writer such as Chekho v can be achiev ed onl y by those w ho
have a command of the Russian langua ge. While I ha ve som e sympath y for this
view, I believ e that it is fla wed because it f ails to tak e into account the legitimate
aims and objectiv es of disciplines other than the discipline of Russian langua ge
and literatur e.
Apart fr om his short stories Chekho v wr ote pla ys and these latter w orks
clearl y becom e the legitimate object of in vestig ation b y scholar s such as m yself
who teach in the discipline of Drama and Theatr e Studies . Having published a
translation of Racine’s onl y com edy, Les Plaideurs , 1 and written a bout the
natur e and pr ocess of translation,2 I realise that a kno wled ge of the langua ge
of the sour ce text is the sine qua non of translation. It is true that kno wled ge of
Russian w ould ha ve been useful to m e when writing a bout Chekho v, as it w ould
have allo wed m e to r ead the considera ble amount of Russian scholarl y work on
Chekho v that has not y et been translated into English. Ho wever, kno wled ge of
the Russian langua ge is not the sine qua non of a Theatr e Studies anal ysis of this
playwright.
It is the normal function of translation e xperts such as Ronald Hingle y to
convert Russian sour ce te xts into English tar get texts. These English v ersions
of the pla ys then becom e the sour ce te xts used b y critics writing a bout ho w
Chekho v’s pla ys function as pieces of drama and theatr e. Similarl y, director s of
Chekho v’s pla ys in the English-speaking theatr e use translations as sour ce texts
which the y transf orm into the tar get texts of theatrical pr oduction. Drama and
Theatr e Studies departm ents nearl y always rely on translations of pla ytexts and
do not r equir e either the teacher s or students to ha ve a kno wled ge of the original
langua ge in w hich the pla ys were written. If this w ere not the case, then a cour se
on Modern Eur opean Drama and Theatr e would r equir e a kno wled ge of Sw edish
(Strindber g), Norw egian (Ibsen), German (Br echt), F rench (Ionesco), Spanish
(Lorca), and Russian (Chekho v).
Given that the use of translations f or the purpose of critical anal ysis is normal
practice in the discipline of Drama and Theatr e Studies , the question of w hich
translation to use r emains . Although ev ery translator of Chekho v’s pla ys has a
mastery of the Russian langua ge, the translations that the y pr oduce v ary
considera bly. Not surprisingl y, Am erican translator s tend to pr oduce tar get
texts that sound natural w hen perf ormed by Am erican actor s, while English
v

translator s such as Ronald Hingle y tend to pr oduce tar get te xts that ha ve a
noticea bly British quality a bout them. It is quite common f or individual dir ector s
to commission ne w translations , or to ada pt existing translations , to mak e them
sound mor e natural and intelligible to their tar get audience. Pr ovided that the
translations being consider ed ar e accurate ones , the choice of w hich one to use
in perf ormance becom es a question of per sonal taste.
I have chosen to use Ronald Hingle y’s translations in the Oxf ord Univ ersity
Press edition of Chekho v’s w orks for a n umber of r easons . In the fir st place, the
OUP edition is the most r ecent English translation of Chekho v’s w orks to include
both the short stories and the pla ys, all of w hich I r efer to in this stud y. In
addition, Hingle y includes important v ariants and earl y draft v ersions of som e
of the pla ys that I also wished to r efer to in m y anal ysis. Forsås–Scott’s notes on
The Cherry Orc hard include laudatory comm ents a bout Volum e 3 of Hingle y’s
Oxford Chekhov translation. Her observ ations a pply with equal v alidity to the
other collections of pla ys in The Oxf ord Chekhov series:
Hingle y’s v olum e contains a g eneral intr oduction, but particularl y useful ar e
the a ppendices w hich accompan y each of the pla ys. In these the translator has
gather ed Chekho v’s comm ents on the pla ys, arranging the material under
headings such as ‘The composition’, ‘The te xt’, and ‘Som e further comm ents
by Chekho v’. In Hingle y’s translation ar e also included notes on w ords and
phrases , details a bout the pr onunciation of Russian nam es, and a biblio graphy.3
Hingle y’s translation is r ecognised as being accurate, ev en though it has been
criticised b y som e scholar s for being too British in tone. It is perha ps w orth
noting that, w hile ther e will nev er be g eneral a greement a bout w hich English
translation is the best, Hingle y’s v ersion is highl y regarded b y a n umber of
scholar s both f or his accurac y and, significantl y for m y purpose, f or his
performa bility . As Laur en Leighton notes in his r eview of English translations
of Chekho v:
Among modern translations of Chekho v’s pla ys Bristo w finds … that onl y
Tyrone Guthrie’s translation done with Leonid Kipnis and Ronald Hingle y’s
Oxford translations serv e perf ormance and diction sufficientl y well to be
recomm ended.4
The question of the transliteration of Russian nam es is an important one f or
any translator . In the 1999 Modern Drama special issue on Chekho v, the editor ,
Ralph Lindheim, ensur ed that ther e was an o verall consistenc y among the v arious
essays by adopting clear principles of transliteration:
Throughout these essa ys on Chekho v I ha ve emplo yed, w henev er possible, a
modified v ersion of the Library of Cong ress transliteration schem es that is similar
to the system dev eloped b y Frank Whitfield f or his edition of D . S. Mir sky’s A
viInterpreting Chekhov

History of Russian Literature , which w as originall y published b y Alfr ed A.
Knopf in 1949.5
The editor s of The Cambr idge Companion to Chekhov take an alto gether diff erent
approach fr om Lindheim. In their Editorial Notes , Gottlieb and Allain state that:
The editor s took the decision not to standar dize the v arious systems of
transliteration used b y contributor s from Russia, fr om the United States , France,
the Irish Republic and the UK. In the case of this v olum e, where ther e are
different scholarl y approaches , varied angles , emphases and priorities , one
contributor ma y need one of the f our systems of transliteration (Am erican
Library of Cong ress Systems , I, II, III, IV) w hile another ma y requir e either a
different system — or none at all, as in the case of cha pters 9 and 11, f or
instance.6
Significantl y, the cha pters referred to w ere written b y two theatr e practitioner s:
the dir ector Trevor Nunn and the actor Ian McK ellen. They are less inter ested
in the niceties of translation than in pr oblems in volved in interpr eting Chekho v
for the sta ge.
In m y own stud y I ha ve not f elt the need to utilise an y specific system of
transliteration. I ha ve chosen particular spellings of Russian nam es that ar e
generall y regarded as accepta ble v ersions . For e xample, ‘Stanisla vski’ and
‘Chekho v’ ar e used thr oughout m y text. Whenev er I ha ve quoted fr om a critic
I have followed the practice of Gottlieb and Allain w ho ‘left each contributor
free to choose the transliteration system that suits him or her , rather than enf orce
consistenc y of an y one system.’7 Consequentl y, the r eader ma y often find v ariant
versions of nam es appearing in quotations — ‘Stanisla vsky’ and ‘Tchek off’ ar e
two examples . The v ariants should cause no pr oblem f or the r eader .
Hingle y has tak en the un usual cour se of anglicising the Russian nam es of the
character s. Whenev er it seem ed necessary to a void confusion, I ha ve inserted
in brack ets the nam es used b y Hingle y in quotations fr om critical w orks w hich
use alternativ e Russian nam es — f or example, ‘K onstantin [T replev]’. Similarl y,
wherever ther e is a possibility of confusion w hen quoting fr om Hingle y’s
translation, I ha ve inserted in brack ets the Russian v ersion of each nam e — f or
example, ‘Helen [Y eliena]’.
While I ha ve emplo yed no fix ed system of transliteration, I ha ve attempted
to ensur e that r eader s are not confused b y the comple xity of Russian nam es and
titles . This fle xible a pproach ma y not seem rig orous enough to som e scholar s
but w e should k eep in mind Michael F rayn’s comm ent on transliteration that
‘Rigidity can in an y case pr oduce nonsense’.8
viiPreface

ENDNOTES
1 Born y, G., Petty Sessions , a verse translation of Racine’s Les Plaideurs , Univ ersity of Ne w England
Press, Armidale, 1988.
2 Born y, G., ‘Appropriate Mis/A ppropriations: Translating Racine’s Les Plaideurs’, in Dis/Or ientations
Conference Proceedings , Australasian Drama Studies Association, Centr e for Drama and Theatr e Studies ,
Monash Univ ersity, Melbourne, 1997, pp . 12–19.
3 Forsås-Scott, H., The Cherry Orc hard: Y ork Notes , Longman York Press, Beirut, 1983, p . 11.
4 Leighton, L. G ., ‘Chekho v in English’, in Cl yman, T. W., A Chekhov Companion, Greenw ood Pr ess,
Westport, 1985, p . 304.
5 Lindheim, R., ‘A Note on the Transliteration of Russian Nam es, Words, and Titles’, Modern Drama,
Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999, p . 470.
6 Gottlieb , V. and Allain, P ., ‘Editorial Notes’, The Cambr idge Companion to Chekhov , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 2000, p . xxvi.
7 Ibid.
8 Frayn, M., ‘A Note on the Translation’ in F rayn, M, trans ., Chekhov Pla ys, Methuen, London, 1991,
p. 358.
viiiInterpreting Chekhov

Acknowledgements
I wish to e xpress m y appreciation to both The Univ ersity of Ne w England and
The A ustralian National Univ ersity f or granting m e stud y lea ve to carry out
much of the r esear ch for this book.
More particularl y, I am deepl y grateful to Barbara Hollo way and Ma ggie
Shapley for their painstaking editorial w ork. Barbara helped m e mak e the fir st
of man y much needed pruning operations on the man uscript. Ma ggie pr ovided
me with ad vice on ho w to trim and f ocus the ar gument ev en further . In ad dition,
Maggie has been r esponsible f or the cop y editing of the book in pr eparation f or
publication.
My final w ord of thanks g oes to m y wif e, Ga brielle Hyslop , who, besides
assisting in editing , has had to liv e with this Chekho v project f or a considera ble
number of y ears. Her su pport and belief in the v alue of this book ha ve sustained
me thr oughout.
ix

Introduction
For better or worse , Chekhov’s major pla ys were wr itten at a time when the stage
director was becoming a dominant f actor in the modern theatre . (Laur ence Senelick)1
It is the total incomprehension of the central themes of Chekhov’s pla ys that explains
why directors are so prone to indulge in wild f antasies . (David Ma garshack)2
Throughout his lif e, Anton Chekho v was highl y critical of man y featur es of the
theatr e of his da y. His neg ative attitude to wards dir ector s and actor s who
presented his pla ys in a manner that displeased him led Chekho v to mak e the
acerbic comm ent , ‘The sta ge is a scaff old on w hich the pla ywright is e xecuted’.3
Even the dir ector w ho did the most to esta blish Chekho v’s fame in the theatr e,
Konstantin Stanisla vski, did not esca pe the pla ywright’s ang er. The depth of
Chekho v’s discontent with theatr e artists is w ell docum ented. As Philip Callo w
points out:
Ther e is no doubt that Chekho v was disillusioned with contemporary theatr e
from the outset. He comm ented bitingl y, to v arious corr espondents , on the
egotism and obtuseness of actor s, not to m ention their incompetence; on the
limitations of the r epertoir e, the stu pidity of dir ector s, the passiv e acceptance
of audiences . He eng aged in a w ar of attrition with the theatr e of his da y, even
when a theatr e under Stanisla vsky dev oted itself to him, and he in variably lost.
Stanisla vsky, a pioneer of the e xperim ental ne w drama, w as for Chekho v a mor e
comple x foe, stub bornl y refusing to see that tra gedy could be depicted thr ough
comedy.4
My o wn stud y of the pla ywright and the e xperience of ha ving acted in and
directed sev eral of his pla ys has led m e to the conclusion that Chekho v had v alid
grounds f or his animosity to wards interpr eters of his pla ys. From the tim e when
they were written to the pr esent da y both critics and theatr e dir ector s have
regularl y misinterpr eted Chekho v’s pla ys.
A claim such as this imm ediatel y raises the question of w hat constitutes a
valid interpr etation. At the beginning of the tw enty-fir st century , with the
advent of postmodern theories of literatur e, it has becom e incr easingl y difficult
to talk with an y sense of authority a bout a pla ywright’s intentions , or to ar gue
that an y particular interpr etation of a pla ywright’s w ork is mor e accurate than
any other interpr etation. Thirty y ears ago, it w as not uncommon f or critics and
director s to confidentl y assert that their job w as to pr ovide an interpr etation
that w ould accuratel y reflect the pla ywright’s intention. Today, man y critics
and dir ector s not onl y assum e that ther e is no sense in talking a bout the author’s
intention, but also believ e ther e should be no limitation at all on interpr etation.
1

Today ther e is no g enerall y accepted w ay to a pproach the critical and sta ge
interpr etation of pla ys.
The claim that Chekho v’s pla ys ar e often misinterpr eted is clearl y not in
accor d with those postmodern theories that den y the v ery possibility of v alid
interpr etation. Consequentl y it is important to outline w hat the critical
assumptions ar e that underpin this stud y. This w ork expresses the vie w recentl y
voiced b y Jonathan Miller , the English dir ector , that ther e are tw o extreme
critical positions r elating to theatrical interpr etation that m ust be a voided:
At the mom ent ther e are two millstones of f olly which ar e thr eatening to g rind
the theatr e into a state of pulv erised idioc y. On the one hand, ther e is the e xisting
notion that ther e is som e sort of canonical v ersion, the original v ersion, the
version w hich w ould most ha ve pleased the pla ywright, the v ersion that most
realises the pla ywright’s intention. And on the other , the notion that ther e is
no such thing as the pla ywright’s intention, that ther e is no such thing as a
standar d canonical f ormal m eaning in a te xt, and that actuall y these te xts
constantl y renew themselv es under the pr essur e of interpr etation, w hich allo ws
there to be almost an ything and the te xt is tak en as an unstructur ed thing
altogether . Both of these seem to m e to be a misunder standing of w hat the natur e
of a te xt is.5
While ther e are no definitiv e versions of Chekho v, ther e are ‘pr eferred
readings’ or ‘v alid interpr etations’. Clearl y, director s who den y the need f or an y
interpr etation and pr oduce w hat I call ‘te xts on legs’ will r eject the idea that a
plurality of r eadings is possible. Equall y, the idea that ther e ma y be ‘in valid
interpr etations’ will ha ve little a ppeal to postmodern dir ector s who den y that
plays ha ve any inher ent m eaning and choose to cr eate theatrical ev ents that
have onl y a peripheral connection with the author’s pla ytext.
The aim of this stud y is to pr ovide insights that will help students , director s
and actor s to ‘r ead’ the pla ys in a manner that will assist in the cr eation of v alid
versions . In or der to mak e clear the assumptions that underpin this stud y of
Chekho v, it is necessary to under stand that in the field of Theatr e Studies a pla y
does not e xist as a single te xt. Ther e are two separate but r elated te xts: the
written pla ytext and the perf ormance pla ytext. The author’s pla ytext is
inevita bly mediated in the pr oduction of the perf ormance te xt. Ther e are still
critics w ho ar gue that such m ediation is unw arranted. They ar gue that
playwrights should be allo wed to speak f or themselv es in the perf ormance te xt
without the intrusiv e mediation of other theatr e artists lik e dir ector s. This
criticall y discr edited vie w has been giv en a ne w lease of lif e recentl y as a r esult
of its being adopted b y conserv ative critics and audiences as a m eans to attack
more extreme postmodern theatrical interpr etations . It is still quite common to
hear theatr e-goers and critics har king back to som e mythical g olden a ge when
the dir ector didn’t e xist and the pla ywright’s pla y deliv ered itself to the audience
2Interpreting Chekhov

without ha ving to be interpr eted. As J onathan Miller stated in an impr omptu
talk he g ave at the Adelaide Festiv al in the late 1970s on the topic ‘Dir ecting the
Classics’, certain people still believ e that the dir ector "should simpl y act as a
butler ushering the w ork of the g reat classic onto the sta ge and then r etire
gracefull y into the wings".6
The desir e for an unm ediated, uninterpr eted perf ormance that will let the
playwright speak f or himself can nev er be satisfied, f or, as P eter Br ook has
pointedl y asserted, ‘if y ou just let a pla y speak, it ma y not mak e a sound. If w hat
you w ant is f or the pla y to be hear d, then y ou m ust conjur e its sound fr om it.’7
Brook’s vie ws ar e echoed b y Miller w hen he baldl y asserts that ‘the act of
interpr etation is a bsolutel y essential … The so-called pur e version of the bar d
speaking f or himself hasn’t ev er and will nev er ha ppen.’8
Both Miller and Br ook ar e theatr e dir ector s and consequentl y it is not
surprising to find them def ending the cr eativity of their task and r ejecting the
passiv e ‘butler’ idea of dir ection. Ho wever, not all pla ywrights ar e totall y happy
about giving dir ector s a fr ee hand w hen it com es to interpr eting their w orks.
Knowing that their pla ys will inevita bly be m ediated thr ough the w ork of
director s, actor s and designer s, man y pla ywrights ha ve comm ented on the dang er
that the author’s vision ma y be lost or f alsified in pr oduction. Chekho v, for
instance, constantl y expressed deep dissatisf action with w hat dir ector s and
actor s did to his pla ys. Lik e his character Treplev , the tortur ed pla ywright in
The Seagull , Chekho v saw much that w as wr ong with the theatr e of his tim e.
His blunt comm ent on Stanisla vski’s interpr etation of The Cherry Orc hard clearl y
expresses his belief that his pla ytext was not adequatel y realised in Stanisla vski’s
performance te xt: ‘All I can sa y is, Stanisla vski has wr ecked m y pla y.’9
If Chekho v was unha ppy about the tr eatm ent m eted out to pla ywrights in
his o wn tim e, he w ould pr obably be ev en less contented in toda y’s theatrical
milieu w here the pla ywright’s status r elativ e to that of the dir ector has
diminished. Critics and dir ector s such as Basil Ashton w ho ar gue that ‘a dir ector
is onl y of an y use w hen he serv es the dramatist and allo ws the public to see and
under stand w hat the dramatist intended’10 have becom e an endang ered species .
The artistic ‘cr eativity’ of the modern dir ector has becom e privileg ed above the
contributions of all other theatr e artists , including the once dominant pla ywright.
We go to see Br ook’s Lear and Zeffir elli’s or Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and J uliet,
not Shak espear e’s pla ys. The poster f or Barry K osky’s A ustralian pr oduction of
King Lear made no m ention of Shak espear e at all.
In the curr ent w orld in w hich ‘dir ector’s theatr e’ dominates it has becom e
difficult to ar gue f or the primac y of the pla ywright’s pla y in the comple x and
composite art of theatr e-making . Def ender s of the pla ywright’s su preme
contribution ha ve com e under attack f or their f ailure to accept the implications
3Introduction

of postmodern critical theories , particularl y deconstruction, w hich assert that
the e xistence in an y meaningful sense of the ‘pla ywright’s pla y’ is a fiction.
The decision to privileg e the pla ywright’s function o ver that of the dir ector ,
or con versely, to privileg e the dir ector’s function o ver that of the pla ywright,
radicall y aff ects w hat w e are likely to see in the theatr e. We need to decide on
the r elativ e status of the pla ytext and the perf ormance te xt.
This stud y aims to assist dir ector s and students of theatr e to see what
Chekho v’s pla ys ar e about, and how the pla ywright pr ovides his interpr eters
with clues a bout ho w to r ealise the action of his pla ys on sta ge. The intention
is to stim ulate theatr e practitioner s to cr eate pr oductions that ar e theatricall y
rich ‘v alid v ersions’ of the pla y. The need to find the right balance betw een
validity and originality in interpr etation is the dir ector’s constant aim and ther e
is no fix ed w ay of achieving this g oal. As Richar d Hornb y observ es: 'although
there might be one best w ay for a particular compan y to perf orm a pla ytext at
a particular tim e, in a particular theatr e, and at a particular period in their
developm ent, ther e is ob viousl y mor e than one w ay of perf orming it in g eneral.'11
The initial task of this stud y will be to e xamine the writings of Chekho v in
order to ascertain w hat vision of r eality is embodied in his pla ys and to elucidate
how he dramatised that vision. Evidence will be dra wn fr om Chekho v’s pla ys,
short stories and letter s, as w ell as fr om the v ast corpus of Chekho v criticism.
One can saf ely assum e that most pla ywrights write with perf ormance in mind.
They write in a linguistic code, pr oducing strings of w ords that will ev entuall y
be spok en by actor s. They som etimes also write sta ge instructions and notes
that sugg est, to som e deg ree, ho w the y think their pla ys should be sta ged. These
words, the literary pla ytext, ar e interpr eted b y a r eader , critic, or dir ector . In
the case of the dir ector , this interpr etation is then r e-encoded in terms not of a
written code but a perf ormance code in volving a plethora of sub-codes including
casting , vocal interpr etation, f acial e xpression, g estur e, mak e-up, costum e and
movement within the dramatic space.12 This total perf ormance code, or
performance te xt, is then interpr eted b y each m ember of an audience.
Ther e are two distinct acts of interpr etation that ar e of inter est to an y critic.
The fir st involves the task of interpr etation and translation undertak en by the
director . This is a tw ofold task. Initiall y, the dir ector anal yses a pla ytext in or der
to find out w hat the y believ e the author’s pla y is a bout: w hat constitutes the
play’s o verall action and w hat vision of r eality is e xpressed in it. Then, ha ving
explor ed these questions of interpr etation, the dir ector pr oceeds to the second
task of translating their under standing of the literary pla ytext into the
performance te xt by utilising the perf ormance codes that ar e embodied in the
work of actor s, set and lighting designer s, etc. Thus the dir ector has to both
interpr et the pla y’s m eaning and find suita ble theatrical m eans to translate that
intellectual and emotional under standing into a ‘r eadable’ perf ormance te xt.
4Interpreting Chekhov

This mo vement fr om pa ge to sta ge involves the dir ector in the difficult task of
finding an objectiv e corr elativ e for their under standing of the pla y.
The second act of interpr etation is undertak en b y the m ember s of an y
audience w ho witness the perf ormance te xt. Martin Esslin, despite flirting with
the vie w that, since no tw o audience m ember s will ev er interpr et a perf ormance
in exactl y the sam e way, the perf ormance te xt is ‘open to an y interpr etation that
a reader or vie wer ma y bring to it’,13 concedes that a kno wled ge of ho w the
signifying systems of the perf ormance code w ork should ‘help the dir ector to
attain a higher deg ree of certainty that he will actuall y con vey the m eaning he
intended, at least to the majority of the audience’.14 Som e consistenc y of
reception is ther efore possible in this second act of interpr etation w hich can be
suita bly characterised as a mo vement ‘fr om sta ge to audience’.
The chain of comm unication fr om the pla ywright to the audience has thr ee
main links . Firstly, ther e is the playwright’s pla ytext , which is in the f orm of a
written te xt that contains a series of encoded signals with potential f or realisation
in perf ormance. The second link w e ma y call the director’s performance text ,
which in volves the tw ofold task of a decoding interpr etation of the pla ywright’s
playtext and a r e-encoding of that interpr etation in theatrical terms using the
services of actor s, designer s, etc. The thir d major link in the comm unication
chain is made u p of the audience’s decoding of the dir ector’s perf ormance te xt.
The comm unication chain is , of cour se, far mor e comple x than the a bove
model sugg ests. If, for example, an audience m ember has studied the pla ywright’s
play and decoded or interpr eted it in a w ay that is mar kedly diff erent fr om the
director’s , then that audience m ember’s decoding of the dir ector’s perf ormance
text ma y well result in a baffling and possibl y irritating e xperience. These
interte xtual considerations , while the y point out the ‘interf erence’ that is
involved in the lines of comm unication betw een the pla ywright’s pla y and the
audience, m ediated as it is thr ough the dir ector’s interpr etation and its r ealisation
in terms of the v arious perf ormance codes , should not lead to the conclusion
that no comm unication is possible. A r easona bly competent audience m ember
can hear and see pr oductions of pla ys and distinguish betw een those w hich ar e
recognisa bly intelligible v ersions of the pla ywright’s pla y and those w hich ar e
not. Clearl y ther e is a mar ked diff erence betw een the mor e direct w ay an author
of a no vel comm unicates with their r eader s and the w ays in w hich pla ywrights
have to comm unicate with audience m ember s. The no velist does not ha ve to g o
through the m ediation of dir ectorial interpr etation and translation into
performance codes w hich can lead pla ywrights lik e Chekho v to suff er the a gonies
that r esult fr om too m uch ‘interf erence’ b y dir ector s.
The chain of comm unication fr om the pla ywright to the audience includes
reference to the pr oblematic concept of ‘the pla ywright’s pla y’ which is r ejected
in much curr ent literary theory . Attempts to set limits on critical or dir ectorial
5Introduction

interpr etation thr ough a ppeals to concepts such as authorial intentions and
authorial m eanings ha ve been vig orously attack ed. So Barthes , in his seminal
essay ‘The Death of the A uthor’, written in 1968, asserted that individual r eader s
are free to choose an y meaning the y wish fr om the te xt the y read.15 As Selden
notes: ‘The r eader is thus fr ee to enter the te xt from an y dir ection; ther e is no
correct route.’16 The lo gic of such a position in terms of the theatr e is that a
director can ‘r ead’ a pla y in an y way the y wish and then, pr esuma bly, the
audience m ember s can also r ead the r esulting perf ormance in an y way the y
wish. The v ery idea of a pr oduction of, let us sa y, Chekho v’s Uncle Vanya as
opposed to Br ook’s Uncle Vanya, for instance, becom es unintelligible since the
author is no long er to be consider ed of importance in the determination of the
play’s possible m eanings . Andr ei Serban in his pr oduction of this pla y at La
Mama in Ne w York in 1983 full y accepted his right to r ead the pla y freely. He
chose to intr oduce such ‘cr eativ e’ mom ents as ha ving ‘V ania sitting on the
professor’s la p and the pr ofessor lecher ously pawing Elena’.17 And w hy not,
if anything g oes?
It is pr ecisel y this totall y anar chic vie w of interpr etation that needs to be
questioned, f or in or der to ha ve even the possibility of su pplying insights that
might help students , director s and actor s under stand Chekho v’s pla ys, one needs
to be con vinced that the pla ywright has some authority in the comple x process
of interpr etation. The r elationship betw een author s and their interpr eters needs
to be further e xamined.
Both P eter Holland and Michael Quinn18 have illuminated this pr oblematic
relationship . Quinn begins his article with a useful statem ent a bout the comple x
natur e of theatrical interpr etation as it is per ceived toda y:
Play production in volves the activity of an entir e collectiv e, and the r elations
among the man y agents of the theatrical perf ormance often becom e extremely
comple x. The r elation betw een the author of the te xt and the sta ge dir ector is
perha ps the most difficult of these to sort out and under stand, f or those
occupying the r oles often claim a kind of primary or f ounding status .19
Arnold Wesker, a pla ywright w ho, like Chekho v, felt that his w orks w ere
often misinterpr eted, passionatel y argues the case f or the primac y of the
playwright o ver the dir ector’s function. In an article significantl y titled
‘Interpr etation: To Impose or Explain’, Wesker puts f orward the e xtreme form
of the ar gument that privileg es the pla ywright o ver the dir ector:
Let us r emind our selves of som ething that is perha ps forgotten. The ra w material
of the pla ywright is his individual e xperience of lif e. This e xperience is a kind
of chaos into w hich occasionall y ther e shines a light, a tin y light of m eaning .
A small part of the chaos is identified, som etimes compr ehended. The pla ywright
gives this chaos a sha pe, an or der. He calls it a pla y … The original pla y should
6Interpreting Chekhov

be consider ed the primary w ork, the dir ector’s pr oduction the secondary w ork.
But a strang e metamorphosis is taking place: the dir ector is tr eating the pla y as
his primary sour ce, as his raw material to do with it ho w he f ancies . The
playwright endur es the lif e and fr om it sha pes a pla y, the dir ector then r obs,
scavenges, rapes it.20
Chekho v felt a similar anguish to Wesker w hen he sa w his o wn pla ys
misinterpr eted. The g ap that he per ceived betw een his pla ytexts and the
performance te xts that the y were transf ormed into led him to lose som e of his
initial lo ve of the theatr e. In a letter to Suv orin, his friend and publisher , in
1898, Chekho v declar ed:
Form erly I had no g reater delight than to sit in a theatr e, but no w I sit ther e
feeling as though at an y mom ent som eone in the g allery will shout: ‘Fir e!’ And
I don’t lik e actor s. The chang e is due to m y being a pla ywright.21
Chekho v becam e so disillusioned with theatrical misinterpr etations of his pla ys
that, at v arious tim es, he declar ed that he w ould nev er again write f or the sta ge.
The idea that the dir ector should be privileg ed over the pla ywright has been
given su pport b y modern deconstructiv e theory . Gerald Ra bkin puts this
theor etical position star kly when he claims that:
Since the dir ector is the main instrum ent of interpr etation in the theatr e of our
time, the pla ywright holds no mor e privileg e over the dir ector than literatur e
holds o ver criticism.22
This str etches the idea of ‘interpr etation’ to a point w here it loses its primary
meaning . The Macquarie Dictionary defines the v erb to ‘interpr et’ as: ‘to set
forth the m eaning of; e xplain or elucidate’. Consequentl y, to criticall y interpr et
a pla y would m ean ‘to set f orth the m eaning of a pla y; to e xplain or elucidate a
play’. This implies that ther e is a pr e-existing entity to be interpr eted. It w ould
more accuratel y reflect Ra bkin’s actual ar gument if he r eplaced ‘interpr etation’
with the w ord ‘cr eation’ since it is this latter w ord which best describes w hat
he sees as the actual functional achiev ement of the modern dir ector . This becom es
obvious w hen one looks at another r evealing statem ent in Ra bkin’s article entitled
‘Is Ther e a Text on This Sta ge?: Theatr e/Author ship/Interpr etation’:
If it is as v alid to speak of perf ormance te xt as of written te xt, the vital theatrical
problem is the r elationship betw een the tw o, for in the dominant hierar chical
model in w estern cultur e the perf ormance te xt is off ered as an interpr etation
— a r eading — of the dramatic te xt. The rise of ‘dir ector’s theatr e’ mirr ors
literary criticism’s mo vement fr om the emphasis u pon the immanent ‘m eaning’
of literary te xts to the acceptance of the pr ocesses of r eading and interpr etation
which determine m eaning .23
7Introduction

The Macquarie Dictionary pr ovides another definition of ‘interpr etation’ that
sugg ests a m uch str onger connection betw een the pla ytext and the perf ormance
text than that put f orward by Ra bkin. This definition r efers specificall y to
theatrical interpr etation. To theatricall y interpr et a pla y is ‘to bring out the
meaning of (a dramatic w ork, music, etc.)’.
Neither of the tw o extreme critical positions dealing with the importance
placed on the pla ywright’s or the dir ector’s contribution to the theatrical ev ent
is satisf actory . On the one hand ther e are those w ho ar e con vinced that the
meaning of an y pla y lies in the literary pla ytext and that an y theatrical
interpr etation of that te xt will debase that m eaning — a m eaning that can onl y
be per ceived by an elite! So Har old God dard gets rid of the thorn y problem of
the r elationship betw een the literary pla ytext and the perf ormance te xt by
denying the v alidity of perf ormance. In w hat seems to be a perv erse sort of
bardolatry , he ar gues that drama:
… m ust mak e a wide and imm ediate a ppeal to a lar ge number of people of
ordinary intellig ence … The public does not w ant the truth. It w ants
confirmation of its pr ejudices … What the poet is seeking , on the other hand,
is the secr et of lif e, and, ev en if he w ould, he cannot shar e with a cr owd in a
theatr e, thr ough the distorting m edium of actor s who ar e far from sharing his
genius , such gleams of it as ma y have been r evealed to him. He can shar e it onl y
with a f ew, and with them mostl y in solitude …24
One m ust pr esum e that God dard sees himself as one of ‘the f ew’ with a dir ect
line thr ough to the g enius of Shak espear e. By r eceiving a pla ywright’s w ork in
solitude without the m ediation of the theatr e and all of its perf ormance codes ,
a critic lik e God dard can deceiv e himself into thinking that his interpr etation
of Shak espear e is identical to the m eaning intended b y Shak espear e. No one will
be able to contradict him — Shak espear e is dead and God dard is in solitude!
It is just this sort of ridiculous sear ch for a single m eaning that leads som e
critics and audience m ember s to seek a ‘definitiv e’ production of a pla y. In eff ect,
what seems to ha ppen is that these particular audience m ember s have in their
minds som e preconceiv ed ima ge or idea of the pla y’s m eaning . This ima ge or
idea, w hich the y assum e to be the pla ywright’s m eaning rather than their o wn
interpr etation of the pla y, is compar ed with the actual pr oduction the y are
witnessing . If the pr oduction mirr ors their o wn idea of the pla y the y regard it
as successful w hile, if it f ails to mirr or their o wn idea of the pla y, the y claim
that the dir ector s and cast ha ve presented a distortion of the pla ywright’s pla y.
The f act that no single m eaning of a pla y exists, and consequentl y no
definitiv e theatrical interpr etation of a pla y is possible, does not impl y that pla ys
can m ean an ything and that any theatrical interpr etation is accepta ble. Ev en the
deconstructionists find this conclusion difficult to accept. Ra bkin has tried to
8Interpreting Chekhov

extricate the deconstructionists fr om a critical position that a ppear s to den y the
possibility of artistic discrimination. He uses the term ‘misr eading’ to m ean an y
and all interpr etations and, in so doing , removes the useful distinction betw een
an accepta ble reading or interpr etation and a misr eading or misinterpr etation:
But ho w, then, does one a void e xcusing w eak or banal pr oductions as necessary
deconstructiv e strategies? Ho w does the audience, the critic discern w hich
directorial ‘manhandling’ is v alid, w hich simplistic r eduction or m ere caprice?
Deconstruction does not assert that an ything g oes, that all interpr etation is
equal. The Yale deconstructor s have warned a gainst the fr eedom of mis-r eading .
All mis-r eadings ar e not equall y valid. [Hillis] Miller insists that the r eader is
not free to giv e the narrativ e any meaning he wishes , but that … m eaning
emerges from a r ecipr ocal act in w hich interpr eter and w hat is interpr eted both
contribute to the making or the finding of a pattern.25
Hillis Miller’s comm ent raises mor e questions than it ans wers. Should a
director concentrate on ‘the finding of a pattern’ in the pla y or f ocus their
activities on ‘making a pattern’? The fir st approach assum es that ther e is a
pattern, pr esuma bly created b y the pla ywright, w hich is to be f ound in the pla y,
while the second a pproach eff ectiv ely mak es the dir ector the author of the w ork.
Is the dir ector w ho ‘mak es a pattern’ interpr eting the pla y or cr eating it?
Interpr etation and cr eativity need not be antithetical. It is important to r ecognise
that som e pla ytexts ar e mor e ‘open’ to the possibility of a rang e of accepta ble
readings or interpr etations than other s. Plays such as Hamlet and The Cherry
Orchard may well ha ve various patterns that can be r ealised on sta ge in diff erent
productions and thus encoura ge dir ectorial cr eativity . A m elodrama such as
Lady Audley’s Secret may be mor e ‘closed’ in terms of the possible patterns of
interpr etation. It ma y not allo w for as g reat a ‘plurality of r eadings’.
Harold God dard, when assessing the riv al claims of the pla ywright and the
director , avoids dealing with the difficult question of the r elationship betw een
the literary te xt and the perf ormance te xt by simpl y rejecting the v alue of the
performance te xt alto gether . In a similar manner , those w ho wish to privileg e
the perf ormance te xt tend to r egard the literary te xt as a m ere pretext. One can
see som e validity in such a position w hen one is dealing with unscripted
performance-art cr eations . Theatrical ev ents such as ha ppenings , much
experim ental perf ormance art and impr ovisational theatr e allo w the dir ector s
or perf ormers a fr ee hand in the ‘making of a pattern’. This is sur ely because
the perf ormance te xt is the onl y text. Ther e is no prior literary te xt whose pattern
a dir ector might try to find. Ho wever, the kind of critical stance w hich claims
that pla ys w hich ha ve a literary te xt really exist, or can be under stood, only in
performance leads , as Richar d Levin has pointed out, to all sorts of pr oblems:
If a pla y really exists onl y in perf ormance, then, since ther e would be no w ay
to determine which performance (since that w ould bring us back to the author’s
9Introduction

text, and so conf er ‘r eality’ u pon it as w ell), it w ould ha ve to m ean any
performance. This w ould m ean that an y alterations made in the te xt during an y
performance, ev en including actor s’ err ors, would becom e part of the ‘r eal’
play. Then ther e would be no ‘r eal’ pla y, but onl y the a ggregate of all the
different perf ormances , which w ould all be equall y legitimate, since the author’s
text, and hence his m eaning , could no long er be r elevant, and the sole criterion
for jud ging them w ould be w hether each one ‘w orked’ in its o wn terms . But
then it w ould mak e no sense to sa y that a pla y can be r eally under stood onl y
in perf ormance, because ther e would be no independent ‘r eality’ a part fr om
the perf ormance that could be under stood. Thus the assertion that a pla y can
be under stood onl y in perf ormance w ould seem to be either tautolo gical (if the
play and the perf ormance ar e identical) or self-contradictory (if the y are not).26
Ther e is no w ay of e xcluding the author and the literary te xt when questions
of interpr etation arise. What needs to be w orked out is the pr ecise natur e of the
relationship betw een dir ector and pla ywright in w hat Hillis Miller called ‘the
recipr ocal act’ of theatrical interpr etation.
Ther e is in f act no need to privileg e either the pla ywright or the dir ector .
Peter Holland has ar gued that Stanisla vski’s despotic contr ol over the pr oduction
of Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard privileg ed the dir ector o ver the pla ywright.
In or der to r edress this imbalance he claims that:
Ther e is of cour se no r eason w hy the deprivileging of the dir ector should mak e
the writer privileg ed in turn. If the dir ector no long er has contr ol in an a bsolute
way as in the past, then w e should not assum e that the writer can ther efore
choose to fill the v acuum. The writer’s r eading is onl y one among competing
preferences .27
It is no w g enerall y, though not univ ersally, conceded that due
ackno wled gement of the pla ywright does not in volve the consequent
downgrading of all of the other theatr e artists in volved in the g roup creation of
a production. It is difficult to tak e seriousl y the idea that the pla ywright’s pla y
has som e golden n ugget of m eaning embed ded in it w hich the dir ector digs out,
and hands o ver to the actor s who, in turn, hand the unchang ed or e over to an
audience to tak e hom e and ad d to their w ealth of e xperience! The m eaning of a
play is nev er a sta ble object that r emains unchang ed thr ough the m ediation and
transf ormation pr ocesses that constitute theatrical pr oduction. What is actuall y
seen as m eaningful in a pla y varies fr om dir ector to dir ector , from g eneration to
generation, and fr om cultur e to cultur e. Consequentl y, the most inter esting and
enduring pla ys seem to be those that in vite a plurality of r eadings or
interpr etations . As J onathan Miller comm ented in his Adelaide Festiv al talk:
‘What is so inter esting a bout rich comple x works of the ima gination is that y ou
can still f ocus on diff erent lev els at diff erent periods .’28
10Interpreting Chekhov

Bernar d Beck erman mak es the ad ditional important point that a v ariety of
possible r eadings is inevita ble r egardless of w hether w e tend to privileg e the
playwright o ver the dir ector or vice v ersa:
As w e becom e aware of ho w successiv e generations ha ve responded to specific
plays, we com e to see that a te xt does not ha ve a single ideal manif estation.
Instead it e xperiences a succession of transf ormations . Whether one chooses to
consider these div erse transf ormations as complem entary e xpressions of a single
textual cor e or to see them as independent r econstructions of a potential but
incomplete idea, the e xistence of v alid alternate v ersions of a te xt emphasizes
our oblig ation to see a pla y as a comple x of d ynamic possibilities .29
What is also significant a bout Beck erman’s comm ent is that he r ealises that the
fact that ther e will al ways be diff ering interpr etations does not m ean that all
interpr etations ar e accepta ble. The idea of ‘v alid alternate v ersions of a te xt’ not
only opens the possibility f or an infinite n umber of possible v ersions but also
implies that ther e ar e or can be ‘in valid’ v ersions . Possible theatrical
interpr etations or r eadings m ust allo w for possible misinterpr etations or
misreadings . Ther e have been pr oductions of Hamlet where Ophelia’s madness
has been pr esented in a sadl y lyrical manner , other s in w hich her madness has
been portra yed in a violent and frightening w ay. Both of these a pproaches ar e
possible interpr etations and ar e certainl y not contradicted b y the te xt. Ho wever,
a production in w hich Ophelia is pr esented as not being mad at all constitutes
a misinterpr etation since all the a vailable evidence in the pla ytext sugg ests that
she g oes mad.
Whether Stanisla vski’s pr oduction of Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard should
be regarded as one v alid interpr etation amongst the m ultiplicity of possible
interpr etations or as a misinterpr etation, as Chekho v claim ed, is open to debate.
If we still wish to distinguish betw een theatrical interpr etations that ar e valid
and those that ar e not, w e need to esta blish w orkable criteria to allo w us to mak e
such a distinction.
Few critics ha ve written an ything that is particularl y helpful on this topic.
One nota ble e xception is Ro ger Gr oss, whose book Understanding Pla yscripts:
Theory and Method is both clear and subtle in its e xplication of the comple xities
involved in theatrical interpr etation. Sev eral of Gr oss’s insights underpin m y
critical assumptions in this stud y of Chekho v. Gross uses the twin concepts of
‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’, w hich he borr ows fr om the fields of mathematics
and m echanics , as anal ytical tools to help dir ector s arriv e at a v alid, or as he
calls it, ‘corr ect’ interpr etation:
A ‘corr ect’ r eading is one w hich full y rationalizes the pla yscript so that the
performance based on it is coher ent and complete without contradicting or
omitting an y of the r equir ements of the Commanding Form.30
11Introduction

The ‘param eter’ that an y dir ector consider s when interpr eting a pla yscript
involves asking the question: ‘What must happen in a pr oduction of this pla y?’
As Gr oss defines it:
The param eter is that in a v ariable system w hich r emains constant w hile other
factor s chang e. The pla ywright ma y be said to ha ve esta blished a param eter,
certain Psy chic Ev ents w hich m ust occur if the pla y is to be consider ed an
accepta ble v ersion of the pla yscript.31
By ‘Psy chic Ev ents’ Gr oss m eans the ‘under standing’ that an audience has as a
result of seeing the ‘Ph ysical Ev ents’ on the sta ge:
Physical Pr ocess is pr e-verbal, pr e-conceptual. It is w hat is; w hen it is noticed,
the noticing is a Psy chic Ev ent. Ph ysical Pr ocesses ar e the ‘matter’ of drama.
Psychic Ev ents ar e what Ph ysical Pr ocesses pr ovoke in our minds , and that is
what really counts . Physical Pr ocesses ar e the m edium b y which Psy chic Ev ents
are comm unicated fr om artist to audience. Onl y when an a ppropriate Psy chic
Event occur s in the mind of the audience or the interpr eter has the pla y
‘succeeded’. Onl y Ph ysical Pr ocesses ar e actuall y on sta ge. Psy chic Ev ents,
Dramatic Actions f or example, e xist onl y as m ental ev ents in the audience and
as sign-potential of the pla y/script.32
Later Gr oss defines the Aristotelian concept of the o verall action of a pla y in
terms of Psy chic Ev ent:
The simplest definition of ‘the Action’ is ‘the Master Psy chic Ev ent’ of the pla y.
That is , the pla y as a w hole seen as one Psy chic Ev ent.33
An Ophelia w ho nev er goes mad ma y be consider ed a misinterpr etation if, as a
result of omitting the Ph ysical Ev ent of Ophelia’s madness specified in the
playtext, w e destr oy the r equir ed Psy chic Ev ent that constitutes one of the
param eters of Hamlet.
The ‘tolerance’ as defined b y Gross in volves the dir ector asking the question:
‘What ma y not happen in a pr oduction of this pla y?’:
The tolerance of a system is the deg ree to w hich f actor s ma y vary and still
perform their functions in the system. The pla ywright ma y be said to ha ve
established tolerances , certain limits within w hich Psy chic Ev ents m ust occur
if the pla y is to be consider ed an accepta ble v ersion of the pla yscript.34
The manner in w hich an y giv en Ophelia g oes mad allo ws for a g reat rang e
of interpr etations that ar e within the tolerances of the pla yscript. Serban’s
decision to ha ve Professor Ser ebryakov ‘lecher ously pa wing’ Helen in his
production of Uncle Vanya lies outside the tolerances of that pla yscript and is
an example of w hat the critic Star k Young scathingl y described as ‘virtuosity’:
12Interpreting Chekhov

Director s move mor e toward virtuosity w hen the y tak e the pla y onl y as material
for som e idea that the y wish to e xpress. They are not concerned with giving us
the pla y’s idea so m uch as their o wn. An e xtreme virtuoso in the theatr e uses
the pla y as the other sort of dir ector uses the actor s or the décor , it does not
provide the main idea or the mood of the theatr e work but is emplo yed to e xpress
his idea. He does not dev elop the pla y for w hat is in it but uses it to cr eate a
sort of drama of his o wn. He distorts the pla y and f orces it to ends not its o wn
but his .35
To be sympathetic to Young’s vie wpoint does not m ean that one a pproves
of ‘m useum theatr e’ or conserv ative productions of pla ys or wishes to den y the
creativity of dir ector s, designer s and actor s. When P eter Br ook sets A Midsummer
Night’s Dream in a w hite bo x with character s swinging on tra pezes , or w hen
Jonathan Miller sets The Merc hant of V enice in nineteenth-century London, the y
are not being virtuosi in the sense implied b y Star k Young . Rather , the y are
aware that pla ys and audiences e xist in tim e and that their task as dir ector s is
to mak e pla ys from the past speak to an audience of toda y. They realise that, in
order to achiev e this g oal, pla ys need to be constantl y re-interpr eted. The eff ect
of seeing such pr oductions is that, as a r esult of the dir ectorial transf ormations
made in pr oduction, the audience com es away with a clear er and deeper
under standing of the pla y.
This e xperience is su perbl y described b y Rodne y Ackland after witnessing
Miller’s 1976 pr oduction of Three Sisters . When he w ent to see the pla y, he
carried with him his vivid m emory of K omisarjevsk y’s famous 1926 pr oduction.
Miller’s pr oduction f orced Ackland to see that K omisarjevsk y’s interpr etation
was not the onl y possible w ay of pr esenting Chekho v’s pla y:
… all these unima ginable y ears later , I could per ceive, quite clearl y in m y mind’s
eye, an ima ge of Trixie Thompson [the actr ess w ho pla yed Irina in
Komisarjevsk y’s pr oduction] as she w as in the fir st act, with her delicate,
flower-like beauty and her tr emulous hopes of ha ppiness , a perf ect paradigm
of all Chekho v’s y oung girls , the ‘little victims’ w ho, all unconscious of their
fourth-act doom, do , in the fir st act, pla y. This, surely, was the onl y possible
Irina, the true Irina of Chekho vian intent.
But her e, bef ore my present e yes, was a determined y oung per son in a stiff and
starchy high-neck ed dr ess, abrasiv e and un yielding in manner as the material
the dr ess w as made of. And she too , accor ding to Dr Miller and Miss Ang ela
Down [the actr ess w ho pla yed Irina in Miller’s pr oduction], w as su pposed to
be Irina. I f ound this difficult to accept. I r esisted it. I hated it! But g raduall y,
reluctantl y and fighting ev ery inch of the w ay, I was won over.
13Introduction

Oblig ed by this ne w approach to giv e a trul y ‘cool, har d’ hearing to Irina’s lines ,
sure enough, the y gave little evidence of the tenderness , the sympath y, the
delicac y of f eeling w hich I had tak en for granted to be her s.36
Clearl y Miller con vinced Ackland that his pr oduction w as in som e sense
justified b y the te xt and made sense of the te xt in 1976. In Gr oss’s terminolo gy,
the Ph ysical Ev ents used b y Komisarjevsk y in 1926 w hich seem ed to pr oduce
appropriate Psy chic Ev ents in audience m ember s did not seem to Miller to be
appropriate to his under standing of the pla y in 1976. Consequentl y, Miller
requir ed a ne w set of Ph ysical Ev ents to pr oduce the a ppropriate Psy chic Ev ents.
These transf ormations wr ought u pon the pla y by Miller ar e not pieces of
virtuosity but necessary w ays of comm unicating the action of Chekho v’s pla y.
Without such transf ormations of the Ph ysical Ev ents, without r e-interpr etation,
Chekho v’s pla y would not deliv er itself to a modern audience.37
The g eneral line of ar gument put f orward by the critic and dir ector J onathan
Miller sugg ests that the r elationship betw een the dir ector and the author is
neither one of self-eff acing subservience nor of self-a ggrandising arr ogance. The
director in this vie w is neither ‘butler’ nor ‘virtuoso’. The ‘r ecipr ocal act’ of
theatrical interpr etation, w hile it demands the fr eedom necessary f or the dir ector
to find the a ppropriate Ph ysical Ev ents to r ealise the pla y’s Psy chic Ev ents,
necessaril y denies the dir ector total fr eedom to cr eate w hatev er the y wish if the
realisation of the pla y’s Psy chic Ev ents r emains the objectiv e of that dir ector .38
Wher e Gross talks of ‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’, Miller talks of ‘determinanc y’
and ‘indeterminanc y’. Both ackno wled ge the e xistence of the pla ywright’s pla y.
Ther e ma y not be clearl y defined ‘n uggets’ of m eaning to be dug out of the
playscripts and deliv ered to audiences , but the pla yscripts do at least define and
limit the possible m eanings . We cannot define all of the v alid potential m eanings
of a giv en pla ytext, but w e can often e xclude certain r eadings as being too
far-fetched. J onathan Miller , when discussing ho w kno wled ge of a pla y’s
historical conte xt partiall y determines m eanings , wittil y illustrates this point:
That is w hy, in fact, one speaks of the indeterminanc y of w orks of art and pla ys
in particular . It is not that the y are totall y undetermined, or undetermina ble,
because ther e are certain things that ar e obviousl y determined — to a v ery lar ge
extent — b y their actual linguistic structur e. When Hamlet sa ys ‘T o be or not
to be’ it is quite clear that he is not talking a bout making raspberry jam.39
What needs to be esta blished is not som e spurious hierar chy that privileg es
one theatr e artist o ver another in the cr eation of the theatrical ev ent, but som e
means of deciding ho w the v arious artists ar e to function cr eativ ely in r elation
to each other . It is her e that the idea of ‘priority’ becom es mor e important than
‘privileging’. The w ork of the pla ywright is prior to , though not necessaril y
more important than, the w ork of dir ector s and actor s. In a pr oduction of
14Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s The Seagull , the w ork of the dir ector and of the actor s is clearl y as
necessary to a perf ormance of the pla y as ar e the pla ywright’s w ords. All ar e
necessary and none ar e by themselv es sufficient, but ther e is a sequential or der
in which w ork has to be done to pr oduce the pla y. It is in this ‘sequential’ rather
than an y ‘privileging’ sense that the pla ywright’s pla y tak es priority o ver the
work of the dir ector and of the other theatr e artists .
Today, when dir ectorial and critical virtuosity is rampant, it is salutary to
be reminded of the importance of priority of the literary te xt. It is significant
that one of the major criticisms made a bout Stanisla vski’s pr oductions of
Chekho v’s pla ys w as that, b y privileging the contributions of the dir ector and
actor in the theatrical cr eation, and b y failing to accept the importance of the
playwright’s pla y, he f ailed to cr eate the Master Psy chic Ev ent of Chekho v’s
play for the audience.
Necessaril y, this stud y concentrates on e xamining the literary rather than
the perf ormance te xts of Chekho v’s pla ys. They will be e xamined fr om the point
of vie w of a dir ector , actor or student of theatr e who wishes to disco ver ho w
these pla ys might be interpr eted in pr oduction. This stud y will mainl y deal with
the playwright’s pla ytext , and the director’s performance text . It will not deal
directly with the audience’s decoding of the director’s performance text .
The r eason f or this a pproach should be f airly clear b y now. The o verall aim
of this w ork is not to legislate w hat actual pr oductions of Chekho v should look
like but to sugg est approaches to interpr etation that should pr oduce richer , mor e
valid v ersions of these pla ys in pr oduction. J ean Ho ward is corr ect w hen she
claims that ‘ther e is a crucial diff erence betw een e xamining the pla ys vie wed as
blueprints f or perf ormance and e xamining the pla ys as enacted in particular
performances’.40 Actual pr oductions r eferred to in this stud y will be used to
illustrate the e xtent to w hich the y failed or succeeded in fulfilling the
specifications of the pla y’s ‘blueprint’. The pr ecise r elationship betw een the
actor’s a pproach to building a character and the dir ector’s a pproach to the
comm unication of the idea of the pla y, betw een w hat Gr oss calls the ‘fictional’
and the ‘functional’ v ersions of the pla y, will be dealt with mor e full y in the
chapters that anal yse Chekho v’s pla ys. While the tw o approaches ar e clearl y
related, the y are not identical.
The emphasis placed on the pla ytext in this stud y in no w ay denies the
creativity of a dir ector . Due emphasis needs to be placed on both the author’s
and the dir ector’s artistic input. Tyrone Guthrie is sur ely corr ect w hen he ar gues,
in def ence of Stanisla vski’s and Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s approach to Chekho v’s
plays, that 'the y were sur ely entitled to their vie w of w hat the script m eant to
them; and as dir ector s of the pr oduction, w ere not onl y entitled but bound to
interpr et it in their w ay'.41 Guthrie r ealises that an y interpr etation m ust depend
upon the amount of inf ormation and kno wled ge the dir ector has a bout the pla y.
15Introduction

He ackno wled ges that Stanisla vski and Nemir ovich-Danchenk o will no doubt
‘have been v ery m uch influenced b y the author’s disa greement and will ha ve
made man y chang es, often a gainst their better jud gement; but without their
being a ble to help it, the interpr etation will ha ve, in g eneral, been w hat they
make of the script’.42
The act of ‘transposing a written w ork from the ima ginary r ealm of r eading
to the concr ete realm of the sta ge’43 is the dir ector’s task but, as the F rench
director , Jean Vilar, has pointed out, that task can be carried out sensitiv ely or
stupidly. Vilar’s rhetorical question to w ould-be dir ector s, ‘Can one interpr et
something one doesn’t under stand?’44 is clearl y to be ans wered in the neg ative.
He implies that ther e is a literary te xt that needs to be under stood b y the dir ector
before the y can intellig ently transf orm it into a perf ormance te xt. Because Vilar
felt not enough attention w as being paid to the pla ywright’s pla y he ad ded:
‘One can nev er read the pla y often enough. Actor s nev er read it often enough.’45
Vilar’s w ords echo those of Chekho v who complained that both Stanisla vski
and Nemir ovich-Danchenk o did not pa y close enough attention to his pla yscripts .
In a letter to his wif e Olg a Knipper on 10 A pril 1904, the d ying pla ywright
fulminated a bout the Mosco w Art Theatr e co-f ounder s for ha ving misinterpr eted
his last pla y: ‘Nemir ovich and Alekse yev positiv ely do not see in m y pla y what
I wrote, and I am r eady to v ouch that neither of them r ead The Cherry Orc hard
through car efully even once.’46
Both Nemir ovich-Danchenk o and Stanisla vski r ecord Chekho v’s ad vice to
actor s concerning ho w to pla y certain r oles. Neither dir ector f ound his ad vice
either clear or helpful. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o claims that ‘Chekho v was
incapable of ad vising actor s, even later w hen he cam e into contact with the
actor s of the Art Theatr e. Ev erything a ppear ed so compr ehensible to him: “Wh y,
I have written it all do wn”, he w ould ans wer.’47 Stanisla vski noted that
Chekho v’s reticence to talk a bout his pla ys w as ha bitual:
It ma y seem strang e, but he could not talk a bout his o wn pla ys. Feeling as if he
were being questioned himself b y a judicial e xaminer , he w ould g row confused,
and in or der to find a w ay out of the strang e situation and to g et rid of us , he
would tak e advantage of his usual statem ent: ‘Listen, I wr ote it do wn, it is all
there.’48
Regardless of Chekho v’s belief that his dramas w ere perf ectly clear , both
critics and dir ector s have interpr eted his pla ys in mar kedly diff erent w ays. My
re-examination of Chekho v’s pla ys will concentrate on esta blishing pr ecisel y
‘what is ther e’. We can then disco ver som e of the ‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’
of Chekho v’s drama and, as a r esult, sugg est possible v alid interpr etations of
his pla ys, and in ad dition e xplain w hy som e other v ersions of his dramas ar e
16Interpreting Chekhov

misinterpr etations . In particular w e should be a ble to find out w hy critics and
director s alik e have arriv ed at such widel y div ergent interpr etations of his w ork.
In Chekho v’s lif etime ther e was considera ble critical disa greement amongst
Russian critics concerning both the natur e and v alue of his literary cr eations .
Since that tim e the critical fluctuations , both in Russia and a broad, ha ve becom e
polarised into the ‘gloom y’ and ‘positiv e’ schools of Chekho v criticism. It is not
surprising to find that So viet critics ha ve tended ‘to find and accentuate
optimistic and positiv e values in Chekho vian drama and to emphasise that the
author had a m essage for the masses’,49 nor is it strang e to find man y Western
critics disco vering the ‘e xistential’ ev en ‘a bsurdist’ pessimistic Chekho v whose
plays sho w us ‘that tim e cannot be slo wed or r eversed, that human natur e cannot
be reformed or r evitalised’.50
Both So viet and Western critics necessaril y approach Chekho v from their
own ideolo gical standpoint and the patr onising attitude that is often e xpressed
by Western critics to wards the ‘optimistic’ So viet r eading of Chekho v often
stems fr om a f ailure to see that w e have our o wn biases . As Tulloch per ceptiv ely
notes: ‘For too long Western critics ha ve pinpointed the v alue-laden assumptions
of So viet interpr etation of Chekho v without equall y questioning their o wn
epistemolo gies.’51
Chekho v’s comple x attitude to ward both lif e and art mak e any simple
pigeonholing of his vision of r eality under headings lik e ‘optimistic’ or
‘pessimistic’ w holly unsatisf actory . As J oseph Wood Krutch has pointed out,
‘if he had been simpl y unconcerned with the futur e and eng aged in nothing but
a def ence of his d ying aristocrat, he w ould m erely ha ve been a possibl y
inter esting conserv ative’.52 Such ‘gloom y’ Western interpr etations of Chekho v
are no mor e, and no less , satisf actory than the ‘u plifting’ interpr etations of the
early Soviet critics w ho tried to mak e of Chekho v ‘a sort of J ohn the Ba ptist of
the Rev olution pr eparing the w ay for the a ppearance of Lenin’.53
Even amongst critics w ho shar e similar ideolo gies ther e is disa greement about
the natur e of Chekho v’s w orks. Just as critics in the West ar gue a bout w hether
Chekho v’s w orks should be classified as being optimistic or pessimistic, so
Marxist critics squa bble about the natur e of the pla ywright’s vision of r eality:
A.V. Lunachar skii, P eople’s Commissar of Public Education and himself a
playwright, w as very positiv e about Chekho v, whom he believ es to ha ve been
‘in lo ve with lif e’, w hile the Bolshevik ideolo gue P . I. Lebedev-P olianskii f ound
only ‘hopeless pessimism’ in Chekho v.54
Depending u pon w hether dir ector s have been con vinced b y the ‘gloom y’ or
the ‘positiv e’ school of critics , Chekho v’s pla ys ha ve been pr oduced in a manner
that emphasises either their tra gic potentialities (as Stanisla vski insisted) or their
comic possibilities (as Chekho v advocated).
17Introduction

It was not simpl y the ‘pessimism/optimism’ and the consequent ‘tra gic/comic’
dualism that f ascinated Chekho v but also such potentiall y antithetical pairings
as ‘science/art’, ‘ideal/r eal’, ‘mask/f ace’, and ‘outer lif e/inner lif e’. The ne w form
of drama that he devised to e xpress the comple x relationship betw een these
various dualities w as itself dependent on the f ormal duality of te xt/subte xt. The
examination that f ollows will demonstrate the w ays in w hich pr oductions of
Chekho v’s pla ys that f oreground either the tra gic or comic elem ents to the
exclusion of the other ar e misinterpr etations . One-sided pr oductions f alsify the
playwright’s vision of r eality embodied in the o verall action of the pla ys and
affect the manner in w hich the action is e xpressed. The f orm and content of
Chekho v’s pla ys depend u pon the inter -relationship and tension betw een the
polarities of gloom y neg ativity and f acile optimism. Indeed a central unifying
thread that connects all of Chekho v’s writings is his attempt to r ecognise, r elate
and r econcile a w hole series of dualisms .
It is w hen critics and dir ector s concentrate on one elem ent of these dualisms
and ignor e the other that one-sided and r eductionist r eadings of Chekho v occur .
Productions of Chekho v’s pla ys that o ver-emphasise either the outer surf ace
reality of the te xt or the inner hid den r eality of the subte xt will inevita bly be
‘thin’. The pla ys ar e constructed in such a w ay that their full comple xity and
richness can onl y be r ealised in perf ormance w hen emphasis is placed on the
dynamic r elationship betw een the outer and inner r eality , betw een the te xt and
the subte xt.
Any polarised r eading inevita bly posits an ‘either/or’ a pproach w hereas a
‘both/and’ interpr etation of Chekho v mor e accuratel y describes both the vision
and f orm of his w orks. An e xamination of just how Chekho v mana ges to write
in such a w ay that the ‘character s and situations’ can be seen sim ultaneousl y as
both tra gic and comic and the pla y as a w hole can be interpr eted sim ultaneousl y
as both pessimistic and optimistic needs to be e xplor ed. This stud y will ha ve
achiev ed its aim if it per suades dir ector s and critics to attempt to cr eate rich,
balanced and comple x readings of Chekho v’s pla ys b y avoiding simplistic
polarised r eadings of these w orks.
ENDNOTES
1 Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v on Sta ge,’ in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess,
Westport, 1985, p . 209.
2 Magarshack, D ., The Real Chekhov , Geor ge Allen and Unwin, London, 1972, p . 9.
3 Ibid.
4 Callo w, P., Chekhov: The Hidden Ground , Ivan R. Dee, Chica go, 1998, p . 105.
5 Miller , J., in Delg ado, M. M. and Herita ge, P., eds , In Contact with the Gods?: Directors T alk Theatre ,
Manchester Univ ersity Pr ess, Manchester , 1996, p . 163.
6 Miller , J., ‘Dir ecting the Classics’, A BC br oadcast of Adelaide Festiv al Talk, n.d.
7 Brook, P ., quoted in Ra bkin, G ., ‘The Pla y of Misr eading: Text/Theatr e/Deconstruction’, Performing
Arts J ournal , Vol. 7, No . 1, 1983, p . 57.
8 Miller , J., loc. cit.
18Interpreting Chekhov

9 Chekho v, A., quoted in Hingle y, R., A New Lif e of Chekhov , Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1976,
p. 305. Among the mor e recent pla ywrights w ho ha ve complained bitterl y about the dir e fate of the
playwright w hen placed in the hands of theatr e practitioner s, we can include such writer s as Eug ene
O’Neill, Tennessee Williams and Arnold Wesker.
10 Ashton, B ., Letter to New Statesman , 11 September 1970, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 7.
11 Hornb y, R., Script into Perf ormance: A Structuralist Approac h, Paragon House Publisher s, New York,
1987, p . 95.
12 The m ultiplicity of signifying systems that operate in an y perf ormance ma y be one of the main
reasons w hy ‘the sta ge, unlik e literatur e, will nev er be subject to computerized semiotic anal ysis’.
(Quinn, M. L., ‘Reading and Dir ecting the Pla y’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 3, No . 11, A ugust 1987,
p. 221.) This is w hy Esslin, f or all his attraction to semiotics , concedes that, ‘it ma y be an o ver-ambitious
project to r educe the semiotics of dramatic perf ormance to an “e xact science”’. (Esslin, M., The Field of
Drama , Methuen, London, 1987, p . 51.) Chekho v, himself a trained scientist, believ ed that ther e are
areas of human e xperience that do not pr ovide fruitful r esults w hen subjected to scientific anal ysis.
This stud y reflects both the pla ywright’s deep r espect f or scientific m ethod and his a wareness of its
limitations:
Anyone w ho has master ed the wisdom of the scientific m ethod and ther efore kno ws ho w to
think scientificall y under goes an y number of delightful temptations … A ph ysiolo gy of
creativity pr obably does e xist in natur e, but all dr eams of it m ust be a bandoned at the outset.
No good will come of cr itics taking a scientif ic stance : they’ll w aste ten y ears, they’ll write a lot
of ballast and confuse the issue still further — and that’s all the y’ll do . It’s al ways good to
think scientificall y; the tr ouble is that thinking scientificall y about art will inevita bly end u p
by deg enerating into a sear ch for the ‘cells’ or ‘centr es’ in char ge of cr eativ e ability , whereupon
some dull-witted German will disco ver them som ewhere in the temporal lobes , another will
disagree, a thir d German will a gree … and f or thr ee years an epidemic of utter nonsense will
hover in the Russian air , providing dullar ds with earnings and popularity and eng endering
nothing but irritation among intellig ent people. (Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 3
November 1888, in Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity
of Calif ornia Pr ess, Berkeley, 1975, pp . 121–2.)
13 Esslin, M., op . cit., p . 156.
14 Ibid., p . 50.
15 Barthes , R., ‘The Death of the A uthor’, in Rice, P . and Waugh, P ., eds , Modern Literary Theory ,
Edward Arnold, London, 1990, pp . 114–18.
16 Selden, R., A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory , The Harv ester Pr ess, Brighton, 1985,
p. 175.
17 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 223.
18 Holland, P ., ‘The Dir ector and the Pla ywright: Contr ol over the Means of Pr oduction’, New Theatre
Quarterl y, Vol. 3, No . 11, A ugust 1987, pp . 207–17, and Quinn, M. L., op . cit., pp . 218–23.
19 Quinn, M. L., op . cit., p . 218.
20 Wesker, A., ‘Interpr etation: To Impose or Explain’, Performing Arts J ournal , Vol. 11, No . 2, 1988,
pp. 63–4.
21 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 13 Mar ch 1898, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton Chekhov ,
The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 308.
22 Rabkin, G ., loc. cit.
23 Rabkin, G ., ‘Is Ther e a Text on This Sta ge?: Theatr e/Author ship/Interpr etation’, Performing Arts
Journal , Vol. 9, Nos 2 and 3, 1985, p . 155.
24 Goddard, H., quoted in Levin, R., ‘P erformance Critics vs Close Reader s in the Stud y of Renaissance
Drama’, Modern Language Review , Vol. 81, J uly 1986, p . 547.
25 Rabkin, G ., ‘The Pla y of Misr eading’, p . 59.
26 Levin, R., op . cit., p . 548.
27 Holland, P ., op. cit., p . 216.
28 Miller , J., loc. cit.
29 Beck erman, B ., in Hobg ood, B . M., ed., Master T eachers of Theatre: Observations on T eaching Theatre
by Nine Amer ican Masters , Southern Illinois Univ ersity Pr ess, Carbondale, 1988, p . 30.
19Introduction

30 Gross, R., Understanding Pla yscripts: Theory and Method , Bowling Gr een Univ ersity Pr ess, Bowling
Green, 1974, p . 134. ‘Commanding f orm’ is a term Gr oss borr ows fr om Suzanne Lang er. ‘This
“commanding f orm” esta blished b y the script … does not dictate the pr ecise natur e of each te xtural
detail of perf ormance; it sets limits of purpose and f orm within whic h other elements must function or
dissipate the unity of the pla y. Unity is achiev ed w hen each elem ent of pr oduction is a r esponse to the
commanding f orm esta blished b y the script.’ (Gr oss, R., op . cit., p . 12.) ‘The closest the interpr eter can
hope to com e is to construct a pla y which in no w ay violates the commanding f orm conceiv ed by the
author , and implied b y the pla yscript.’ (Gr oss, R., op . cit., pp . 133–4.)
31 Ibid., p . 134.
32 Ibid., p . 53.
33 Ibid., pp . 109–10.
34 Ibid., p . 134.
35 Young , S., The Theater , Doran, Ne w York, 1927, p . 85.
36 Ackland, R., quoted in Allen, D ., ‘Jonathan Miller Dir ects Chekho v’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol.
5, No . 17, February 1989, p . 54.
37 The need f or dir ector s to constantl y find ne w Ph ysical Ev ents to stim ulate a ppropriate Psy chic
Events in spectator s can be g raphicall y illustrated if w e look at one of the mor e obvious pr oblems
associated with a modern pr oduction of Everyman . Because, in the mid dle a ges, ‘mortification of the
flesh’ w as seen as a virtue, a ‘g ood deed’, the Ph ysical Ev ent of the self-w hipping of the character
Everyman w as an eff ectiv e means of eliciting the a ppropriate Psy chic r esponse of a pproval from an
audience. The spectator s saw the character Good Deeds rise u p refreshed as a r esult of this beating . A
modern audience w ould pr obably not r egard this self-fla gellation as an act that the y would consider
to be a g ood deed. A dir ector toda y ma y well wish to find som e other Ph ysical Ev ent to r eplace the
whipping in or der to trigg er the Psy chic Ev ent of ‘a pproval’ in the audience. This sort of transf ormation
is mor e likely to comm unicate the m eaning implied in the te xt than an y ‘museum’ r econstruction of
the original perf ormance of Everyman could possibl y hope to do .
38 Significantl y, Jonathan Miller dislik es an y dir ectorial practice that chang es the Psy chic Ev ents of a
play as this alter s the pla y’s implied ‘action’. His r esponse to those dir ector s who mak e Shak espear e’s
plays relevant b y making them speak a bout toda y’s political and social situation is tr enchantl y neg ative.
‘What I hate is the vision of Shak espear e frog-mar ched into the tw entieth century and made to , as it
were, speak on behalf of tw entieth century pr oblems of w hich he had no kno wled ge.’ (Miller , J.,
Adelaide Festiv al Talk, n.d.)
39 Miller , J., Subsequent Perf ormances , Faber and Fa ber, London, 1986, p . 155.
40 Howard, J. E., Shakespeare’s Art of Orc hestration , Univ ersity of Illinois Pr ess, Urbana, 1984, p . 57.
41 Guthrie, T., ‘A Dir ector’s View of The Cherry Orc hard’, in Guthrie, T. and Kipnis , L., trans ., The
Cherry Orc hard, Univ ersity of Minnesota Pr ess, Minnea polis , 1965, p . 13.
42 Ibid.
43 Vilar, J., ‘Mur der of the Dir ector’, in Corrig an, R., op . cit., p . 143.
44 Ibid., p . 146.
45 Ibid.
46 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 10 A pril 1904, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 466.
47 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles , London, 1968, p . 62.
48 Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 361.
49 Mora vcevich, N ., ‘The Dar k Side of the Chekho vian Smile’, Drama Survey , Vol. 15, No . 3, 1966–67,
p. 244.
50 Rayfield, D ., Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art , Paul Elek, London, 1975, pp . 226–7.
51 Tulloch, J ., ‘Chekho v Abr oad: Western Criticism’, in Cl yman, T. W., op. cit., p . 203.
52 Krutch, J . W., ‘Modernism’ in Modern Drama , Russell and Russell Inc., Ne w York, 1962, pp . 71–2.
53 Ibid., p . 72.
54 Terras , V., ‘Chekho v at Hom e: Russian Criticism’, in Cl yman, T. W., op. cit., pp . 170–1.
20Interpreting Chekhov

Chapter 1. Chekhov’s Vision of Reality
… I'm not muc h interested in suc h questions as the hereafter or the f ate of humanity
and I'm not muc h of a one f or flights into the sublime either . What terr ifies me
most is just ordinary everyda y routine , the thing none of us can escape … My living
conditions and upbr inging have impr isoned me in a c losed circ le of lies , I know …
Worrying how to deceive m yself and others every da y without noticing that I’m
doing so … that’s m y entire existence , I know that too , and I dread not being r id
of this fraud until I’m in m y grave . (Dmitry Silin in Terror by Anton Chekho v)1
I believe that future generations will f ind things easier and see their wa y more
clearly. They will have our exper ience to help them. But we do want to be independent
of future generations , don’t we , we don’t want to live just f or them? W e only have
one lif e, and we should like to live it conf identl y, rationall y and elegantl y. We should
like to pla y a prominent, independent, honourable role , we should like to make
history so that these same future generations won’t have the r ight to call eac h one
of us a nonentity or worse . (Vladimir in An Anonymous Story by Anton Chekho v)2
Some critics ha ve argued that the vision of r eality e xpressed in Chekho v’s pla ys
and short stories is deepl y pessimistic, other s that his vie w is essentiall y
progressiv e and optimistic. Ther e have even been critics w ho den y that Chekho v
had an y overall vision at all. Maurice Valenc y, for example, seems to think that
a writer can simpl y describe lif e without ha ving an y world vie w underpinning
that description. Accor ding to Valenc y:
[Chekho v] had no theory of lif e to e xpound, no point to mak e, no thesis . It is
quite unnecessary f or the under standing of his drama to discuss his w orld vie w.
If he had an ything of the sort, it w as irr elevant to the subject of his art. His
great talent la y in his sensitiv e depiction of lif e around him, the ph ysical and
psychic landsca pe in w hich he liv ed.3
When Ronald Hingle y raised the question of w hat ‘outlook on lif e’ was
expressed in Chekho v’s short stories , he w arned of the dang er of coming u p
with an y simple ans wer:
To this question no neat, all-embracing ans wer will ev er be giv en. Chekho v
was no builder of w ater-tight philosophical systems , but ev en less w as he a pur e
aesthete indiff erent to the ethical or other non-artistic implications of his w ork.4
The dang er of arriving at an y over-simplified v ersion of Chekho v’s vision of
reality is not to be discounted. Nev ertheless , it is important f or critics and
director s to decide on the natur e of his vision. Som e of the mor e extreme
misinterpr etations of Chekho v’s pla ys ha ve been the r esult of dir ector s failing
to realise the pla ywright’s w orld vie w on sta ge. The vision of r eality e xpressed
21

in Chekho v’s pla ys is an e xpression of the w hole man, not just the artist. The
artist w ho wr ote pla ys and short stories w as also a practising doctor , an
environmentalist, a r esear cher and a philanthr opist. It is onl y when w e examine
Chekho v’s w ork in the light of the m ultiplicity of his r oles that w e can see ho w
important his sense of social r esponsibility w as in his o verall vision of r eality .
Chekho v ma y not ha ve outlined his w orld vie w in the e xplicit f orm of a
manif esto, but it is nev ertheless implied in his w orks. That w orld vie w ob viousl y
chang ed and dev eloped thr oughout Chekho v’s lif e but to sugg est, as Valenc y
does, that he lack ed an y vie w, is simpl y nonsense.
Chekho v vig orously attack ed the idea that artists should e xpress no vie wpoint
in their depictions of lif e. Chekho v wr ote to Suv orin in 1892, pouring scorn on
the ideas of Sofy a Ivanovna Sazono va, who had written to him claiming that, in
order to be a literary artist, it w as unnecessary to ha ve a w orld vie w:
If you ar e looking f or insincerity , you will find tons of it in her letter . ‘The
greatest miracle is man himself and w e shall nev er tir e of stud ying him.’ Or:
‘The aim of lif e is lif e itself.’ Or: ‘I believ e in lif e, in its bright mom ents, for the
sake of w hich one can, indeed one must live; I believ e in man, in that part of
his soul w hich is g ood …’ Can all this be sincer e, and does it m ean an ything?
This isn’t an outlook, it’s caram els.5
Sazono va’s opinion and, b y extension, Valenc y’s, denies the need f or the pr esence
in literary w orks of an y authorial ‘aim’, ‘tendenc y’, ‘g eneral idea’ or ‘w orld
view’. Chekho v was quick to attack Sazono va’s position w hich he f elt pr omoted
a nihilistic vie w of lif e:
… in her opinion all our tr ouble com es from the f act that w e keep pur suing
lofty and distant aims . If this isn’t a country wif e’s lo gic, it’s the philosoph y of
despair . He w ho sincer ely believ es that man needs lofty and distant aims as
little as a co w does , that ‘all our tr ouble’ com es from pur suing these aims —
has nothing left him but to eat, drink, sleep , or if he is f ed up with that, he can
take a running start and dash his head a gainst the corner of a chest.6
Chekho v’s w ork does not e xist in som e artistic nev er-never land w here the
precise historical situation and the particular v alues and beliefs of the pla ywright
have no r elevance. He kne w ho w important belief systems w ere to all human
beings , including literary artists . In one of his notebook entries he writes: ‘Man
is what he believ es’.7 It is difficult to see ho w Valenc y can ackno wled ge the
greatness of Chekho v as a literary artist, w hile at the sam e tim e sugg esting that
he has nothing to pr esent be yond the m ere ‘depiction of lif e around him’.
At tim es Chekho v was quite e xplicit a bout his artistic purpose. Reacting
against the w ay in w hich Stanisla vski turned his pla ys into tra gedies , he said
to the writer Ale xander Tikhono v in 1902:
22Interpreting Chekhov

You tell m e that people cry at m y pla ys. I’ve hear d other s say the sam e. But that
was not w hy I wr ote them. It is Ale xeyev [Stanisla vski] w ho made m y character s
into cry-ba bies. All I w anted w as to sa y honestl y to people: ‘Ha ve a look at
yourselves and see ho w bad and dr eary y our liv es are!’ The important thing is
that people should r ealize that, f or when the y do, they will most certainl y create
another and better lif e for themselv es. I will not liv e to see it, but I kno w that
it will be quite diff erent, quite unlik e our pr esent lif e. And so long as this
different lif e does not e xist, I shall g o on sa ying to people a gain and a gain,
‘Please, under stand that y our lif e is bad and dr eary!’ What is ther e in this to
cry a bout?8
If we assum e that Chekho v kne w what his pla ys w ere about, then w e com e
to the inesca pable conclusion that part of the purpose f or which he wr ote them
was to pr ovide som e constructiv e criticism of the social beha viour of his
contemporaries . Seen in this light, his pla ys conf orm to the ‘social corr ectiv e’
natur e of com edy. Productions w hich actuall y den y this positiv e aspect of his
vision of r eality seem to m e to ha ve gone be yond the ‘tolerances’ and ‘param eters’
of interpr etation.
If the pla ys ar e examined solel y from an aesthetic point of vie w, it is possible
to interpr et them as e xpressing either a pr ogressiv e or a nihilistic w orld vie w.
We kno w, for instance, that fr om the tim e of Stanisla vski to the pr esent
Chekho v’s pla ys can be r ead and perf ormed in a w ay that mak es them bleakl y
pessimistic in outlook. Ho wever, if it can be demonstrated that the pla ys can be
read and pla yed in a m uch mor e positiv e manner , and also , that the evidence of
Chekho v’s o wn beliefs a bout the pla ys and a bout lif e in g eneral sugg est that
this positiv e reading of the central action of his pla ys is the one he wished to
have realised u pon the sta ge, then I think it becom es a clear case of
misinterpr etation to pr esent the pla ys in the gloom y manner .9
Evidence outside the pla ys themselv es confirms Chekho v’s positiv e vie ws.
Gorky recounts ho w after r eading a speech fr om a pla y he w as writing in w hich
the her o, Vasska, v ows that if he had ‘mor e str ength and po wer’ he w ould
transf orm the earth into a beautiful place, Chekho v responded:
‘That’s v ery fine indeed! Very true, and v ery human! In this lies the essence of
all philosoph y. Man has made the earth ha bitable – ther efore he m ust also mak e
it comf ortable f or himself.’ He shook his head in obstinate affirmation and
repeated: ‘He will!’10
Chekho v’s belief in the possibility of chang e and pr ogress manif ested itself
in his g eneral attitude and beha viour . His f aith in education and w ork in g eneral
is well docum ented, but ev en the r elativ ely trivial f act that he had a g reat lo ve
of gardening is consistent with his o verall belief in pr ogress. To cultiv ate the
23Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

earth sensibl y was for Chekho v a m eans of closing the g ap betw een humanity
and natur e. As Ehr enbur g per ceptiv ely pointed out:
Gardening w as not f or him a minor passion lik e fishing or shooting is f or man y;
in the g rowth of a shrub or a tr ee he r esponded to the thing that mo ved him
most — the affirmation of lif e. Kuprin has quoted his w ords: ‘Look, ev ery one
of the tr ees y ou see her e was planted under m y eyes and of cour se it is pr ecious
to me. But ev en that isn’t w hat matter s, the thing is that bef ore I cam e this w as
a wilderness full of idiotic holes and ditches , all stones and w eeds … Do y ou
know, in another thr ee or f our hundr ed years the w hole earth will be a flo wering
garden.’11
Gorky’s and K uprin’s hear say evidence concerning the mor e progressiv e
aspects of Chekho v’s vision of r eality is su pported b y statem ents made b y
Chekho v in his Notebooks and in man y of his letter s. Again and a gain the idea
of progress occur s, and particularl y the idea of pr ogress thr ough w ork. Som etimes
the statem ent is made e xplicitl y: 'The po wer and salv ation of a people lie in its
intellig entsia, in the intellectuals w ho think honestl y, feel, and can w ork.'12 At
other tim es Chekho v presents the sam e idea in a f orm r eminiscent of a para ble:
A Mussulman f or the salv ation of his soul digs a w ell. It w ould be a pleasant
thing if each of us left a school, a w ell, or som ething lik e that, so that lif e should
not pass a way into eternity without lea ving a trace behind it.13
Chekho v’s certainty that human beings w ere able to impr ove the w orld thr ough
work was, accor ding to Gor ky, a central part of the pla ywright’s belief system:
I have nev er kno wn a man f eel the importance of w ork as the f oundation of all
cultur e, so deepl y, and f or such v aried r easons , as did Tchek off … He lo ved to
build, plant g ardens, ornam ent the earth; he f elt the poetry of la bour … he used
to say: ‘If ev ery man did all he could on the piece of earth belonging to him,
how beautiful w ould this w orld be!’14
Whether or not Chekho v felt the ‘poetry of la bour’, as Gor ky claims , he
certainl y believ ed that thr ough har d work, the conditions of lif e could be
impr oved. His basic belief in the potential of the natural w orld w as expressed
in an uncharacteristicall y effusiv e manner in a letter w hich he wr ote to his
publisher and friend A. S . Suv orin on his r eturn journe y from his r esear ch trip
to Sakhalin. The man y letter s to Suv orin contain som e of the most r evealing
insights into Chekho v’s vie ws about lif e and art. In this letter , written in late
1890, Chekho v recounts his e xperiences w hile tra velling thr ough the Mid dle
East. Chekho v, an unbeliev er, was so mo ved by the sight of Mount Sinai that
he expressed both his f aith in the w orld’s potential and his disma y at ho w poorl y
humans e xploit that potential:
24Interpreting Chekhov

God’s w orld is g ood. Onl y one thing isn’t g ood: our selves. How little ther e is
in us of justice and humility , how poor is our conception of patriotism! The
drunk en bedra ggled, g ood f or nothing of a husband lo ves his wif e and childr en,
but w hat’s the g ood of that lo ve? We, so the ne wspa pers say, love our g reat
country , but ho w is that lo ve expressed? Instead of kno wled ge — inor dinate
brazenness and conceit, instead of w ork — laziness and s winishness; ther e is
no justice; the concept of honor does not g o beyond ‘the honor of the unif orm’,
the unif orm w hich is the ev eryda y adornm ent of the prisoner s’ dock. What is
needed is w ork; ev erything else can g o to the devil. The main thing is to be just
— the r est will be ad ded unto us .15
The almost r eligious f ervour with w hich Chekho v advocated the need f or
‘knowled ge’, ‘justice’ and ‘w ork’ to impr ove the quality of lif e squar ed with his
own beha viour . He w as a doer , not just a talk er. As Simon Karlinsk y has pointed
out, Chekho v ma y not ha ve been a r evolutionary , but in both m edicine and
literatur e he attempted to bring a bout chang e and impr ovement in lif e. His
scientific r esear ch into the ph ysical and social conditions then pr evailing in the
penal colon y on the Island of Sakhalin w as onl y one small part of Chekho v’s
activ e approach to alleviating social ills:
His lif e was one contin uous r ound of alleviating f amine, fighting epidemics ,
building schools and public r oads, endo wing libraries , helping or ganize marine
biolo gy libraries , giving thousands of need y peasants fr ee m edical tr eatm ent,
planting g ardens, helping fled gling writer s get published, raising funds f or
worthw hile causes , and hundr eds of other pur suits designed to help his f ellow
man and impr ove the g eneral quality of lif e around him.16
Chekho v lived for onl y forty-f our y ears and f or much of that tim e he suff ered
from the debilitating disease of tuber culosis , from w hich he died. Despite the
brevity of his lif e Chekho v mana ged to achiev e an enormous amount. Besides
involving himself in all of the activities noted b y Karlinsk y, he mana ged to write
a large number of short stories , a scientific tr eatise on prison conditions , and
the pla ys for w hich he is best kno wn. In doing all of this in so short a tim e,
Chekho v liv ed u p to his o wn ideals . He is r eported to ha ve said, ‘I despise
laziness , as I despise w eakness and inertia in m ental activities’.17
If the v alue of w ork and hatr ed of laziness w as a central part of Chekho v’s
individual and social morality , the v alue he placed on the need f or education
was equall y great. ‘The Mother of all Russian evils is g ross ignorance’, he wr ote
to Suv orin in 1889.18
Anyone w ho doubts that Chekho v believ ed in chang e need onl y read J ohn
Tulloch’s Chekhov: A Structuralist Stud y.Tulloch undertak es a sociolo gical
analysis of Chekho v and his w ork. He esta blishes be yond doubt that Chekho v
the doctor , with his scientific training , accepted ‘the particular social Darwinist
25Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

belief that b y changing the en vironment one might chang e people and r eform
society’.19 Realising that Chekho v the doctor is not a separate per son fr om
Chekho v the literary artist, Tulloch points out that although w e kno w ‘that a
tragic interpr etation of Chekho v has been quite w ell esta blished in Western
cultur e since his death … a simple tra gic vision seems , a priori, unlik ely in vie w
of Chekho v’s optimism in the potential of science’.20
The evidence I ha ve already presented sugg ests that it is not def ensible to
interpr et Chekho v’s writings as e xpressions of tra gic fatalism. Nev ertheless , this
dark vie w of Chekho v has been maintained b y man y important critics and as
important a dir ector as Stanisla vski. J ust ho w such a r eading of Chekho v has
come about needs to be e xplained. It is onl y by under standing w hy sensible
people might interpr et his w orks in this gloom y way, and b y coming to see the
validity of alternativ e readings , that w e will a void perpetuating these depr essing
and ultimatel y unsatisfying misinterpr etations .
In 1916, tw elve years after Chekho v’s death, one of the most bleak and,
unfortunatel y, influential interpr etations of Chekho v was written b y the
important Russian émig ré critic, Leon Shesto v. In his essa y titled ‘Anton
Tchekho v: Cr eation fr om the Void’, he depicts the pla ywright as a J ob-lik e
proto-a bsurdist:
To define his tendenc y in a w ord I w ould sa y that Tchekho v was the poet of
hopelessness . Stub bornl y, sadl y, monotonousl y, during all the y ears of his
literary activity , nearl y a quarter of a century long , Tchekho v was doing one
thing alone: b y one m eans or another he w as killing human hopes . Her ein, I
hold, lies the essence of his cr eation.21
The ‘v oid’ — the m eaninglessness that lies at the heart of e xistence —
mentioned b y Shesto v in r elation to Chekho v was to be a central concern of the
Absur dist dramatists of the nineteen-fifties . Man y critics since Shesto v have felt
a sense of the ‘v oid’ in Chekho v’s w orks. As a r esult, the pla ywright has been
hailed as a f orerunner of the Absur dist Mo vement. Robert Corrig an, for example,
asserts that: ‘Chekho v … is the legitimate f ather of the so-called “a bsurdist”
movement in the theatr e.’22 J. Oates Smith ar gues that: ‘In his philosophical
grasp of his material as w ell as in a n umber of particular dramatic devices ,
Chekho v anticipates the contemporary theatr e of the a bsurd.’23 Walter Stein
claims that: ‘The Tchekho vian herita ge of pseudo-com edy is no w being turned
inside out in the dustbins of Sam uel Beck ett.’24
More recentl y, Martin Esslin, w ho seems to include som e extraor dinaril y
diverse dramatists under the classification of ‘Absur dist’, has ar gued that:
Ther e is onl y a small step fr om Chekho v’s ima ges of a society depriv ed of purpose
and dir ection to the f ar mor e emphatic pr esentation of a w orld depriv ed of its
‘metaphysical dim ension’ in the pla ys of Beck ett, Genet, Adamo v or Ionesco …
26Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s determination to look at the w orld not m erely with the cool
objectivity of the scientist but also with the coura ge to confr ont the w orld in
all its a bsurdity and infinite suff ering (without flinching or self-pity and with
a deep compassion f or humanity in its ignorance and helplessness) led him to
anticipate, f ar ahead of all of his contemporaries , the mood and climate of our
own tim e.25
Unlik e Valenc y, the critics I ha ve just cited ackno wled ge the importance of
Chekho v’s w orld vie w when the y anal yse his w orks. However, the a bsurdist
vision of r eality that the y ascribe to Chekho v is, accor ding to other important
analysts, totall y ina pplica ble to the pla ywright. These contradictory
interpr etations of Chekho v’s w orld vie w are logicall y incompatible. If Corrig an
and Esslin ar e right w hen the y claim that Chekho v’s w orld vie w is basicall y
‘absurdist’, then Karlinsk y and Tulloch ar e wr ong w hen the y argue f or a
‘progressiv e’ reading of his w orks. This lo gical and critical impasse is actuall y
only apparent and not r eal. By adopting the f ormal con ventions of r ealism in
the dramatisation of his vision of r eality , Chekho v created pla ys w hich ar e
potentiall y ambiguous . The sam e events can be r ead as part of either an a bsurdist
or a pr ogressiv e world vie w.
The essence of an a bsurdist vie w of lif e is contained in the opening line of
Beck ett’s Waiting f or Godot when Estra gon sa ys ‘Nothing to be done’. This one
line sums u p the sense of hopelessness and futility that characterises Beck ett’s
unchanging and unchang eable w orld. Ho wever Chekho v is not Beck ett. What
he depicts is a w orld in w hich ‘no one is doing an ything’. Far fr om den ying
chang e or hope, his pla ys embod y an attempt to awaken an audience to the
possibilities of chang e and impr ovement. It is not e xistential angst at the fix ed
natur e of the w orld that is being e xpressed b y Chekho v, but his sense of
humanity’s comic and pathetic f ailure to mak e the most of the w orld. It w as
Chekho v, not Beck ett, w ho could write: ‘God’s w orld is g ood. Onl y one thing
isn’t g ood: our selves.’26 It is surprising ho w few critics and dir ector s
ackno wled ge this positiv e aspect of Chekho v’s vision of r eality .27
Chekho v depicts a w orld w hich has all the a ppearance of purposeless
absurdity because humanity has f ailed to mak e life meaningful b y refusing to
work with natur e in the pr ocesses of chang e and ev olution. Displa ying w hat
Sartr e called ‘bad f aith’, those of Chekho v’s character s who ha ve let tim e pass
them b y bewail the w aste of their liv es or f antasise a bout the possibility of esca pe
in the futur e. They resolutel y refuse to f ace, or attempt to chang e, pr esent
reality .28 Nyukhin, the comicall y pathetic ‘her o’ of Smoking Is Bad f or You, tells
his audience ho w, when he has giv en himself som e ‘dutch coura ge’, he dr eams
of both the past and the futur e. All his r egrets and aspirations ho wever are seen
as ridiculous as he contin ues in the pr esent to carry out the ludicr ous and trivial
tasks demanded of him b y his g orgon of a wif e:
27Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

One glass is enough to mak e me drunk, I might ad d. It f eels g ood, but
indescriba bly sad at the sam e tim e. Som ehow the da ys of m y youth com e back
to me. I som ehow long — mor e than y ou can possibl y ima gine — to esca pe.
[Carried a way.] To run a way, leave everything behind and run a way without
a backw ard glance. Wher e to? Who car es? If onl y I could esca pe fr om this
rotten, vulg ar, tawdry e xistence that’s turned m e into a pathetic old clo wn and
imbecile!29
The anguish that Chekho v felt about the trivial emptiness of m uch of lif e
around him has little to do with the quietist pessimism of the ‘nothing to be
done’ school of Absur dists. Chekho v, particularl y in his short stories , presents
human inactivity not as being inevita ble but the r esult of human lethar gy. Actual
failure is seen in the light of potential achiev ement and not as an una voidable
part of the human condition. The difficulty of depicting f ailure while at the sam e
time comm unicating the possibility of human achiev ement becam e one of the
central pr oblems that Chekho v faced.
Chekho v committed himself as an artist to the con ventions of r ealism because
he believ ed that ‘literatur e is called artistic w hen it depicts lif e as it is’.30
Everything in his art had to be true to lif e. Consequentl y, he could not sho w his
reader or audience som e putativ e utopian futur e, since the pr esent lif e he w as
depicting w as far from utopian. At best, Chekho v could sugg est the possibility
of such an impr oved futur e. As Vladimir Yermilo v has pointed out, one of the
main techniques that Chekho v emplo yed, particularl y in his short stories , was
to consistentl y present a g ap betw een the beauty of natur e and the ugliness of
human lif e as it is pr esentl y lived:
The beauty of natur e is used as a constant criterion in ev aluating a giv en social
reality and as a r eminder of w hat it could and should be lik e on this lo vely
earth.31
Depicting the g ap betw een human possibility and actuality , betw een desir e
and achiev ement, w as a central m eans that Chekho v emplo yed to sho w his
reader s and audiences ‘ho w bad and dr eary y our liv es ar e!’32 The idea of
presenting a w orld of w asted opportunities w as not som ething that he thought
of ‘late in his lif e’, as Valenc y claims .33 As earl y as 1887 w e find Chekho v writing
about his r esponse to r evisiting his birthplace, Taganrog. The criticism of the
inhabitants’ f ailure to fulfil their potential and mak e the most of natur e’s gifts
is clearl y stated:
Sixty thousand inha bitants busy themselv es exclusiv ely with eating , drinking ,
procreating , and the y have no other inter ests, none at all. Wher ever you go
there are Easter cak es, eggs , local wine in f onts, but no ne wspa pers, no books
… The site of the city is in ev ery r espect ma gnificent, the climate glorious , the
fruits of the earth a bound, but the people ar e devilishl y apathetic. They are all
28Interpreting Chekhov

musical, endo wed with f antasy and wit, high-strung , sensitiv e, but all this is
wasted.34
Chekho v’s belief in the v alue of education and kno wled ge in the battle to
impr ove social conditions led him to endo w man y libraries . For this action, Tsar
Nicholas II g ranted him ‘her editary nobility’ and decorated him as a r eward for
his ‘e xemplary zeal and e xertions dir ected to wards the education of the people’.35
Not surprisingl y, it w as Taganrog library that benefited most fr om Chekho v’s
donations .36
Chekho v’s philanthr opy and commitm ent to social impr ovement ar e seldom
given the importance the y deserv e by critics in volved in delineating Chekho v’s
overall vision of r eality . Too often critics in the West o veremphasise the dar k
side of the pla ywright’s vision and r efuse to see that Chekho v was mor e
progressiv e than the surf ace r eality of his stories and pla ys initiall y sugg est.
Chekho v, the short-term pessimist, w as a long-term optimist. His optimistic long
view is denied b y critics lik e Ronald Hingle y. Referring to Ale xander K uprin’s
Reminiscences of Anton Tc hekhov ,37 Hingle y claims that:
… Kuprin g oes on to ev oke a Chekho v spectacularl y un-Chekho vian. ‘Do y ou
know,’ he [K uprin’s Chekho v] sud denly added with an earnest f ace and tones of
deep f aith. ‘Do y ou kno w that, within thr ee or f our hundr ed years, the w hole
earth will be transf ormed into a blossoming g arden? And lif e will then be
remar kably easy and con venient.’ Tones of deep f aith! Ho w could an yone
familiar with Chekho v’s w ork, as K uprin w as, conceiv ably intr oduce this of all
clichés?38
While Hingle y may find K uprin’s style too florid f or his r eserv ed Anglo-Saxon
taste, ther e is ample evidence that Chekho v did believ e in the possibility of a
better lif e and that this ev olutionary ‘epic vision’, as Tulloch calls it, w as indeed
a ‘faith’ that w as central to Chekho v’s vision of r eality .
It is because Hingle y himself does not accept the possibility of radical chang e
that he cannot accept it in Chekho v. His r esponse to the con version of La yevsky
at the end of The Duel , a con version that r eminds one of the Damascan e xperience
of St P aul, is totall y neg ative:
With r egard to the ending of The Duel , though it w ould admittedl y be
praise worthy and desira ble f or a r eal lif e Layevsky to tak e up serious w ork,
pay off his debts and marry his mistr ess, the standar ds of r eal lif e and art do
not al ways coincide, and the solution off ered by Chekho v is an artistic disaster .39
Simpl y because Hingle y feels that an y kind of con version that brings a bout
significant chang e in a character’s beha viour is not true to r eal lif e is not a r eason
to assum e that Chekho v felt the sam e. We have evidence that Chekho v, while
he believ ed that humanity w as ca pable of deg eneration, also believ ed in
29Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

regeneration. Hingle y ma y find the idea of humans changing f or the w orse mor e
convincing than the idea of their changing f or the better but f or Chekho v both
types of chang e were possible and neither type of chang e was inevita ble.
Ehrenbur g claims that Chekho v ang rily dismissed all talk a bout the inevita ble
degeneration of mankind: ‘Ho wever great the deg eneration, it can al ways be
defeated b y will and education.’40
Chapter XVII of The Duel begins this pr ocess of r egeneration f or La yevsky.
He com es to see that man y of the a wful things that ha ve happened to him ha ve
been br ought a bout thr ough his o wn self-centr ed inaction and self-deception:
He had f ailed to cultiv ate integ rity, having no need f or it. His conscience,
mesmerized b y depra vity and pr etence, had slept or r emained silent. Lik e som e
strang er or hir eling — lik e one fr om another planet — he had shir ked collectiv e
social lif e, caring nothing f or the suff erings of other s, nothing f or their ideas or
religions , nothing f or w hat the y kne w, nothing f or their quests and struggles
… He had not done a thing f or his f ellows but eat their br ead, drink their wine,
steal their wiv es and borr ow their ideas , while seeking to justify his despica ble,
parasitical e xistence in the w orld’s e yes and his o wn b y passing himself off as
a higher f orm of lif e. It w as all lies , lies, lies.41
The f act that Chekho v wr ote a conclusion to the story in w hich the thr ee
main character s are reformed leads Hingle y to describe the ending as ‘f eeble …
uncon vincing and banal‘.42 These comm ents perha ps tell us mor e about Hingle y’s
world vie w than the y do a bout that of Chekho v. John Tulloch is sur ely corr ect
when he claims that La yevsky’s ‘con version is potentiall y “lif elike” within
Chekho v’s perceived concept of r eality: he had, after all, his w hole m edical
training to tell him it w as so’.43
Layevsky com es to see that his lif e has been ‘all lies , lies, lies’. His con version
involves the r ejection of lies alto gether . By e xamining the social and
environmental causes of his and his mistr ess Nadezhda’s situation, he com es to
see that her loose beha viour with Kirilin and Achmiano v is to a g reat deg ree his
own r esponsibility:
A weak y oung w oman, w ho had trusted him mor e than her o wn br other — he
had tak en her fr om her husband, her cir cle of friends and her hom eland. He
had carried her off to this s weltering f ever-ridden dump , and da y after da y she
had inevita bly com e to mirr or his o wn idleness , depra vity and spuriousness ,
the w hole of her f eeble, listless , wretched e xistence being utterl y abandoned
to these things . Then he had w earied of her and com e to hate her . But not ha ving
the guts to lea ve her , he had tried to enm esh her ev en mor e tightl y in the w eb
of his lies . Achmiano v and Kirilin had completed the job .44
This concern with the need f or people to liv e authenticall y was a r ecurring
them e in Chekho v’s w ork. Deception, especiall y self-deception, is constantl y
30Interpreting Chekhov

shown to be connected with human f ailure and w aste. Ag ain and a gain Chekho v,
through the depiction of w hat ha ppens to his inauthentic self-deceiv ers, tried
to sho w his r eader s and audience that the v ery possibility of pr ogress is destr oyed
if reality is not f aced. One of his notebook entries is particularl y illuminating
on this need to r eject all f orms of deception:
A clev er man sa ys: ‘This is a lie, but since the people cannot do without the lie,
since it has the sanction of history , it is dang erous to r oot it out all at once; let
it go on f or the tim e being but with certain corr ections .’ But the g enius sa ys:
‘This is a lie ther efore it m ust not e xist.’45
Chapter XVII of The Duel begins with a quotation fr om Pushkin w hich acts
as a pointer to the sta ge of r egeneration that La yevsky has r eached:
Reading , appalled, m y life’s sad tale, I tr emble, cur se the w aste of da ys. But
naught m y bitter tear s avail The gloom y record to erase.46
The depr essing r ealisation that the past has been w asted and is irr emediable
is onl y the beginning f or La yevsky. The cha pter ends on a mor e positiv e note.
He g oes out to ha ve a duel with Van Koren but onl y after he has f orgiven his
mistr ess and r estor ed his f aith in lif e and the futur e:
He str oked her hair , gazing into her f ace — and kne w that this unha ppy immoral
woman w as the one per son in his lif e. She w as near to him, dear to him. She
was the onl y one. He left the house and took his seat in the carria ge. No w he
wanted to com e hom e aliv e.47
Layevsky surviv es the duel and begins a lif e of har d work that is part of his
redemption. Chekho v’s belief in the possibility of chang e for the better and in
progress suffuses The Duel. At the end of the story La yevsky, watching the
scientist Von Koren’s boat battling a gainst the r ough seas , sees it as an ima ge of
the human quest f or truth. Chekho v mak es sur e that the r eader is left with som e
hope that the object of the quest is attaina ble:
When seeking truth, people tak e two steps f orward to one step back. Suff ering ,
mistak es and w orld w eariness thr ow them back, but passion f or truth and
stubborn will-po wer driv e them onw ards. And — w ho kno ws? — perha ps the y
will r each r eal truth in the end.48
Layevsky’s ‘con version’ and the r estoration of his ‘f aith’ in the futur e is not
a sign that Chekho v had ceased to see lif e in materialist terms . As a non-believ er,
Chekho v emplo yed the term ‘f aith’ in a secular sense. Ho wever, while the term
had no transcendental significance f or him, he f elt that f aith pla yed an important
role in the cr eation of civilised society . ‘Faith’, he sa ys in his Notebooks , ‘is a
spiritual f aculty; animals ha ve not g ot it; sa vages and uncivilized people ha ve
merely fear and doubt. Onl y highl y dev eloped natur es can ha ve faith.’49 In The
31Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

Duel, Chekho v presents La yevsky’s chang e in a positiv e light. In the stories and
plays in w hich the character s contin ue to w aste their liv es thr ough inaction and
refusal to chang e, the y are subject to the author’s implied criticism. The
underl ying vision of r eality r emains consistent in that all of these w orks ar e
underpinned b y a belief in the possibility of pr ogress.
‘The tones of deep f aith’ per ceived b y Kuprin ar e not so ‘spectacularl y
un-Chekho vian’ as Hingle y maintains . In 1888, onl y thr ee years before he wr ote
The Duel, Chekho v wr ote an obituary f or the e xplor er N. Przev alsky in w hich
his praise f or this man of action w as couched in terms of an attack on the spineless
intellig entsia w ho lack ed an y aim or f aith in an ything .50 This attack giv es us a
clear idea of ho w important it w as in Chekho v’s o verall w orld vie w for humans
to ha ve som e purpose and som e deg ree of social conscience:
In these morbid tim es, when Eur opean societies ar e overcome by idleness ,
boredom with lif e and lack of f aith, … w hen ev en the best of m en sit with their
arms f olded and justify their indolence and depra vity b y the a bsence of an y
definite aim, her oes and ascetics ar e as vital as the sun … In themselv es the y
are living docum ents, sho wing society that alongside those w ho ar gue a bout
pessimism and optimism, … succumb to debauchery out of nihilism and earn
their dail y bread b y lying, that alongside those sceptics , … ther e also e xist m en
of a w holly diff erent kind, her oic m en, full of f aith, heading to wards a clearl y
determined g oal.51
In 1890, at the height of his literary car eer, Chekho v em ulated Przev alsky
by undertaking an e xtraor dinary journe y acr oss the length of Russia to carry
out a scientific anal ysis of the conditions in the penal colon y on the island of
Sakhalin, w hich lies just north of J apan. This r esear ch trip to Sakhalin ma y well
have been partl y motiv ated b y his desir e to sho w his contemporaries that he
was not one of the spineless intellig entsia, but a man with a purpose w ho w as
capable of social action. As Philip Callo w notes:
It must be r emember ed … that the attacks on Chekho v in the Russian critical
monthlies f or his r efusal to concern himself with political and social questions
had been mounting in virulence f or years. An article in Russian Thought ,
labelling him as one of the priests of ‘unprincipled writing’, stung him so badl y
that he f elt driv en to def end himself f or the onl y tim e in his lif e.52
Chekho v’s ang er at the inactivity of his people and their g overnm ent w hen
faced with the f acts of prison lif e in Russia is further evidence that he did not
hold an y proto-a bsurdist vie w of lif e where ther e is nothing to be done. His
anger is at those w ho ha ve done nothing to chang e conditions and his act of
going to Sakhalin himself is his individual pr oof that som ething can be done:
From the books I ha ve been r eading it is clear that w e have let millions of people
rot in prison, destr oying them car elessl y, thoughtlessl y, barbar ously; we drove
32Interpreting Chekhov

people in chains thr ough the cold acr oss thousands of miles , infected them with
syphilis , depra ved them, m ultiplied criminals , and placed the blam e for all this
on red-nosed prison w ardens. All civilized Eur ope kno ws no w that it is not the
wardens w ho ar e to blam e, but all of us , yet this is no concern of our s, we are
not inter ested. The v aunted 60s did nothing for the sick and the prisoner s, thus
violating the basic commandm ent of Christian civilization. In our tim e som ething
is being done f or the sick, but f or prisoner s nothing; prison pr oblems don’t
inter est our jurists at all. No , I assur e you, w e need Sakhalin, and it is important
to us , and the onl y thing to be r egretted is that I am the one to g o ther e and not
someone else w ho is better equipped f or the task and is mor e capable of ar ousing
public inter est.53
The ar duous journe y to Sakhalin almost certainl y shortened Chekho v’s lif e,
but it w as important to the writer that he mak e som e useful contribution to his
society .54 Finding a purpose to lif e thr ough sociall y useful activity w as one of
the main them es expressed at the tim e of the Sakhalin trip . Even though no
character in his w orks is the mouthpiece of Chekho v’s vie ws, it is difficult not
to see certain affinities betw een som e of the ideas e xpressed b y his character s
and Chekho v’s o wn beha viour . For instance, in An Anonymous Story , a story
that Chekho v wrote soon after he r eturned fr om Sakhalin, the narrator , Vladimir ,
expresses a sense of mission that echoes that of his author:
I have now really grasped both with m y mind and in m y tortur ed heart, that
man either hasn’t g ot a destin y, or else it lies e xclusiv ely in self-sacrificing lo ve
for his neighbour . That’s the w ay we should be g oing, that’s our purpose in
life. And that is m y faith.55
By going to Sakhalin on a mission to help his f ellow man, Chekho v acted out
in practice w hat w as to becom e one of the major them es of his writings . Indeed,
Sophie Laffitte has ar gued that this them e ‘was to serv e as the ulterior basis of
all Chekho v’s w orks’. She rightl y points out that this them e was ‘nev er explicitl y
expressed, m erely sugg ested’.56
Chekho v’s resear ch trip to Sakhalin had been partl y motiv ated b y his sense
of guilt at ha ving spent too m uch tim e on writing literatur e and not ha ving made
enough use of his training as a doctor . The Sakhalin r esear ch, Chekho v said,
was intended ‘to pa y off som e of m y debt to m edicine, to ward which, as y ou
know, I’ve beha ved lik e a pig’.57
When The Island: A J ourney to Sakhalin was printed Chekho v wrote to Suv orin
expressing the pride he f elt in his scientific w ork:
My Sakhalin is an academic w ork … Medicine cannot no w accuse m e of infidelity
… I r ejoice because the r ough g arb of the con vict will also be hanging in m y
(literary) w ardrobe.58
33Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

The need to see Chekho v’s literary car eer and his practice of m edicine as
interr elated has no w been esta blished.59 While ev er he w as ph ysicall y able to ,
Chekho v contin ued to practise m edicine and to be a writer . When Suv orin
advised him to giv e up medicine, he r eplied:
I feel mor e alert and mor e satisfied with m yself w hen I think of m yself as ha ving
two occu pations instead of one. Medicine is m y lawful w edded wif e, and
literatur e my mistr ess. When one g ets on m y nerv es, I spend the night with the
other .60
Chekho v’s earl y belief that literatur e should simpl y sho w lif e as it is w as
clearl y related to his scientific training as a doctor . Despite being written as a
scientific thesis , The Island displa ys sev eral r ecognisa bly Chekho vian elem ents
and m uch of the w ork is enliv ened b y anecdotes and descriptions that r emind
one of scenes in his short stories . Thus w hat J . L. Conrad calls the ‘nota ble
similarities betw een The Island and his mor e famous literary pr oductions’,61
should mak e us a ware that, f or Chekho v, science and literatur e were not m utuall y
exclusiv e. Both w ere attractiv e bedf ellows.
Chekho v str ongly believ ed that pr ogress w ould be br ought a bout thr ough
education and, in particular , thr ough the e xploitation of the disco veries of
science. His m edical training and his f aith in the scientific m ethod w ere of central
importance both in the dev elopm ent of his vision of r eality and in the
developm ent of the artistic m eans to e xpress that vision. Being a materialist,
Chekho v wished in his pla ys and short stories to anal yse human beha viour in
a wholly scientific manner .62 He endea voured to a pply the m ethods of science
to his artistic cr eations . In particular he str ove to emplo y the concept of scientific
objectivity in all of his writing . The need to depict ‘lif e as it actuall y is’ w as for
Chekho v the sine qua non of his artistic and per sonal cr edo. Like other naturalistic
writer s, Chekho v’s scientific a pproach to literatur e led him to include the seam y
side of lif e in his depictions of r eal lif e. When he w as attack ed for including
unpalata ble elem ents in his short story Mire , he def ended his a pproach b y
applying the principles of science:
For chemists ther e is nothing unclean on this earth. A writer should be as
objectiv e as a chemist; he m ust giv e up everyda y subjectivity and r ealize that
dunghills pla y a v ery r especta ble r ole in the landsca pe and that evil passions
belong to lif e as m uch as g ood ones do .63
Like Sha w and Molièr e, Chekho v had a social corr ectiv e theory of art. It is
encapsulated in one of his Notebook entries: ‘Man will onl y becom e better w hen
you mak e him see w hat he is lik e.’64 Critics and sta ge director s should bear this
comm ent in mind w hen interpr eting Chekho v, since, b y following its
implications , they will a void pr oducing pessimistic, a bsurdist misinterpr etations
of his w orks.
34Interpreting Chekhov

The most fr equentl y quoted statem ent of Chekho v’s concerning the need f or
artists to ha ve som e overall aim underpinning their w ork is contained in an
important letter to Suv orin written in No vember 1892. It deserv es to be quoted
at length because of the light that it thr ows on w hat the pla ywright per ceived
to be the dual function of the literary artist, and on the f ailure of his o wn
generation of writer s, himself included, to carry out the second function. The
first function of the artist, Chekho v claims , is to depict lif e accuratel y but the
second function he sugg ests e xpresses the artist’s vision of r eality , his attitude
towards lif e. He describes his ideal literary artist as f ollows:
The best of them ar e realistic and describe lif e as it is , but because each line is
saturated with the consciousness of its g oal, y ou feel lif e as it should be in
addition to lif e as it is , and y ou ar e captivated b y it.65
It was because he f elt that writer s of his g eneration lack ed an y real goals in
their w ork that Chekho v complained of the particular tim e in w hich he w as
living . He claim ed that f or writer s ‘this is a pr ecarious , sour , dreary period’. The
cause, Chekho v argues, is not lack of talent, but rather ‘a malad y that f or an
artist is w orse than syphilis or se xual impotence’. That malad y is a lack of o verall
purpose:
Keep in mind that the writer s we call eternal or simpl y good, the writer s who
intoxicate us , have one highl y important trait in common: the y’re moving to ward
something definite and beck on y ou to f ollow, and y ou feel with y our entir e
being , not onl y with y our mind, that the y have a certain g oal … Depending on
their calibr e, som e have imm ediate g oals — the a bolition of serfdom, the
liberation of one country , politics , beauty or simpl y vodka … — w hile the g oals
of other s are mor e remote — God, lif e after death, the ha ppiness of mankind,
etc.66
Chekho v’s letter s provide evidence of an ong oing inter est in the question of
the artist’s purpose. As earl y as 1888 he wr ote to Suv orin pointing out the
necessity f or literary artists to ha ve som e socio-political aim or g oal underpinning
their w orks. For Chekho v, an artist without a purpose w as a contradiction in
terms:
The artist observ es, selects , guesses and synthesizes . The v ery f act of these
actions pr e-supposes a question; if he hadn’t ask ed himself a question at the
start, he w ould ha ve nothing to guess and nothing to select. To put it briefl y,
I will conclude with som e psy chiatry: if y ou den y that cr eativity in volves
questions and intent, y ou ha ve to admit that the artist cr eates without
premeditation or purpose, in a state of unthinking emotionality . And so if an y
author w ere to boast to m e that he’d written a story fr om pur e inspiration
without fir st having thought o ver his intentions , I’d call him a mad man.67
35Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

At that tim e, Chekho v was aware that he had as y et dev eloped no clearl y
articulated aim. This had not been a pr oblem w hen he had r egarded his writing
as mere hack scrib blings . When he cam e to tak e his w ork seriousl y, he bemoaned
this lack of an y clear aim or vision of r eality . He w as aware that without an aim,
he could onl y depict the m ere surface of lif e as it is . Chekho v wr ote to
Grigorovich, w ho had encoura ged him to tak e mor e car e over his writings:
As y et I ha ve no political, r eligious and philosophical vie w of the univ erse; I
chang e it ev ery month and will be compelled to limit m yself solel y to descriptions
of ho w my chief character s mak e love, get married, giv e birth, m eet death, and
how the y talk.68
Chekho v was aware that all artists necessaril y express some viewpoint in
their w orks. Not surprisingl y, he e xpressed a deg ree of anguish at the f act that,
in 1888, he w as una ble to articulate an y sta ble vision of r eality that could be
expressed in his w orks. Despite the f act that he kne w that the literary artist
needed to ha ve a vie wpoint, his commitm ent to objectivity m eant that Chekho v
could not write polemicall y. As w e shall see later w hen discussing his a pproach
to form, Chekho v did not believ e in an y sort of jud gemental didacticism. He
reported to Suv orin in 1890:
Of cour se, it w ould be g ratifying to cou ple art with sermonizing , but per sonall y,
I find this e xceedingl y difficult and, because of conditions imposed b y technique,
all but impossible.69
Chekho v refused to write a bout ar eas of e xperience outside his under standing .
Providing ans wers to questions a bout w hether or not to a bolish serfdom, or
whether or not God e xists, were beyond Chekho v’s ar ea of e xpertise and
consequentl y lay outside his literary purvie w. As he pointed out to Suv orin:
… it’s none of the artist’s business to solv e narr owly specialized pr oblems . It’s
bad w hen an artist tackles som ething that he does not under stand.70
Unlik e Tolsto y or Dostoevsk y, he had no kno wled ge of or belief in God. In
1903, he wr ote: ‘I long since lost belief and can m erely keep glancing in
perple xity at ev ery intellectual w ho is a believ er.’71 Equall y, he could not write
about ‘lif e after death’, as this w as a concept he did not under stand. J ust as he
would attack Tolsto y for writing a bout science, w hich that author did not
under stand,72 so Chekho v himself r efrained fr om writing a bout spiritual matter s,
which w ere Tolsto y’s forté. In hospital f ollowing a sev ere tuber culosis attack,
Chekho v was visited b y Tolstoy who beg an to discuss ‘lif e after death’. Chekho v’s
response is r evealing:
We talk ed about immortality . He tak es immortality in the Kantian sense; he
holds that all of us (people and animals) will liv e in a principle (r eason, lo ve),
the essence and purpose of w hich is a m ystery to us . To me this principle or
36Interpreting Chekhov

force pr esents itself as a f ormless jell ylike mass , my ‘I’ — m y individuality , my
consciousness , will be fused with this mass — such immortality I don’t need,
I don’t under stand it, and Lev Nik olayevich [T olsto y] w as astonished that I
didn’t under stand it.73
Chekho v felt himself unqualified and uncomf ortable dealing with v ague
philosophical g eneralities such as ‘the ha ppiness of mankind’ or ‘immortality’.
He w as committed to depicting ‘lif e as it is’ in all of its r ealistic specificity . This
was what he kne w and under stood. As Gor ky remar ked:
Nobod y under stood so clearl y and k eenly as Anton Chekho v the tra gedy of
life’s banalities , nobod y bef ore him could with such m erciless truthtelling depict
for people the sham eful and painful pictur e of their lif e in the dr eary chaos of
petty bour geois pr osiness .74
It is har dly surprising that an author w hom Gor ky characterises as cr eating
his artistic w orks in or der to sa y to his r eader s and audiences ‘Y ou liv e
abomina bly, Gentlem en!’75 should find it impossible to depict ‘the ha ppiness
of mankind’. Chekho v refused to f alsify his depictions b y making them mor e
pleasant than lif e itself. In def ence of his r ealistic a pproach to his art he wr ote
to one corr espondent:
Literatur e is called artistic w hen it depicts lif e as it actuall y is. Its purpose is
truth, honest and indisputa ble. To limit its functions to special tasks , such as
the finding of ‘pearls’, does it mortal injury … I a gree that a ‘pearl’ is a g ood
thing , but a writer is not a conf ectioner , not a cosm etician, not an entertainer;
he is a man with an oblig ation, under contract to his duty , his conscience; he
must do w hat he has set out to do; he is bound to fight his squeamishness and
dirty his ima gination with w hat is dirty in lif e. He is lik e an or dinary r eporter .76
‘If you wish to becom e an optimist and under stand lif e’, he wr ote in his
Notebooks , ‘stop believing w hat people sa y and write; observ e and disco ver for
yourself.’77 Chekho v’s o wn observ ations led him to believ e that literatur e
without an y overall g oal w as essentiall y trivial, no matter ho w accuratel y the
writer depicted e xternal r eality . In his long letter to Suv orin in No vember 1892,
Chekho v outlined the ‘malad y’ that he believ ed w as crippling the literary artists
of his g eneration and w eakening his o wn w ork. His comm ents emphasise just
how vital a r ole artistic g oals pla yed in his artistic cr edo:
But w hat a bout us? Us! We describe lif e as it is and stop dead right ther e … We
have neither imm ediate nor r emote g oals, and ther e is an emptiness in our soul.
We have no politics , we don’t believ e in r evolution, ther e is no God, w e’re not
afraid of ghosts , and I per sonall y am not ev en afraid of death or blindness . No
one w ho w ants nothing , hopes f or nothing , and f ears nothing can be an artist.78
37Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

As w e shall see, Chekho v was to dev elop a m eans of successfull y presenting
both ‘lif e as it is’ and ‘lif e as it should be’ b y finding a w ay to pr esent the second
function indir ectly, thr ough implication. One of Robert Brustein’s man y
perceptiv e comm ents on Chekho v provides a k ey to the under standing of ho w
the pla ywright w as to g o about combining his truthful and r ealistic depiction
of the dr eary a pathetic lif e led in the Russia of his tim e, with his g oal of
unpolemicall y sugg esting a vision of ho w good lif e could and should be. Brustein
argues that Chekho v’s ‘concern with “lif e as it is” is ev entuall y modified b y his
growing con viction that “lif e as it is” is lif e as it should not be’.79 Brustein does
not f ollow the implications of his o wn observ ation, since he sees Chekho v as a
deepl y pessimistic writer , but his observ ation in f act allo ws us to see ho w it is
possible to show a bleak lif e while suggesting a brighter possible futur e alternativ e.
Simpl y because Chekho v refuses to overtl y depict ‘the ha ppiness of mankind’
does not impl y that he thinks that such ha ppiness can nev er be attained. On the
contrary , by pr esenting in his w orks the banality of ‘lif e as it is’ and b y
sugg esting the possibility of chang e and pr ogress, be it g radual or not, Chekho v
presents , by implication, ‘life as it should be’.
Throughout Chekho v’s writings w e find implied criticism of inertia, pessimism
and lack of aim, vision or g oal. At tim es, aspects of his vision of r eality ar e made
explicit. In his Notebooks we find him writing: ‘W e jud ge human activities b y
their g oal; that activity is g reat of w hich the g oal is g reat.’80 Ther e is an implied
criticism of those character s in Chekho v’s short stories and pla ys w ho commit
suicide. Their loss of f aith in pr ogress or chang e results in a complete loss of an y
goal in lif e. In his f euilleton, A Moscow Hamlet , published in December 1891,
Chekho v pillories the w orld-w eary ‘su perfluous man’ w ho does nothing to
impr ove life, and w ho, having no aim in lif e, simpl y whines a bout it. Chekho v
presents suicide as the lo gical conclusion to such a lif e. He ends the self-pitying
diatribe of the Mosco w Hamlet with a statem ent that he had alr eady put into
the mouth of ‘a certain g entleman unkno wn to m e, evidentl y not a Mosco vite’,
who, when ask ed w hat the Mosco w Hamlet should do a bout his constant
boredom, r eplied with irritation: ‘Ah, tak e a piece of telephone wir e and hang
yourself to the fir st teleg raph pole! Ther e is nothing else left f or you to do!’81
For som e critics , Chekho v’s denial of an y transcendent purpose to lif e
ultimatel y sugg ests to them a pessimistic attitude, but Chekho v’s ‘epic vision’
of the possibility of pr ogress for humanity , while it ma y look bleak to those w ho
have a P ollyanna vie w of lif e, must sur ely look positiv ely rosy w hen compar ed
with the nihilistic vision of the Absur dists. As Herbert Müller per suasiv ely
argues:
The question, a gain, is w hether on the conditions of modern kno wled ge and
experience m en can still com e to satisf actory terms with lif e. And though
Chekho v’s terms manif estly cannot satisfy those w ho requir e fixities or r eligious
38Interpreting Chekhov

certainty , ther e are at least honoura ble terms , the y include Christian ethical
values , … and the y represent a positiv e acceptance. They foster a r everence f or
life, and f or all possibilities of a richer mor e humane lif e.82
In A Dreary Story , Chekho v refused to allo w the d ying pr ofessor to console
the one per son he lo ved, Katy a, with an y false optimism. When the pr ofessor is
faced with the e xistential despair of Katy a, who has com e to ask him to giv e her
a reason f or living so that she will not commit suicide, he can onl y mak e her the
truthful r eply: ‘But w hat can I sa y? I ask in be wilderm ent. Ther e’s nothing I
can sa y.’83
Chekho v’s sense of purpose is rar ely expressed in terms of straightf orward
optimism. His long-term optimism w as almost al ways balanced b y his a wareness
that in the short term things might not impr ove. Futur e generations might ha ve
a better lif e but, being a ware of his o wn failing health, Chekho v kne w that ther e
was little hope f or himself. Gor ky recalls a tim e when the sick Chekho v expressed
his anguish at the thought of his impending pr ematur e death: 'One da y, lying
on a couch, coughing and pla ying with a thermom eter, he said: "T o live in or der
that w e may die is not v ery pleasant, but to liv e kno wing that w e shall die bef ore
our tim e is u p is pr ofoundl y stu pid."’84
Several of Chekho v’s character s face their a pproaching deaths with a sense
of hopelessness . The pr ofessor in A Dreary Story bemoans the f act that his lif e
has been w asted because he lack ed an y goal or purpose:
I’d lik e to w ake up a hundr ed years from no w and cast at least a cur sory glance
at what’s ha ppening in science. I’d lik e to ha ve lived another ten y ears or so .
And then?
The r est is nothing . I go on thinking — f or a long tim e — but can’t hit on
anything . And rack m y brains as I will, br oadcast m y thoughts w here I ma y, I
clearl y see ther e’s som ething missing in m y wishes — som ething vital, som ething
really basic. My passion f or science, m y urge to liv e, my sitting on this strang e
bed, m y urge to kno w myself, to gether with all m y thoughts and f eelings , and
conceptions w hich I f orm a bout ev erything — these things lack an y common
link ca pable of bonding them into a single entity . Each sensation, each idea of
mine has its o wn separate being . Neither in m y jud gements a bout science, the
stage, literatur e and m y pu pils, nor in the pictur es painted in m y ima gination
could ev en the most skilful anal yst detect an y ‘general conception’, or the God
of a liv e human being . And if one lacks that, one has nothing .85
Several of Chekho v’s letter s written in 1892–93 sugg est that he w as
under going som e per sonal crisis w hich manif ested itself in terms of a temporary
loss of his positiv e attitude to wards lif e. In A pril 1892, w hen he w as onl y 32,
he complained:
39Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

I turned thirty long a go and alr eady feel close to f orty. And I’v e aged in spirit
as well as in bod y. In som e silly way I’ve grown indiff erent to ev erything ar ound
me and f or som e reason the onset of this indiff erence coincided with m y trips
abroad. I g et up and g o to bed with the f eeling that m y inter est in lif e has dried
up.86
A similar note of depr ession is sounded in a letter to Suv orin in October of the
same year: 'not onl y am I bor ed and dissatisfied, but as a doctor I am c ynical
enough to be con vinced that fr om this lif e we can e xpect onl y evil err ors, losses ,
illnesses , weakness , and all kinds of dirty tricks .'87
However, even in this bleak period of his lif e, Chekho v did not giv e up his
struggle to find purpose in lif e. The v ery ne xt sentence of the letter just quoted,
begins with the w ords: ‘Nev ertheless , if y ou onl y kne w ho w pleasant …’ In
another letter to Suv orin written a w eek earlier , Chekho v responds to lif e’s
hardships in a positiv e life-affirming manner:
In spite of the cholera turmoil and impecuniousness , which k ept m e in its pa ws
until f all, I lik ed lif e and w anted to liv e. Ho w man y trees I planted!88
Again, in a letter to L. S . Mizono va, written in A ugust 1893, Chekho v complained
of feeling old. He complained that ‘lif e is so empty that one f eels onl y the flies
biting — and nothing mor e’. Ho wever, despite this e xpression of per sonal
depression, he asserted that: ‘One m ust ha ve a purpose in lif e …’89
Chekho v’s own biolo gical clock w as running do wn and he seem ed to be w ell
aware of the f act fiv e years bef ore his massiv e lung haemorrha ge in 1897 told
him ho w little tim e he had left. Writing fr om his estate at Melikho vo to another
friend, I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v in October 1892, he talks of the ad vantages of
not being in Mosco w, but then e xclaims:
… but, dear ca ptain — ther e’s old a ge! Old a ge, or being too lazy to liv e, I don’t
know which, but one does not particularl y want to liv e. One does not w ant to
die but living , too, has becom e a bor e som ehow. In short, the soul is ha ving a
taste of w hat the cold sleep is lik e.90
When, a month later , Chekho v wr ote to Suv orin bemoaning the lack of such
an aim or purpose in the w ork of artists of his tim e, he accepted that he w as also
suffering fr om the sam e ‘disease’. Characteristicall y, while r efusing to console
himself with an y unf ounded optimism, he r efrained fr om giving in to depr ession
and r efused to f ollow the lo gic of the a bsurd that leads to suicide. In w hat appear s
to be an almost Kier kegaardian lea p to f aith, Chekho v accepts the idea of the
world ha ving som e purpose ev en if that purpose is not dir ectly per ceivable:
I won’t thr ow myself do wn a stairw ell lik e Gar shin,91 nor shall I delude m yself
with hopes f or a better futur e. I am not to blam e for my illness , and it is not f or
40Interpreting Chekhov

me to doctor m yself, f or the disease, it m ust be su pposed, has ends that ar e
hidden fr om us and that ha ve not been visited u pon us without r eason.92
Chekho v’s ‘f aith’ is not in an y transcendental God or afterlif e but in pr ogress
and ev olution, and, as such, it is humanist f aith. Chekho v’s materialist vision
of reality helps us to see w hy he f elt una ble to ans wer an y questions a bout the
ultimate m eaning of lif e. Spiritual and m etaphysical speculations lie outside the
reach of scientific materialism. This belief is e xpressed in one of his Notebook
entries: ‘Ther e is no single criterion w hich can serv e as the m easur e of the
non-e xistent, of the non-human.’93 Chekho v wrote about the futur e of humanity
in terms of ev olutionary g radualism incorporating a sense of purpose and belief
in pr ogress. However, when he look ed at lif e from his o wn individual standpoint,
he expressed a sense of his o wn insignificance and mortality . During the late
1880s and earl y 1890s , Chekho v seems to ha ve suff ered great anguish at w hat
seem ed to him to be the purposelessness of each individual’s lif e. Pr obably
brought on b y his o wn illness , Chekho v beg an suff ering fr om depr ession and
panic attacks . Magarshack writes that, though he w as no long er being pla gued
by ‘violent con vulsions at night’, Chekho v’s m ental and ph ysical health w as
extremely poor:
A w orse tr ouble beset him no w. In ad dition to the curr ent symptoms of
tuber culosis as w ell as the constant attacks of haemorrhoids , he w as no w
obsessed b y mental terr ors, caused chiefl y by the su ppressed thought of his
own illness .94
The depr ession that Chekho v was suff ering at this tim e was translated into
his writing . One prim e example is the monolo gue fra gment that is one of the
earliest entries in his Notebooks , which he had started to write in 1892. Chekho v
records: ‘Solomon made a g reat mistak e when he ask ed for wisdom.’95 The
natur e of that unw elcom e ‘wisdom’ becom es clear w hen one e xamines the
monolo gue that w as intended to be deliv ered by the character Solomon:
SOLOMON . [Alone .] Oh! ho w dar k is lif e! No night, w hen I w as a child, so
terrified m e by its dar kness as does m y incompr ehensible e xistence. Lor d, to
David m y father thou g avest onl y the gift of harmonizing w ords and sounds ,
to sing and praise Thee on strings , to lam ent s weetly, to mak e people w eep, or
admir e beauty; but w hy has Thou giv en m e a self-torm enting , sleepless hung ry
mind? Lik e an insect born of the dust, I hide in dar kness; and in f ear and despair ,
all shaking and shiv ering , I see and hear in ev erything an incompr ehensible
mystery . Why this morning? Why does the sun com e from behind the temple
and gild the palm tr ee? Why the beauty of w omen? Wher e does the bir d hurry;
what is the m eaning of its flight, if it and its y oung and the place to w hich it
hastens will, lik e myself, turn to dust? It w ere better I had nev er been born, or
were a stone, to w hich God has giv en neither e yes nor thoughts . In or der to tir e
41Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

out m y bod y by nightf all, all da y yester day, like a m ere workman, I carried
marble to the temple; but no w the night has com e, and I cannot sleep … I’ll g o
and lie do wn. Phor ses told m e that if one ima gines a flock of sheep running and
fixes one’s attention u pon it, the mind g ets confused and one f alls asleep . I’ll
do it … [ Exit. ]96
When w e read man y of the letter s and w orks pr oduced at this period of
Chekho v’s lif e, we can see w hy som e critics ha ve been misled into seeing the
playwright as a pr oto-a bsurdist. That Chekho v himself suff ered a ‘dar k night
of the soul’ similar to that endur ed by his character Solomon seems f airly certain.
However, for most of his cr eativ e life Chekho v did not vie w lif e in a nihilistic
manner or concentrate on his o wn per sonal pr oblems . His w orks mainl y focus
on humanity at lar ge and depict the purposiv eness of natur e seen fr om a
Darwinian ev olutionary vie wpoint. Ev en in 1892, w hen som e of his most
pessimistic statem ents a bout lif e were made, w e find Chekho v placing individual
mortality in the lar ger conte xt of natur e and ev olutionary pr ogress. Ag ain,
Chekho v supplies no simplistic ans wers to lif e’s m ysteries . Relying on his f aith
in science and pr ogress, he w orks on the assumption that, w hile not ev erything
has been e xplained, ev erything on earth is potentiall y explaina ble. He writes
to Suv orin:
In central Russia the hor ses ha ve influenza. They die. If y ou believ e that
everything that ha ppens in natur e is designed and purposeful, then ob viousl y
natur e is straining ev ery nerv e to g et rid of debilitated or ganisms and those she
doesn’t need. Famines , cholera, influenza … onl y the health y and str ong will
remain. But to r eject the doctrine that ther e is purpose in things is impossible.
Our starlings , young and old, sud denly flew away som ewhere. This w as baffling ,
because the tim e for the mig ration of bir ds w as still f ar off. But une xpectedl y
we learned the other da y that clouds of southern dra gonflies , mistak en for
locusts , had flo wn acr oss Mosco w. The question arises: ho w did our starlings
learn that on such-and-such a da y, miles fr om Melikho vo, multitudes of insects
would be fl ying? Who inf ormed them? Verily this is a g reat m ystery . But it is
a wise m ystery . The sam e wisdom it occur s to one is hid den in f amines and the
illnesses that succeed them. We and our hor ses represent the dra gonflies and
famine and cholera — the starlings .97
Chekho v’s f aith in the possibility of a scientific e xplanation of natur e
combined with his essentiall y humble attitude to wards human ignorance of
many of natur e’s m ysteries is further evidence of his balanced a pproach to lif e
and this sense of balance is also evident in his art.
Chekho v appear s to ha ve hated e xtremism of an y sort. This r ejection of
extremes again g oes som e way to e xplain w hy, though he could not believ e in
God, he nev ertheless had f aith in humanity . Chekho v believ ed that those w ho
42Interpreting Chekhov

adopt e xtreme positions w ere bound to misunder stand most of lif e, since it is
precisel y betw een e xtremes that most of lif e takes place. To argue that Chekho v’s
plays ar e either ‘com edies’ or ‘tra gedies’ without considering w hat lies betw een
these tw o genres is to miss most of w hat Chekho v is a bout. To argue that he is
either a pr oto-Marxist or a pr oto-Absur dist can onl y result in his w orks being
misinterpr eted. His vision of r eality embodies an outlook that lies betw een these
two polar e xtremes. This is illustrated in a diary entry f or 1897 w here he writes
about ‘f aith’. He mak es the f ollowing illuminating and balanced comm ent:
Betw een ‘ther e is a God’ and ‘ther e is no God’ lies a v ast tract, w hich the r eally
wise man cr osses with g reat eff ort. A Russian kno ws one or other of these tw o
extremes, and the mid dle track betw een them does not inter est him; and
therefore he usuall y kno ws nothing or v ery little.98
Chekho v accepted the ‘both/and’ a pproach to lif e and depicted it with all of
its inher ent contradictions . Late in his lif e Chekho v wr ote to Dia ghilev a bout
God. Ev en though he w as a materialist w ho rejected an y conception of the kind
of transcendent God conceiv ed of b y writer s lik e Tolsto y and Dostoevsk y,
Chekho v did not r eject the idea of a mor e scientificall y based concept of the
deity . He wr ote of ‘disco vering’ God thr ough ev olutionary pr ogress:
Modern cultur e is the beginning of an eff ort that will contin ue for tens of
thousands of y ears to the end that, if onl y in the distant futur e, mankind ma y
know the true, r eal God, i.e. not conjecturing , not seeking f or him in Dostoevsk y,
but will kno w Him clearl y, kno w as it kno ws that tw o tim es tw o is four. Cultur e
today is the beginning of such an eff ort, but the r eligious mo vement a bout
which w e talk ed is a surviv al, alr eady almost the end of w hat is d ying or dead.99
Examining the w orld fr om his Darwinian vie wpoint, Chekho v saw abundant
evidence of chang e and pr ogress. He kne w that an y giv en individual might not
see m uch impr ovement in his o wn lif e, but, with w ork, futur e generations of
humanity w ould ha ve a better lif e. Occasionall y, even in an individual’s lif etime,
chang e and impr ovement could be spectacular . The eff orts made b y Chekho v
and his f ellow zemstvo doctor s to contr ol the cholera epidemic of 1892 br ought
about just such a spectacular impr ovement in the liv es of the peasants . Dr
Chekho v was suita bly proud of his w ork:
In Nizhn y at the f air, the y are working miracles , which ar e liable to compel
even Tolsto y to adopt an attitude of r espect f or m edicine and, in g eneral, f or
interv ention in lif e by men of cultur e. It looks as though cholera has been
lassooed … We have no assistants , we shall ha ve to act sim ultaneousl y both as
physicians and m edical or derlies; the peasants ar e coar se, unclean, mistrustful,
but the r eflection that our la bour s will not g o for nought mak es all this almost
unnoticea ble.100
43Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

The almost eu phoric tone of Chekho v’s letter is mirr ored in those cases in
his fiction w hen a central character lik e Layevsky in The Duel or Vladimir in An
Anonymous Story disco vers a purpose outside their o wn eg ocentric concerns .
The mor e optimistic side of Chekho v’s w orld vie w is to be f ound in his depictions
of character s who, like Layevsky and Vladimir , are sustained b y their f aith in
a brighter futur e.
Whenev er friends e xpressed totall y pessimistic vie ws about lif e Chekho v,
while ackno wled ging that lif e at pr esent w as bad, w ould point out that it does
impr ove. Writing to Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, Chekho v tak es him to task f or saying
‘What a m ess modern lif e is!’:
Your attitude to ward our tim es has al ways struck m e as unf air, always seem ed
to pass thr ough y our art lik e a morbid shud der … I am f ar from enthusiastic
about the contemporary scene, y et I think one ought to be objectiv e, as f ar as
possible. If things ar e not g ood no w, if the pr esent is not to one’s liking , the
past w as simpl y abomina ble.101
What Chekho v is at pains to criticise is the lack of necessary human action
to speed u p the pr ocesses of impr ovement in living conditions in the Russia of
his da y. So his e xperiences in Hong K ong in 1890 on his r eturn trip fr om the
Island of Sakhalin did not lead him to attack the f aults of British colonialism.
Instead he criticised the r elativ e lack of activity on the part of his o wn
countrym en in impr oving lif e in Russia:
I rode in jinrickshas , which is to sa y, in v ehicles dra wn b y men; bought all sorts
of rub bish fr om the Chinese; and w axed indignant as I listened to m y Russian
fellow tra vellers upbraiding the English f or their e xploitation of the nativ es.
Yes, thought I, the Englishman e xploits Chinese, Sepo ys, Hindus , but he giv es
them r oads, aqueducts , museums , Christianity; y ou too e xploit but w hat do
you giv e?102
Despite his a wareness of colonial e xploitation, Chekho v believ ed that people
in India had acquir ed som e benefit fr om the British occu pation. In particular ,
he made it clear that he w as in f avour of human beings modifying their w orld
and making use of natur e’s w ealth. His one pr oviso w as that this should be done
in an en vironmentall y sound manner that took into account the quality of lif e
of futur e generations as w ell as that of the pr esent g eneration. Once w e
under stand this attitude it will be har der f or us to interpr et a character lik e
Lopakhin in The Cherry Orc hard as som e monster bent on the destruction of all
that is beautiful.
In Chekho v’s major w orks the people w hom he subtl y criticises ar e those
who w aste their liv es, but his str ongest criticisms w ere kept for those w ho, like
the people of the ‘v aunted 60s’, h ypocriticall y claim ed to be doing som ething
to impr ove life but in f act did nothing . In his Notebooks ther e are thr ee clear
44Interpreting Chekhov

examples of this kind of bad f aith, and each f oreshado ws the sort of inauthentic
beha viour that is adopted b y so man y of the character s in his stories and pla ys.
The fir st example r eads lik e a small para ble:
The ne w Go vernor made a speech to his cler ks. He called the m erchants to gether
— another speech. At the ann ual prizegiving of the secondary school f or girls
a speech on true enlightenm ent. To the r epresentativ es of the pr ess a speech.
He called the J ews to gether: ‘J ews, I ha ve summoned y ou …’ A month or tw o
passes – he does nothing . Again he calls the m erchants to gether — a speech.
Again the J ews: ‘J ews, I ha ve summoned y ou …’ He has w earied them all. At
last he sa ys to his Chancellor: ‘No , the w ork is too m uch f or me, I shall ha ve to
resign.’103
Ther e are man y talk ers who ar e not doer s in Chekho v’s pla ys. A character
like Trofimo v in The Cherry Orc hard, who does nothing and has f ailed to complete
his deg ree, nev ertheless talks a g reat deal, especiall y about the v alue of har d
work! The f ollowing e xtract fr om the Notebooks might help us to see ho w
Chekho v wished such character s as Trofimo v, or Ser ebryakov in Uncle Vanya,
to be interpr eted: 'No wadays when a decent w orking-man tak es himself and his
work criticall y, people call him g rumbler , idler , bore; but w hen an idle scoundr el
shouts that it is necessary to w ork, he is a pplauded.'104
While neither Trofimo v nor Ser ebryakov are ‘scoundr els’, both ar e gently
satirised b y Chekho v. The eternal student becom es an object of fun because his
lauda ble call f or people to w ork is under cut b y his o wn inactivity , while the
professor’s e xhortation that ev eryone should w ork is undermined b y the f act
that his la bour s have produced little of w orth. The comic tactlessness e xhibited
by both character s is made clear b y Chekho v having them mak e their calls to
work in the pr esence of ‘decent’ character s, Lopakhin and Vanya, who ha ve
worked extremely har d all their liv es.
The thir d example fr om the Notebooks is another e xample of the talk er who
does nothing . The consistentl y critical attitude e xpressed b y Chekho v towards
those w ho claim to ha ve a purpose, but w ho do nothing to achiev e their aims ,
is worth bearing in mind w hen w e com e to interpr et similar character s in
Chekho v’s pla ys. A character lik e Vershinin in Three Sisters may well mouth
lauda ble sentim ents but he is per sonall y satirised f or m erely philosophising
about action. The entry in the Notebooks is as f ollows:
One r emember s the ar guments a bout the br otherhood of man, public g ood, and
work for the people, but r eally ther e were no such ar guments, one onl y drank
at the Univ ersity. They write ‘one f eels asham ed of the m en with Univ ersity
degrees w ho once f ought f or human rights and fr eedom of r eligion and
conscience’ — but the y nev er fought.105
45Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

The depiction of ‘lif e as it is’ pr esented as r ealisticall y as possible w as
Chekho v’s fir st artistic objectiv e. The r eason he pr esented a pictur e of ‘lif e as it
should not be’ w as that he hoped to pr oduce a neg ative response to the spineless
beha viour depicted and a positiv e response to those character s whose beha viour
was lia ble to impr ove the human lot. As J ohn Ha gan puts it:
Chekho v’s ultimate purpose is to comm unicate an attitude of one kind or another;
but his imm ediate purpose is to cr eate in the r eader [or audience] a certain kind
of illusion — an illusion that he is holding u p for inspection a piece of
unmediated r eality , a segm ent of lif e render ed with matter of f act lucidity in
all its cir cumstantiality , uncolor ed by the moods or opinions of an y observ er.106
As w e have seen, Chekho v’s optimism w as har d won. Not believing in God
or an afterlif e, he had to dev elop a secular f aith based on science and, as w e shall
see, that scientific attitude inf ormed not onl y his vision of r eality , but also the
artistic f orm that he utilised to r ealise that vision. An y attacks on science and
the scientific m ethod w ere dealt with sev erely by him. So of the man y faults
that he f ound in Bour get’s Disciple , Chekho v asserted in a letter to Suv orin in
1889 that: ‘the main one among them is his pr etentious crusade a gainst materialist
doctrine’.107 The importance to Chekho v of a materialist a pproach to the
under standing of lif e cannot be o veremphasised. For the pla ywright this scientific
method of anal ysis w as not an optional w ay of seeing the w orld — it w as the
way. Chekho v fulminates a gainst w hat he sees as Bour get’s attacks on materialism:
To begin with, materialism is not a school or doctrine in the narr ow journalistic
sense. It is neither chance occurr ence nor passing f ancy; it is som ething
indispensa ble and inevita ble and be yond human po wer. Everything that liv es
on earth is necessaril y materialistic … Pr ohibiting materialist doctrine is
tantamount to pr eventing man fr om seeking out the truth.108
Even Chekho v’s attitude to wards psy cholo gy depended on a materialist
methodolo gy. He attacks Bour get and man y other psy cholo gists of his tim e for
their spiritualistic a pproach to the stud y of the human mind:
As for his bookish, learned psy cholo gy, he [Bour get] kno ws about it as little as
the best of psy cholo gists. Kno wing it is just a bout the sam e as not kno wing it,
since it is mor e a fiction than a science, a kind of alchem y, and it is high tim e
for it to be filed a way in the ar chives.109
Such concepts as the human ‘soul’ m eant little to Chekho v because ther e
could be ‘no criterion w hich could serv e as the m easur e’ of such ‘fictional’
entities . For him human psy cholo gy could onl y be a r eal science w hen it w as
dealt with thr ough an e xamination of the human or ganism w hich, being material,
was open to observ ation. In the sam e letter to Suv orin, Chekho v notes:
46Interpreting Chekhov

… psy chic phenom ena ar e so strikingl y similar to ph ysical ones that it is almost
impossible to figur e out w here the f ormer start and the latter end? It seems to
me that, w hen a corpse is being dissected, ev en the most in veterate spiritualist
must necessar ily com e up against the question of w here the soul is . And if y ou
know ho w great the similarity is betw een m ental and ph ysical illnesses and
when y ou kno w that both one and the other ar e treated with the v ery sam e
remedies , you can’t help but r efuse to separate soul fr om bod y.110
Such a vie w of human psy cholo gy has f ar-reaching ramifications f or not just
the content, but the f orm of Chekho v’s literary w orks. In particular , the style
of acting that Chekho v admir ed and w hich is a ppropriate f or the perf orming of
his o wn pla ys is one in w hich, as Chekho v advised Me yerhold: ‘Subtle emotion
of the spirit … m ust be e xpressed subtl y, through external behaviour .’111
Chekho v’s a pproach to lif e and to art w ere ine xtrica bly link ed to gether b y
his scientific materialism. That in literary matter s he w as dra wn to Naturalism
was almost inevita ble, giv en his scientific training . The central do gma of
Naturalism, that cr eativ e writer s were to emplo y the scientific m ethod in their
works and w ere ‘to observ e and to r ecord as dispassionatel y and imper sonall y
as the scientist’,112 was not in an y way strang e to the m edicall y trained Chekho v.
This is har dly surprising w hen one r ealises that, as Fur st and Skrine note, f or
the Naturalists ‘the most common analo gy was betw een the writer and the doctor
dissecting the human mind and bod y’.113
As w e shall see in the ne xt cha pter, Chekho v’s commitm ent to Naturalism
led him to confr ont certain major artistic pr oblems and led, not to an y rejection
of Naturalism in g eneral, but to the dev elopm ent of his o wn modified v ersion
of that literary mo vement’s platf orm. Nicholas Mora vcevich f airly sums u p
Chekho v’s g eneral position in r elation to Naturalism w hen he notes: 'Zola’s
demands f or a complete surr ender of intuition to scientificall y collected data
were at tim es too e xtreme for Chekho v, but in g eneral he at that tim e [1888] had
no quarr el with an artistic m ethod based on f aithful r eproduction of materialistic
phenom ena.'114
Certainl y, as late as 1899, w hen he w as ask ed to su pply an autobio graphical
sketch f or an album to be published of all the alumni of the 1884 class of the
Medical School of Mosco w Univ ersity, Chekho v still wished to ackno wled ge his
affiliations with Naturalism. Almost half of his autobio graphical sk etch is tak en
up with his e xplanation of the importance of scientific m ethod in his artistic
works. He lik ewise ackno wled ged that such a naturalistic a pproach to cr eativ e
works w as pr oblematic:
I don’t doubt that the stud y of the m edical sciences seriousl y affected m y literary
work; the y significantl y enlar ged the field of m y observ ations , enriched m e
with kno wled ge, the true v alue of w hich f or me as a writer can be under stood
47Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

only by one w ho is himself a ph ysician; the y also had a dir ectiv e influence and
probably because I w as close to m edicine I a voided man y mistak es. Acquaintance
with the natural sciences , with scientific m ethod, k ept m e always on guar d and
I tried, w herever possible, to bring m y writings into harmon y with scientific
data, and w here this w as impossible, I pr eferred not to write at all. Let m e
observ e that cr eativity in the arts does not al ways admit total a greement with
scientific data; thus it is impossible to r epresent on the sta ge death fr om
poisoning as it actuall y tak es place. But a greement with scientific data m ust be
felt in the con ventions accepted, that is , it is necessary f or the r eader or spectator
to grasp clearl y that these ar e onl y con ventions , and that he is dealing with an
author w ho kno ws the true f acts. I do not belong to the fiction writer s who
have a neg ative attitude to ward science …115
As w e have seen, the pla ywright’s vision of r eality cannot be adequatel y
described in terms of a bsolutes . Any polarised interpr etation of his pla ys that
plumps f or ‘Chekho v the pessimist’ or ‘Chekho v the optimist’ is bound to be
reductionist. His o wn hatr ed of pig eonholing and e xtremes, and his lo ve of
honesty and truth, w ere part of his w orld vie w as earl y as 1888, and r emained
of central importance to his vision all of his lif e. Chekho v’s attitude to ward those
critics w ho insisted on simplisticall y ‘plucking’ out his m ystery b y seeing him
in the e xtreme terms of ‘either/or’ w as entir ely neg ative:
I am afraid of those w ho look f or a tendenc y betw een the lines and insist on
seeing m e as necessaril y either a liberal or a conserv ative. I am not a liberal, not
a conserv ative, not a g radualist, not a monk, not an indiff erentist. I should lik e
to be a fr ee artist and nothing mor e, … I r egard trademar ks and la bels as
prejudicial. My hol y of holies is the human bod y, health, intellig ence, talent,
inspiration, lo ve and a bsolute fr eedom — fr eedom fr om f orce and f alsehood,
no matter ho w the last tw o manif est themselv es. This is the pr ogram I w ould
follow if I w ere a great artist.116
Even calling Chekho v a f ollower of Naturalism w ould seem to run the risk
of ‘la belling’ him. The term can be accuratel y applied to him onl y in the g eneral
sense of his being committed to a materialist vie w of lif e, and to a scientificall y
based vie w of literary cr eation. Naturalism w as nev er monolithicall y absolute
itself, and man y of the dualistic ‘both/and’ elem ents to be f ound in Chekho v
were already part of the literary mo vement itself. When Fur st and Skrine claim:
‘that the scientific disco veries of the nineteenth century and the intr oduction
of the scientific m ethod in the arts w ere fundam ental f actor s in sha ping
Naturalism’,117 we may be tempted to see this mo vement in unambiguous terms .
However, as the y proceed to point out, Naturalism as a mo vement:
… w as nev er as rational or as lo gicall y consistent as it ma y first seem. The second
half of the nineteenth century w as a tim e of be wildering contradictions , of
48Interpreting Chekhov

which Naturalism had its f air shar e. It w as … torn betw een its theory and
practice, betw een materialism and optimism. On the one hand it f aced the
iniquities of a ra pidly industrialized (polluted) w orld w hile on the other it placed
boundless f aith in the futur e progress of that w orld with the help of scientific
advance. The Naturalists did not g o as f ar as the Marxists in r eviling the pr esent
and n urturing Messianic hopes f or the futur e, but the y did try to combine
high-minded idealism with the sobriety of detached observ ers. Looking at the
world and at man, the y despair ed and hoped at one and the sam e tim e. This
underl ying dualism helps to account f or som e of the a pparent inconsistencies
within Naturalism and it also in vests the mo vements with a certain dialectical
tension. In this r espect too Naturalism is as m uch an e xpression of its a ge as the
socio-political system of Marx and the philosoph y of Nietzsche. Each r epresents
an attempt to mak e a reckoning with a drasticall y chang ed univ erse.118
Chekho v’s w ork displa ys all the ambiguities and ‘a pparent inconsistencies’
of the Naturalist mo vement as a w hole and I will ar gue that m uch of the po wer
of Chekho v’s w ork is g enerated pr ecisel y out of the ‘dialectical tension’ that
characterised the ideolo gy of Naturalism.
Neither a social r evolutionary nor an a bsurdist, Chekho v, with his f aith in
science and the futur e of humanity (if not in God and the afterlif e), pr esents a
world as it is , which is , at the sam e tim e, a w orld as it should not be. What
Chekho v’s pla ys and short stories e xplor e, though solel y by implication, is a
pictur e of the w orld as it should be. The w orld of bor edom and a pathy which
he pr esented in his w orks, and w hich he f elt had to be chang ed, is described
perfectly in another entry in his Notebooks: ‘In the lif e of our to wns ther e is no
pessimism, no Marxism, and no mo vements, but ther e is sta gnation, stu pidity
and m ediocrity .'119
Chekho v’s aim w as to mak e his r eader s and spectator s aware of the sta gnant,
stupid and m ediocr e lives the y all liv ed and, b y doing so , mak e them a ware that
this w as not the inevita ble fate of humanity . He f elt that w ork, education and
business w ould help speed u p the impr ovement of lif e. Ev en though Chekho v
was faced with the f act that, f or the most part, ther e were largely untrained
teacher s in poor quality schools and considera ble resistance to education on the
part of the peasants themselv es, he r etained his f aith in education and a pplied
science as m eans to impr ove living conditions:
For one sensible per son ther e are a thousand f ools … the thousands o verwhelm
the one and that is w hy cities and villa ges pr ogress so slo wly. The majority , the
mass , always remains stu pid; it will al ways overwhelm, the sensible man should
give up hope of educating and lifting it u p to himself; he had better call in the
assistance of material f orce, build rail ways, teleg raphs, telephones — in that
way he will conquer and help lif e forward.120
49Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

Chekho v under stood clearl y ho w difficult a task changing people’s
consciousness actuall y was in practice. Thinking f or oneself, making authentic
decisions and r efusing to liv e a lie w ere all infinitel y har der to achiev e in the
deepl y authoritarian bur eaucratic w orld of Tsarist Russia than in other , mor e
democratic societies . As Chekho v noted, ‘no where else does the authority of a
name weigh so hea vily as with us Russians , who ha ve been obsessed b y centuries
of sla very and f ear fr eedom’.121
Making his r eader s and audience a ware that the y could in f act be fr ee and
master s of their f ate w as of crucial significance f or Chekho v. The ludicr ous
pictur e of the cler k in The Sneeze , who is so u pset at ha ving sneezed o ver the
back of one of his social su perior s in the theatr e that he ev entuall y goes hom e
and dies , is just one e xample of Chekho v using the classic scour ge of ridicule to
point out the a bsurdity of such servile beha viour . He believ ed that a ‘sense of
personal fr eedom’ w as ‘indispensa ble’,122 not just f or the cr eativ e artist, but
also f or humans wishing to chang e their w orld. He sa w his o wn lif e in terms of
acquiring that sense of fr eedom. In Chekho v’s w orks, the character s who beha ve
inauthenticall y by den ying their fr eedom to act ar e laughed at and criticised. It
is a g ross misinterpr etation of his pla ys to pr esent the inactivity of his character s
as though such beha viour w ere inevita ble. Chekho v’s character s operate in a
fictional w orld in w hich per sonal and social dev elopm ent is possible. Chekho v’s
vivid description of his o wn har d-won emancipation attests to his belief in the
possibility of such achiev ement:
Write a story , do, about a y oung man, the son of a serf, a f ormer grocery bo y,
a choir sing er, a high school pu pil and univ ersity student, br ought u p to r espect
rank, to kiss the hands of priests , to truckle to the ideas of other s — a y oung
man w ho expressed thanks f or ev ery piece of br ead, w ho w as whipped man y
times, who w ent out without g aloshes to do his tutoring , who used his fists ,
tortur ed animals , was fond of dining with rich r elativ es, was a h ypocrite in his
dealings with God and m en, needlessl y, solel y out of a r ealization of his o wn
insignificance — write ho w this y oung man squeezes the sla ve out of himself,
drop by drop, and ho w, on a waking one fine morning , he f eels that the blood
coursing thr ough his v eins is no long er that of a sla ve but that of a r eal human
being .123
One of the mor e sensitiv e summations of Chekho v’s aims in lif e and art w as
made, not b y a pr ofessional critic or theatr e dir ector , but b y the Russian
cosmonaut, Vitali Sev astyanov. Perhaps this is not as surprising as it might fir st
appear . Critics and dir ector s from Chekho v’s own da y to the pr esent ha ve tended
to pr esent polarised pictur es of the writer that I ha ve argued ar e one-sided
misinterpr etations . Sev astyanov’s response to Chekho v, colour ed as it inevita bly
is by his o wn belief in the positiv e value of the Russian r evolution, nev ertheless
esche ws such one-sided r eadings . Despite the simplicity of his r esponse, he
50Interpreting Chekhov

captures the sense of dualistic balance that I believ e lies at the heart of Chekho v’s
vision:
I think Chekho v loved his people and his country v ery m uch. He sa w ho w
pitiful man could be and w as aware of his potential g reatness . To me, Chekho v’s
writings ar e full of torm ent o ver lif e’s rough handling of man, w ho often —
contrary to his o wn inter ests — helps lif e in dem eaning human dignity . I reject
the vie w that Chekho v lack ed social commitm ent. That notion w as thought u p
by his narr ow-minded admir ers, or is just a plain m yth. He portra yed the lif e
of society in a w ay that left no doubt in the r eader’s mind that such a lif e had
to be chang ed. And he depicted individual liv es so that ev ery man could
under stand that onl y he himself w as capable of changing his o wn lif e. Chekho v,
of cour se, is not a ‘pr opagandist’ or an ‘activist’. Chekho v is not a political
writer . Even so , he pla yed an enormous r ole in pr eparing public opinion f or
the r evolution.124
The central elem ents of Chekho v’s vision of r eality should no w be clear . A
critic or dir ector should no w be a ble to r ecognise the ‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’
that w ould define w hat constitutes a v alid interpr etation of the vision of r eality
expressed in his pla ys. The discussion so f ar has onl y attempted to clarify the
‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’ of what Chekho v was trying to portra y in his w orks.
Before we can g o on to e xamine the individual pla ys w e need to e xamine how
Chekho v sought to comm unicate his vision. Finding the a ppropriate dramatic
form to act as the objectiv e corr elativ e of his vision w as to be one of Chekho v’s
major achiev ements.
ENDNOTES
1 Chekho v, A., Terror, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 6, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London,
1971, p . 174.
2 Chekho v, A., An Anonymous Story , in Hingle y, R., op . cit., p . 250.
3 Valenc y, M., The Breaking Str ing, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1966, p . 184.
4 Hingle y, R., ‘Intr oduction’, in Chekho v, A., Ward Number Six and Other Stor ies, World’s Classics ,
Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, Oxf ord, 1992, p . xiv.
5 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 3 December 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton Chekhov ,
The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 227.
6 Ibid., p . 228.
7 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., trans ., The Notebooks of Anton Tc hekhov ,The Ho garth Pr ess, London,
1967, p . 60.
8 Chekho v, A., Comm ents r ecorded b y A. Tikhono v, 1902, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the
Dramatist, Eyre Methuen, London, 1980, pp . 13–14.
9 I think it is clear that w hat f ollows fr om m y line of ar gument is that it is quite possible to ha ve
theatricall y successful and popular ‘misinterpr etations’ of an y giv en pla y. The casting of Marlon Brando
in the r ole of Stanle y Kowalski, accor ding to man y critics , myself included, distorted the m eaning of
Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire , yet the pr oduction w as extremely successful in the
theatr e.
10 Chekho v, A., quoted in Gor ky, M., Fragments from My Diary , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1940, p .
173.
51Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

11 Ehrenbur g, I., Chekhov , Stendhal and Other Essa ys, Macgib bon and K ee, London, 1962, pp . 65–6.
The So viet critic, A. P . Chudak ov, is another writer w ho per suasiv ely argues that Chekho v felt ther e
was a need f or a symbiotic connection betw een human beings and their en vironment, and that material
and spiritual pr ogress w ere dependent on this connection. Chudak ov argues that, w hile Chekho v
avoided do gmatism at all tim es, he ‘clearl y sympathises with those r emar ks by his her oes in w hich the
appraisal of man’s attitude to natur e is placed on the sam e level as the v alue of spiritual phenom ena. In
his nocturnal r eflections bef ore the duel, Laevsk y counts among his moral crim es not onl y his lies and
indiff erence to people’s suff erings , ideas , sear chings and struggles , but also the f act that he does not
love natur e and that “in his o wn g arden he has nev er planted a single tr ee or g rown a single blade of
grass”.’ (Chudak ov, A. P ., ‘The P oetics of Chekho v: The Spher e of Ideas’, New Literary History , Vol. 9,
Winter 1978, p . 374.)
12 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 15.
13 Ibid., p . 29. Amongst the things Chekho v left behind him after his death w ere thr ee schools .
14 Gorky, M., op . cit., p . 172.
15 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 December 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 170.
16 Karlinsk y, S., ‘The Gentle Sub versive’, Intr oduction to Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., trans ., Anton
Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought, Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess, Berkeley, 1975, p . 26.
17 Chekho v, A., quoted in Shakh-Azizo va, T., ‘A Russian Hamlet ’, Soviet Literature ,Vol. 1, J anuary
1980, p . 162.
18 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 28 October 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 122.
19 Tulloch, J ., ‘Chekho v Abr oad: Western Criticism’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion ,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985, p . 198.
20 Tulloch, J ., Chekhov: A Structuralist Stud y, Macmillan Pr ess, London, 1980, pp . 100–1. When Chekho v
wrote to Suv orin in 1894 outlining his r easons f or rejecting Tolsto y’s anti-scientific philosoph y of lif e,
his belief in the idea of pr ogress thr ough science w as pr ominent. ‘I ha ve peasant blood flo wing in m y
veins and I’m not one to be impr essed with peasant virtues . I acquir ed m y belief in pr ogress w hen still
a child; I couldn’t help believing in it because the diff erence betw een the period w hen the y flo gged
me and the period w hen the y stopped flo gging m e was enormous … Prudence and justice tell m e ther e
is mor e love for mankind in electricity and steam than in chastity and a bstention fr om m eat.’ (Chekho v,
A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 Mar ch 1894, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 261.)
21 Shesto v, L., Chekhov and Other Essa ys, Univ ersity of Michig an Pr ess, Ann Arbor , 1966, pp . 4–5.
22 Corrig an, R., ‘The Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Corrig an, R. and Rosenber g, J. L., eds , The Context and Craft
of Drama, Chandler Publishing Co ., Scranton, 1964, p . 145.
23 Smith, J . O., ‘Chekho v and the “Theatr e of the Absur d”’, Bucknell Review , Vol. 14, December 1966,
p. 45.
24 Stein, W., ‘Tragedy and the Absur d’, The Dublin Review , Vol. 233, Winter 1959–60, p . 381.
25 Esslin, M., ‘Chekho v and the Modern Drama’, in Cl yman, T. W., op. cit., pp . 143, 145.
26 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 December 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 170.
27 Unlik e man y of our curr ent critics , M. Robinson, writing in 1927, w as able to a void seeing Chekho v’s
plays thr ough an a bsurdist lens . He per ceived that Chekho v rejected an y sense of inevita bility a bout
the fate of his character s:
But conceding , for the sak e of ar gument, that Chekho v does write of people w ho ar e conquer ed
by life, what does that pr ove about his vie w of the univ erse? It onl y proves som ething a bout
his attitude to wards his f ellow-man. Not, though, that he r egarded man as a being w ho m ust
inevita bly be conquer ed by life; but that ther e was in him as a r oot quality that pr ofound
pity w hich can onl y be f elt by a character at once str ong and balanced … When Chekho v
presents such [def eated] character s, he is not trying to r ouse us into a state of f alse indignation
against lif e and f ate; he did not intend to put the blam e for an ything that is wr ong in the
world of m en upon those v ague and con venient sca pegoats; he w anted us to put the blam e
where it belongs: on our selves. (Robinson, M., ‘M. Robinson Replies to the Notion that
Chekho v’s Character s “Ar e For ever Conquer ed by Lif e”’, Adelphi , May 1927, in Em eljano w,
V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage, Routled ge and K egan Paul, London, 1981, pp . 318–19.)
28 Chekho v’s depiction of a g eneration w hose a voidance of an y social r esponsibility and r efusal to f ace
reality r educed their liv es to a bsurdity w as a major influence on Geor ge Bernar d Sha w when he wr ote
Heartbreak House , significantl y subtitled ‘A Fantasy in the Russian Manner’. Both dramatists believ ed
52Interpreting Chekhov

in the idea of pr ogress and both, in their diff ering w ays, were critical of the r efusal b y man y of their
countrym en to help eff ect chang e.
29 Chekho v, A., Smoking Is Bad f or You, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 1, Oxf ord Univ ersity
Press, London, 1968, p . 157.
30 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. V. Kiselev a, 14 J anuary 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 41.
31 Yermilo v, V., ‘A Gr eat Artist and Inno vator’, in Katzer , J., ed., A. P. Chekhov: 1860–1960 , For eign
Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w, 1960, p . 126.
32 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Tikhono v, 1902, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 14.
33 Valenc y, M., op . cit., p . 298.
34 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 7 A pril 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 46.
35 Laffitte, S ., Chekhov , Angus and Robertson, London, 1974, p . 175.
36 Ibid.
37 Kuprin, A., ‘Reminiscences of Anton Tchekho v’ in K oteliansk y, S. S., ed., Anton Tc hekhov: Literary
and Theatr ical Reminiscences , Hask ell House Publisher s, New York, 1974, pp . 49–85.
38 Hingle y, R., A New Lif e of Chekhov , Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1976, p . 277.
39 Hingle y, R., ‘Intr oduction’, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,Vol. 5, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1970, p . 11.
40 Ehrenbur g, I., op . cit., p . 73.
41 Chekho v, A., The Duel, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,Vol. 5, p . 207.
42 Hingle y, R., ‘Intr oduction’, in Chekho v, A., The Russian Master and Other Stor ies, World’s Classics ,
Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, Oxf ord, 1992, p . ix.
43 Tulloch, J ., op. cit., p . 131.
44 Chekho v, A., The Duel , pp. 207–8.
45 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 41.
46 Chekho v, A., The Duel, p. 205.
47 Ibid., p . 209.
48 Ibid., p . 224.
49 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 26.
50 Philip Callo w, in his bio graphy of Chekho v, quotes fr om a letter to Suv orin written in 1889 in w hich
Chekho v’s hatr ed of the aimless inertia of the intellig entsia w as po werfull y expressed: ‘[Chekho v]
launched an attack on the “w ood lice and molluscs w e call the intellig entsia”, a lazy , cold, philosophizing
species w ho spent their tim e blithel y neg ating ev erything , “since it is easier f or a lazy brain to den y
than assert”.’ (Callo w, P., Chekhov: The Hidden Ground , Ivan R. Dee, Chica go, 1998, p . 137.)
51 Chekho v, A., ‘Obituary f or N. Przev alsky’, 1888, quoted in Laffitte, S ., op. cit., p . 113.
52 Callo w, P., op. cit., p . 138.
53 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 Mar ch 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 129.
54 Ther e is clear evidence of ho w seriousl y Chekho v approached his r esear ch and of his belief that his
medical census w ould be of social use. While on his r eturn trip fr om Sakhalin he wr ote to Suv orin: ‘By
the w ay, I had the patience to tak e a census of the entir e population of Sakhalin. I w ent ar ound to each
of the settlem ents, stopped at each hut and talk ed with each per son. I used a filing-car d system f or
purposes of the census , and ha ve records of a bout ten thousand con victs and settler s by now. In other
words, ther e’s not a single con vict or settler in Sakhalin w ho hasn’t talk ed to m e. I w as particularl y
successful in the childr en’s census and I place g reat hopes in it.’ (Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin,
11 September 1890, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 171.)
55 Chekho v, A., An Anonymous Story , p. 245.
56 Laffitte, S ., op. cit., p . 135.
57 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 Mar ch 1890, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 159.
58 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 2 J anuary 1894, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 243. I ha ve
included the w ord ‘literary’, as this w ord or the w ord ‘fictional’ a ppear s in other translations of this
letter , but has been inad vertentl y omitted b y Yarmolinsk y.
59 See in particular Tulloch, J ., op. cit.
60 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 September 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 107.
61 Conrad, J ., ‘Chekho v as Social Observ er: The Island of Sakhalin ’, in Cl yman, T. W., op. cit., p . 284.
53Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

62 In a letter to Suv orin in 1889, Chekho v voiced his total commitm ent to a materialist vie w of the
world. He wr ote: ‘T o begin with, materialism is not a school or a doctrine in the narr ow journalistic
sense. It is neither chance occurr ence nor passing f ancy; it is som ething indispensa ble and inevita ble
and be yond human po wer. Everything that liv es on earth is necessaril y materialistic … thinking humans ,
are also necessaril y materialists . They sear ch for truth in matter because ther e is no where else f or them
to sear ch: all the y see, hear and f eel is matter . They can necessaril y seek out truth onl y where their
microscopes , probes and kniv es are effectiv e. Prohibiting materialist doctrine is tantamount to pr eventing
man fr om seeking out the truth. Outside of matter ther e is no e xperience or kno wled ge, and consequentl y
no truth.’ (Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 15 Ma y 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., pp . 143–4.)
63 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. V. Kiselev a, 14 J anuary 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 42.
64 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 55.
65 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 243.
66 Ibid.
67 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 October 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 117.
68 Chekho v, A., Letter to D . V. Grig orovich, 9 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 84.
69 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A pril 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 133.
70 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 88.
71 Chekho v, A., Letter to S . P. Diaghilev , 12 J uly 1903, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 453.
72 Chekho v wr ote to Pleshche yev in 1890: ‘one doesn’t f eel lik e forgiving the author — to be pr ecise,
the audacity with w hich Tolsto y discour ses on w hat he kno ws nothing a bout and w hat, out of
stubbornness , he does not w ant to under stand. Thus his jud gements on syphilis , on f ounding asylums ,
on w omen’s a bhorr ence of copulation, etc., not onl y can be contr overted but also ar e a dir ect exposur e
of a man w ho is ignorant, w ho thr oughout the cour se of his long lif e had nev er gone to the tr ouble of
reading tw o or thr ee books written b y specialists .’ (Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 15
February 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 125.)
73 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . P. Menshik ov, 16 A pril 1897, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 286.
74 Gorky, M., ‘F ragment fr om Reminiscences’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov , Prentice-Hall, Ne w
Jersey, 1967, p . 203.
75 Ibid., p . 205.
76 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. V. Kiselev a, 14 J anuary 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 40.
77 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 27.
78 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 243.
79 Brustein, R., The Theatre of Revolt , Little, Br own and Compan y, Boston, 1964, p . 139.
80 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 6.
81 Chekho v, A., ‘A Mosco w Hamlet’, in J osephson, M., ed., The Personal Papers of Anton Chekhov ,
Lear, New York, 1948, p . 213.
82 Müller , H. J ., The Spir it of T raged y, Alfr ed A. Knopf, Ne w York, 1956, p . 290.
83 Chekho v, A., A Dreary Story , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 5, p . 81.
84 Gorky, M., Fragments from My Diary , p. 174.
85 Chekho v, A., A Dreary Story , p. 80.
86 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 8 A pril 1892, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 221.
87 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 18 October 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 223.
88 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 10 October 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 223.
89 Chekho v, A., Letter to L. S . Mizono va, 13 A ugust 1893, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 237.
90 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 24 October 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p .
225.
91 The writer Vsev olod Gar shin, w ho w as an admir er of Chekho v’s w ork, had succumbed to depr ession
and hopelessness and committed suicide in 1888. Chekho v contributed a short story , A Nervous
Breakdown , to an antholo gy honouring the m emory of Gar shin.
92 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 227.
93 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 71.
94 Magarshack, D ., Chekhov: A Lif e, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1970, p . 139.
95 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 1.
54Interpreting Chekhov

96 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., pp . 1–2.
97 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 28 Ma y 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 212.
98 Josephson, M., ed., The Personal Papers of Anton Chekhov , Lear , New York, 1948, p . 231.
99 Chekho v, A., Letter to S . P. Diaghilev , 30 December 1902, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 438.
100 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A ugust 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., pp . 218–19.
101 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 20 J anuary 1899, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p .
329.
102 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 December 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 169.
103 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 11.
104 Ibid., p . 72.
105 Ibid., p . 54.
106 Hagan, J ., ‘Chekho v’s Fiction and the Ideal of “Objectivity”’, Proceedings of the Modern Language
Association , Vol. 81, October 1966, p . 417.
107 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 Ma y 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 143.
108 Ibid., pp . 143–4.
109 Ibid., p . 143.
110 Ibid., p . 144.
111 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 2 January 1900, quoted in Tulloch, J ., op. cit., p . 107.
112 Furst, L. and Skrine, P ., Naturalism , Methuen, London, 1971, p . 21.
113 Ibid.
114 Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Chekho v and Naturalism: F rom Affinity to Div ergence’, Comparative Drama,
Vol. 4, No . 4, Winter 1970–71, p . 221.
115 Chekho v, A., Letter to G . I. Rossolimo , 11 October 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., pp . 352–3.
116 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 4 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 81.
117 Furst, L. and Skrine, P ., op. cit., p . 22.
118 Ibid., pp . 22–3.
119 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 89.
120 Ibid., p . 16.
121 Ibid., p . 28.
122 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 107.
123 Ibid.
124 Sevastyanov, V., ‘Tribute to Chekho v’, Soviet Literature ,Vol. 1, J anuary 1980, p . 191.
55Chekhov’s Vision of Reality

Chapter 2. The Search for Form
That the theatre should attempt to present a picture of the world as it reall y is never
occurred to the theoreticians or practitioners of pre-modern drama. The theatre was
an art — and art was artif ice. (Martin Esslin)1
They act too muc h. It would be better if they acted a little more as in lif e. (Anton
Chekho v)2
If the fir st task of an y dir ector of Chekho v is to interpr et the vision of r eality
expressed in his pla ys, then the second task is to com e to an under standing of
the particular f orm that Chekho v dev eloped to e xpress that vision. The distinction
betw een f orm and content is difficult to mak e in Chekho v’s case since both the
manner and the matter of Chekho v’s dramatur gy are determined b y the
playwright’s belief that dramatic art should be true to lif e.
Chekho v was quite certain that literary artists should depict ‘lif e as it is’. In
1887, in the m uch quoted letter to M. V. Kiselev a in w hich he def ended the right
and duty of the literary artist to depict the seamier side of lif e, he en unciated
the corner stone belief of his artistic cr edo: ‘Literatur e is called artistic w hen it
depicts lif e as it actuall y is. Its purpose is truth, honest and indisputa ble.’3
Chekho v was equall y certain that:
… writer s whom w e call eternal, or simpl y good and w ho into xicate us ha ve
one v ery important characteristic in common: the y mo ve in a certain dir ection
… the y have a g oal … because ev ery line is perm eated, as with sa p, by the
consciousness of a purpose, y ou ar e aware not onl y of lif e as it is , but of lif e as
it ought to be.4
What Chekho v was not imm ediatel y clear a bout w as ho w to achiev e this aim
himself. He f elt that the f orms of drama and theatr e that w ere popular in Russia
when he w as writing could not be used successfull y to dramatise his vision. The
conventions of such dramatic f orms as r omantic drama, m elodrama or the
well-made pla y militated a gainst an y attempt to trul y sho w ‘lif e as it is’. Chekho v
was thus f aced with the initial pr oblem of cr eating an a ppropriate set of
conventions that w ould allo w him to depict lif e truthfull y.
Having been trained as a doctor , he w as con versant with the scientific m ethod
and, lik e other writer s of the Naturalistic mo vement, he a pplied this m ethod to
his cr eativ e writing . This helped him to find a w ay of pr oviding truthful
depictions of ‘lif e as it is’, but cr eated further pr oblems f or him, especiall y when
it cam e to the question of depicting ‘lif e as it ought to be’. His r elativ ely short
career as a pla ywright w as spent sear ching f or an a ppropriate dramatic and
theatrical f orm to r ealise his vision of r eality . We need to e xamine the pr ecise
57

natur e of the artistic pr oblems f aced b y Chekho v in his quest to match f orm
with content and outline the steps he took in his sear ch to find the ans wers to
these pr oblems .
Chekho v liv ed at a tim e of enormous social, political and scientific chang e.
Living as he w as at a tim e of transition w hen Modernism w as displacing
Romanticism, the pr oblem of matching vision and f orm w as acute f or him. The
sets of con ventions that g o to mak e up a literary mo vement lik e Modernism ar e
attempts to find a ppropriate f orms in w hich to e xpress a chang ed vie w of the
natur e of the w orld. Naturalism, with its emphasis on empiricism and positivism,
and the ne w ideas pr omulgated b y scientists lik e Darwin and Compte, w ere fast
replacing the outdated idealism of the r omantic vision as the accepted w orld
view.
Ronald Gask ell has outlined the eff ects of this shift in sensibility on drama
as follows:
The significance of this f or drama soon becom es evident. For w hat w ere the
older m ethods of in vestig ating man that m ust be discar ded or modernized?
Theolo gy, ethical and political speculations had all w orked deductiv ely. Starting
from assum ed (a priori) axioms a bout the soul, the will or the rights of man,
they had ela borated systems of thought that led no where, or at all ev ents did
nothing to e xplain the w ay men ar e sha ped b y their inheritance and b y the
world the y live in. As f or poets and dramatists , where the y had not vie wed man
through the distorting lens of r eligion or m etaphysics , they had w orked fr om
a pur ely subjectiv e standpoint, fr om the v agaries of per sonal emotion and
sensibility or fr om an intuitiv e awareness that could be neither ratified nor
dispr oved. [In r esponse to this , drama] … might adopt the account of r eality
assum ed and a pparently pr oved b y the sciences: an account w hich their
overwhelming success had esta blished so secur ely that it seem ed by no w, as
the Christian vision had seem ed to the m ediev al dramatist, not to be one
interpr etation of the w orld but the w orld as in f act it is .5
Given Chekho v’s materialist vision of r eality , and his r espect f or man y of the
central tenets of Naturalism, w e can see w hy he f ound man y of the ‘idealist’
assumptions in the w ork of both Tolsto y and Dostoevsk y so r epugnant.
Chekho v’s central artistic pr oblem in dramatising his vision of r eality during
this tim e of cultural u phea val was to find artistic m eans that w ere consistent
with his science-based w orld vie w. His r efusal to see science and art as
antithetical e xplains w hy ther e is a str ong literary elem ent in his scientific w ork.
More significantl y, this balanced and inclusiv e approach has m eant that ther e
is a str ong scientific elem ent in all of his literary w orks. It is in this sense that
one can call Chekho v a Naturalist.6 As Fur st and Skrine ha ve noted:
58Interpreting Chekhov

This affinity to science w as explicitl y emphasized b y the Naturalists … The
Naturalists believ ed that the truthfulness f or which the y aim ed could be g ained
only from a painstaking observ ation of r eality and a car eful notation of f act.7
Chekho v emplo yed a similar ‘painstaking observ ation of r eality and a car eful
notation of f act’ in his depiction of character s in his literary w orks. The clinical
observ ation of people’s beha viour that is evident in his literary w orks is perha ps
what w e might e xpect fr om a writer w ho once told a friend: ‘If I had not becom e
a writer , I would pr obably have becom e a psy chiatrist.’8
Since in r eal lif e one cannot accuratel y kno w w hat people ar e thinking ,
Chekho v cam e to the conclusion that, in describing people in literatur e, ‘It is
better to a void descriptions of the m ental states of y our her oes; the eff ort should
be made to mak e these clear fr om their actions .’9 This ad vice to his br other
Alexander concerned the writing of short stories , but Chekho v felt that the sam e
technical a pproach w as appropriate to the writing of drama as w ell. Ev en mor e
significantl y, Chekho v’s comm ents ha ve far-reaching implications f or the
performance of his pla ys.
In a letter he wr ote to Me yerhold ad vising him on his r ole in Hau ptmann’s
Lonel y Lives which Stanisla vski w as dir ecting , Chekho v went into considera ble
detail concerning the character J ohannes’ ‘neur opatholo gical natur e’. After
giving Me yerhold pr ecise m edical and sociolo gical r easons w hy he should not
overpla y the character’s nerv ousness , Chekho v warned the actor of the lik elihood
that Stanisla vski w ould put pr essur e on him to adopt som e chea p theatrical
effect. Chekho v encoura ged Me yerhold to base his characterisation on scientific
truth:
Don’t str ess his nerv ousness … Pr oject a lonel y man, and sho w his nerv ousness
only in so f ar as the script indicates … I kno w Konstantin Ser geyevich
[Stanisla vski] will insist on pla ying u p his e xcessiv e nerv ousness; he’ll tak e an
exaggerated vie w of it. But don’t giv e in, don’t sacrifice the beauty and po wer
of your v oice and deliv ery f or som ething as trivial as a highlight.10
A few months later , Chekho v wr ote to his wif e, the actr ess Olg a Knipper ,
and r eferred to the ad vice he had giv en Me yerhold. Once a gain he sugg ested
that this actor should model his sta ge perf ormance on the beha viour of human
beings in r eal lif e. Rather than pr esent con ventional sta ge types , Chekho v
advocated that actor s should base their cr eation of sta ge roles on scientific
observ ation of actual beha viour:
Suffering should be pr esented as it is e xpressed in lif e: not via arms and legs
but thr ough tone and e xpression; and subtl y, not thr ough g esticulations . Subtle
emotions of the spirit, as e xperienced b y people of education, m ust be e xpressed
subtl y, through e xternal beha viour . You will ar gue a bout sta ge conditions but
no conditions can e xcuse inaccurac y.11
59The Search for Form

The pride w hich Chekho v expressed w henev er he f elt that he had successfull y
depicted human beha viour with scientific accurac y was evident thr oughout his
creativ e life. In a letter to Pleshche yev, written tw elve years earlier , he r efers
to his short story , A Nervous Breakdown . The story deals with the traumatic
experience suff ered by a sensitiv e student w hen he visits a series of Mosco w
brothels . Chekho v proudly wr ote: 'It seems to m e, as a m edico , that I described
the psy chic pain corr ectly, accor ding to all the rules of the science of
psychiatry .'12
The description of the miscarria ge in his story The Party was lik ewise
defended b y Chekho v on the g rounds of its accurac y. Repl ying to Pleshche yev’s
query a bout w hy he had included the con versation betw een Olg a and the peasant
women prior to Olg a’s miscarria ge Chekho v explained that:
… [the] con versation is unimportant; I w edged it in onl y so the miscarria ge
wouldn’t seem ex abrupto . I’m a doctor , and so as not to disg race m yself, I m ust
motiv ate ev erything in m y stories that has to do with m edicine.13
One of the major r easons f or Chekho v’s lack of enchantm ent with the r omantic
melodramas and w ell-made pla ys being pr esented in Mosco w, even in the da ys
just bef ore he had esta blished himself as a dramatist, w as their f ailure to pr esent
scientificall y accurate depictions of r eality . Everything he sa w seem ed to the
young writer to be stale and lacking in an y substance. The subte xt of his 1885
diatribe a gainst the state of the theatr e is loud and clear: ‘w e need ne w forms’:
At the Bolsho y Theatr e we have opera and ballet. Nothing ne w. The actor s are
the old ones and their manner of singing is the old one: not accor ding to the
notes , but accor ding to official cir cular s. In the ballet the ballerinas ha ve been
recentl y joined b y Noah’s aunt and Methuselah’s sister -in-la w … [at the Mosco w
Imperial Dramatic Theatr e, the Mal y Theatr e] … Ag ain nothing ne w … the
same mediocr e acting and the sam e traditional ensemble, inherited fr om our
ancestor s. [The K orsh Theatr e bear s] … a striking r esemblance to a mix ed salad:
there is ev erything ther e except the most important thing of all — m eat.14
While one should not confuse Chekho v with his o wn character s, it does not
seem f ar-fetched to sugg est that m uch of the material that he used in his depiction
of the old academic w ho is the narrator ‘her o’ of A Dreary Story (1889) w as dra wn
from his o wn e xperience of theatr e-going. Chekho v’s ambiv alent attitude to ward
the theatr e is clearl y represented in the short story thr ough the opposing vie ws
of his tw o central character s. On the one hand, the pr ofessor dislik es the theatr e
so much that he f eels that ‘if a pla y’s an y good one can g ain a true impr ession
without tr oubling actor s. I think one onl y needs to r ead it. And if the pla y’s
bad, no acting will mak e it g ood’.15 On the other hand, Katy a believ es ‘that the
theatr e — ev en in its pr esent f orm — w as su perior to lectur e rooms , books and
anything else on earth’.16
60Interpreting Chekhov

From the pr ofessor’s point of vie w — and one suspects Chekho v sympathises
with his vie ws — the theatr e ‘in its pr esent f orm’ needs radical chang e to bring
it up to date and to mak e it the useful social institution that Katy a claims it to
be. The pr ofessor , like Chekho v, rejects the claim that the theatr e of his da y had
an eff ectiv e educativ e function:
You ma y con vince the sentim ental, gullible ra bble that the theatr e as at pr esent
constituted is a school, but that lur e won’t w ork on an yone w ho kno ws w hat
a school r eally is. What ma y happen in fifty or a hundr ed years, I can’t sa y, but
the theatr e can onl y be a f orm of entertainm ent under pr esent conditions .17
On the one hand, the pr ofessor’s neg ative assertions r eflect Chekho v’s o wn
views about the theatr e ‘as it is’ and ‘as it should not be’. On the other hand,
Katya’s faith in theatr e’s social and aesthetic v alue corr esponds to Chekho v’s
own desir es for a futur e purposeful theatr e. In a letter to Suv orin, written in the
same year that A Dreary Story was published, Chekho v asserted that the theatr e
of his da y had f ailed to fulfil its educativ e function. It w as, he complained,
‘nothing but a sport’.18 Chekho v was so disillusioned with contemporary Russian
theatr e that he ad vised a f ellow pla ywright Iv an Shcheglo v to giv e up writing
for this m edium:
I implor e you, please turn fr om the sta ge. The g ood things ar e lauded to the
skies , but the bad ar e covered up and condoned … The contemporary theatr e
— it is an eru ption, a nasty disease of the cities . This disease m ust be pur sued
with the br oom, but to lik e it — that is not w holesom e. You will begin to quarr el
with m e, to use the old phrase: the theatr e is a school; it educates , etc. … And
I state in ans wer that w hich I see: the contemporary theatr e is not higher than
the cr owd, but, on the contrary , the lif e of the masses is higher and clev erer
than the theatr e. This m eans that it is not a school but som ething quite
different.19
On the sam e day that he wr ote this letter to Shcheglo v, Chekho v also wr ote
to Suv orin and quite clearl y laid the blam e for the curr ent state of the theatr e,
not on the lo w tastes of the audiences , but on the theatr e professionals:
It is not the public w hich is to blam e for the atr ocious state of our theater s. The
public is al ways and ev eryw here the sam e: intellig ent and f oolish, cor dial and
pitiless — depending u pon its mood. It al ways w as a her d which needed g ood
shepher ds and do gs, and it has al ways gone w herever it w as led b y the shepher ds
and the do gs … As a g eneral thing the public, f or all its f oolishness , is
nevertheless mor e intellig ent, sincer e, and g ood humor ed than K orsh,20 the
actor s, and the pla ywrights , who ima gine themselv es mor e intellig ent.21
What Chekho v most objected to a bout late nineteenth-century theatr e was
its triviality . Neither vision nor f orm seem ed to Chekho v to ha ve any connection
61The Search for Form

with r eal lif e. His ang ry reaction to Karpo v’s pla y Crocodile T ears was typical
of ho w he f elt w henev er he sa w sta gey nonsense that in no w ay depicted ‘lif e
as it is’:
The w hole pla y, even if one o verlooks its w ooden naiv ety, is an utter lie and
travesty of lif e. A dishonest headman of a villa ge gets a y oung lando wner , a
permanent m ember of the local a gricultural boar d, into his po wer and w ants
him to marry his daughter , who is in lo ve with a cler k who writes poetry . Before
the marria ge a y oung , honest land-surv eyor opens the e yes of the lando wner ,
who exposes his w ould-be f ather -in-la w’s crim es, the cr ocodile, i.e. the headman
of the villa ge, weeps, and one of the her oines e xclaims: ‘And so virtue is
triumphant and vice is punished!’ w hich brings the pla y to an end … If ev er I
say or write an ything of the kind, I hope that y ou will hate m e and ha ve nothing
to do with m e any mor e.22
Laurence Senelick has con vincingl y sho wn ho w resilient m elodrama w as in
nineteenth-century Russia. He points out that, w hile sev eral major writer s before
Chekho v, including Pushkin and Go gol, had r ejected this sentim ental and
sensational f orm, the influence of f oreign writer s like Walter Scott, Guilbert de
Pixérécourt and particularl y August K otzebue r emained str ong. Consequentl y,
Senelick claims that:
… although an indig enous m elodrama did not ev olve, melodramatic devices
and cou ps de théâtr e inf ested Russian social and historical pla ys of the mid
century and ling ered until Chekho v’s da y.23
Chekho v had ridiculed and par odied these ‘heightened’ f orms in sev eral
pieces that he wr ote w hen he w as tw enty y ears old. His technique in volves a
reductio ad absurdum which, as Ra yfield points out in the case of Chekho v’s A
Thousand and One Passions , involves ‘a condensation of an ima ginary Victor
Hugo novel so violent as to colla pse the r omantic no vel into a surr ealist jok e’.24
At its climax, Chekho v with characteristic ir ony comm ents:
A po werful man, hurling his enem y down the crater of a v olcano because of a
beautiful w oman’s e yes, is a ma gnificent, g randiose and edifying pictur e! All
it needed w as lava!25
His par odies of the theatrical equiv alent of the r omantic no vel are equall y
hilarious in their pushing of the lo gic of m elodrama to its ludicr ous e xtreme. In
Dishonourable T ragedians and Leprous Dramatists: A T errible — A wful —
Disgraceful Desperate T rrraged y (1884), the ‘her o’ Tarnovsky, ‘a heart r ending
male’ is desperatel y trying to write a pla y that will satisfy the demands of the
theatrical impr esario , Lento vsky.26 Chekho v’s description of the setting and
the sta ging eff ects to be used in this skit is not onl y an e xtremely funn y
indication of the sort of theatrical nonsense that still pr evailed in late
62Interpreting Chekhov

nineteenth-century Russia, but also r eminds us w hy Chekho v made so man y
objections to Stanisla vski’s o verly theatricalist pr esentation of his o wn pla ys.
The setting includes that cliché of nineteenth-century m elodrama, the eru pting
volcano:
The crater of a v olcano . Tarnovsky sits at his desk co vered in blood; instead of
a head on his shoulder s, he has a skull: brimstone burns in his mouth; g reen
little devils , smiling disdainfull y, jump fr om his nostrils . He dips his pen not
into the inkstand, but into la va which witches k eep stirring . It is frightening .
The air tr embles with cold shiv ers. At the back of the sta ge, shaking knees hang
on red hot hooks . Thunder and lightning … chaos , horr or, fear … The r est ma y
be embellished b y the r eader’s ima gination.27
The mixtur e of sentim ental nonsense and e xtravagant sta ge eff ects that
Chekho v wished to a void in his serious pla ys is su perbl y captured in the speech
providing ad vice to pla ywrights that Lento vsky declaims in The Epilogue which
begins the pla y:
LENT OVSKY . … w hat w e need is mor e gunpo wder , Beng al lights , and mor e
ringing monolo gues, that’s all! So ther e should be fr equent costum e chang es,
the d ddevil tak e it! Mak e it br oader … Treachery … the prison … the prisoner’s
sweetheart is made to marry the villain … And then, the flight fr om prison …
shots … I shall not spar e the gunpo wder … Further on, a child w hose noble
origin is onl y subsequentl y disco vered … Finall y shots a gain; a gain a girl, and
virtue triumphs … In a w ord, concoct it accor ding to cliché, the sam e way
Rocambole and the Counts of Monte-Cristo ar e concocted … [Thunder , lightning ,
hoar-frost, dew . The volcano erupts . Lentovsky is thrown out.]28
Chekho v’s par odies w ere apparently not f ar removed from actuality . In 1883,
referring to Lento vsky’s pr oduction of The Forest T ramp , Chekho v asserted that:
‘Thanks to this ne w, bitter -sweet, German Lieber gottic rub bish all Mosco w
smells of gunpo wder .’29
The theatricalist f orms par odied b y Chekho v were totall y unsuita ble m eans
to express his vision of ‘lif e as it is’. Ho wever, it w as not onl y the totall y
unlif elike plays with their e xaggerated sentim ents, elaborate plots and o verblo wn
staging that Chekho v objected to . Equall y worthy of derision, fr om his vie wpoint,
was the style of acting that accompanied this sort of drama. Ag ain, the main
criterion f or rejecting the highl y histrionic style of perf ormance suita ble to
melodrama and r omantic tra gedy was that it f ailed to be lif elike. Chekho v’s
major criticism of Sarah Bernhar dt’s acting in the pla y Adrienne Lecouvreur was
that it w as too ob viousl y technical and not close enough to actual beha viour:
Every sigh Sarah Bernhar dt sighs , every tear she sheds , every antemortem
convulsion she mak es, every bit of her acting is nothing mor e than an impecca bly
and intellig ently learned lesson. A lesson, r eader , and nothing mor e! … She
63The Search for Form

very deftl y perf orms all those stunts that, ev ery so often, at f ate’s behest, occur
in the human soul. Ev ery step she tak es is pr ofoundl y thought out, a stunt
under scored a hundr ed tim es over … In her acting , she g oes in pur suit not of
the natural, but of the e xtraor dinary .30
This desir e for a mor e realistic acting style, based on observ ation of ho w
people actuall y beha ve, led Chekho v as earl y as 1889 to mak e remar ks that
anticipate man y of the ideas on actor -training that Stanisla vski w as to f ormulate
later as part of his ‘system’. Stanisla vski has rightl y been cr edited with
developing a system of acting that is r ealistic in that it is based on the w ay people
beha ve in r eal lif e. Ho wever, Stanisla vski could nev er totall y abandon the use
of man y of the sta ging con ventions of m elodrama and r omantic tra gedy. Chekho v
was to quarr el with Stanisla vski o ver the latter’s tendenc y to emplo y the
excessiv e theatricality of these earlier dramatic f orms in pr oductions of his pla ys.
In man y ways, Chekho v’s commitm ent to r ealism, both in terms of dramatic
form and acting technique, w as mor e consistent than Stanisla vski’s . Chekho v
knew that a r ealistic f orm of acting w as needed in or der to achiev e the r ealistic
form of drama he w as writing . With this in mind, he ar gued that actor s who, of
necessity , pla y a lar ge rang e of r oles should ha ve observ ed a wide rang e of
people. Chekho v’s training in scientific observ ation, so important f or a doctor
called on to mak e dia gnosis of ailm ents, was no w applied to the perf orming art
of acting:
Actor s nev er observ e ordinary people. They kno w neither lando wner s, nor
merchants , nor priests , nor officials . On the other hand, the y can r epresent to
the lif e kept mistr esses , empty sharper s, and, in g eneral, all those individuals
whom the y observ e by chance r oaming a bout the eating houses and in bachelor
companies . Their ignorance is astounding .31
The disastr ous fir st perf ormance of The Seagull at the Ale xandrinsk y Theatr e,
Petersburg, 17 October 1896, under the dir ection of E. M. Karpo v, himself a
writer of m elodramas , revealed to Chekho v the ignorance and conserv atism of
the acting pr ofession in Russia at that tim e. Simmons’ account of the fiasco
captures perf ectly what ha ppens w hen a ne w form of pla y, needing a ne w form
of acting to r ealise its m eaning , is perf ormed by actor s using an earlier f orm of
acting that had been suita ble for earlier f orms of drama:
At the sixth r ehear sal Chekho v observ ed with disma y that sev eral of the cast
were absent, a f ew still r ead their lines fr om scripts and onl y an assistant dir ector
was pr esent to guide the actor s … Shock ed by the stilted, traditional intonation
of the actor s, their f alse emphasis in r eading lines , and their lack of
compr ehension of the r oles the y w ere portra ying, Chekho v fr equentl y
interru pted the r ehear sal to e xplain the significance of a phrase or discuss the
64Interpreting Chekhov

real essence of a characterization. ‘The chief thing , my dear s, is that theatricality
is unnecessary . It is entir ely simple. They are all simple or dinary people.’32
Mundane and a pparently trivial ev ents pr esented in an or dinary true-to-lif e
manner becam e the trademar k of matur e Chekho vian drama. The f orm of acting
that Chekho v requir ed had to a void histrionic e xhibitionism. What w e might
call ‘ham’ acting toda y was the heightened style that w as eminentl y appropriate
to the dramas that Chekho v was rebelling a gainst. The ne w form of drama that
Chekho v dev eloped and the ne w form of acting dev eloped b y Stanisla vski both
aimed to be r ealistic, and both w ere based on scientific principles .
Chekho v’s decision to a pply the scientific m ethod to his literary w ork initiall y
led him to adopt the con ventions of w hat has som etimes been called ‘naiv e
realism’: 'The naiv e realist … ima gines that the w orld is susceptible of
representation in w ords or in som e other m edium.'33
In his earl y days as a dramatist, Chekho v seems to ha ve thought that the onl y
way to comm unicate his essentiall y naturalistic vision w as to utilise the f ormal
conventions of r ealism.34 He w as in total sympath y with Zola’s assertion that
‘the tim e has com e to pr oduce pla ys of r eality’.35 In or der to satisfy his desir e
to depict ‘lif e as it is’, Chekho v adopted w hat Gask ell calls ‘r epresentational
form’. Using this f orm, the pla y presents ‘an action in w hich the setting of the
play, the character s and their w ay of speaking , remind us at ev ery mom ent of
daily life’.36 Chekho v followed the e xample of those Naturalists w ho believ ed
that ‘the truthfulness f or w hich the y aim ed could be g ained onl y from a
painstaking observ ation of r eality and a car eful notation of f act’.37 He believ ed
that depicting character s and ev ents r ealisticall y was the w ay to pr ovide the
appropriate ‘Ph ysical Ev ents’ that w ould trigg er the particular ‘Psy chic Ev ents’
that he wished his audience to e xperience in perf ormance. In common with other
naturalistic writer s like Zola, Chekho v saw a dir ect corr espondence betw een the
naturalistic vision and the r ealistic f orm:
The corr espondence theory is empirical and epistemolo gical. It in volves a naiv e
or commonsense r ealist belief in the r eality of the e xternal w orld … and su pposes
that w e ma y com e to kno w this w orld b y observ ation and comparison. The
truth it pr oposes is the truth that corr esponds , approximates to the pr edicated
reality , renders it with fidelity and accurac y; … the corr espondence theory
defers automaticall y to the f act, and r equir es the truth to be v erified b y reference
to it. It is democratic; it tak es its confidence fr om the substantial a greement of
the majority in its description of r eality , which it ther efore calls objectiv e.38
Chekho v was to disco ver som e of the limitations of the r epresentational f orm
when he attempted to r ealise his vision in practice. Long bef ore he cam e to write
his four dramatic masterpieces his radicall y realistic theory of dramatur gy was
65The Search for Form

well-dev eloped. At the tim e when he w as writing The W ood Demon he asserted
that pla ys should be ‘lif elike’ and not ‘theatrical’ or ‘dramatic’:
In real lif e people don’t spend ev ery min ute shooting each other , hanging
themselv es, or making declarations of lo ve. They don’t dedicate their tim e to
saying intellig ent things . They spend m uch mor e of it eating , drinking , flirting ,
and sa ying f oolish things — and that is w hat should ha ppen on the sta ge.
Someone should write a pla y in w hich people com e and g o, eat, talk a bout the
weather , and pla y car ds. Life should be e xactl y as it is , and people should be
exactl y as complicated and at the sam e tim e exactl y as simple as the y are in lif e.
People eat a m eal, and at the sam e tim e their ha ppiness is made or their liv es
are ruined.39
Chekho v’s statem ent accuratel y describes w hat ha ppens in his matur e dramas
beginning with The Seagull . What is f ascinating a bout this lucid theor etical
articulation of the f orm of drama he wished to write is that Chekho v was una ble
to put his theory imm ediatel y into practice. Earl y pla ys lik e Platonov , Ivanov
and The W ood Demon , though written at a tim e when Chekho v had full y
articulated his theory of drama, f ailed to r ealise that theory . Like Treplev in The
Seagull , Chekho v’s theor etical position on drama w as well w orked out, but his
practice w as inadequate. It took Chekho v another fifteen y ears bef ore he
developed the m eans to r ealise his vision in the truthful lif elike form that he
desir ed. Platonov , for instance, is f ar from being a depiction of ‘r eal lif e’. It is in
fact an e xample of the m elodramatic dramas that w ere the object of Chekho v’s
scorn. Ronald Hingle y’s description of the m ultiplicity of ev ents that occur in
this spra wling drama accuratel y brings out the almost comic o verabundance of
melodramatic incidents in the pla y:
Platonov may not be e xactl y pack ed with thrills , possessing as it does mor e than
its shar e of g arrulous character s. But it does ha ve its mom ents. It is , at least, the
only pla y by Chekho v in w hich a her oine tries to thr ow her self under a train
on sta ge and is pr evented fr om doing so b y a hor se-thief w ho is later l ynched
by infuriated peasants . The sam e her oine also sa ves her husband fr om being
knifed on sta ge and later attempts to poison her self b y eating matches , all this
while r emaining the most phlegmatic character in the pla y. Apart fr om these
excitem ents, Platonov is full of quarr els, den unciations and conf essions of lo ve
or hatr ed … Platonov ends with a m urder, a crim e of passion in w hich the her o
is shot b y one of thr ee discar ded or w ould-be mistr esses .40
The m elodramatic elem ents in pla ys such as Platonov and Ivanov would
eventuall y be discar ded in f avour of r ealism but this ne w form cr eated ne w
problems f or the pla ywright. The adoption of r ealism and r epresentational f orm
did not imm ediatel y provide Chekho v with the f ormal objectiv e corr elativ e of
his vision. Chekho v was to spend sev eral y ears working out m eans to o vercome
66Interpreting Chekhov

the particular ‘limitations’ associated with the use of r ealism and r epresentational
form. It w as the modifications he made to that r ealistic f orm and the dramatic
techniques he devised to e xpand its e xpressiv e po wers that constitute the
distinctiv e natur e of his dramatur gy. As Ra ymond Williams points out: ‘What
Chekho v does then, in eff ect, is to in vent a dramatic f orm w hich contradicts
most of the a vailable con ventions of dramatic pr oduction.’41
By rejecting the sets of con ventions that w ere used b y earlier dramatists and
adopting the con ventions of r ealism, Chekho v was to encounter major pr oblems
that inevita bly follow from the ‘limitations’ inher ent in that f orm of e xpression.
As Una Ellis-Fermor has claim ed:
One of the primary technical characteristics of the dramatic f orm is the
presentation of f act and ev ent thr ough the m edium of w ords spok en by the
agents themselv es … But this instrum ent of dir ect speech, co gent and po werful
as it can be, imposes no less sur ely its o wn limitations on the content.42
Since r ealism in volves an attempt to pr esent ‘lif e as it is’, in a literal sense,
anything w hich does not occur in lif e must be r emoved. One of the central
conventions of nineteenth-century fiction w hich has r emained a central f eatur e
of most narrativ e fiction toda y involves the manipulation of the r eader’s r esponses
through authorial interv ention. Without authorial interv ention the r eader is
given little guidance on ho w to interpr et w hat is being said. This can be
illustrated b y sho wing w hat ha ppens w hen w e remove authorial interv entions
from a narrativ e. The f ollowing e xcerpt tak en fr om the Har old Rob bins no vel,
The Dream Merc hants , will serv e as an e xample. One section of the no vel includes
the following dialo gue:
JOHNNY . He’s been w orking pr etty har d latel y. It isn’t the easiest thing in the
world trying to run tw o businesses at once.
ESTHER. Don’t tell m e that, J ohnn y. I kno w better . Since y ou cam e back he
hasn’t had to do a thing at the nick elodeon.
JOHNNY . But the r esponsibility is his .
ESTHER. You’re a good bo y to sa y so, Johnn y, but y ou’re not f ooling an ybod y.
The dialo gue is pr esented her e as it might be in a pla y. In the full e xcerpt
from the no vel, Rob bins guides the r eader’s r esponses to a significant e xtent b y
including e xplicit authorial comm entary:
Johnn y shifted uncomf ortably in his seat. He w as embarrassed b y the sud den
flood of her confidence. ‘He’s been w orking pr etty har d latel y,’ he said, trying
to comf ort her . ‘It isn’t the easiest thing in the w orld trying to run tw o businesses
at once.’
67The Search for Form

A sud den smile at his poor attempt to console her br oke thr ough her tear s.
‘Don’t tell m e that, J ohnn y,’ she said softl y. ‘I kno w better . Since y ou cam e
back he hasn’t had to do a thing at the nick elodeon.’
Johnn y’s face g rew red. ‘But the r esponsibility is his ,’ he r eplied lam ely.
She took his hand, still smiling . ‘You’re a good bo y to sa y so J ohnn y, but y ou’re
not f ooling an ybod y.’43
Perhaps the most ob vious ‘limitation’ of the r ealistic dramatic f orm is the f act
that, unlik e in the short story or no vel, authorial interv entions ar e onl y to be
found in the sta ge directions . In perf ormance such authorial intrusion can nev er
be justified. The r ealistic dramatic con ventions adopted b y Chekho v mak e
authorial interv entions of the type emplo yed by Rob bins unaccepta ble because
they are not true to lif e. In lif e, people e xist and ev ents occur without authorial
comm entary and, consequentl y, Chekho v argued that the writer’s task w as to
depict the ev ent or character objectiv ely and without making an y subjectiv e
authorial jud gement on that character or ev ent. He def ended this f orm of
objectivity on the g rounds that: ‘The artist ought not to jud ge his character s or
what the y say, but be onl y an unbiased witness .’44 What is e xtraor dinary a bout
Chekho v’s commitm ent to objectivity w as that he a pplied this criterion not just
to his pla ys but also to his pr ose fiction. When Suv orin accused him of taking
an amoral position in r elation to his character s in his story The Horse Stealers
Chekho v replied:
You u pbraid m e about objectivity , styling it indiff erence to g ood and evil,
absence of ideals and ideas , etc. You w ould ha ve me say, in depicting hor se
thiev es, that stealing hor ses is an evil. But then, that has been kno wn a long
while, ev en without m e. Let jur ors jud ge them, f or my business is onl y to sho w
them as the y are.45
In opting to e xpress his vision of r eality in r ealistic f orm Chekho v, as J ohn
Hagan has pointed out, w as binding himself to the elimination of:
… authorial editorializing of all sorts (o vert expressions of his per sonal f eelings ,
explicit dir ectiv es to the r eader , definitiv e interpr etations of the character s and
events, and the lik e) … [because Chekho v’s] imm ediate purpose is to cr eate in
the r eader a certain kind of illusion — an illusion that he is holding u p for
inspection a piece of unm ediated r eality , a segm ent of lif e render ed with matter
of fact lucidity in all its cir cumstantiality , uncolor ed by the moods or opinions
of an y observ er.46
The adoption of the con ventions of r ealism led Chekho v to mo ve away from
overt author intrusion ev en in his narrativ e fiction. In his short stories he
concentrated on pr esenting his character s’ ‘actions’ and ‘e xternal beha viour’
and a voided passing jud gement on them.47
68Interpreting Chekhov

Andr ew Dur kin, in his anal ysis of the narrativ e techniques emplo yed in
Chekho v’s tw o short stories , A Nervous Breakdown (1888) and Dreams (1886),
notes that:
In both, onl y brief statem ents describe the character s’ ph ysical actions . The one
verb dealing with inner e xperience — ‘he thought’ — does not specify the
content of that thought. Adjectiv es and ad verbs, which might pr ovide clues to
authorial attitude to ward the ev ents described, ar e practicall y non-e xistent. In
both endings , the r eader ma y inf er the inner state of the character s from the
events of the pr eceding narrativ e, but this can onl y be conjectur e, perha ps
differing slightl y in the mind of each individual r eader . We are not told, w e are
shown, and w e must dra w our conclusions , tentativ e as the y ma y be.48
The technique of ‘sho wing’ not ‘telling’ is one of the defining f eatur es of
drama as a g eneric f orm.49 While a writer such as Br echt ma y use the device of
‘telling’ in his pla ys, it is mor e normal to confine the technique to narrativ e
fiction.
Chekho v’s desir e to emplo y the con ventions of r ealism in w hich a su pposedl y
‘unm ediated r eality’ is pr esented on the sta ge in or der to sho w his audience ‘lif e
as it is’ cr eated g reat difficulties f or him as a dramatist. The difficulties ar ose
because not onl y did he wish to con vey life’s surf ace a ppearance, but he also
wanted each of his pla ys to embod y a significant action. The con ventions of
realism ena bled the fir st aim to be achiev ed, but these sam e con ventions militated
against the achiev ement of his second mor e important artistic g oal. One of the
central pr oblems that f aces an y dir ector of Chekho v is ho w to find the theatrical
means to comm unicate the significant action of the pla ys and a void m erely
presenting their trivial surf ace r eality . We need to e xamine the natur e of the
expressiv e problems that arise with the adoption of the r ealistic dramatic f orm
with its demand that art be literall y true to lif e, bef ore proceeding to sho w ho w
Chekho v found w ays of o vercoming these pr oblems . A kno wled ge of Chekho v’s
solution to these pr oblems pr ovides dir ector s of his pla ys with clues a bout ho w
to create both significant action and trivial r eality .
One of the limitations of drama cited b y Ellis-Fermor , which is of particular
relevance to Chekho v’s writing difficulties , is ‘the pr oblem of con veying to an
audience thought w hich cannot naturall y form part of the dialo gue’.50 Chekho v
was committed, as Ibsen put it, to ‘the v ery m uch mor e difficult art of writing
the g enuine plain langua ge spok en in r eal lif e’.51
The pr oblem with attempting to depict ho w people beha ve in r eal lif e is that
such beha viour can be, indeed often is , peculiarl y undemonstrativ e. In r eal lif e,
as W. B. Yeats noted, people under emotional str ess ar e likely to sa y very little
and ar e far mor e likely to be seen ‘staring out of the windo w, or looking into
the dra wing r oom fir e’.52 A similar observ ation has been made b y Har old Pinter
69The Search for Form

in a speech entitled ‘Writing f or the Theatr e’ which he made at the National
Student Drama Festiv al in Bristol in 1962. Pinter observ ed that, in lif e, ‘the mor e
acute the e xperience the less articulate its e xpression’.53 People in r eal lif e
contemplating suicide ma y well sho w very f ew outw ard signs of their anguish
or their intentions , while a character lik e Hamlet, in an e xtremely ‘artificial’
way, may inf orm an audience of the pr os and cons of suicide in heightened
poetic langua ge that is both aestheticall y pleasing and highl y articulate.
Chekho v’s theory of drama seems to den y the v alidity of the f eatur es that
are normall y assum ed to distinguish dramatic art fr om lif e. His ad vice to w ould-be
writer s again and a gain ad vocates the r ejection of the depiction of ‘theatrical’
types and ‘theatrical’ situations . The r eason that Chekho v giv es for such a
rejection is al ways the sam e. An ything that is ‘theatrical’ is b y definition not
lifelike.
At the tim e that he w as writing Ivanov , Chekho v wr ote to his br other
Alexander:
Modern pla ywrights stuff their w ork with saints , scoundr els and comic types
to the e xclusion of ev erything else. But y ou can sear ch Russia high and lo w
without finding these things — that is , you ma y find som e, but not in the
extreme form r equir ed by pla ywrights … I w anted to be original, so I ha ven’t
brought on one villain or saint (though I ha ven’t mana ged to k eep out the comic
types).54
Whether giving ad vice on characterisation f or short stories or pla ys, Chekho v
always attack ed clichéd literary ster eotypes . He w as aware that he himself w as
occasionall y giv en to such unlif elike character depiction. He wr ote to Suv orin
in Mar ch 1884 that he w as attempting to write a no vel and discussed som e of
the featur es of this pr oposed w ork:
Unfaithful wiv es, suicides , tight-fisted peasants w ho e xploit their f ellows,
virtuous m uzhiks , dev oted sla ves, argumentativ e little old ladies , kind old
nurses, country wits , red-nosed arm y captains , and ‘ne w’ people — all of those
I’ll try to a void, although in places I displa y a str ong tendenc y toward
stereotypes .55
Two months later Chekho v wr ote to his br other Ale xander and ad vised him:
Beware of highflo wn langua ge. Flunk eys m ust not use vulg ar solecisms .
Red-nosed r etired ca ptains , drunk en reporter s, starving writer s, consumptiv e
working wiv es, honest, immaculate y ouths , high-minded vir gins, good-natur ed
nurses — all those ha ve already been described and m ust be a voided lik e the
pit.56
Not onl y did Chekho v believ e that literary artists should a void cr eating
unlif elike character s, he also believ ed that f anciful situations in w hich these
70Interpreting Chekhov

character s found themselv es should also be a voided. As part of his ad vice to
Alexander on ho w not to write a pla y, he declar ed: 'K eep in mind that
declarations of lo ve, infidelities of husbands and wiv es, the tear s of wido ws and
orphans and all other kinds of tear s have long since been described.'57
Alexander K uprin r emember s Chekho v fulminating a gainst the high-flo wn
artificiality of m uch contemporary writing . Kuprin claim ed that Chekho v:
… demanded that writer s should choose or dinary , everyda y them es, simplicity
of treatm ent and a bsence of sho wy tricks . ‘Wh y write,’ he [Chekho v] wonder ed,
‘about a man g etting into a submarine and g oing to the North P ole to r econcile
himself to the w orld, w hile his belo ved at that mom ent thr ows her self with a
hysterical shriek fr om the belfry? All this is untrue and does not ha ppen in r eal
life. One m ust write a bout simple things: ho w Peter Semiono vich married Marie
Ivanovna. That is all.58
Ther e can be no doubt then that at least part of Chekho v’s artistic aim w as
totall y in accor d with J ean J ullien’s f amous dictum that: ‘A pla y is a slice of lif e
artisticall y put on the boar ds.’59 Chekho v’s earl y commitm ent to this e xtreme
form of literal r ealism inevita bly meant that he w ould ha ve to r eject man y of
the esta blished con ventions , not just of m elodrama or the w ell-made pla y, but
of all Western drama since the tim e of Aesch ylus. In a letter written in the late
1880s , Chekho v specificall y rejected sev eral of the popular theatrical con ventions
of his da y. He wr ote:
The demand is made that the her o and the her oine should be dramaticall y
effectiv e. But in r eal lif e, people do not shoot themselv es, or hang themselv es,
or mak e conf essions of lo ve every min ute. Nor do the y go around all the tim e
making clev er remar ks … Lif e on the sta ge should be as it r eally is and the
people, too , should be as the y are, and not stilted.60
The implications of such a total acceptance of the ideal of fidelity to lif e were
far-reaching f or Chekho v. He f ound that the adoption of r ealistic con ventions
cut him off fr om man y of the con ventional devices that had been a vailable to
earlier pla ywrights . As Ra ymond Williams pointed out:
The naturalist ho wever insisted on r epresentation and accepted the limitations
of normal e xpression. For those of them w ho w ere concerned with surf ace
emotions , these limitations pr esented no difficulty: con versational r esour ces for
the discussion of f ood or mone y or bedr ooms r emained adequate. But the mor e
important naturalist writer s were full y serious artists , and w anted to be a ble to
express the w hole rang e of human e xperience, ev en w hile committed to the
limitations of pr obable con versation.61
Earlier f orms of non-r ealistic drama had no such pr oblems of e xpression
because the con ventions that defined them w ere mor e flexible than those of
71The Search for Form

realism. A dramatist such as Sophocles w ho wished ‘to con vey to his audience
any considera ble part of his o wn under standing of his character’s e xperience
… [had at hand] som e further m eans of comm unicating with that audience, mor e
rapid and dir ect than the m edium of strict dramatic dialo gue’.62
Chekho v certainl y ‘wanted to e xpress the w hole rang e of human e xperience’,
but had no r ecour se to devices such as Gr eek choruses or Eliza bethan soliloquies
to help indicate the significance of ev ents being dramatised. Realism specificall y
barred the use of these devices since, in r eal lif e, ther e is no such speaking entity
as a chorus with its comm unity consciousness , nor do people normall y speak
their thoughts aloud in soliloquy . It is mainl y because of the r estrictions imposed
by these con ventions that man y critics ha ve regarded r ealism as an essentiall y
trivial f orm of theatr e. They argue that onl y the surf ace of r eality is pr esented,
while the inner m eaning of r eality , its significance, cannot be comm unicated.
Chekho v’s commitm ent to depicting ‘lif e as it is’ not onl y cut him off fr om
the use of such devices as the chorus and the soliloquy , but also led him to r eject
forms of drama w hich, w hile the y might allo w for realistic sta ging and acting ,
were nev ertheless non-r ealistic and untrue to lif e in their o verall structur e and
purpose. As f ar as Chekho v was concerned, the w ell-made pla y (pièce bien f aite)
and the thesis pla y (pièce à thèse ) both imposed artificial constructions on lif e.
Ibsen, w hom Chekho v did not think a v ery g ood dramatist, had tried to adopt
the con ventions of r ealism.63 Despite all of his eff orts to liberate himself fr om
the formal techniques of the Scribean w ell-made pla y, Ibsen, w ho had dir ected
many of Scribe’s pla ys, could not totall y rid himself of those theatrical
conventions . As Esslin observ ed:
Although Ibsen did a way with the soliloquy and the ‘aside’, although he tried
to cr eate, in his sociall y oriented drama, sta ge environments of the g reatest
possible r ealism — r ooms with the f ourth w all removed — structurall y, he
tended to adher e to the con vention of the w ell-made pla y.64
The splendidl y theatrical curtain lines that end each of the acts of Ibsen’s
Ghosts were unaccepta ble to Chekho v precisel y because of their theatricality .
The attempts to combine r ealism with the w ell-made pla y, which Ibsen v aliantl y
attempted to do , was, as J ohn Elsom corr ectly says ‘fraught with difficulties’,
and w as ultimatel y ‘illo gical and pr ovided self-contradictions at almost ev ery
technical lev el’.65
The pr oblems Ibsen f aced w ere eventuall y to be solv ed by Chekho v when
he learnt ho w to do without the w ell-made pla y structur e. Giv en his demand
for a literal r epresentation of lif e on sta ge, Chekho v had no choice. As Elsom
perceptiv ely argues:
72Interpreting Chekhov

If you set out to imitate lif e, it is almost impossible to obe y the Unities . Life does
not fall easil y into syllo gistic structur es, helping to pr eserv e the Unity of Action.
If you try to k eep the dramatic ev ents all in one place or one short span of tim e,
you either ha ve to mak e your character s uncon vincingl y kno wled geable and
lucid a bout w hat is ha ppening else where or y ou ha ve to f orget about the pattern
of surr ounding ev ents w hich giv es the particular situation its wider
significance.66
Chekho v then, as som eone w ho ‘seldom wr ote of important people or
world-shattering ev ents’, and w ho al ways associated ‘the her oic g estur e with
the idiotic’,67 could har dly fail to r ecognise the inadequac y of the w ell-made
play as an a ppropriate dramatic f orm to e xpress his vision of r eality .
The thesis pla y was lik ewise unaccepta ble to Chekho v because it w as equall y
unrealistic. The naturalist in Chekho v could see that lif e simpl y existed and had
no thesis to put f orward, so , in 1888, he wr ote Suv orin that:
… it is not the task of fiction writer s to solv e such pr oblems as God, pessimism,
etc. The writer’s business is to depict onl y who spok e or thought a bout God or
pessimism, and ho w and under w hat cir cumstances . The artist ought not to
judge his character s or w hat the y say, but be onl y an unbiased witness .68
Five months later Chekho v again took Suv orin to task f or ha ving sugg ested
that the pla ywright should ha ve som e sort of thesis in his w ork:
In demanding fr om an artist a conscious attitude to ward his w ork you ar e right,
but y ou ar e confusing tw o concepts: the solution of a problem and the correct
posing of a question . Onl y the second is oblig atory f or an artist. Not a single
problem is solv ed in Anna Karenina and in Eugene Onegin , but y ou will find
these w orks quite satisf actory onl y because all the questions in them ar e corr ectly
posed. The court is oblig ed to pose the questions corr ectly, but it’s u p to the
jurors to ans wer them, each jur or accor ding to his o wn taste.69
Early in 1890, Chekho v wr ote to Suv orin in r esponse to a letter in w hich the
publisher had criticised him f or failing to pass jud gement e xplicitl y on the
horse-thief in his short story Thieves (1890). Chekho v’s response is inter esting ,
because it not onl y reiterates his idea that ther e is an implied jud gement that he
assum es will be made b y the r eader , but also points out that the con ventions of
realism that he had adopted militate a gainst an y authorial comm ent:
Of cour se it w ould be g ratifying to cou ple art with sermonizing , but, per sonall y,
I find this e xceedingl y difficult and, because of conditions imposed b y technique,
all but impossible … w hen I write, I r ely full y on the r eader , on the assumption
that he himself will ad d the subjectiv e elem ents that ar e lacking in the story .70
Nowhere is Chekho v mor e explicitl y non-jud gemental than in his
correspondence with the writer Yelena Sha vrova, who had written to Chekho v
73The Search for Form

for literary ad vice. Sha vrova had written a story in w hich a character a ppear s
who suff ers from syphilis . Chekho v’s ad vice is essentiall y that she mak e sur e
that her descriptions of the natur e of the malad y are factuall y accurate, and that
sermonising jud gements be a voided at all costs:
In or der to settle such pr oblems as deg eneration psy chosis , etc., one m ust ha ve
scientific kno wled ge of them. The importance of the m eaning of the disease (let
us call it b y the letter S , out of modesty) y ou exaggerate. In the fir st place S is
curable … And besides S , ther e are other diseases no less serious . For instance,
tuber culosis . It seems to m e, too , that it isn’t the business of the artist to lash
out at people because the y are ill. Is it m y fault if I ha ve Mig raine? Is it Sidor’s
fault that he has S? … No one is guilty , and if ther e are guilty ones , it concerns
the boar d of health, not the artist.71
In the sam e year in w hich he g ave this ad vice to Sha vrova, Chekho v published
a short story entitled Three Y ears in w hich he clearl y sugg ests that, w hen
questions of ho w to solv e social pr oblems ar e raised, one should ha ve recour se
to the kind of kno wled ge provided b y medical science rather than literary art:
‘If poetry doesn’t solv e the pr oblems y ou think important, then r efer to technical
works,’ said Yartsev . ‘Look u p your criminal and financial la w, read scientific
articles . Why should Romeo and J uliet discuss educational fr eedom, sa y, or
prison h ygiene, instead of lo ve, when y ou can find all that stuff in specialist
articles and r eference w orks?’72
Chekho v rejected the didactic vie w of art put f orward in Three Y ears by
Kostya who claims that: ‘A w ork of art is significant and useful onl y when its
them e embraces a serious social pr oblem.’73 For Chekho v, the central pr oblem
with polemical writing w as that it ceased to be objectiv e and often becam e unjust
and moralistic. In his letter to Sha vrova he criticised her f or her one-sided
depiction of the g ynaecolo gist and pr ofessor in her story: 'I do not v entur e to
ask y ou to lo ve the g ynaecolo gist and the pr ofessor , but I v entur e to r emind
you of the justice w hich f or an objectiv e writer is mor e precious than the air he
breathes .'74
A sense of justice w as for Chekho v the v ery opposite of making jud gements
on character s. Neither the hor se-thief in Thieves (1890), nor the peasant w oman
who kills a ba by by pouring boiling w ater on it in In the Hollow (1900), ar e
overtly jud ged by Chekho v. Even the depiction of se xuall y transmitted diseases
cannot bring out the moralist in Chekho v. Parado xicall y, Chekho v argued that
the trul y moral, and at the sam e tim e aestheticall y corr ect, cour se of action w as
for the writer to a bstain fr om making an y jud gement of character s. Chekho v
was quite ha ppy however to mak e an artistic jud gement of Sha vrova’s literary
work:
74Interpreting Chekhov

… the lad y in y our story tr eats S as a bug aboo. That’s wr ong. S is not a vice,
not the pr oduct of evil will, but a disease, and the patients w ho suff er from it
need w arm cor dial tr eatm ent as m uch as an y other s. It’s wr ong f or a wif e to
abandon her sick husband because his illness is inf ectious or f oul. Whatev er
her attitude to ward S, the author m ust be humane to his fing ernails .75
The so-called objectivity of Chekho v’s writing w as determined b y his choice
of the set of con ventions that I ha ve called r ealism. In his o wn lif e Chekho v was
certainl y not indiff erent to moral and social questions , but the adoption of the
conventions of r ealism m eant that no o vert moral jud gement or polemical
grandstanding w as aestheticall y accepta ble. Certainl y, until the mid
eighteen-eighties , all of Chekho v’s statem ents on art sho w him trying to maintain
artistic objectivity . As J ohn Ha gan explains , while Chekho v ‘w as plainl y the
determined enem y of all that he f ound m ediocr e, or stu pid or evil in the society
around him, particularl y Czarist autocrac y … [he nev ertheless] w as content to
diagnose, not pr escribe a cur e’.76
Chekho v’s realistic pr esentation of ‘lif e as it is’, that a voided the artificiality
inher ent in the w ell-made pla y or the subjectiv e polemicism to be f ound in the
thesis pla y, at fir st sight seems to in volve a confusion of art with lif e. Ha ving
created pla ys in w hich lif elike people actuall y do ‘com e and g o, eat, talk a bout
the w eather and pla y car ds’,77 it is perha ps not surprising that som e critics ,
who had been accustom ed to the o vert theatricality of most nineteenth-century
drama, r egarded Chekho v as being totall y inca pable of writing pla ys.
Tolsto y was utterl y appalled at Chekho v’s anti-theatricalist a pproach to
dramatur gy. He is r eported to ha ve complained to the pla ywright that his pla ys
lacked overt action and that his character s failed to e xhibit purposeful beha viour .
The e xasperated Tolsto y is r eported as ha ving said to Chekho v: ‘And w here
does one g et with y our her oes? F rom the sof a to the privy and fr om the privy
back to the sof a?’78 Tolsto y, who hated Shak espear e, was ev en mor e dispara ging
about Chekho v’s dramas . Having kissed Chekho v goodb ye after the pla ywright
had paid him a visit, Tolsto y could not r esist sa ying, ‘But I still can’t stand y our
plays. Shak espear e’s ar e terrible, but y ours are even w orse.’79
Tolsto y’s main objection to Chekho v’s pla ys was that the y were not dramatic
or theatrical enough. Being m uch mor e used to pla ys in w hich ther e was a plot
full of intrigue, Tolsto y thought that Chekho v’s pla ys w ere pointless . This led
him to state:
I could not f orce myself to r ead his Three Sisters to the end — w here does it all
lead us to? Generall y speaking our modern writer s seem to ha ve lost the idea
of what drama is .80
75The Search for Form

For Tolsto y, the su preme example of dramatic m ethod w as the ‘pr oblem’ pla y
with all its comple x intrigues and o vert action. All he sa w in Chekho v was the
creation of ‘mood’, w hich he ar gued w as mor e suita ble in a l yric poem:
Dramatic f orms serv e, and ought to serv e, quite diff erent aims . In a dramatic
work the author ought to deal with som e problem that has y et to be solv ed and
every character in the pla y ought to solv e it accor ding to the idiosyncrasies of
his own character . It is lik e a laboratory e xperim ent. But y ou w on’t find an ything
of the kind in Chekho v.81
Tolsto y’s objections to Chekho v’s major pla ys should not be r ejected out of
hand, f or the y contain a partial truth. That the g reat Russian no velist did not
really under stand ho w Chekho v’s pla ys w orked is true, but the lack of
problem-solving and g eneral plot inter est, or theatrical p yrotechnics in the
matur e Chekho v pla y, are accuratel y described b y Tolsto y. Anyone w ho has
had to sit thr ough a pr oduction of a Chekho v pla y where only the surf ace realism
is evident will kno w ho w boringl y untheatrical Chekho v can be. R. E. C . Long’s
1902 description of w hat he per ceived to be the w eakness of Chekho v’s approach
to drama echoes Tolstoy’s and highlights the r esistance that Chekho v faced w hen
he finall y dev eloped his ne w form of drama:
The eff ectiv e drama is based too m uch u pon g reat motiv es and sharp contrasts
of character and inter est to be in consonance with Chekho v’s talent. F rivolity
has made successful pla ys, but a contin ued e xposition of the banal nev er did.
Trivial motiv es, monotonous backg rounds , and the fundam ental lack of the
heroic, w hich incr ease their inter est in the dissecting-r oom of the anal ytical
novelist, in the drama ar e merely meaningless . In Chekho v’s dramas his peculiar
genius is obscur ed, the subjectiv e elem ent, g enerall y su ppressed, becom es
apparent, and ther e is no compensatory elem ent of ing enuity of plot or
delineation of character .82
As far as pla ywriting w as concerned, Chekho v advocated the sam e rejection
of artificial character s and situations . Kuprin r eports that he attack ed the clichéd
conventions of the drama of his da y and the conserv atism that allo wed those
conventions to contin ue:
In lif e ther e are no clear cut consequences or r easons; in it ev erything is mix ed
up together; the important and the paltry , the g reat and the base, the tra gic and
the ridiculous . One is h ypnotized and ensla ved by routine and cannot mana ge
to br eak a way from it. What ar e needed ar e new forms , new ones .83
The type of pla y that Chekho v was to dev elop r ejected m uch that pr eviousl y
had been r egarded as essential to drama and theatr e in terms of both f orm and
content. The radical natur e of Chekho v’s pr oject of cr eating a f orm a ppropriate
76Interpreting Chekhov

to his vision w as not achiev ed without difficulty . Certainl y Chekho v’s earl y
full-length dramas ar e not successful a pplications of his r ealistic theories .
Prior to writing The Seagull , Chekho v made sev eral a bortiv e attempts to
develop a f orm that w ould act as the objectiv e corr elativ e of his vision. The
realistic f orm that he had chosen f or Platonov , The W ood Demon and Ivanov ,
combined with the scientific objectivity that he emplo yed, allo wed him to r ealise
his fir st aim, to sho w ‘lif e as it is’. The r eal pr oblem he f aced w as ho w to find
adequate w ays of e xpressing the artist’s vision of ‘lif e as it ought to be’, w hile
avoiding being o vertly jud gemental or polemical. To achiev e this Chekho v had
to dev elop a second subte xtual lev el of m eaning in his pla ys. The te xt of his
plays depicted r ealisticall y ‘lif e as it is’ in all its banality and f ailure, while the
implied subte xt, w hich dealt with the hopes , fears and aspirations of the
character s, was to be cr eated b y the actor s. Chekho v’s pr oblem, and that of an y
director of his pla ys, is to find m eans to mak e per ceptible to an audience the
yawning g ap betw een the te xt and the subte xt, betw een actuality and aspiration,
betw een ‘lif e as it is’ and ‘lif e as it ought to be’ and thus to comm unicate
Chekho v’s vision of r eality .
Chekho v’s characteristic m ethod of cr eating a subte xt is to sugg est that his
character s live two lives. One is the e xternal lif e presented in the te xt w hich
includes the character s’ actions , their en vironment, and ho w the y appear
objectiv ely to other character s. The other lif e is an internal one w hich includes
the character s’ hopes , beliefs and aspirations , as w ell as their subjectiv e vie w
of themselv es and of lif e. In or der to bring this subte xt into being and mak e it
perceptible to audiences , Chekho v had to dev elop sev eral dramatic techniques
that e xtended the e xpressiv e rang e of r ealism. Ha ving achiev ed this , by means
that w e will e xamine later , Chekho v pr oceeded to cr eate a per ceptible g ap
betw een the subjectiv e and objectiv e lives of his character s.
In his short stories , Chekho v often depicted character s who exhibit a rift
betw een their public and priv ate selv es; betw een the mask pr esented objectiv ely
and the f ace that is kno wn subjectiv ely. In this non-dramatic f orm the inner and
outer liv es could both be easil y revealed to the r eader thr ough the use of narrativ e
comm entary . In The Party (1888) the public w orld of the nam e-day party r eveals
to the central character , Olg a, that she and her husband ar e living a lif e of lies
and deception publicl y, even if the y are people of integ rity in their priv ate liv es.
One of the important implications of ‘living a lie’ that is e xplor ed by Chekho v
in this story stems fr om w hat Karl Kram er has called ‘the lo gic of the lie in the
public w orld’. That lo gic leads a r eader or audience m ember to doubt the v eracity
of public statem ents and to seek f or the truth in a subte xt that lies behind these
statem ents and w hich ma y even contradict them. As Kram er says, this kind of
logic m eans that ‘if one seeks the truth, he [sic] m ust assum e that the opposite
of what is said r epresents the r eal feeling’.84
77The Search for Form

In one e xchang e betw een the husband and wif e, in w hich Olg a is trying to
break do wn the public masks that separate her ‘true’ inner self fr om her
husband’s ‘true’ inner self, Chekho v concludes the incident with clear pr oof
that Olg a has f ailed to achiev e her aim since her husband r efuses to comm unicate
in the lev el of the te xt. He will not say what he m eans, but lea ves Olg a to r ead
the subte xt of his mock cong ratulations:
‘What ar e you thinking a bout, P eter?’ she ask ed.
‘Oh, nothing ,’ replied her husband.
‘You’ve started ha ving secr ets fr om m e latel y. That’s wr ong.’
‘What’s wr ong a bout it?’ P eter ans wered dryl y, after a pause. ‘W e all ha ve our
own per sonal liv es, so w e’re bound to ha ve our o wn secr ets.’
‘Personal liv es, own secr ets — that’s just w ords. Can’t y ou see ho w much y ou’re
hurting m e?’ She sat u p in bed. ‘If y ou’re worried, w hy hide it fr om m e? And
why do y ou think fit to confide in strang e women rather than y our o wn wif e?
Oh y es, I hear d you by the bee-hiv es this afternoon, pouring y our heart out to
Lyubochka.’
‘My cong ratulations , I’m glad y ou did hear it.’
This m eant: ‘Lea ve me alone, and don’t bother m e when I’m thinking .’85
While the discussion betw een P eter and Olg a is, for the most part, written
in the f orm of dramatic dialo gue, it is the narrativ e comm ent in the final line
that e xplains the subte xtual m eaning of that dialo gue. In a pla y, the m eaning
that is stated in a story w ould ha ve to be made clear to an audience thr ough the
actor’s tone of v oice and manner of deliv ery.86
In A Dreary Story (1889), Chekho v’s concern with the g ap that often e xists
betw een the public and priv ate selv es is a gain a central concern of the story .
The d ying pr ofessor’s sense of alienation is depicted in terms of his ha ving lost
the a bility to contact an ything but the e xterior public selv es of his f amily:
I watch them both, and onl y now at lunch does it da wn on m e that their inner
life has long since v anished fr om m y field of vision. Once I liv ed at hom e with
a real family, I feel, but no w I’m just the lunch-guest of a spurious wif e, looking
at a spurious Lika.87
Chekho v does not impl y that this f ailure to comm unicate with the inner selv es
of other people is e xistentiall y inevita ble. At one tim e the pr ofessor had been
able to comm unicate with his f amily. His alienated condition is man-made and
so is potentiall y cura ble. In The Duel (1891), La yevsky is r edeem ed fr om just
such a condition of alienation. He com es to r ealise that, not onl y has he deceiv ed
other s with his mask, he has also deceiv ed himself:
He had not done a thing f or his f ellows but eat their br ead, drink their wine,
steal their wiv es and borr ow their ideas , while seeking to justify his despica ble,
78Interpreting Chekhov

parasitical e xistence in the w orld’s e yes and his o wn b y passing himself off as
a higher f orm of lif e. It w as all lies , lies, lies.88
In Ariadne (1895) Chekho v once a gain r eturns to the idea of the tw o lives
that people lead and the harm that is caused b y the lack of corr espondence
betw een the tw o. The lando wner , Ivan Shamokin, tells the story of his disastr ous
relationship with Ariadne, w hose r eal natur e he f ails to see ha ving been blinded
by her beautiful public self: ‘T o me her lo vely face and figur e were pled ges of
her inner self.’89 It does not tak e long , however, for Shamokin to becom e
disillusioned with Ariadne. He soon com es to see the y awning g ap betw een her
public and priv ate selv es:
When I w atched her sleeping , eating or trying to look innocent, I often w onder ed
why God had giv en her such outstanding beauty , grace and intellig ence. Could
it really be just f or lolling in bed, eating and telling lies , lies, lies?90
The almost schizophr enic split betw een the self that people pr esent to other s
in public situations and the self the y present in mor e priv ate situations w as to
be a major pr eoccu pation in Chekho v’s matur e dramas .
Of all the man y depictions made b y Chekho v of the dualistic liv es liv ed by
his character s, none is mor e clear or mor e instructiv e than the one that a ppear s
in his story A Lad y with a Dog (1899). Gur ov, the ‘her o’ of A Lad y with a Dog ,
is taking his daughter to school bef ore meeting u p with his mistr ess, Anne. Lik e
many character s in Chekho v’s pla ys, who talk a bout the w eather in or der to
hide w hat the y really feel, Gur ov ostensibl y carries on a con versation with his
daughter , but his r eal self is else where:
‘It’s thr ee deg rees above zero, yet look at the sleet,’ said Gur ov to his daughter .
‘But it’s onl y the g round w hich is w arm, y ou see — the temperatur e in the
upper strata of the atmospher e is quite diff erent.’
‘Why doesn’t it thunder in winter , Dad dy?’ He e xplained this too , reflecting
as he spok e that he w as on his w ay to an assignation. Not a soul kne w about it
— or ev er would kno w, probably. He w as living tw o lives. One of them w as
open to vie w by — and kno wn to — the people concerned. The other lif e
proceeded in secr et. Through som e strang e and possibl y arbitrary chain of
coincidences ev erything vital, inter esting and crucial to him, ev erything w hich
called his sincerity and integ rity into pla y, everything w hich made u p the cor e
of his lif e … all that took place in complete secr ecy, whereas ev erything f alse
about him, the f acade behind w hich he hid to conceal the truth — his w ork at
the bank, sa y, his ar guments at the club , that ‘inf erior species’ stuff, attending
anniv ersary celebrations with his wif e — all that w as in the open. He jud ged
other s by himself, believing the evidence of his e yes, and attributing to ev eryone
a real, f ascinating lif e lived under the cloak of secr ecy as in the dar kness of the
night.91
79The Search for Form

This single quotation should, I believ e, be giv en to ev ery dir ector and actor
of Chekho v’s pla ys, since it pr ovides a k ey to the under standing of the m ethod
of characterisation that Chekho v dev eloped in his f our major pla ys. Chekho v’s
vision of r eality w hich depicts ‘lif e as it is’ and implies ‘lif e as it should be’ is
comm unicated thr ough the interaction of the te xt and subte xt, the outer and
inner liv es of his character s. Chekho v systematicall y creates a g ap betw een his
character s’ tw o lives. The g ap betw een the inner w orld of his character s’ priv ate
beliefs , aims and hopes , and the outer w orld of their public actions and
relationship with other character s is pr esented in terms of their f ailure to r ealise
their aspirations . Productions that allo w audiences to becom e aware of the
character s’ wasted potential assist in the achiev ement of Chekho v’s central
strateg y of sho wing w hat sill y trivial liv es these character s lead at pr esent. The
sense of w aste is f elt pr ecisel y because Chekho v sugg ests the possibility of a
better lif e that can be achiev ed thr ough human action. Chekho v, by implication,
encoura ges his audiences to see that the y need to impr ove their o wn liv es.
The inno vative natur e of Chekho v’s use of subte xt is som etimes overlook ed
now that it has becom e a commonplace in dramatur gy. We joyfull y respond to
struggles f or dominance and possession w hich subte xtuall y fester under the
civilised te xt in a pla y like Pinter’s Old Times , but w e do this primaril y because
we have learnt the rules of the g ame from Chekho v. Prior to Chekho v, the actor’s
subte xt w ould emotionall y underpin and align itself with the te xt’s stated
meaning . The character s meant w hat the y said, and said w hat the y meant. When
Brutus in Julius Caesar says of Caesar , ‘I kno w no per sonal cause to spurn at
him’,92 we believ e him because the accepted con vention of Eliza bethan drama
was that the soliloquy r evealed truthfull y what the character believ es. In a
Chekho v pla y, text and subte xt are split asunder and often contradict each other .
A Chekho v character ma y say one thing but m ean another .
It was as a consequence of this radical inno vation that, w hen his pla ys w ere
first perf ormed, man y actor s found it difficult to portra y this double lif e. Being
used to perf orming in pla ys in w hich character s say what the y mean and m ean
what the y say, man y earl y perf ormers of Chekho v’s pla ys, particularl y those
who had no kno wled ge of the acting system dev eloped b y Stanisla vski, w ere
unaware of the implied subte xtual inner lif e of his character s. Certainl y, few
early perf ormers had the acting technique to pla y such a subte xt. Br ooks
Atkinson, r eviewing the Fa gan Compan y’s pr oduction of The Cherry Orc hard in
New York in 1928, complained that the actor s and the pr oduction had onl y
mana ged to comm unicate the objectiv e surf ace of r eality that e xists in the te xt,
and w ent on to point out the difficulties f acing actor s perf orming in Chekho v’s
plays:
At the Bijou Theatr e we are drenched in the bor edom, but w e do not per ceive
its subtle m eaning . It is the cada ver of The Cherry Orc hard from w hich the br eath
80Interpreting Chekhov

of lif e has departed. And that is disheartening , since Chekho v radiated lif e
through ev ery w ord he wr ote … Nothing is mor e difficult to act on the sta ge
than Chekho vian drama … As pla ygoers we hear and see onl y the e xterior
impulses . In consequence the essence of the character s, the essence of the story ,
lie betw een the lines or rise a bove the perf ormance as o vertones .93
Charles Timm er has noted that the eff ects of this dislocation of the te xt and
subte xt in a Chekho v pla y can lead to ev ents occurring w hich a ppear to be
bizarr e in that the y seem to ha ve little or no dramatic r elevance.94 In Uncle
Vanya, when Astr ov is r eluctantl y about to lea ve and is trying to put off the
mom ent of departur e, he turns to the ma p of Africa w hich, as Chekho v’s sta ge
instructions point out, ‘is ob viousl y quite out of place her e’.95 Astr ov mak es
the bizarr e comm ent that: ‘Do wn ther e in Africa the heat m ust be quite
something . Terrific!’96
The denotational m eaning of the line is irr elevant in this conte xt. By this
point in the pla y, the audience’s kno wled ge of Astr ov allo ws them to ‘r ead’ his
wish to sta y on at the estate w here he has spent som e of his ha ppiest mom ents.
The point is that Astr ov’s statem ent is onl y bizarr e in the te xt, but the actor
must mak e the subte xt clear to his audience. When Timm er defines ‘bizarr e’ as
‘a statem ent, or a situation, w hich has no lo gical place in the conte xt or in the
sequence of ev ents, the r esulting eff ect being one of sud den be wilderm ent’,97
he is corr ect onl y insof ar as the te xt is concerned. In f act, it w ould be mor e
accurate to sa y that the bizarr e in Chekho v is that ‘w hich has no apparent place
in the conte xt or in the sequence of ev ents’. Ev en the scene in Act One of The
Cherry Orc hard in w hich Lopakhin interru pts the con versation of An ya and
Varya by making an animal noise that is v ariousl y translated as either mooing
or bleating , a scene that Timm er cites as the locus c lassicus of the bizarr e; ev en
this scene has a perf ectly logical and r ealisticall y justified subte xtual m eaning .
As w e will see later , Chekho v has pr ovided the te xtual signals to the actor pla ying
Lopakhin that allo ws him to kno w what he m eans w hen he mak es this a pparently
meaningless sound. In man y cases in Chekho v’s pla ys spok en w ords no long er
have a one-to-one corr espondence with their dictionary m eanings . Bert O . States
is sur ely corr ect w hen he sees ho w, in this r espect, Chekho v is diff erent fr om a
writer lik e Ibsen. In Chekho v:
… ther e is an imm ediac y … w hich sugg ests the a bsence of an author or a clear
signal of m eaning: ther e is nothing at an y rate that w e can trust half as w ell as
Mrs Alving’s ‘I almost think, P astor Mander s, we are all of us ghosts’, or Mr s
Helseth’s pat summing u p of the disaster at Romm ersholm: ‘The dead wif e has
taken them!’ In other w ords, the utile function is nearl y gone …98
These inno vations not onl y provide a difficult cr eativ e problem f or actor s
but ha ve, at tim es, been tr eated b y critics as insurmounta ble pr oblems . Because
81The Search for Form

the true m eaning of Chekho v’s lines ar e not al ways clearl y expressed in the
denotational m eanings of the te xt, a critic such as Harv ey Pitcher is led to w hat
I believ e is an untena ble position w hich sugg ests that, because Chekho v’s
meanings ar e not o vertly stated, and ar e culturall y bound in an y case, it is
unlik ely that the pla ywright’s m eanings can be comm unicated. Consequentl y,
Pitcher f alls back on a v ariant of the r eader r esponse theory w here the audience
makes up its o wn mind a bout w hat the pla y means. Having claim ed that
Chekho v’s ‘pauses and sta ge dir ections , however subtle, can onl y tak e us so
far’, Pitcher contin ues:
Ther e remain v ast ar eas in the Chekho v pla y where the audience is bound to
rely on its o wn intuition. And this raises one of the trickiest pr oblems in Chekho v
interpr etations . Chekho v’s m ethod of emotional sugg estion and implication is
necessaril y elusiv e. Wher eas qualities lik e coura ge and co wardice, being dir ectly
linked to human actions , can be demonstrated without difficulty on the sta ge
and ar e likely to be univ ersally recognised and a greed u pon, emotional y earnings
or regrets ar e by their natur e obscur e and intangible, often the y can onl y be
hinted at, and these limits ma y be interpr eted diff erently by diff erent m ember s
of the audience. It is this situation w hich helps to e xplain w hy ther e is so m uch
diversity in the interpr etation of Chekho v’s pla ys.99
What Pitcher f ails to m ention in his essentiall y literary anal ysis is that the
plays ar e mediated b y the dir ector and actor s who determine to a lar ge deg ree
how an audience will interpr et the pla y. No tw o member s of an audience seeing
the sam e production will ha ve an identical interpr etation, but the y are very
likely to ha ve similar ones . Certainl y their interpr etations ar e likely to be mor e
alike than w ould be the interpr etations made b y two audience m ember s seeing
two diff erent pr oductions . Director s, actor s and set designer s kno w that, if the y
are skilled in their v arious arts , they will comm unicate their interpr etation of
the pla y to the audience. Chekho v certainl y kne w this , and kne w that ev en the
denotationall y empty utterances , like the f ollowing e xchang e betw een Masha
and Vershinin in Three Sisters , has to ha ve an e xtremely clear subte xtual m eaning
provided b y the actor s after the y have disco vered in r ehear sal w hat it does , in
fact, m ean:
MASHA. Ti tum ti tu ti –
VERSHININ . Tum tum tum –
MASHA. Tara tarara
VERSHININ . Tum ti tum. [ Laughs .]100
Chekho v’s car e about sta ge instructions and, in particular , sound eff ects
attests to his concern f or comm unicating m eaning other than thr ough the literal
meaning of the w ords in the te xt. His ar guments with Stanisla vski a bout the
director’s o veruse of sound eff ects w ere motiv ated b y the f act that Chekho v
82Interpreting Chekhov

intended all of his theatrical eff ects to ha ve a m eaning that w ent be yond the
simple f act that those eff ects w ere real. In an important article b y Nils Ak e
Nilsson, entitled ‘Intonation and Rh ythm in Cecho v’s Pla ys’, the Scandina vian
scholar highlights the kinds of interpr etativ e limits that Chekho v gave to the
actor s of his pla ys both in actual r ehear sal and, mor e importantl y, in the pla ytext
itself. These perf ormance-oriented signals o vercome man y of the so-called
problems of interpr etation cited b y Pitcher .
Nilsson ar gues that, w hile Chekho v ma y have been influenced b y Turgenev
in terms of the e xternal r ealism of his pla ys, he is closer in spirit to
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, whose theatrical sense g ave Chekho v kno wled ge of the
way in w hich lev els of m eaning ar e created b y how something is said rather than
simpl y by what is said. So a character in one of Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s pla ys
says:
To be quite honest the w ords don’t e xist f or m e. I diso wn them completel y.
They nev er sho w me what the human soul in r eality w ants. But the sounds —
they affect m e. Do y ou follow me? The sounds of the v oice. By them I am al ways
able, lik e a pr ophet, to discern w hether a man is ha ppy at heart or not.101
The modern actor , especiall y one trained in the Stanisla vski system, has learnt
how to pr esent clear m eanings thr ough a subte xt which is cr eated b y means of
such elem ents as intonation, pitch, pace, str ess, gestur e and bod y langua ge.
Chekho v, for all his criticisms of som e of Stanisla vski’s e xcesses , was extremely
fortunate that the dir ector w as helping to train actor s who could adequatel y
present the double lif e of his character s. Her e was the signif icant realism that
Chekho v had aspir ed to in his theories a bout the drama that depicted the or dinary
incidents of lif e while comm unicating his o wn attitude to ward that kind of lif e.
Chekho v’s achiev ement w as to o vercome a w hole series of pr oblems that f ace
any dramatist committed to r ealism. He w as to ans wer the sorts of questions
raised mor e recentl y by Nilsson:
How to combine scenic r ealism with ‘the drama of souls’? Ho w is the r ealistic
playwright to r eproduce f eeling , the innermost thoughts of man on the sta ge?
How much can w ords express? Ho w far can he use ev eryda y words without
their losing their dramatic tension and — on the other hand — ho w far can he
‘dramatise’ w ords without their ceasing to be natural?102
Practicall y every character in a Chekho v pla y has a lif e story full of incidents
which the writer of a w ell-made pla y would insist on putting on sta ge but w hich
Chekho v keeps off sta ge so as not to disturb the g entle flo w of ev eryda y life.
However, little b y little, details of each character’s liv es ar e comm unicated to
the audience. The tw o main devices that Chekho v uses ar e what I shall call the
‘disguised soliloquy’ and, borr owing the term fr om Da vid Ma garshack, the
‘messeng er elem ent’.
83The Search for Form

The ‘disguised soliloquy’ occur s in Chekho v’s matur e pla ys w henev er
character s are so mo ved by the situation the y find themselv es in that the y feel
the need to e xpress their innermost thoughts . Magarshack rather misleadingl y
calls this technique a chorus elem ent, but the term ‘disguised soliloquy’ mor e
accuratel y describes Chekho v’s technique. Be that as it ma y, Ma garshack’s
description of w hat is in volved in this technique is essentiall y corr ect. He sa ys
that Chekho v’s character s:
assum e the mantle of the chorus w henev er their inner lif e bur sts thr ough the
outer shell of their ev eryda y appearance and o verflows into a torr ent of w ords.
It is this spontaneous and almost palpa ble transm utation into speech of hid den
thoughts and deepl y buried emotions that is perha ps the most subtle e xpression
of dramatic action in a Chekho v pla y.103
An ob vious e xample of this sort of disguised soliloquy occur s at the beginning
of Act II of The Cherry Orc hard, when Charlotte talks a bout her lif e in fr ont of
a group of b ystander s. Indeed, Chekho v’s use of this technique of esta blishing
the e xistence of an inner lif e is perv asive. Uncle Vanya has har dly begun bef ore
Astrov, using Marina as his sounding boar d, launches into a long speech a bout
the natur e of his lif e and his attitude to wards himself and e xistence in g eneral.
Three Sisters opens with Olg a’s bar ely disguised soliloquy , as does The Cherry
Orchard where Lopakhin bar es his soul. Indeed, it is onl y in Chekho v’s earliest
masterpiece, The Seagull , that a disguised soliloquy does not a ppear almost
immediatel y. In this pla y we have to w ait for the second scene, admittedl y onl y
two pages into the pla y, before Treplev begins his ‘soliloquy’ with Sorin as silent
partner . All of the disguised soliloquies ar e realisticall y motiv ated and arise quite
naturall y out of the situations in w hich the character s find themselv es. The
speak er is not alone, though the other people on sta ge are often practicall y silent
or not pa ying m uch attention to the speak er. Whenev er these kind of speeches
occur in the pla ys the audience is allo wed to per ceive som ething that is normall y
part of the priv ate inner lif e of the character s. Normall y this inner lif e remains
in the subte xt. Ho wever, when under the str ess of a particular situation this
subte xt bub bles u p into the te xt in the f orm of a disguised soliloquy , the audience
obtains privileg ed kno wled ge of the character w hich can be used later in the
play. Once this subjectiv e subte xtual lif e has been made objectiv ely textual, the
audience kno ws, firstly, that ther e is such an inner lif e and, secondl y, that it
can use that kno wled ge when ev aluating the character’s subsequent o vert
behaviour . They can per ceive whether or not a g ap exists betw een the character’s
two lives and under stand the particular natur e of that g ap and its eff ect on the
character .
The m esseng er elem ent is a second technique f or pr oviding an audience with
privileg ed inf ormation a bout the inner liv es of the character s in a pla y. When
two character s discuss and giv e information a bout a thir d character w e have the
84Interpreting Chekhov

‘messeng er elem ent’. As Ma garshack states , the function of this elem ent ‘is to
keep the audience inf ormed about the chief dramatic incidents , which tak e place
off sta ge’.104 Obviousl y this hear say inf ormation is less r eliable than the
disguised soliloquy f or pr oviding inf ormation a bout the beliefs and aspirations
of the character talk ed about, but it can su pply the audience with useful f actual
information that a gain modifies its r esponses to that thir d character w hen the y
next appear . Varya’s con versation with An ya in Act One of The Cherry Orc hard
gives us , amongst other things , several crucial pieces of inf ormation a bout Mr s
Ranevsk y.
To sho w ho w these tw o devices w ork together and help to guide audience
responses , I will outline a simplified model of these techniques in action. Ima gine
that y ou ar e at a cir cus. A particularl y funn y clo wn is making y ou laugh with
his absurd antics . A per son ne xt to y ou begins to talk to y ou about this clo wn
and sa ys som ething lik e: ‘Isn’t that clo wn an e xtraor dinary f ellow — I hear d
this morning that his wif e had just been killed in a plane crash y ester day — but
being the theatrical tr ouper that he is , he insisted on a ppearing toda y — he said
that the sho w must g o on.’ Assuming that y ou believ e the per son ne xt to y ou,
this ‘m esseng er elem ent’ cannot help but modify y our r esponse to the hilarious
antics of the clo wn. You look closer at this perf ormer doing all of his ludicr ous
pratf alls and y ou notice a tear a ppear and run do wn his cheek. He quickl y wipes
the tear a way and g oes on with his r outine. The tear is the clo wn’s disguised
soliloquy and his subjectiv e pain has , for a brief mom ent, bub bled u p from its
subte xtual lif e into the objectiv e life of his comic perf ormance. Through the use
of techniques such as these, Chekho v dev eloped a w ay to r ealise his vision of
life in all its tra gi-comic jumble. P arado xicall y, as spectator s who ha ve learnt
about the clo wn thr ough the tw o devices of the ‘disguised soliloquy’ and the
‘messeng er elem ent’, w e are placed in a position w here the funnier his beha viour ,
the mor e we feel for him.
One final elem ent of Chekho v’s approach to f orm needs to be briefl y look ed
at, bef ore beginning a mor e detailed e xamination of the dev elopm ent of his
dramatic techniques in the individual pla ys. This elem ent concerns the
playwright’s use of symbolism. On the f ace of it, symbolism w ould a ppear to be
incompatible with r ealism, y et we kno w that Chekho v was attracted to certain
aspects of symbolist f orm. J ames McFarlane e xpresses a commonl y held vie w
that, though Chekho v concentrated mor e on the short story during the earl y
eighteen-nineties , 'he nev ertheless contin ued to br ood on pr oblems of dramatic
composition, especiall y those bearing on the comm unication of unspok en thought
which (it is r eported) he hoped to solv e by combining a basic r ealism with a
contr olled use of symbols'.105
Often w hen w e talk of ‘symbolism’ w e think of som ething that is essentiall y
non-r ealistic. The little drama written b y Treplev in The Seagull is a symbolist
85The Search for Form

play in this non-r ealistic sense. With this sort of symbolism w e recognise, as
Wimsatt notes , that the or der of ima ges pr esented to us ‘openl y prefers the norms
of symbolic m eaning to those of r epresentation. Then w e mo ve off thr ough
varying shades of r omance, alleg ory, myth and surr ealism.’106 Chekho v’s
approach to the use of symbolism w as quite diff erent fr om this . Just as he had
adapted devices lik e the soliloquy and the m esseng er elem ent fr om earlier
non-r ealistic f orms of drama and made them serv e, in modified f orm, his r ealistic
dramatur gy, so Chekho v utilised symbolism in the sam e way. It w as not a case
of either symbolism or realism but ‘both/and’. Ho wever parado xical the term
may seem, Chekho v fits the description that Wimsatt giv es of ‘poetic-r ealist’.
As Wimsatt e xplains:
Sometimes the or der of ima ges in a story f ollows or a pparently follows the lines
of representational necessity or pr obability , though at the sam e tim e a symbolic
significance is mana ged. Then w e have realism, though r ealism of a su perior
sort, the poetic sort.107
The tr ees that ar e chopped do wn at the end of The Cherry Orc hard certainl y
function as a symbol of the end of the era of landed g entry , but the y also function
as real tr ees being chopped do wn! Ev en the br eaking string , which is often used
as an e xample of a ‘pur e’ symbol, has its r ealistic counterpart, f or, as I ar gued
elsewhere: ‘The br eaking string m ust sur ely be one of Yepikhodo v’s guitar
strings .’108 Laur ence Senelick lik ewise sees that Chekho v refused to a bandon
realism in this instance. Writing of the ‘uncann y sound’ of the br eaking string
Senelick comm ents:
But ev en then, Chekho v does not f orgo a realistic pr etext for the ine xplica ble.
Shortl y bef ore the mom ent, Yepikhodo v crosses u pstage, strumming his guitar .
Might not the sna pped string be one br oken by the f altering bookk eeper? At
the pla y’s end, bef ore we hear the sound d ying a way, we are told b y Lopakhin
that he has left Yepikhodo v on the g rounds as a car etaker. Chekho v always
overlays an y symbolic inf erence with a patina of irr eproacha ble reality .109
With the writing of The Seagull , Chekho v successfull y achiev ed the f ormal
means to comm unicate his vision of r eality . Before he wr ote that pla y, however,
he made a n umber of less successful attempts to match vision with f orm. As w e
have already seen, Platonov , although not m eant f or publication, sho wed Chekho v
to be still una ble to br eak a way from the con ventions of r omantic m elodrama.
In Platonov , The W ood Demon and Ivanov , the old f orms of theatr e work against
the vision that Chekho v is attempting to dramatise.
An e xamination of a selection of Chekho v’s earl y pla ys, and of Ivanov in
particular , will help us to see the difficulties that Chekho v faced in attempting
to use the con ventions of r ealism to con vey what he per ceived to be the action
of his pla y. The partial f ailure of Ivanov stemm ed mainl y from the limitations
86Interpreting Chekhov

inher ent in the adoption of the con ventions of literal r ealism and w as to lead
Chekho v to find w ays of modifying and enlar ging the e xpressiv e possibilities
of this r epresentational f orm. At the tim e of writing Ivanov , Chekho v had not
yet dev eloped his m ethod of juxta posing te xt with subte xt to cr eate the g ap
betw een aspiration and achiev ement, nor had he dev eloped his technique of
using the e xpressiv e power of symbolism w hile r etaining his adher ence to the
conventions of r ealism. Onl y when Chekho v master ed these techniques could
he extend the e xpressiv e possibilities of r ealism to the point w here the y becam e
capable of depicting accuratel y ‘lif e as it is’ in all of its triviality , while
simultaneousl y impl ying that this depiction w as in f act ‘lif e as it should not be’.
ENDNOTES
1 Esslin, M., ‘Chekho v and the Modern Drama’ in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood
Press, Westport, 1985, p . 136.
2 Chekho v, A., quoted in Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles ,
London, 1968, p . 160.
3 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. V. Kiselev a, 14 J anuary 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton Chekhov ,
The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 41.
4 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 226.
5 Gask ell, R., Drama and Reality: The European Theatre since Ibsen , Routled ge and K egan Paul, London,
1972, pp . 15 and 18.
6 Ther e is enormous confusion in the use of such terms as ‘Naturalism’ and ‘Realism’. As Fur st and
Skrine ha ve argued, Naturalism ‘w as tied to the a pron strings of “Realism” fr om its fir st appearance,
from Zola’s tacit assumption in his art criticism that the terms w ere virtuall y identical’. (Fur st, L. and
Skrine, P ., Naturalism , Methuen, London, 1971, p . 5.) I intend to use the term ‘Naturalism’ in m uch
the sam e way as Fur st and Skrine do w hen the y state that ‘one of the brief est, though necessaril y
incomplete, definitions of Naturalism is as an attempt to a pply to literatur e the disco veries and m ethods
of nineteenth-century science’. (Fur st, L. and Skrine, P ., op. cit., p . 9.) Though Naturalism is historicall y
situated as being r elated to a specific mo vement, using the m ethods of ‘nineteenth-century’ science, I
believ e that it is of use to criticism to use the term ‘naturalism’ to r efer to the a pplication of science and
scientific m ethod to the arts in an y period. The term ‘r ealism’ I wish to use in describing the attempts
to mak e art literall y imitate lif e. The mo vement fr om poetry to pr ose in drama, the dev elopm ent of the
box set, the r emoval of f ootlights , etc., all becom e, in m y definition, e xamples of incr easing ‘r ealism’.
The terms no w no long er overlap and w hile som eone lik e Chekho v can be described as both a naturalist
and a r ealist it is possible to be one without being the other . Zolaist naturalism tended to utilise insights
drawn fr om the ne w science of sociolo gy and ther efore was attracted to r ealism w hich could eff ectiv ely
show the en vironment at w ork. When Strindber g ho wever beg an to concentrate mor e on the ne w
science of psy cholo gy, his ‘su per-naturalism’, as he called it, led him to wards non-r ealistic m ethods of
writing and pr esentation. Similarl y, Brecht can be term ed a naturalist in that he utilises scientific and
political anal ysis of society in his pla ys. However, Brecht’s pla ys ar e non-r ealistic in f orm. One final
example should mak e my usa ge of these tw o terms clear . Stanisla vski dev eloped a system of acting
based on the curr ent psy cholo gical r esear ches of scientists such as Ribot. His system is thus naturalistic,
but it can be utilised in w ays that ar e suita ble f or the perf orming of either r ealistic or non-r ealistic
dramas .
7 Furst, L. and Skrine, P ., op. cit., pp . 9 and 13.
8 Chekho v, A., quoted in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 244.
9 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 10 Ma y 1886, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 37.
10 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Meyerhold, October 1889, in Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., Anton Chekhov’s
Life and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess, Berkeley, 1975, p . 368.
11 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 2 January 1900, quoted in Tulloch, J ., Chekhov: A Structuralist
Study, Macmillan Pr ess, London, 1980, p . 107.
12 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 13 No vember 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 92.
87The Search for Form

13 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 9 October 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 112.
14 Chekho v, A., ‘F ragments’, 1885, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , Methuen, London,
1980, p . 23.
15 Chekho v, A., A Dreary Story , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 5, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1970, p . 48. One opinion that Chekho v did not shar e with the pr ofessor w as that pla ys need
not be acted to be a ppreciated. In 1903 he wr ote: ‘As a rule I cannot under stand pla ys except on the
boards, and ther efore I do not lik e to r ead pla ys.’ (Chekho v, A., Letter to E. N . Chirik ov, 7 October
1903, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on the Short Story , the Drama, and Other Literary T opics by Anton
Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 202.)
16 Chekho v, A., A Dreary Story , p. 49.
17 Ibid., p . 48.
18 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 14 February 1889, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 23.
19 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 7 No vember 1888, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p .
169.
20 Fyodor K orsh w as a theatrical impr esario w ho ran his o wn pr ofessional theatr e and w as to sta ge the
first production of Chekho v’s Ivanov .
21 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 No vember 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 91.
22 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 No vember 1888, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., pp .
31–2.
23 Senelick, L., Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists: An Antholog y, Univ ersity of
Texas Pr ess, Austin, 1981, p . xxiv .
24 Rayfield, D ., Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art , Paul Elek, London, 1975, p . 20.
25 Chekho v, A., quoted in Ra yfield, D ., loc. cit.
26 Mikhail Lento vsky was not a fictional cr eation. He f ounded the Mountebank Theatr e in Mosco w.
While his aims had originall y been to mount important pla ys, the theatr e’s r epertory g raduall y
degenerated until nearl y all pla ys pr esented w ere ‘translated f arces, melodramas and fééries …
Lento vsky’s pr oductions a bounded in p yrotechnical displa ys, explosions , fires, colla psing brid ges, and
the w hole impedim enta of sensationalism’. (Senelick, L., Anton Chekhov , Methuen, London, 1985, p .
19.)
27 Chekho v, A., Dishonourable T ragedians and Leprous Dramatists , in Gottlieb , V., Chekhov and the
Vaudeville: A Stud y of Chekhov’s One Act Pla ys, Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1982, p . 193.
28 Ibid., p . 194.
29 Chekho v, A., quoted in Senelick, L., Anton Chekhov , p. 19.
30 Chekho v, A., ‘Mor e about Sarah Bernhar dt’, Spectator , 6 December 1881, in Senelick, L., Russian
Dramatic Theory , p. 86.
31 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1889, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p . 193.
32 Simmons , E. J ., Chekhov: A Biography , Jonathan Ca pe, London, 1963, pp . 366–7.
33 Grant, D ., Realism , Methuen, London, 1970, p . 64
34 I ha ve argued that ther e is no lo gicall y necessary link betw een ‘Naturalism’ and ‘Realism’ in the
sense in w hich I ha ve defined the tw o terms (see this cha pter, footnote 6), but, as Gask ell corr ectly
points out, the majority of Naturalistic writer s tended to adopt the f ormal con ventions of Realism: ‘Does
a naturalistic vision of the w orld entail (it certainl y encoura ges) representational f orm? Were it not f or
Brecht w e might su ppose so … The naturalistic vision, r oughl y that of nineteenth-century science, w as
held, though of cour se not in quite the sam e way, by Chekho v, Sha w, Brecht, and in a lar ge part Ibsen.
In Br echt alone of these f our writer s we find it su pporting non-r epresentational f orms .’ (Gask ell, R.,
op. cit., p . 63.)
35 Zola, E., quoted in Gask ell, R., op . cit., p . 14.
36 Gask ell, R., op . cit., p . 60.
37 Furst, L. and Skrine, P ., op. cit., p . 13.
38 Grant, D ., op. cit., p . 9.
39 Chekho v, A., quoted in Melching er, S., Anton Chekhov , Frederick Ung ar, New York, 1972, pp . 74–5.
40 Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1967, pp . 1–2.
41 Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Brec ht, Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1968, p . 120.
42 Ellis-Fermor , U., The Frontiers of Drama , Methuen, London, 1964, p . 96.
88Interpreting Chekhov

43 Robbins, H., The Dream Merc hants , New English Library , London, 1980, p . 54.
44 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 Ma y 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 71.
45 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A pril 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 133.
46 Hagan, J ., ‘Chekho v’s Fiction and the Idea of “Objectivity”‘, Proceedings of the Modern Language
Association , Vol. 81, October 1966, pp . 415 and 417.
47 Instead of using colourful authorial intrusion lik e that f ound in the Har old Rob bins e xample, Chekho v
moved to a type of writing that f oreshado ws that of writer s like Rob be-Grillet. H. P . Stowell points out:
‘What is imm ediatel y striking a bout the pr ose of Chekho v and Rob be-Grillet is that the y both ar e dra wn
to the r estraint, pr ecision and laconic flatness of w hat Roland Barthes has called “zer o deg ree writing”.
This is neutral colorless pr ose or w hat Sartr e called l’ecriture blanc he.’ (Sto well, H. P ., ‘Chekho v and the
nouveau roman : Subjectiv e Objectivism’, in Debr eczen y, P. and Eekman, T., eds , Chekhov’s Art of
Writing: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Slavica Publisher s Inc., Columbus , 1977, p . 184.)
48 Durkin, A. R., ‘Chekho v’s Narrativ e Technique’, in Cl yman, T. W., op. cit., p . 124.
49 John Ha gan notes that: ‘It has becom e common to speak of this as the technique of the “eff aced”,
“invisible” or “disa ppearing” narrator , or perha ps ev en mor e often, since this is inevita bly the pr ocedur e
of the pla ywright, as the “dramatic” m ethod.’ (Ha gan, J., op. cit.)
50 Ellis-Fermor , U., loc. cit. Ellis-Fermor’s use of ‘naturall y’ sugg ests a w eakness in her ar gument in
that she is co vertly working on the mistak en assumption that all dramatists wish to con vey thought
‘naturall y’, that is , as in r eal lif e. She is a pparently approaching drama with a bias to wards realism.
This w eakness does not aff ect m y argument her e, in that Chekho v was one of those writer s who did
wish to e xpress thought ‘naturall y’.
51 Ibsen, H., quoted in Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Brec ht, Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1976, p .
40.
52 Yeats, W. B., quoted in Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Eliot , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1964, p .
26.
53 Pinter , H., ‘Writing f or the Theatr e’, in Pinter Pla ys, Vol. 1, Methuen, London, 1976, p . 11.
54 Chekho v, A., Letter to Ale xander Chekho v, 24 October 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord
Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 285.
55 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 Mar ch 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 111.
56 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 8 Ma y 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 117.
57 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 11 A pril 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 142.
58 Kuprin, A., ‘Reminiscences of Anton Tchekho v’, in K oteliansk y, S. S., ed., Anton Tc hekhov: Literary
and Theatr ical Reminiscences , Benjamin Blom, Ne w York, 1965, p . 80. Il ya Ehr enbur g records ho w
Chekho v’s almost obsessional demand f or the depiction of the simple and or dinary becam e legendary .
‘His f ellow writer s used to jok e: When Chekho v revises a story , he cuts out ev erything; all that’s left
is that he and she w ere young , fell in lo ve, got married and then w ere unha ppy. Chekho v used to r eply:
But listen, that’s just w hat ha ppens in r eal lif e …’ (Ehr enbur g, I, Chekhov , Stendhal and Other Essa ys,
Macgib bon and K ee, London, 1962, pp . 61–2.)
59 Jullien, J ., quoted in Bentle y, E., The Pla ywright as Thinker , Meridian Books , New York, 1960, p . 1.
60 Chekho v, A., quoted in Melching er, S., op. cit., p . 75.
61 Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Eliot , p. 27.
62 Ellis-Fermor , U., op. cit., p . 97.
63 Despite Valenc y’s claim that ‘Chekho v’s debt to Ibsen w as incalcula ble’, (V alenc y, M., The Breaking
String, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1966, p . 143.) ther e is m uch evidence that Chekho v dislik ed
Ibsen’s a pproach to drama. He described Ghosts as ‘a trash y pla y’. (Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov: A Lif e,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1970, p . 383.) He f ailed to w atch all of the Mosco w Art Theatr e’s pr oduction
of Hedda Gabler and is r eported to ha ve said that ‘he did not r egard Ibsen as a dramatist’. (Ma garshack,
D., Chekhov: A Lif e, p. 351.) Nicholas Mora vcevich is corr ect, I believ e, in claiming that Chekho v was
clearl y being ir onical w hen, after a lif etime of criticism of the Norw egian, he wr ote to A. L. Vishnevsk y,
7 No vember 1903, asking f or tick ets for Pillars of Society saying, ‘I w ant to ha ve a look at this amazing
Norw egian pla y and will ev en pa y for the privileg e. Ibsen is m y favourite author , you kno w.’ (Chekho v,
A., Letter to A. L. Vishnevsk y, 7 No vember 1903, quoted in Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Chekho v and Naturalism:
From Affinity to Div ergence’, Comparative Drama , Vol. 4, No . 4., Winter 1970–71, p . 239.) As Ma garshack
notes , Chekho v’s ‘chief criticism of Ibsen … w as that the character s in the g reat Norw egian’s pla ys did
not beha ve as people do “in lif e”’. (Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , pp. 83–4.)
89The Search for Form

64 Esslin, M., loc. cit.
65 Elsom, J ., Post-war Br itish Theatre , Routled ge and K egan Paul, London, 1979, pp . 40–1.
66 Ibid., p . 40.
67 Rayfield, D ., loc. cit.
68 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 Ma y 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 71.
69 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 88.
70 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A pril 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 133.
71 Chekho v, A., Letter to Ye. M. Sha vrova, 28 February 1895, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., pp . 256–7.
72 Chekho v, A., Three Y ears (1895), in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 7, Oxf ord Univ ersity
Press, London, 1978, p . 193.
73 Ibid., p . 192.
74 Chekho v, A., Letter to Ye. M. Sha vrova, 16 September 1891, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p . 17.
75 Chekho v, A., Letter to Ye. M. Sha vrova, 28 February 1895, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 257.
76 Hagan, J., op. cit., p . 414.
77 Chekho v, A., quoted in Melching er, S., op. cit., p . 75.
78 Tolsto y, L., r ecalled b y Gnedich, P . P., quoted in Pitcher , H., The Chekhov Pla y, Chatto and Windus ,
London, 1973, p . 1.
79 Tolsto y, L., r ecalled b y Bunin, I., quoted in Pitcher , H., loc. cit.
80 Tolsto y, L., r ecalled b y Gnedich, P . P., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 15.
81 Tolsto y, L., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 16.
82 Long , R. E. C ., Fortnightl y Review , July–December 1902, quoted in Em eljano w, V., ed., Chekhov: The
Critical Her itage , Routled ge and K egan Paul, London, 1981, p . 67.
83 Chekho v, A., r ecalled b y Kuprin, A., quoted in Laffitte, S ., Chekhov , Angus and Robertson, London,
1974, p . 16.
84 Kram er, K. D ., ‘Chekho v at the End of the Eighties: The Question of Identity ,’ Études Slaves et
Est-Européennes , Vol. 2, 1966, p . 8.
85 Chekho v, A., The Party , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 4, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London,
1980, pp . 149–50.
86 Chekho v seems to ha ve felt it quite natural to write dialo gue w hich can onl y be ‘r ead’ if a subte xtual
through-line is su pplied. Being an author w ho w as ‘paid b y the line’, Chekho v sho wed ho w one could
make mone y from this m ethod of pa yment. He wr ote a piece of dialo gue that had onl y ten w ords —
one to each line! In or der to mak e sense of this dialo gue, the r eader/spectator m ust su pply a coher ent
subte xt. The dialo gue that Chekho v wrote is r emar kably similar to the kind of dialo gue emplo yed toda y
in exercises used to help train actor s to esta blish a clear and r eadable subte xt (the e xercise is called
‘interpr etations’). Chekho v’s dialo gue is as f ollows:
‘Listen!’
‘What?’
‘Nativ e?’
‘Who?’
‘You.’
‘I?’
‘Yes!’
‘No.’
‘Pity!’
‘H’m.’
(Chekho v, A., quoted in Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., op. cit., p . 17.)
87 Chekho v, A., A Dreary Story , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 5, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1970, p . 55.
88 Chekho v, A., The Duel , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 5, p . 207.
89 Chekho v, A., Ariadne , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 8, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London,
1965, p . 76.
90 Ibid., p . 91.
91 Chekho v, A., A Lad y with a Dog , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 9, Oxf ord Univ ersity
Press, London, 1975, p . 139.
90Interpreting Chekhov

92 Shak espear e, W., Julius Caesar , Act II, Scene i, 10.
93 Atkinson, B ., New Y ork Times , 11 Mar ch 1928, quoted in Em eljano w, V., op. cit., p . 326.
94 See Timm er, C. B., ‘The Bizarr e Elem ents in Chekho v’s Art’, in Eekman, T., ed., Anton Cec how,
1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill, Leiden, 1960, pp . 277–92.
95 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1964, p . 58.
96 Ibid., p . 66.
97 Timm er, C. B., op. cit., p . 278.
98 States , B. O., Irony and Drama: A Poetics , Cornell Univ ersity Pr ess, Ithaca, 1971, p . 71.
99 Pitcher , H., op . cit., pp . 24–5.
100 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, p . 116.
101 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., quoted in Nilsson, N . A., ‘Intonation and Rh ythm in Cecho v’s Pla ys’,
in Eekman, T., op. cit., p . 170.
102 Nilsson, N . A., op . cit., p . 171.
103 Magarshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 169.
104 Ibid., p . 164.
105 McFarlane, J ., ‘Intimate Theatr e: Maeterlinck to Strindber g’, in Bradbury , M. and McFarlane, J .,
eds, Modernism , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1981, p . 518.
106 Wimsatt, W. K., ‘The Two Meanings of Symbolism’, Hateful Contrar ies, Kentuck y Univ ersity Pr ess,
Kentuck y, 1965, p . 53.
107 Ibid.
108 Born y, G. J., ‘The Subjectiv e and Objectiv e Lev els of Reality in Chekho v’s Ivanov and The Cherry
Orchard: A Stud y in Dramatic Technique’, unpublished honour s thesis , Univ ersity of Ne w South Wales,
1969, p . 58.
109 Senelick, L., Anton Chekhov , p. 128.
91The Search for Form

Chapter 3. Failed Experiments: The
Early Plays
Literature , like art, serves one constructive aim and function: to reproduce the world
outside , though it is not of course to be a carbon copy; the creative intelligence must
not onl y render the truth of reality but also interpret and evaluate it. (Charles I.
Glicksber g)1
… it has been thought possible to create a new drama by f illing the old f orms with
the contents of the newer age; but … we have not got the new f orm f or the contents ,
and the new wine has burst the old bottles . (August Strindber g)2
Chekho v did not imm ediatel y find the dramatic f orm that w ould function as the
perfect objectiv e corr elativ e of his vision of r eality . He beg an his car eer as a
playwright b y adopting the con ventions of earlier w ell-esta blished dramatic
genres. As with his short-story writing , Chekho v underw ent a period of literary
apprenticeship bef ore he w as able to fr ee himself fr om the use of these outdated
and ina ppropriate techniques . As Simon Karlinsk y points out: 'It w as in The
Seagull that this liberation fir st occurr ed, the cr eativ e breakthr ough w hich made
Chekho v as m uch an inno vator in the field of drama as he alr eady was in the art
of pr ose narrativ e.'3
As Karlinsk y sugg ests, Chekho v dev eloped ne w formal techniques a ppropriate
to con vey his vision in the tw o quite diff erent g enres of the short story and the
drama. Chekho v’s fame as a pla ywright toda y has partiall y obscur ed the f act
that, f or most of his literary car eer, he w as better kno wn as a pr olific short-story
writer .4 Chekho v applied man y of the techniques he had dev eloped f or the
short story to the writing of his later pla ys, and, in particular , he carried o ver
into his later dramatic technique an a voidance of o vert theatricality . As J oseph
Wood Krutch corr ectly notes: 'The v ery soul of his m ethod [in short story writing]
had al ways been the a voidance of an ything artificiall y ‘dramatic’ and he w as
wise enough not to alter it w hen he cam e to write drama.'5
In an attempt to emphasise the f act that Chekho v was a man of the theatr e
whose ‘onl y reason f or writing a pla y was the lik elihood of its being perf ormed
on the sta ge’,6 David Ma garshack underv alues the importance of Chekho v’s
short-story techniques in the dev elopm ent of his dramatic techniques . He
incorr ectly sugg ests that Chekho v did not ha ve to learn his craft as a dramatist:
Chekho v was not, as is g enerall y supposed, a g reat short-story writer w ho took
up drama seriousl y onl y during the last sev en or eight y ears of his all too short
life. He w as a born dramatist w hose fir st w orks of importance w ere thr ee
93

full-length pla ys, two written in his late teens and the thir d in his earl y
twenties .7
Magarshack is corr ect in his observ ation that man y critics of Chekho v’s da y
regarded him primaril y as a writer of narrativ e fiction. Despite ha ving written
several highl y successful v audevilles and thr ee full-length dramas , Platonov ,
Ivanov , and The W ood Demon, an earl y version of Uncle Vanya, Chekho v had
becom e so associated with the g enre of the short story that, w hen The Seagull
was fir st pr oduced in 1896, he w as still not thought of as being primaril y a
playwright. A disg runtled spectator at the fir st perf ormance of The Seagull is
reported to ha ve mutter ed, ‘Wh y doesn’t he stick to short stories?’8
Magarshack is also right to emphasise Chekho v’s earl y inter est in the theatr e.
We kno w that w hen he w as a schoolbo y in Taganrog, he had g one to the theatr e
regularl y and that he wr ote the earl y pla ys that Ma garshack r efers to. However,
it was not until he wr ote The Seagull that Chekho v dev eloped the dramatic
techniques that could adequatel y express his vision, and this occurr ed after he
had master ed the narrativ e techniques a ppropriate f or his short stories and
utilised sev eral of them in his ev olving dramatic f orm.
Chekho v’s earliest theatrical eff orts, which ha ve not surviv ed, w ere par odies
of the theatrical f are that he had witnessed in Taganrog, and r eflect his
dissatisf action with man y of these off erings . Accor ding to Donald Ra yfield,
Chekho v saw a wide rang e of mainl y Eur opean drama w hen he w as a schoolbo y
and he ‘r eacted in his fir st letter s and par odies a gainst the spectacular histrionics
of Hug o’s drama or Italian opera’.9 Despite this earl y manif estation of his dislik e
of overt theatricality , Chekho v did not a void this sam e fault in his fir st pla ys.
His initial dramatic successes w ere ‘vaudevilles’, w hich emplo yed pr ecisel y the
kind of theatrical clichés and su perficial characterisation that he su pposedl y
despised. Chekho v was aware that his theatrical practice did not match his ideal
of theatrical r ealism. Consequentl y, it is not surprising that he r egarded his
vaudevilles simpl y as lucrativ e potboiler s with little artistic m erit. J ust as he
was scornful of man y of his earl y short stories , regarding them as su perficial
and deriv ative, for the sam e reasons , he r egarded m uch of his earl y dramatic
writing as w orthless . Ronald Hingle y succinctl y outlines Chekho v’s attitude to
these comic one-acter s:
As w as his w ay, Chekho v dispara ged his v audevilles . He called The Proposal ‘a
wretched, vulg ar, boring little skit … a lousy little f arce’; and r eferred to A
Tragic Role as ‘a stale f arce which f alls flat’, being based on ‘a stale hackne yed
joke’. Still, he a ppreciated the boost to his incom e. He w as ‘living on m y dole
from The Bear ’, he wr ote; it w as his ‘milch co w’. An y author of ten tolera ble
vaudevilles could r egard his futur e as assur ed, he said, f or the y were as pr ofitable
as sixty acr es of land. He planned to write a hundr ed such f arces a y ear,
‘vaudeville subjects gush out of m e like oil fr om the Baku w ells’.10
94Interpreting Chekhov

One v audeville, w hose title is v ariousl y translated as Smoking Is Bad f or You
or On the Harmfulness of T obacco , is of particular inter est because w e have sev eral
different v ersions of the pla y which demonstrate Chekho v’s g rowing contr ol of
the dramatic techniques he w as to use in his last f our tra gi-com edies . Taking
only two and a half hour s to write, Smoking Is Bad f or You originall y appear ed
in print in 1886, but, as Hingle y recounts: ‘it underw ent a series of six r ecensions
spread o ver sixteen y ears, only attaining its final f orm in September 1902’.11
The original v ersion w as regarded b y Chekho v as a w orthless piece of
juvenilia, but his final r evision pleased the author enough f or him to write to
A. F. Mar ks, the publisher of his Complete Collected W orks, sugg esting that the
monolo gue be included in that edition:
Among w orks of mine transmitted to y ou is the f arce Smoking Is Bad f or You,
which is one of the items that I ask ed you to e xclude fr om m y Complete Collected
Works and nev er print … No w I ha ve written a completel y new pla y with the
same title, Smoking Is Bad f or You, keeping onl y the surnam e of the dramatis
personae , and I send it to y ou for inclusion in v olum e vii.12
Comm enting on his original v ersion of the pla y published in the Petersburg
Gazette in 1886, Chekho v wr ote: ‘I ha ve made a m ess of this monolo gue … My
intentions w ere good, but the e xecution w as execrable.’13 Clearl y, his statem ent
to his publisher that his final v ersion w as ‘a completel y new pla y’ sugg ests that
he felt that ther e was a radical diff erence betw een the v arious v ersions .
Presuma bly he f elt that both his intentions and his e xecution w ere satisf actory
in the last v ersion.
An overall description of the natur e of this comic monolo gue and the principal
chang es that Chekho v undertook is giv en by Ernest Simmons in his bio graphy
of the writer:
The chang es betw een the fir st and last v ersion of this slight sk etch admira bly
illustrate the transf ormation that had tak en place in Chekho v’s approach to the
revelation of character on the sta ge. In the fir st version Nyukhin’s monolo gue
before the club audience on the harmfulness of tobacco , which his tyrant of a
wife compels him to deliv er for the purpose of ad vertising the girls’ school she
runs, is designed solel y to am use the audience b y external comic eff ects w hich
deriv e from the od dities , vagaries, and rambling speech of this pathetic old man
who is lecturing on a subject w hich he kno ws nothing a bout. In the final v ersion
the emphasis has entir ely chang ed. Most of the e xternal comic eff ects ha ve
vanished. Her e, Nyukhin’s monolo gue amounts to a subtle psy cholo gical anal ysis
of the inner man. He r eveals himself, not as he a ppear s in r eal lif e, which had
been the emphasis in the fir st version, but as he r eally is – a man w hose fine
qualities ha ve been distorted and w antonl y destr oyed over the y ears by an
insensitiv e, selfish, and dominating wif e.14
95Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

The significance of the chang es has been noted b y sev eral critics . Magarshack
has ar gued that:
It is, indeed, highl y probable that Chekho v used this pla y … f or his e xperim ents
in the ne w method of writing dramatic dialo gue w hich depends f or its main
effect on inner rather than outer action.15
In the final v ersion, Ma garshack ar gues, ‘what matter s is a character’s inw ard
reaction to the cir cumstances of his lif e and not the cir cumstances themselv es’.16
Vera Gottlieb lik ewise r ecognises the radical natur e of Chekho v’s revisions . She
argues that:
As a r esult of these … alterations , the emphasis of the pla y shifts incr easingl y
from the ‘comic scene’ of a man giving a lectur e on a subject that he clearl y
knows nothing a bout, to a tra gi-comic emphasis on the man himself …17
Chekho v was justified in r eferring to his final v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or
You as a ne w pla y for, in the cour se of r ewriting , he radicall y transf ormed the
play’s form fr om a f arce to a tra gi-com edy.
In the 1889 v ersion, Nyukhin is a ster eotypical character , the hen-peck ed
husband, w ho is pr esented as an object of fun, to be laughed at f or his comic
pratf alls. Even his asthma attack, w hich potentiall y could ar ouse audience
sympath y, is tr eated in a manner that f orces an audience to f ocus on the
character’s ludicr ous beha viour rather than on his suff ering:
NYUKHIN . … Giv e me air! [ Balances with his arms and legs to stop himself f alling
over.] Whe w! Just a mom ent! Let m e get my breath back! J ust a mom ent. One
minute. I shall stop this attack b y sheer will-po wer. [Beats his c hest with his
fist.] That will do . Gosh! [ A minute’s pause , dur ing whic h NYUKHIN walks up
and down the stage panting .]18
This earl y version contains man y physical jok es that r emind one of the lazzi
of comm edia dell’arte. In the v ersion written a y ear later , in 1890, m uch of the
physicality is toned do wn or omitted. Nyukhin’s m edical complaint is chang ed
from asthma to hiccu ps. While ‘business’ still pla ys an important part in the
play, the onset of hiccu ps is less of a ph ysical tour de f orce than the asthma
attack:
NYUKHIN . … Tobacco is , mainl y, a plant. [ Hiccups .] I’ve got hiccu ps. A most
convenient thing to ha ve too , I might ad d. It mak es you hold y our br eath and
wait a bit. [ A pause of one minute dur ing whic h NYUKHIN stands motionless .]19
Even the diff erence betw een the 1889 sta ge dir ection in w hich Nyukhin
‘walks u p and do wn’ and the 1890 sta ge direction w hich states that the character
‘stands motionless’ sugg ests that Chekho v was mo ving a way from o vert
96Interpreting Chekhov

histrionics to wards a mor e subtle and r ealistic pr esentation of character and
situation.
The kind of acting r equir ed for the 1902 v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or You
is essentiall y realistic and r eflects Chekho v’s incr easing ‘a voidance of an ything
artificiall y “dramatic”’. As Ma garshack sa ys:
The acting he had in mind f or his pla ys, Chekho v made it clear , did not m ean
rushing a bout the sta ge and e xpressing emotions b y means of g estur es. Strong
emotion, he pointed out, should be e xpressed on the sta ge as it is e xpressed in
life by cultur ed people, that is to sa y, not with one’s hands and f eet, but with
the tone of one’s v oice and with one’s e yes, not b y gesticulating but b y always
keeping one’s poise.20
In eff ect, the final v ersion of this comic monolo gue r equir es the kind of
realistic acting technique that w as being systematised b y Stanisla vski; a technique
that r equir ed the actor to pla y not simpl y the te xt, but also to pr esent an implied
subte xt. A simple but useful definition of ‘subte xt’ and its r elationship to the
‘text’ is pr ovided b y I. Ra paport: ‘The written w ords of the r ole constitute the
text. But the purpose f or whic h the words are spoken, their inner meaning , we call
the “sub-text’ ’.’21 What Chekho v had learned b y the tim e he made his final
revision of Smoking Is Bad f or You was ho w to cr eate character s who had tw o
lives. One lif e was the e xternalised objectiv e life that w as pr esented in the te xt,
and the other w as the secr et subjectiv e inner lif e that w as presented in an implied
subte xt. The cr eation of this double lif e was what ena bled audiences to per ceive
the g ap that e xists betw een his character s’ subjectiv e and often tra gic liv es and
their objectiv e and often comic beha viour . Through this f ormal device Chekho v
was able to comm unicate his vision of r eality .
In the 1890 v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or You, Chekho v attempted to mo ve
away from the depiction of Nyukhin’s character simpl y thr ough the pr esentation
of his o vert comic beha viour . Chekho v wished to cr eate a subte xtual e xistence
for his character but, as y et, he w as onl y able to state rather than imply that
Nyukhin has tw o lives:
NYUKHIN . … ‘Childr en,’ I al ways tell m y wif e’s daughter s, ‘don’t laugh at m e.
After all, y ou don’t kno w what’s g oing on inside m e.’22
Nyukhin tells us that: ‘it’s better not to g et married’.23 This insight is som ething
that w e are left to deduce f or our selves in the final 1903 v ersion. Ag ain, in this
1890 v ersion, the pathetic Nyukhin tells us: ‘I’v e meekly accepted the
punishm ent w hich she has inflicted on m e.’24 In the final v ersion no such e xplicit
judgement a bout the character’s spineless beha viour is made. It is left to the
audience to pass jud gement on Nyukhin’s pathetic a bdication of r esponsibility
for his w asted lif e.
97Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

Finding w ays to let an audience kno w what w as going on inside his character s
without ha ving them tell the audience dir ectly was a pr oblem Chekho v found
difficult to solv e in his earl y pla ys. The 1903 v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or You
illustrates ho w he cam e to solv e this pr oblem.
In this final v ersion Nyukhin does not suff er either fr om asthma or the
hiccu ps. Instead, Chekho v giv es the character a nerv ous twitch. While asthma,
hiccu pping and twitching all manif est themselv es in a ph ysicall y comic manner
in the te xt, it is onl y twitching that implies that ther e is som e subte xtual
psycholo gical cause. This particular ph ysical beha viour imm ediatel y sugg ests
the existence of an inner lif e. We witness a human being under going a br eakdo wn
in front of our e yes. Nyukhin desperatel y and ludicr ously attempts to pr esent
only the outer lif e where he pr etends to be ha ppy about giving a lectur e on the
harmfulness of tobacco . As his twitching g ets w orse, so the ha ppy facade he
tries to pr esent crumbles and elem ents fr om his tra gic subte xtual lif e bub ble u p
and br eak into the te xt for all of us to see. Her e is a man w ho, like Andr ew
[Andr ey] in Three Sisters and Vanya in Uncle Vanya, has w asted his lif e and,
what is mor e important, kno ws it.
The mom ent of r ecognition arriv es for Nyukhin to wards the end of the pla y
when he talks a bout the eff ect that alcohol has on him. The v ery m ention of the
subject causes all of his def ences a gainst f acing the truth to f all and his
subte xtuall y implied tra gic inner lif e can no long er be hid den. His unha ppiness
becom es overtly presented in the te xt. What Nyukhin describes as the eff ects
of drink pr ecisel y describe the dual e xperience of Chekho vian tra gi-com edy.
As audience m ember s we have laughed at the ster eotypical hen-peck ed male,
but no w we are forced to see the pathos of Nyukhin’s situation and e xperience
Chekho v’s implied criticism of this character f or wasting his potential:
One glass is enough to mak e me drunk, I might ad d. It f eels g ood, but
indescriba bly sad at the sam e tim e. Som ehow the da ys of m y youth com e back
to me, I som ehow long — mor e than y ou can possibl y ima gine — to esca pe.
[Carried a way.] To run a way, leave everything behind and run a way without
a backw ard glance. Wher e to? Who car es? If onl y I could esca pe fr om this
rotten, vulg ar, tawdry e xistence that’s turned m e into a pathetic old clo wn and
imbecile! Esca pe fr om this stu pid, petty , vicious , nasty , spiteful, m ean old co w
of a wif e who’s made m y life a misery f or thirty-thr ee years! Esca pe fr om the
music, the kitchen, m y wif e’s mone y and all those vulg ar trivialities … I don’t
need an ything . I’m a bove all these lo w, dirty things . Once I w as young and
clever and w ent to colleg e. I had dr eams and I f elt lik e a human being . Now I
want nothing — nothing but a bit of peace and quiet.25
Gottlieb is sur ely corr ect in her anal ysis of ho w this sort of r ecognition scene
is intended to function in this and the f our major pla ys. It is not simpl y Nyukhin
98Interpreting Chekhov

who is intended to see that he has w asted his lif e. In Chekho v’s pla ys, including
the 1903 v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or You:
… the character s are brought to a point of r ecognition; and with the character s,
so an audience is br ought to a similar point of r ecognition and r ealisation not
to wallow in sad r esignation, but — held at a distance — to observ e that things
need not be so: in Gor ky’s quotation of Chekho v’s w ords, ‘You liv e badl y, my
friends . It is sham eful to liv e like that.’26
Increasingl y, Chekho v cam e to shar e Strindber g’s belief that e xpressing a
new vision of r eality thr ough the use of outdated dramatic con ventions w as lik e
trying to put ne w wine into old bottles . Sev eral of his earl y pla ys, including
Platonov , Ivanov and The W ood Demon , were frustrating attempts at ‘filling the
old forms with the contents of a ne wer age’. All of these pla ys utilised the stock
character s and situations of r omantic m elodrama, and the earl y versions of
Smoking Is Bad f or You likewise f ollowed the tried and true con ventions of
vaudeville. The v arious v ersions of Smoking Is Bad f or You clearl y illustrate
Chekho v’s struggle to find a ne w form and in volve him in a mo vement a way
from w hat Ma garshack calls pla ys of ‘dir ect action’ to those of ‘indir ect action’.
Increasingl y, he sought to pr esent the actuality of lif e.
What Gottlieb sa ys of the r evisional pr ocess emplo yed in the m ultiple v ersions
of Smoking Is Bad f or You applies equall y to the m ethod that Chekho v adopted
when he transf ormed his earl y melodramatic full-length pla y, The W ood Demon ,
into the tra gi-com edy Uncle Vanya. In both cases the ‘theatrical’ w as replaced
by the ‘r ealistic’:
Out of the con ventional laughing-stock of the hen-peck ed husband Chekho v
creates a character w ho is completel y thr ee-dim ensional, and the balance betw een
the pathetic and the comic is seen v ery clearl y in the characterisation.27
It is quite easy f or us toda y to f ail to see just ho w radical Chekho v’s
innovations w ere in terms of pla ywrighting technique. His highl y realistic
approach to writing , combined with the Stanisla vski-inspir ed realistic a pproach
to acting , has becom e the theatrical norm of tw entieth-century Western theatr e
practice. At the tim e when he wr ote, ho wever, overt theatricality w as the norm
in both dramatic writing and acting style. One look at the plot of Platonov
immediatel y sho ws us that r ealism w as not the natural idiom of this fled gling
playwright, w ho initiall y adopted man y of the con ventions of late
nineteenth-century r omantic m elodrama.
Platonov is almost certainl y the pla y that Chekho v’s br other , Mikhail, r efers
to in his intr oduction to the second v olum e of Letters of A. P . Chekhov , when
he wr ote that: ‘While he w as a student he wr ote a long pla y with the ar dent
hope of ha ving it pr esented on the sta ge of the Mal y Theatr e, Mosco w.’28 In
this elephantine pla y, which runs to one hundr ed and thirty-f our pa ges in the
99Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

original man uscript, e xciting theatricality o verpowers any sense of human
reality . The depiction of sensational ev ents tak es pr ecedence o ver an y attempt
at psy cholo gical consistenc y in characterisation. Donald Ra yfield’s outline of
some of the main f eatur es of the plot clearl y illustrates ho w much the student
Chekho v’s dramatic technique o wed to the histrionic tradition of m elodrama:
In the cour se of the pla y, he [Platono v] arrang es to elope with his best friend’s
wife, Sophia, f or a ‘ne w lif e’, but he almost succumbs to the best friend’s
stepmother , the y oung wido w Anna P etrovna Voynitsev a, and he flirts with
and assaults the rich and eligible Gr ekova. He is a catastr ophic disru pter: his
wife, Sasha, tries to kill her self b y thr owing her self on the rail way line (on sta ge)
and then b y eating matches (off sta ge); the hor se-thief, Osip , in the natur e of
familiar spirit to other character s, tries to m urder Platono v; his friend, Ser gey
Voynitsev , nearl y dies of despair; Sophia is so ang ered by Platono v’s betra yal
that she kills him … Platonov reads lik e an a bandoned and hastil y dramatised
novel. It mak es incr edible demands on sta ge effects …29
Platonov was nev er perf ormed in Chekho v’s lif etime. Its main inter est lies in
its evidence of Chekho v’s e xperim entation with dramatic f orm. The subtle
blending of tra gedy with com edy, the hallmar k of Chekho v’s four matur e plays,
is no where evident in Platonov . The pla y swings wildl y betw een a n umber of
generic f orms , and the tone is equall y variable. Ra yfield notes that in this pla y,
Chekho v mix es 'the tra gedy of Platono v with the m elodrama of the hor se-thief
Osip, the com edy of the intriguing guests plotting pr ofitable marria ges, and the
sheer f arce of the her o’s incompetent handling of f our inf atuated w omen.'30
In his matur e pla ys, instead of alternating wildl y betw een diff erent g enres,
Chekho v dev eloped a technique f or cr eating synthetic tra gi-com edy. In these
later pla ys, events ar e both tra gic and comic at the sam e tim e, and the audience’s
response is made to oscillate betw een laughter and tear s. In these late pla ys
melodrama and f arce ar e not giv en equal status with tra gedy and com edy, as
they are in Platonov , but ar e emplo yed in a par odic manner that does not u pset
the o verall tra gi-comic tone.
The fir st full-length pla y by Chekho v to be perf ormed w as Ivanov . He had
been ask ed b y a Mosco w theatr e owner , Fyodor K orsh, to write a pla y for
production at his theatr e. Despite fr equentl y den ying that he w ould tak e on
such a task, Chekho v quickl y wr ote Ivanov in October 1887. This pla y, which
is still perf ormed toda y, is a transitional piece sho wing f eatur es that w e recognise
as typical of the late r ealistic tra gi-com edies , combined with the contin uing
legacy of the ‘theatrics’ that ar e so evident in Platonov .
At the tim e when Chekho v wrote Ivanov he had alr eady worked out in theory
what he wished to achiev e with his writings . Certainl y at the tim e when he w as
completing a r evised v ersion of the pla y to be perf ormed in 1889, Chekho v was
100Interpreting Chekhov

able to articulate his artistic aims with g reat clarity . In a letter to A. N .
Pleshche yev, Chekho v outlined a dual artistic aim that r emained of central
importance to him thr oughout his car eer: 'My g oal is to kill tw o bir ds with one
stone: to paint lif e in its true aspects , and to sho w ho w far this lif e falls short of
the ideal lif e.'31
Ivanov failed to achiev e the lif elike realism Chekho v sought, though it w as
certainl y much closer to lif e than Platonov had been. Ho wever, much to
Chekho v’s frustration, the second part of his artistic aim contin ued to elude him.
Several critics ha ve sugg ested that prior to the late eighteen-eighties , Chekho v
had simpl y wished to depict lif e as it is , with total objectivity , and that the
introduction of the second subjectiv e elem ent that e xpressed his attitude to wards
such a lif e was a major chang e in his artistic aims . Nicholas Mora vcevich writes
of Chekho v’s ‘m ellowing’ in his vie ws. He claims that he underw ent an ‘aesthetic
transf ormation’ that in volved the r ejection of his ‘y outhful aesthetic cr eed’
which had been based on 'his commitm ent to strict objectivity , which condemned
concern with a "m essage", and denied an y usefulness of a didactic stance in the
presentation of r eality'.32
Similarl y, Magarshack ar gues that a radical chang e occurr ed in Chekho v’s artistic
credo and asserts that Chekho v’s letter to Suv orin written on 25 No vember 1892,
're-defined his position as a writer b y finall y relinquishing his stand-point of
strict objectivity and placing the ‘aim’ of a w ork of art, i.e. its moral purpose,
at the head of all its other distinguishing mar ks.'33
In fact, Chekho v did not a bandon his vie ws about the need f or the artist to
be objectiv e in his writing , nor did he sud denly under go som e Damascan
experience w hich caused him to see the light and be con verted into a sociall y
committed writer . John Ha gan is essentiall y corr ect w hen he claim ed of Chekho v
that: 'After 1888, nothing could be clear er of cour se than his insistence that the
artist’s w ork exhibit a distinct "aim" or "intention" b y which he m eant not onl y
an aesthetic purpose, but a philosophic and moral one.'34
Wher e I believ e critics lik e Ha gan, Mora vcevich and Ma garshack ar e
misleading is in their assertion that Chekho v’s aesthetic cr eed had radicall y
chang ed. Chekho v’s g reater v olubility in the late eighteen-eighties concerning
his artistic aims r esulted less fr om an y chang es in his artistic cr eed than fr om a
growing sense of frustration with the r ealistic f orm he had emplo yed in writing
his pla ys. Incr easingl y, this f orm w as pr oving inadequate to comm unicate his
vision of r eality . The w orld vie w, which he had hoped w as being e xpressed in
his w orks, was constantl y being either o verlook ed or misinterpr eted b y reader s,
audiences and critics .
Chekho v cam e to r ealise that his use of the con ventions of r ealism and his
objectiv e non-jud gemental character depiction w ere adequate m eans to
101Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

comm unicate a pictur e of ‘lif e as it is’ in all its triviality . However, these sam e
means w ere not pr oving adequate to comm unicate the pla ywright’s criticism of
such a lif e. The critical attitude that he e xpected his r eader s and audiences to
have in r esponse to the w aste of human potential being depicted in his pla ys
did not occur . Both critics and audiences misinterpr eted w hat he w as trying to
say. The critical r eaction to Ivanov was to mak e Chekho v aware that he had not
yet created the f orm needed to comm unicate his vision.
Chekho v wrote the fir st draft of Ivanov in tw o weeks. In October 1887, ha ving
read and discussed his pla y with V. N. Davydo v who w as to pla y the title r ole
and w ho lo ved the pla y, Chekho v wr ote to his no velist friend Yezhov:
If I am to believ e such jud ges as Da vydo v, then I kno w ho w to write pla ys. It
seems that instinctiv ely, because of som e kind of flair , and without being a ware
of [it] m yself, I ha ve written an entir ely finished piece and not made a single
stage error.35
At about the sam e tim e, he wr ote to his br other Ale xander and r ecounted a
similarl y enthusiastic r esponse to his pla y by Korsh who w as to pr esent the fir st
production of Ivanov at his theatr e. Significantl y Chekho v’s pleasur e at the
uncritical gushing praise he w as receiving fr om these theatr e luminaries w as
temper ed by his o wn g ently sceptical attitude to ward his w ork:
It took tw o weeks, or rather ten da ys, as I had som e days off or wr ote other
things . I can’t tell ho w good it is … Ev erybod y lik es it. K orsh hasn’t f ound
anything wr ong or unsta geworthy in it — w hich sho ws w hat fine, sensitiv e
judges I ha ve. It’s m y first pla y, so ther e are bound to be som e mistak es.36
In No vember of the sam e year w e find Chekho v writing to his br other a bout
Ivanov in a f ar less ha ppy fashion: ‘Y ou’ll nev er guess w hat ha ppened. This pla y
… this wr etched piece of cra p — it’s g ot completel y out of hand.’37
This chang e in Chekho v’s attitude w as partl y due to the f act that r ehear sals
had g one badl y, but the main r eason f or the pla ywright’s anguish w as the
reaction of the Mosco w pr ess after the fir st perf ormance at K orsh’s Theatr e. As
far as Chekho v was concerned, the y had totall y misinterpr eted his pla y. One
reviewer described Ivanov as being ‘essentiall y immoral and r epulsiv e, a highl y
cynical libel on contemporary lif e and people’.38
Chekho v should not ha ve believ ed ‘such jud ges as Da vydo v’. Both Da vydo v
and K orsh had been br ought u p in a theatrical milieu that thriv ed on m elodrama
and the chea p theatricality that Chekho v was trying to br eak a way from.
Davydo v was not equipped to act, nor K orsh to dir ect, in the style suita ble for
Chekho vian drama. It seems , at fir st sight, surprising that these tw o theatr e
people should ha ve liked Ivanov at all. Ho wever, a closer e xamination of Ivanov
provides us with a r eason f or their positiv e response.
102Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v had f ailed to write the r ealistic pla y that he thought he had written.
What K orsh and Da vydo v had r esponded to in Ivanov were the theatrical
elements that the y recognised. They felt comf ortable with the pla y’s m elodramatic
coups de théatre . Perhaps unconsciousl y, Chekho v had lar gely conf ormed to the
rules of the Scribean w ell-made pla y. It w as the inher ent ‘Sar doodledom’ w hich
Korsh and Da vydo v had jo yfull y recognised. The ending of Act II in w hich
Ivanov is caught b y his wif e Sarah in the act of kissing Sasha could har dly be
more clichéd:
SASHA. … I lo ve you Nicholas . I’ll f ollow you to the ends of the earth, I’ll g o
wherever you lik e, I’ll die if need be, onl y for God’s sak e let it be soon, or I
shall chok e.
IVANO V. [With a peal of happy laughter .] What does all this m ean? Can I start
a new lif e then Sasha? My ha ppiness! [ Draws her to him. ] My y outh, m y
innocence! [ANN A com es in fr om the g arden, sees her husband and SASHA,
and stands r ooted to the spot.]
IVANO V. So I’m to liv e, then, am I? And start w ork again? [The y kiss . After
the kiss IV ANO V and SASHA look r ound and see ANN A.]
IVANO V. [In horror .] Sarah!
CURTAIN.39
Ther e is no detecta ble ir ony or humour in this scene. In Uncle Vanya the
equiv alent situation w here Vanya com es acr oss Helen being kissed b y Astr ov
is treated as being ludicr ous rather than straining f or dramatic eff ect as in Ivanov .
In the earl y pla y the cliché is simpl y a cliché w hile in Uncle Vanya it is giv en
new life by being comicall y sub verted.
The old-f ashioned and deriv ative form of Ivanov is apparent in the original
ending that Chekho v wr ote f or the pla y. Just as the g rotesque m elodramatic
events and heightened rhetorical langua ge found in Platonov contradict
Chekho v’s stated aims of putting lif e as it is on the sta ge, so the original finale
of Ivanov shows Chekho v’s failure to jettison the clichéd techniques that w ere
inappropriate to the achiev ement of his aim. The hustle and bustle of the e xternal
action copiousl y specified in the sta ge instructions ma y well ha ve been ha ppily
accepted b y Korsh and Da vydo v, who w ould almost certainl y have had little
difficulty in pla ying this nonsense.
Ivanov ends with Dr Lv ov entering and ‘unmasking’ Iv anov on the da y that
the latter has just married Sasha. In the mid dle of the celebration Lv ov bur sts
in and pr oclaims loudl y ‘Nicholas Iv anov, I want ev eryone to hear . You ar e the
most unmitig ated s wine!’ The sta ge instruction, r eminiscent of the consternation
générale so admir ed by French m elodramatists , is pr edicta bly ‘[Hubbub in the
Ballroom ]’. The final scene of the pla y then f ollows:
103Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

SCENE IX
[LVOV, IVANO V, SHA BELSKY , LEBEDEV , BORKIN and KOSYKH, followed by
SASHA. IV ANO V runs in from the ballroom, c lutching his head. He is f ollowed
by the others .]
IVANO V. What’s that f or? Tell m e why? [Collapses on the sof a.]
ALL. Why? What f or?
LEBEDEV . [To LVOV.] For Christ’s sak e, why did y ou insult him? [ Clutc hes his
head and walks about in agitation .]
SHABELSKY . [To IVANO V.] Nicholas , Nicholas! For God’s sak e — pa y no
attention. Sho w yourself a bove it all.
BORKIN . That w as a r otten thing to sa y, sir. I challeng e you to a duel.
LVOV. Mr Bor kin, I consider it deg rading ev en to e xchang e words with y ou,
let alone fight a duel. As f or Mr Iv anov, he can r eceiv e satisf action an y mom ent
if he wishes .
SASHA. [ Comes in from the ballroom, stag gering.] Why? Why did y ou insult m y
husband? … [ To her husband .] Let’s g et out of her e, Nicholas . [Takes his arm. ]
LEBEDEV . [To LVOV.] As head of the household, as f ather of m y son-in-la w —
that is of m y daughter , sir –
[SASHA shrieks and f alls on her husband. Everyone runs up to IVANO V.]
LEBEDEV . God, he’s dead! Get som e water! Fetch a doctor .
[SHA BELSKY weeps .]
ALL. Fetch w ater, a doctor , he’s dead.
CURTAIN.40
The fir st tw o acts of Ivanov are equall y ‘theatrical’ in the Scribean sense. It
is true that in this pla y people do ‘com e and g o, eat, … and pla y car ds’. Ther e
is a g reat deal of ‘eating , drinking , flirting , and sa ying f oolish things’, but instead
of all this r eplacing the intrigue-based plots of the w ell-made pla y, the trivial
day-to-da y incidents ar e additional to the plethora of ‘theatrical’ ev ents that
occur in the pla y.
Eventuall y Chekho v did r evise Ivanov and r emoved the unaccepta ble ending
where Ivanov literall y dies of sham e. He r eplaced this uncon vincing ending b y
having the ‘her o’ shoot himself. The pr oblem with such a chang e was that, w hile
it was less ludicr ous than the original ending , it conf ormed ev en mor e obviousl y
to the type of ‘dir ect action’ drama that Chekho v wished to a void. The mor e
‘theatricall y’ accepta ble his chang es were, the less the y fitted his aim to put lif e
on the sta ge.
It is not onl y the m echanical plot structur e and the theatrical incidents that
make Ivanov unlif elike. The characterisation itself is often lif eless and
two-dim ensional. The most theatricall y aliv e character s are creations lik e Kosykh
who is f orever talking a bout his disastr ous hands of brid ge. This car d-pla ying
104Interpreting Chekhov

fanatic is dra wn not fr om lif e but fr om the tried and true tradition of the comic
vaudeville pla ys of w hich Chekho v was a master . While Chekho v was to mak e
use of such comic types in his later pla ys, he w as to transf orm them into
three-dim ensional character s with an inner lif e. The one-dim ensionality of the
Nyukhin character in the original v ersion of Smoking Is Bad f or You is also
characteristic of K osykh, w ho has no dialo gue or e xistence that does not r elate
to his comic obsession with brid ge:
KOSYKH. [ Tearfull y.] Look her e everyone. I held a run — the ace, king , queen
and sev en small diamonds , the ace of spades and one small heart, see? And she
couldn’t declar e a little slam, damn it! I bid no trumps .41
A similar lack of r ealistic thr ee-dim ensionality is to be f ound in ev en the main
character s in Ivanov . Dr Lv ov’s constant harping on the subject of honesty and
Ivanov’s w hining guilt both ha ve a fix ed and w ooden quality that r emind one
of the character s that Strindber g attack ed in his For eword to Miss J ulie:
A character cam e to signify a man fix ed and finished: one w ho in variably
appear ed either drunk or jocular or m elanchol y, and characterisation r equir ed
nothing mor e than a ph ysical def ect such as a club f oot, a w ooden leg , a red
nose; or the f ellow might be made to r epeat som e such phrase as ‘that’s ca pital!’
or ‘Bar kis is willing’.42
Chekho v, who in veighed a gainst this type of clichéd characterisation w henev er
he w as ad vising friends or r elativ es on ho w to write, w as una ble to a void using
these clichés himself.
We are fortunate that the normall y reticent Chekho v has left behind a
considera ble amount of detailed inf ormation in his letter s concerning the
problems with Ivanov . The fir st tim e he becam e aware that all w as not w ell w as
during earl y rehear sals f or the pla y’s fir st production. In a letter to his br other
Alexander in w hich he stated that he ‘w anted to be original’ b y avoiding the
depiction of clichéd ster eotypes , Chekho v expressed his concerns a bout w hether
he had achiev ed this aim:
I don’t kno w if I’v e succeeded. K orsh and the actor s are certain it will com e off,
but I’m not sur e. The actor s don’t under stand, the y bungle things , they tak e
wrong parts — w hile I struggle on thinking the pla y’s doom ed if the y don’t
keep m y casting . If the y don’t do it m y way I’ll ha ve to withdra w it, or w e’ll
have a fiasco on our hands .43
Almost imm ediatel y Chekho v was aware that his pla y was lik ely to be
misinterpr eted. K orsh’s and Da vydo v’s initial enthusiasm f or the pla y seems to
have misled the y oung pla ywright. He assum ed that their enthusiasm w as based
on an under standing of ho w his pla y worked. What these tw o practitioner s
under stood and r esponded to w as the pla y’s old-f ashioned theatricality . Chekho v
105Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

knew that ther e were stale elem ents in his pla y, but he w as not concerned a bout
this. What pleased him most w as the characterisation of Iv anov which he f elt
was inno vative in an important w ay:
The plot’s in volved and rather clev er. I finish each act lik e my short stories ,
conducting it quietl y and peacefull y, but with a pinch on the nose f or the
audience at the end. I’v e put m y entir e ener gy into a f ew really powerful, vivid
scenes , but the linking passa ges ar e weak, f eeble and hackne yed. Still I’m
pleased. Bad as the pla y ma y be, I’v e created an important literary type and a
part that onl y an actor as g ood as Da vydo v would tak e, a part f or the actor to
expand in and sho w his paces …44
The w hole e xperience of r ehear sals w as traumatic f or Chekho v. He thought
the pr oduction w as sev erely under -rehear sed and complained to his br other
Alexander that:
Korsh pr omised ten r ehear sals, but had onl y four, and onl y tw o of those can
really be called r ehear sals because the other tw o were just occasions f or the
distinguished cast to indulg e in slanging matches with each other . Only Davydo v
[Ivanov] and Glama [Anna] kne w their parts . The other s got by with the aid of
the pr ompter and their o wn inspiration.45
To another friend he e xpressed his disillusionm ent with the pr oduction pr ocess:
Unexpectedl y my damn pla y has tak en so m uch out of m e that I’v e lost track
of tim e. I’v e gone off the rails and I’m heading f or a nerv ous br eakdo wn. It w as
easy enough to write, but sta ging it m eans a lot of nerv ous strain …46
The anguish of the self-styled ‘”aspiring” pla ywright w ho sud denly finds
himself a squar e peg in a r ound hole’,47 was expressed in the letter to Nik olai
Leykin in w hich he listed eight complaints . These eight Chekho v felt highlighted
only the most glaring concerns . He asserted that: ‘Ther e’s material enough f or
another tw enty items .’48
Korsh is described in complaint n umber thr ee as ‘a business man w ho just
wants a full house and doesn’t car e about the success of actor s and pla y’.49
Chekho v found the actor s, as a g roup, to be ‘spoilt, selfish, semi-educated and
opinionated. They loathe each other and som e of them w ould sell their souls to
the devil to stop a collea gue g etting a g ood part’.50 The despairing pla ywright
felt that: ‘the one consolation is that Da vydo v and Kiselevsk y will be brilliant’.51
Even that hope w as dashed. After the fir st perf ormance, Chekho v wr ote to his
brother Ale xander:
… I f ail to r ecognise m y own pla y right fr om the start. Kiselevsk y [Sha belsk y],
of whom I w as hoping a lot, did not g et one sentence right — literall y not one ,
he w as ad-lib bing … [In Act IV] Kiselevsk y cam e on. It’s a poetic, soul-stirring
passa ge, but friend Kiselevsk y doesn’t kno w his lines and is drunk as a lor d.
106Interpreting Chekhov

So a short, poetic dialo gue turns into som ething sluggish and off-putting . The
audience is baffled. At the end of the pla y the her o dies as the r esult of an insult
too g reat for him to bear . The audience, bor ed and tir ed by this tim e, doesn’t
under stand w hy he dies .52
At the tim e of the fir st perf ormance of Ivanov , Chekho v was so close to his
own pla y that he could not see that its f ailure was due not onl y to the poor
acting , but also to his o wn ine xperience as a pla ywright. He w as later to
ackno wled ge his o wn shar e in the pla y’s failure to comm unicate his vision. At
the tim e, ho wever, the painful e xperience of this initial pr oduction led Chekho v
to articulate w hat amounts to a Bill of Rights f or pla ywrights . He w as nev er to
relinquish his belief that ultimatel y the r ole of theatr e artists w as to serv e the
playwright b y working within the param eters and tolerances determined b y
the ‘commanding f orm’ of the pla y. Onl y nine months bef ore he died, he wr ote
to Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, the co-f ounder of the Mosco w Art Theatr e, that ‘the
important thing is to ha ve a pla y in w hich one can f eel the author’s sha ping
idea’.53
Feeling that K orsh and the actor s were missing his ‘sha ping idea’, Chekho v
had attempted to giv e them ad vice at r ehear sals. Soon after being ad vised b y
Nikolai Le ykin that such in volvement b y the pla ywright w as ina ppropriate,
Chekho v replied with his pla ywright’s Bill of Rights:
Your lines a bout pr oduction of pla ys puzzle m e. You write that the author onl y
gets in the pr oduction’s w ay, mak es the actor s uncomf ortable, and mor e often
than not contributes onl y the most inane comm ents. Let m e ans wer you thusl y:
(1) the pla y is the author’s pr operty , not the actor s’; (2) w here the author is
present, casting the pla y is his r esponsibility; (3) all my comm ents to date ha ve
impr oved the pr oduction, and the y have all been put into practice, as I indicated;
(4) the actor s themselv es ask f or m y comm ents; … If y ou reduce author
participation to a naught, w hat the hell will y ou com e up with? Rem ember ho w
Gogol ra ged w hen the y put on his pla y! [Fir st pr oduction of The Inspector
General ] And w asn’t he right?54
In the f ollowing month Chekho v wrote to Da vydo v and r ecounted the critical
responses that the pla y had elicited. Amongst these w as the vie w that ‘the ending
isn’t untrue to lif e, but is untrue to the sta ge. It can onl y satisfy the audience if
played su perlativ ely well.’55 It is difficult to ima gine ho w the pla ywright could
have justified ha ving Iv anov literall y die fr om sham e as being true to lif e.56
That Chekho v had not y et learned ho w to emplo y representational r ealism
to express his ideas is further sho wn b y his r esponse to one of Suv orin’s criticisms
of the pla y. Suv orin had rightl y seen that an audience w ould ha ve difficulty in
correctly interpr eting the central character . Suv orin’s sugg ested solution to this
problem w as to ad vocate that Chekho v adopt dramatic con ventions that w ere
107Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

alien to dramatic r ealism. In a letter to Da vydo v, Chekho v recounted Suv orin’s
advice:
Ivanov is sufficientl y character ised — no need to ad d or subtract an ything . But
Suvorin has his o wn ideas on this: ‘I can mak e sense of Iv anov because I think
I am an Iv anov. But the g eneral public, w hich ev ery author m ust k eep in mind,
won’t under stand. Why not giv e him a soliloquy?’57
Given Chekho v’s theor etical commitm ent to r ealism, w e might ha ve expected
him to r eject Suv orin’s sugg estion. But w hen he cam e to mak e his fir st revision
of the pla y later in 1888 in pr eparation f or its St P etersburg revival he wr ote to
Suvorin sa ying that he had f ollowed his ad vice:
I’ve radicall y chang ed Acts Two and Four of Ivanov . I’ve giv en Iv anov a
soliloquy , touched u p Sasha and so on. If people don’t under stand Ivanov even
now, I’ll chuck it on the fir e and write a story called I’ve had enough .58
Chekho v had not objected to incorporating a soliloquy f or Ivanov because
he had not y et full y realised the con ventional implication of adopting
thorough-g oing r ealism. The r esult is that the pla ys that pr ecede The Seagull are
part of a mong rel genre with f eatur es of r ealism uneasil y mix ed up with the
conventions of earlier dramatic f orms . The ad dition of a soliloquy f or Iv anov
did not violate the con ventions of Chekho v’s pla y, because the pla y, especiall y
in its fir st draft, alr eady had sev eral soliloquies .
Direct ad dress to an audience, w hile it ma y well ha ve been one of the central
featur es of the perf ormance of earlier drama, sounds a wkw ard in a pla y that
claims to be r ealistic. Modern dir ector s, who kno w the techniques Chekho v used
to overcome this a wkw ardness in his later pla ys, have used his later techniques
retroactiv ely to o vercome the difficulty inher ent in the use of soliloquies in a
play such as Ivanov which aspir es to be r ealistic.
David J ones, in his 1976 pr oduction of Ivanov , did not f ollow Chekho v’s
stage direction that Dr Lv ov enter and be ‘ alone ’. Rather than ha ve Lvov embar k
on a soliloquy in w hich he debates w hether or not to challeng e Ivanov to a duel
and f ollow this with K osykh entering and talking as usual a bout car ds, as
Chekho v specified, J ones had K osykh on sta ge with Lv ov from the beginning .
The r esult w as that the a wkw ardness of the non-r ealistic con vention of soliloquy
was replaced b y the r ealisticall y justified use of ‘disguised soliloquy’. Instead
of Lv ov talking to himself or to the audience, J ones, without changing a line of
dialo gue, lets Lv ov outline his plan to K osykh. This character is , as usual,
obsessed with his constant misf ortune at car ds and, ignoring Lv ov, launches
into y et another diatribe a gainst his brid ge partner’s lack of car d sense. Realism
is thus maintained b y ‘disguising’ Lv ov’s soliloquy . As J ones sa ys: ‘Lv ov thinks
he’s talking to him — but he is not.’59
108Interpreting Chekhov

One has onl y to think of the opening of Act I of The Cherry Orc hard, where
Lopakhin ‘soliloquises’ in the pr esence of Dun yasha, w ho is not listening to him,
or the opening of Act II of the sam e play, where Charlotte is on a cr owded sta ge
and ‘soliloquises’ to a v oid, in or der to r ealise that J ones g ot this idea of ho w to
play Lv ov’s soliloquy fr om his kno wled ge of Chekho v’s matur e dramatic
technique. This r etroactiv e application of the Chekho vian technique of disguised
soliloquy is completel y in tune with Chekho v’s stated aim of sho wing ‘lif e as it
is’. In eff ect, J ones has let the matur e Chekho v assist the fled gling pla ywright.
David J ones later had doubts a bout trying to ‘disguise’ the pla y’s soliloquies .
He admitted that, under his dir ection, J ohn Wood w as not full y successful in
realising Iv anov’s monolo gue in Act III:
In hindsight, I f eel our pr oblem w as a technical one. Ther e are mom ents in the
play, and this is one, w hen a character almost steps out of the scene and ad dresses
the audience. I think that if I w as dir ecting the pla y now, I w ould encoura ge
John to try to shar e the speech with the audience, in the Shak espear ean manner .
The eff ect, I f eel, w ould be both funnier , and mor e touching . As it w as John
was torn betw een thinking the speech thr ough to himself, and pla ying it out
to the audience.60
Jones’ earlier solution to the pr oblem of pr esenting Lv ov’s soliloquies w as
closer to Chekho v’s stated intention of making his dramas as lif elike and
non-theatrical as possible. The dir ector’s later idea of ha ving J ohn Wood br eak
the fourth-w all con vention b y having him dir ect his soliloquies to an audience
fails to accor d with the con ventions of r epresentational r ealism. Ivanov poses
difficulties f or dir ector s because Chekho v had not y et solv ed w hat Una
Ellis-Fermor calls ‘the pr oblem of con veying to the audience thought w hich
cannot naturall y form part of the dialo gue’.61
Chekho v consider ed that both Iv anov’s character and the central action of
the w hole pla y had been misunder stood. As f ar as he w as concerned, his
‘intended’ pla y had not comm unicated itself to either audiences or critics . In a
letter to Michael Chekho v, soon after the fir st pr oduction of Ivanov , Chekho v
comm ented:
Suvorin’s e xcited a bout the pla y. The funn y thing is that after K orsh’s
production no one in the audience under stood Ivanov — the y blam ed m e and
pitied m e.62
Chekho v was able to e xplain clearl y what he intended Ivanov to be a bout. He
was equall y per ceptiv e about w hy his artistic intention had not been r ealised:
I cherished the audacious dr eam of summing u p everything written thus f ar
about wincing despondent people and of ha ving m y Ivanov put a stop to this
109Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

sort of writing … My basic conception of the w ork cam e close to the mar k, but
the r ealisation isn’t w orth a damn. I should ha ve waited!63
Despite admitting that he had not f ound the f orm to r ealise his vision,
Chekho v expressed his satisf action with w hat he w as trying to depict. It is no
wonder that he should ha ve been so u pset b y the critical misinterpr etation of
his pla y. He had intended Ivanov to be a pla y about w asted potential. In
particular , Chekho v wished to sugg est an implied criticism of his central
character . Ivanov was m eant to be seen as an e xample of a literary type
well-kno wn in Russia in the late nineteenth-century called the ‘su perfluous
man’. Chekho v had alr eady attack ed this type in his f euilleton entitled A Moscow
Hamlet . The ‘su perfluous man’ w as a Russian mixtur e of the Byr onic her o and
Hamlet. He w as a type w ho w as desira ble to w omen and talented, but w ho could
find no satisf actory g oal in lif e and tended to becom e over-talkativ e, indecisiv e
and intr ospectiv e. Karlinsk y points out that: 'Chekho v had hoped finall y to put
to rest that tir ed old commonplace of the Russian critical tradition (still with us
today, alas): the su perfluous man, that sensitiv e and bright nobleman, una ble
to find the pr oper use f or his talents .'64
Simmons su pplies a useful historical conte xtualisation of this type. He writes
that:
Ivanov was intended to symbolise those people among the educated class w ho,
disillusioned b y the r epressiv e political and social conditions that f ollowed the
assassination of Ale xander II, had f allen into dejection and despair . Chekho v
wished to debunk this type, to unmask the futility of the intellectual w ho dr eams
pleasantl y about his past accomplishm ents but quails bef ore the a buses of the
present, then e xperiences a v ague sense of guilt o ver them, and ends with
unstrung nerv es among the ‘shatter ed’ and ‘misunder stood’ people of society .65
Chekho v had intended to e xpose the pr etentious natur e of this ster eotypical
character type. In particular , he wished to ridicule their f ailure to accept
responsibility f or their o wn lack of purposeful action. As Karlinsk y corr ectly
claims:
With his ha bit of br eaking thr ough ster eotypes , Chekho v wanted to sho w that
for m en of this ilk disa ppointm ent and frustration spring not so m uch fr om
immutable social r eality as fr om their o wn ina bility to translate their idealism
into a m eaningful pr ogram of action because their inter est in an y project or
undertaking f ades so quickl y.66
This ma y indeed ha ve been w hat Chekho v ‘wanted to sho w’, but the r esponse
of the critics and the public clearl y sugg ests that his intentions w ere not r ealised
in practice. What his r eader s and audience r ead w as som ething entir ely diff erent.
Karlinsk y accuratel y describes ho w Chekho v intended Ivanov’s per sonality and
the situation to be assessed. Karlinsk y writes:
110Interpreting Chekhov

With all his f aults and shortcomings , the w eak and ineff ectual Iv anov (his
ordinary nam e was meant to be symbolic) w as contrasted in the pla y on the one
hand with a g roup of pr ovincial bor es and g ossips , everyone of them f ar less
attractiv e than he, and on the other hand with the humourless radical f anatic
Dr Lv ov, who passes jud gement on him f or all the wr ong r easons and r educes
Ivanov’s comple x predicam ent to simple-minded sociolo gical clichés .67
Far fr om seeing Ivanov as a pla y debunking the ‘su perfluous man’, the
responses of critics oscillated betw een describing the central character s as y et
another a ppealing e xample of this sensitiv e and sympathetic type and seeing
him as the m elodramatic villain of the piece. Chekho v was equall y unha ppy
about the w ay that Dr Lv ov had been interpr eted. Ha ving completed a r ewrite
of the pla y, which he no w jokingl y referred to as Bolvanov , in pr eparation f or
its St P etersburg production, Chekho v wr ote to Suv orin a bout his attempts to
make Ivanov and the pla y clear er. In this long letter , Chekho v outlined the w ays
in w hich he f elt the critics and the public had misinterpr eted his pla y. He
provided Suv orin with an e xtraor dinaril y detailed and pr ecise anal ysis of his
main character s. He e xplained clearl y what he had intended to write. This letter
provides docum entary evidence of Chekho v’s aims , and w hen these ar e compar ed
with the pla y itself w e can see ho w and w hy his aims and intentions w ere not
met by his achiev ements. Chekho v explained to Suv orin that, as a r esult of the
revisions he had made:
Master Iv anov’s no w much easier to under stand. The ending doesn’t satisfy m e
at all — it’s too f eeble, a part fr om the r evolver shot — but I tak e comf ort in
thinking that it’s not in its final f orm y et …68
Chekho v’s hope that he had at last clarified Iv anov’s character w as dashed
when the pla y went into r ehear sal. No one seem ed to under stand his pla y, least
of all Suv orin. The frustrated pla ywright set out to e xplain his pla y:
The dir ector sees Iv anov as a su perfluous man in the Turgenev manner . Savina
[Sasha] asks w hy Ivanov is such a blackguar d. You write that ‘Iv anov must be
given som ething that mak es it clear w hy two women thr ow themselv es at him
and w hy he is a blackguar d while the doctor is a g reat man.’ If all thr ee of y ou
have under stood m e this w ay, it m eans m y Ivanov is a f ailure. I m ust ha ve lost
my mind and written som ething entir ely diff erent fr om w hat I had intended.
If my Ivanov com es acr oss as a blackguar d or su perfluous man and the doctor
as a g reat man, if no one kno ws w hy Sarah and Sasha lo ve Ivanov, then m y pla y
has evidentl y failed to pan out, and ther e can be no question of ha ving it
produced.69
Chekho v had hoped to a void the black-and-w hite characterisation f ound in
melodramas . He had hoped to depict comple x human beings . His Iv anov he sa w
as som eone w ho exhibited both the attractiv e featur es of the ‘su perfluous man’
111Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

and the w eaknesses inher ent in such a type. Simon Karlinsk y blam es Suv orin
and the pr oduction team f or their m elodramatic r eading of the character s of
Ivanov .70 It might be f airer to sa y that audiences at the St P etersburg production
had r esponded to the w ell-made pla y elem ents that w ere plainl y evident in the
play.
After giving a detailed anal ysis of his intended characterisation, Chekho v
reiterated the possibility that the misinterpr etation of Ivanov was his o wn fault:
If nothing I’v e described a bove is in the pla y, ther e can be no question of ha ving
it pr oduced. It m ust m ean I didn’t write w hat I intended. Ha ve the pla y
withdra wn. I don’t m ean to pr each her esy fr om the sta ge. If the audience lea ves
the theatr e thinking all Iv anovs ar e blackguar ds and Doctor Lv ovs ar e great
men, I might as w ell go into r etirement and giv e up my pen.71
In a postscript to that sam e letter Chekho v again e xpresses his sense of
puzzlem ent that som ething that w as so clear to himself should ha ve been so
difficult f or audiences and r eader s to interpr et corr ectly:
I’d hoped that the r eader and the spectator w ould be attentiv e and not need a
sign sa ying, ‘This is a plum, not a pumpkin.’ I ha ve tried to e xpress m yself
simpl y … I f ailed in m y attempt to write a pla y. It’s a pity , of cour se. Iv anov
and Lv ov seem ed so aliv e in m y ima gination. I’m telling y ou the w hole truth
when I sa y that the y weren’t born in m y head out of sea f oam or pr e-conceiv ed
notions or intellectual pr etensions or b y accident. They are the r esult of
observing and stud ying lif e. They are still ther e in m y mind, and I f eel I ha ven’t
lied a bit or e xaggerated an iota. And if the y cam e out lif eless and blurr ed on
paper, the f ault lies not in them, but in m y ina bility to con vey my thoughts .
Apparently it’s too earl y for me to undertak e pla ywriting .72
Chekho v was his o wn toughest and, in this case, best critic. He g ave plenty
of evidence that his character s were indeed dra wn fr om lif e. The m edical scientist
in Chekho v resulted in the pla ywright delineating with naturalistic objectivity
the w ay in w hich a neurasthenic per sonality such as Iv anov actuall y beha ves
in real lif e. He su pplied Suv orin with pa ges of inf ormation, both psy cholo gical
and sociolo gical, a bout the type of per son Iv anov was. Chekho v, who once
admitted to being deepl y inter ested in psy chiatry , back ed up his anal ysis with
evidence dra wn fr om curr ent m edical r esear ch. Iv anov is practicall y
psychoanal ysed in Chekho v’s letter to Suv orin. So Iv anov’s bouts of
world-w eariness ar e explained as f ollows:
This susceptibility to w eariness (as Dr Bertenson will confirm) finds e xpression
in mor e than m erely whining or f eeling bor ed. The lif e of the w eary man cannot
be represented lik e this:
112Interpreting Chekhov

It is not particularl y even. The w eary do not lose their a bility to w ork up a high
pitch of e xcitem ent but their e xcitem ent lasts f or a v ery short tim e and is
followed by an ev en greater sense of a pathy. Gra phicall y we can r epresent this
as follows:
As y ou can see, the descent f orms som ething rather diff erent fr om a g radual
inclined plane. Sasha declar es her lo ve. Ivanov shouts in ecstasy: ‘A ne w life!’
But the ne xt morning he has as m uch f aith in that lif e as he does in ghosts (see
his thir d act soliloquy).73
It was Da vydo v’s ina bility to oscillate betw een the moods of ecstasy and
depression that led Chekho v to adjust his high opinion of the talents of this
actor . He wr ote to Suv orin:
If a skilful, ener getic actor w ere to pla y Ivanov I w ould ha ve a fr ee hand. But,
alas! Da vydo v pla ys the part. This m eans that one m ust write concisel y, in a
grayer tone, k eeping in mind that all delicate shadings and ‘n uances’ will be
mingled in one g rey monotone, and that the y will be dull. Can Da vydo v be
tender and also wrathful? When he pla ys serious parts it is as if a mill w ere in
his thr oat, a f eebly-turning monotonous mill that acts instead of him.74
Chekho v was well aware that corr ect casting w as important in or der to achiev e
a proper sta ge realisation of his vision. He ev en did som e rewriting of the r ole
of Sasha because he admir ed the a bilities of Sa vina the actr ess pla ying the r ole:
Savina has a greed to pla y Sasha, but Sasha’s part’s v ery w eak and pr etty poor
theatr e. When I wr ote it eighteen months a go I didn’t attach special importance
to it. But no w the honour done to the pla y by Savina has decided m e to alter
her part radicall y. I’ve already done it in places , in so f ar as the pla y’s g eneral
structur e permitted.75
Chekho v eventuall y cam e to ha ve a mix ed opinion a bout the w orth of Ivanov .
Though he claim ed that his ‘character s live and ar en’t artificial’,76 he also cam e
to believ e that: ‘The pla y’s faults ar e beyond r epair .’77 In a letter to Suv orin,
he had to a gree with his friend’s criticism of the pla y: ‘Y ou’re quite right —
113Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

Ivanov probably is clear er in m y letter than on the sta ge.’78 Chekho v kne w that
something w as not right with the characterisation of his pr otagonist.
If we examine Ivanov without kno wing fr om other sour ces w hat Chekho v
intended, it becom es difficult to see in w hat w ays Chekho v’s character is actuall y
different fr om the literary ster eotype of the ‘su perfluous man’ that he claim ed
to be attacking . As Hingle y wryl y comm ents: ‘One could wish that Chekho v
had e xpounded the diff erences betw een Iv anov and the su perfluous man at
greater length.’79
Chekho v’s claim that Iv anov’s ackno wled gement of his o wn r esponsibility
for his beha viour sho ws that ther e is a central diff erence betw een his character
and the literary type, har dly seems to be justified. Most of the objectiv e evidence
for such a r eading is to be f ound, not in the pla y, but in the letter to Suv orin in
which he e xplained w hat he intended his character to be lik e. So Chekho v’s letter
clearl y states:
… w hen narr ow-minded, dishonest people g et into a situation lik e this , they
usuall y place all the blam e on their en vironment or join the ranks of the Hamlets
and su perfluous m en, and let it g o at that. The straightf orward Ivanov, however,
openl y admits to the doctor and the audience that he doesn’t under stand
himself.80
In The Duel (1891), Chekho v has the zoolo gist, Von K oren, characterise
Layevsky as a su perfluous man w ho, characteristicall y, blam es ev eryone but
himself f or his lack of driv e:
Why didn’t he do an ything? Or r ead an ything? Why was he so uncultur ed,
such an ignoram us? At ev ery question I ask ed he w ould giv e a bitter smile and
sigh. ‘I’m a f ailure,’ he’d sa y. ‘I’m a Su perfluous Man’ … Why is he so utterl y
degenerate, so r epulsiv e? The r eason isn’t in himself, see — it’s som ewhere
outside him in space. And then — and this is the cunning of it — he’s not the
only one w ho’s debauched, bo gus and odious . Ther e is al ways We. ‘We men
of the eighties .’ ‘W e, the debilitated, neur otic offspring of the serf system’.
‘Civilisation has crippled us .’81
Having been enlightened b y Von K oren’s v erbal attack on him, La yevsky
under goes a r egeneration pr ocess . Ivanov’s ‘enlightenm ent’ brings a bout no
such transf ormation but instead leads to his suicide.
It is clear that Chekho v intended Iv anov to be, unlik e the ‘su perfluous man’,
a per son of r eal integ rity. The pr oblem that f aces an audience, ho wever, is that
this su pposed integ rity is not made manif est in Iv anov’s beha viour . While he
takes Chekho v’s w ord that Iv anov has integ rity, the So viet critic G . Berdnikov
realises that ther e is still a major pr oblem of dramatic comm unication that
Chekho v has not solv ed in this pla y. Any audience m ember necessaril y interpr ets
114Interpreting Chekhov

Ivanov on the basis of the character’s beha viour and not on som e putativ e
subjectiv e integ rity w hose e xistence cannot be v erified:
Chekho v decided to mak e Ivanov precisel y this subjectiv ely honest per son w ho
tragicall y surviv es his do wnfall. The comple xity of the task r ested in the f act
that this subjectiv e honesty , while it r emained unquestiona bly a r eal attribute
of the her o, could not and did not chang e his highl y unattractiv e life.82
The pr oblem with trying to cr eate a ‘subjectiv ely honest per son’ is that, in
order f or spectator s to see the character in this light, the y must ha ve objectiv e
evidence of the e xistence of this subjectiv e honesty . Chekho v had to con vince
his audience that Iv anov did indeed ha ve an authentic inner lif e, and the onl y
way the pla ywright could do this , while contin uing to maintain his ideal of
objectivity , was to ‘sho w’ rather than ‘tell’ his audience a bout this so-called
authentic self.
The materialist Chekho v, who refused ‘to separate soul fr om bod y’, and w ho
claim ed that ‘outside of matter ther e is no e xperience of kno wled ge and
consequentl y of truth’,83 was committed to an essentiall y beha viouristic
representation of inner states . His ad vice to his br other Ale xander written in
1886 is typical of the con ventional limits Chekho v set himself in his writing of
either stories or pla ys:
In the ar ea of m ental states ther e are also particular s. May God sa ve you fr om
generalities . It is best to a void descriptions of the m ental states of y our her oes;
the eff ort should be made to mak e these clear fr om their actions .84
In Y. Sobolev’s r eminiscences entitled ‘Tchekho v’s Cr eativ e Method’, he la ys
great str ess on the importance of Chekho v’s beha viourist a pproach to
characterisation:
And this has to be pointed out with particular emphasis , for such also is
Tchekho v’s cr eativ e method: from the outward to the inward … F rom details ,
particular s, objects of the e xternal w orld — to g eneralizations , to the most
important and typical — to the inw ard, the spiritual.85
Chekho v kne w, like Freud, that m uch of w hat is important in people’s liv es
is hid den fr om other s. It w as not just the unconscious that w as important to
Chekho v. He r ealised that the inner liv es of his character s were rich with
conscious , but unspok en, thoughts and beliefs . The pr oblem he f aced as a
dramatist w as that, unless he could disco ver a w ay to comm unicate these inner
happenings , audience m ember s would not be a ware that this inner lif e existed
at all. Chekho v’s recour se to soliloquies in Ivanov attests to the difficulties he
was ha ving in comm unicating his central character’s subjectiv e honesty thr ough
purely objectiv e beha vioural m eans. All the audience could see objectiv ely was
Ivanov’s ‘highl y unattractiv e life’. Much as one ma y dislik e the moralistic Dr
115Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

Lvov as a per sonality , it is difficult not to f eel that m uch of his criticism of Iv anov
is justified, since the ‘her o’s’ beha viour to ward his wif e, for example, appears
indef ensible. The soliloquies intr oduced to clarify Iv anov’s character b y revealing
his innermost thoughts in the te xt did not adequatel y serv e Chekho v’s purpose.
In the fir st place, the y broke realism’s f ourth-w all con vention. The con ventional
strength of soliloquies had been w eakened b y the rise of dramatic r ealism and,
just as significantl y, by the a pplication of the ne w science of psy cholo gy to the
art of characterisation. As Esslin has pointed out, ther e had been a ‘basic
assumption that underla y all langua ge used in drama’ prior to that of the late
nineteenth century . That pr eviousl y unquestioned assumption w as 'that w hat
a character said w as not onl y what he or she m eant to sa y, but that he or she
was expressing it as clearl y and eloquentl y as possible'.86
Once the con ventions of r ealism ar e applied, such an assumption is
immediatel y questioned. We don’t automaticall y accept that w hat Iv anov has
to say about himself is the truth. We are forced to ev aluate him simpl y in terms
of his beha viour and that beha viour contradicts his claims a bout his ‘integ rity’.
Inter estingl y, Tolsto y made a similar , though less justified, criticism of Uncle
Vanya. He comm ented that Chekho v, when depicting both Vanya and Astr ov:
… mak es them sa y that once u pon a tim e the y were the best people in the
district, but he does not sho w us in w hat w ay the y were good. I cannot help
feeling that the y have always been w orthless cr eatur es and that their suff ering
cannot ther efore be w orthy of our attention.87
In Ivanov we find an isolated r eference to the her o’s integ rity in Act I w hen
his wif e Anna is talking to Lv ov:
ANN A. … He’s a w onderful man, Doctor , and I’m onl y sorry y ou didn’t kno w
him a y ear a go …88
In terms of r ealistic drama, an audience ma y well not accept Anna’s assessm ent
unequiv ocally because, in the conte xt in w hich she mak es this statem ent, she
may be simpl y def ending her husband out of lo ve for him rather than out of
objectiv e honesty . The onl y other assertions a bout Iv anov’s integ rity ar e made
by Sasha, w ho also lo ves him. Her comm ents can be interpr eted as stemming
from her ‘lo ve’ for him rather than an y adher ence to the truth. Chekho v did not
believ e that Sasha w as trul y in lo ve with Iv anov. Rather she is sho wn to be in
love with the idea of r escuing him. Ev en if one accepts this r eading of Sasha,
her comm ents a bout Iv anov cannot be r egarded as being ‘objectiv e’.
On the evidence of statem ents made b y two emotionall y involved people and
a number of self-justifying soliloquies , critics such as Ber dnikov accept the truth
of Chekho v’s statem ent that this character is a subjectiv ely honest per son.
However, as an y reading or perf ormance of the pla y illustrates , practicall y
everything that Iv anov does in the pla y contradicts the high claims made f or
116Interpreting Chekhov

him. Indeed, Chekho v depicts Iv anov as being unsur e about w hether or not he
has an y integ rity. At one sta ge, he sa ys that he is uncertain a bout w hether or
not he married Anna f or her mone y.
At the tim e of writing Ivanov , Chekho v had under stood in theory the idea
of a subte xt, but he had not y et disco vered the theatrical m eans to put that
theory into eff ectiv e practice. That the pla y enjo yed som e success w as mainl y
due to its con ventionality . It is a theatricall y via ble tr eatm ent of a lo ve triangle
and the e xternal ev ents of the pla y are at tim es exciting . What Chekho v had not
yet dev eloped w as a technique w hereby the implied subte xt could be
comm unicated to an audience. By disco vering the w ays in w hich actor s could
comm unicate this subte xt, Chekho v was to solv e the central pr oblem of literal
realism and r epresentational f orm. With the actor s using the r ealistic acting
system devised b y Stanisla vski in the perf ormance of his pla ys, the pr oblem of
expressing ‘thought w hich cannot naturall y be e xpressed thr ough dialo gue’
was solv ed. By cr eating pla ys with an implied subte xt, Chekho v was to r escue
his drama fr om the f ate of m erely depicting the surf ace triviality of lif e.
Throughout his literary car eer, Chekho v contin ued to accept the con ventions
of realism. These con ventions allo wed him to depict lif e objectiv ely. The te xts
of ev en his last f our masterpieces still pr esent the surf ace triviality of lif e in a
realistic f ashion. The subjectiv e or psy chic r eality of his character s was sugg ested
implicitl y thr ough the subte xt. Chekho v’s objectiv e depiction of lif e is not
compr omised b y his subjectiv e aim or purpose in writing . John Ha gan accuratel y
describes ho w Chekho v was able to combine objectivity and subjectivity in his
matur e work. Ha gan ar gues that the pla ywright:
… pr esents his character s and their beha viour so as to con vey their m eanings
by implication alone … Chekho v’s espousal of this technique in no w ay implies
that he w as indiff erent to all v alues but aesthetic ones . Ther e has been a g reat
deal of confusion on this point. It m eans onl y that he pr eferred to comm unicate
his jud gements and attitudes implicitl y rather than e xplicitl y, with the ultimate
purpose of pr oducing onl y an illusion of unm ediated r eality . The crucial
principle is that of inf erence: the writer , instead of spelling out and f ormulating
on an intellectual lev el the interpr etations and ev aluations w hich he w ants the
reader to mak e, pr esents him with sugg estiv e particular s and e xternal signs
from w hich he can dra w conclusions of his o wn.89
Progressiv ely, from The Seagull through to The Cherry Orc hard, Chekho v
made his te xts mor e and mor e lifelike, as he a bandoned man y of the m echanical
theatrical devices of the w ell-made pla y that he had used in earlier pla ys lik e
Ivanov . After Ivanov , Chekho v’s practice w as to begin to match his theory of
drama in w hich lif e should be pr esented on sta ge ‘exactl y as it is , and people
should be e xactl y as simple as the y are in lif e’.90
117Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

By the tim e he wr ote The Cherry Orc hard, Chekho v had mana ged to r emove
so much of w hat w as pr eviousl y regarded as theatricall y necessary fr om his pla y
that, as f ar as the objectiv ely pr esented te xt is concerned, almost nothing
happens . Skaftymo v aptly describes this dev elopm ent to wards what Ma garshack
calls the pla ys of indir ect action:
One of the salient f eatur es of pr e-Chekho vian drama is that ev eryda y life is
absorbed into , and o vershado wed by, events. The humdrum — that w hich is
most permanent, normal, customary , and ha bitual — is almost a bsent fr om these
plays. Mom ents of the ev en flo w of lif e appear at the beginning of the pla y, as
an exposition and a starting point, but subsequentl y the entir e pla y, the entir e
fabric of dialo gue is tak en up with ev ents; the dail y flow of lif e recedes into the
backg round and is m erely mentioned and implied in places … In Chekho v it is
entir ely diff erent.91
Chekho v seems to ha ve agreed with the narrator of his short story Gooseberr ies
(1898) w ho asserts that: ‘Lif e’s real tra gedies ar e enacted off-sta ge.’92 In all of
Chekho v’s major pla ys ther e are sev eral potentiall y theatrical dramas w hich
never reach the sta ge. In The Cherry Orc hard, for example, Mr s Ranevsk y’s lo ve
affair, the dr owning of her son and her attempted suicide w ould all pr ovide
incidents suita ble for a Scribean m elodrama. In Three Sisters we learn a bout, but
never see, Vershinin’s mad suicidal wif e. This sort of detail, the centr e of a
‘Gothic’ no vel such as Jane Eyre , is k ept totall y in the backg round in the pla y.
Likewise, in Three Sisters , the duel in w hich Tuzenbach is killed occur s off-sta ge.
The triviality of the ev ents that occur on-sta ge gain in significance w hen r ead
by an audience that is made a ware of the dramatic ev ents occurring off-sta ge.
As Skaftymo v notes:
Chekho v mo ves ev ents to the periphery as if the y were details; and all that is
ordinary , constant, r ecurring , and ha bitual constitutes the main mass , the basic
ground of the pla y.93
Chekho v did not do this simpl y because he wished to pr esent lif e
‘realisticall y’. If this had been all he wished to achiev e, he w ould simpl y have
been a kind of photo graphic r ealist. Chekho v kne w perf ectly well the diff erence
betw een lif e and art. His objections to Stanisla vski’s attempts to justify the use
of sev eral sound eff ects not specified in his script of The Seagull is clear evidence
that he wished to use r ealism with an artistic purpose. Me yerhold r ecounts the
incident as f ollows:
Chekho v had com e for the second tim e to visit a r ehear sal of The Seagull
(September 11, 1898) in the Mosco w Art Theater . One of the actor s told him
that during the pla y, frogs cr oaked backsta ge, dra gonflies humm ed, and do gs
howled.
‘What f or?’ ask ed Anton P avlovich, sounding dissatisfied.
118Interpreting Chekhov

‘It’s r ealistic,’ said the actor .
‘Realistic,’ Anton P avlovich r epeated with a laugh. And then after a brief pause,
he remar ked: ‘…The sta ge demands certain con ventions … You ha ve no f ourth
wall. Besides the sta ge is art; theatr e expresses the quintessence of lif e. Ther e
is no need to intr oduce an ything su perfluous onto the sta ge.’94
The achiev ement of v erisimilitude on-sta ge was not an end in itself f or
Chekho v. Ho wever, living w hen he did, he f elt bound to use the artistic
conventions of r ealism to e xpress his vision of r eality . This is har dly surprising
since, as Bernar d Beck erman notes: ‘[ev er] since “r eality” becam e synon ymous
with “r ealism” in the cour se of the nineteenth century , we find it e xceptionall y
difficult to disassociate the idea of “r eality” fr om that of v erisimilitude’.95 As
Skaftymo v rightl y claims , ‘for Chekho v in his e xcursions into drama, som e sort
of reproduction of ev eryda y life was an indispensa ble condition’.96
Chekho v however saw that the con ventions of r ealism w ere artistic customs
that w ere not to be confused with lif e itself. He kne w perf ectly well that the
conventions of r ealism w ere just as ‘artificial’ as the non-r ealistic con ventions
emplo yed by symbolists lik e Maeterlinck. Chekho v would no doubt ha ve agreed
with Ra ymond Williams , who wr ote a bout the importance of distinguishing
betw een art and lif e when ev aluating a w ork of art:
The action of a pla y … is often onl y incidentall y important in itself. Its
inter estingness , its truth, cannot be jud ged as if it w ere an action in r eal lif e.
Similarl y, with character s, the important dramatist is concerned, not necessaril y
to sim ulate ‘r eal, liv e people’, but rather to embod y in his per sonages certain
aspects of e xperience. That this will fr equentl y result in the cr eation of character s
which w e feel w e can accept as ‘fr om lif e itself’ is certain, but the r esult will
not al ways be so , and w e must be car eful that our jud gement depends not on
whether the character s are lifelike, but on w hether the y serv e to embod y
experience w hich the author has sho wn to be true.97
When w e look at his pla ys as a w hole w e can see a clear mo vement fr om the
depiction of e xternal action to that of internal action juxta posed with e xternal
inaction. What Ma garshack called the mo vement fr om pla ys of ‘dir ect action’
to pla ys of ‘indir ect action’ ma y best be illustrated b y a look at the decr easing
use Chekho v made of violence in his pla ys. Ronald Hingle y pr ovides the
following illuminating chart:98
Items Title of Play Date
Two attempted suicides — one on, one off stage; an
attempted knifing; a lynching off stage; murder by shooting.Platonov ?1880–1
Suicide by shooting (on stage). Ivanov 1887–9
Suicide by shooting (off stage, shot not heard by audience). The Wood Demon 1889–90
Attempted murder by shooting on stage. Uncle Vanya ?1890–96
119Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

Attempted suicide; an actual suicide (off stage, shot heard
by audience).The Seagull 1896
Death by shooting (off stage in duel; shot heard in distance
by audience).Three Sisters 1900–01
No shooting (but Yepikhodov carries a revolver so that he
can commit suicide if necessary).The Cherry Orchard 1903–04
From the tim e when he wr ote The Seagull , Chekho v was able to dispense with
much of the theatrical machinery of the w ell-made pla y and dev elop the dramatic
techniques that in volved an interpla y betw een an often comic te xt and implied
tragic subte xt.
The tw o lev els of te xt and subte xt ar e reflected in Chekho v’s dualistic
tragi-comic vision of r eality . Chekho v was always aware that lif e could not be
regarded as either totall y tra gic or totall y comic. K uprin’s m emory of Chekho v
saying that in lif e ‘everything is mix ed up together , the important and the paltry ,
the g reat and the base, the tra gic and the ridiculous’99 is su pported b y various
statem ents in the pla ywright’s letter s, in w hich he ackno wled ges that his
particular vision of r eality , and, consequentl y, the g eneric f orm needed to e xpress
that vision, could nev er be either pur e tragedy or pur e com edy. Chekho v’s pla ys
combine both tra gedy and com edy.
Even an earl y pla y such as Platonov , which dramatises highl y serious issues ,
is infused with com edy. The English dir ector and actor , Geor ge Devine, w ho
has dir ected this pla y, stressed the importance of the ‘humor ous aspect of the
young Chekho v’s w ork’. He noted that:
… w hen the pla y was pr oduced at the Ro yal Court in 1960, an e xtraor dinary
idea w as put a bout with considera ble v ehem ence that the pla y was meant to be
entir ely serious . A stud y of the te xt and sta ge dir ections will pr ove this
contention to be entir ely fallacious . Even in the near tra gic last mom ents after
Platono v has been shot, the Doctor shouts f or water, presuma bly for the patient,
and is handed a decanter . ‘The doctor drinks the w ater and thr ows the decanter
aside’, sa ys Chekho v’s sta ge dir ection. If this is not intended by the dramatist
to be funn y, in the midst of tra gedy, I’ll be conf ounded.100
In a letter to the poet Yakov Polonsk y in 1888, Chekho v wr ote a bout ho w
he found it impossible to write ‘seriousl y’ all of the tim e:
What am I to do if m y fing ers are itching and simpl y force me to commit som e
tra-la-la? Ho wever much I try to be serious , nothing com es of it, and al ways
the serious alternates with the vulg ar with m e. I su ppose that’s f ate.101
The comic g estur es that Chekho v’s character s mak e in their inept attempts
to realise their dr eams ar e juxta posed with the seriousness of those aspirations
for a better lif e. The f ailure of Chekho v’s character s to achiev e their aims or to
live up to their potential is often pr esented in a comic manner , but their f ailure
is not in an y sense inevita ble. P art of w hat mak es som e of the beha viour of
120Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s character s ludicr ous is the f act that the y could ha ve done better but
instead ha ve wasted their liv es. If ther e is a ‘tra gic’ aspect to the liv es of
Chekho v’s character s, it is not because of the e xistence of an y ‘tra gic
inevita bility’. As R. L. J ackson has con vincingl y argued: 'Man’s tra gedy for
Chekho v, lies primaril y not in an y absolute helplessness bef ore his f ate, but in
the f act that he is contin uousl y affirming f ate’s autonom y thr ough a bdication
of his o wn r esponsibility .'102
As w e shall see, one of the major pr oblems that has beset pr oductions of
Chekho v has been the tendenc y of dir ector s to dir ect his pla ys either as gloom y
tragedies or , mor e recentl y, as hilarious com edies . Chekho v complained a bout
Stanisla vski’s o ver-gloom y productions of his pla ys. He w ould onl y have to look
at a pr oduction lik e Robert Sturua’s Bakhtin-inspir ed postmodern deconstruction
of Three Sisters to see ho w pr oductions ha ve been pushed to the opposite pole.
It is an under statem ent to sa y that Sturua’s Three Sisters was an o ver-funn y
production:
It was, wrote Sheridan Morle y, theatr e critic of the Ne w York Herald T ribune
‘a knocka bout f arce … f orever trying on a ne w emotion as though it w ere just
another funn y hat’ (19.12.90), w hile the Mail on Sunda y noted that the
production w as ‘not short on high jinks , low jinks or ev en funn y noses’ …
Masha could be seen at one point in Act Two twanging an elastic band on her
comic f alse nose and ther e was, declar ed the Sunda y Telegraph , ‘a g reat deal of
horse-pla y, and b y-pla y, and just a bout ev ery pla y apart fr om Chekho v’s pla y
(16.12.90).103
Neither the totall y tra gic nor the totall y comic v ersions of Chekho v remain
within the param eters and tolerances defined b y Chekho v’s pla ytexts.104 Nick
Worrall ma y ‘not ha ve been in the least perturbed b y the lack of psy cholo gical
realism’ in the Geor gian dir ector’s pr oduction, nor w orried a bout ‘his esche wal
of emotional empath y in this deliberatel y stylised conception of Three Sisters ’.105
However, I find m yself deepl y concerned a bout a pr oduction that activ ely goes
against the pla ywright’s specific demands . Consequentl y, when Worrall states
that: ‘Sturua’s theatr e is not one of emotional identification, but one in w hich a
notion of the “theatr e theatrical” is deliberatel y foregrounded’,106 I vividl y
recall Chekho v’s desperate pleas to the actor s at the Mosco w Arts Theatr e to be
more lifelike and less theatrical.
No other pla ywright has been mor e realistic in f orm and, at the sam e tim e,
been a ble to e xpress truthfull y the tra gi-comic comple xity of lif e. Ev en Ibsen
preferred to use the basic f orm of the w ell-made pla y in man y of his so-called
realistic dramas . Chekho v was the fir st and possibl y the writer most thor oughl y
committed to the r ealistic depiction of both the surf ace and inner r eality of lif e.
Chekho v’s extensions of the e xpressiv e possibilities of r ealism ar e well described
121Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

by John Gassner and illustrate just ho w important his inno vations w ere for
generations of later dramatists:
For plumbing the depths of the individual psy che, r ealism w as of little a vail
because the r ealistic technique, with its ‘f ourth w all’ con vention and its a bsence
of poetic dialo gue and soliloquy , could pr esent our e xperience and f eeling onl y
on one plane; it could let audiences see onl y the surf aces that an y outsider sees .
Realistic drama is pr e-eminentl y logical, but the inner self is not lo gical. The
realist cannot allo w the individual character to e xpose his inner pr ocesses b y
means of soliloquies and asides , nor is he fr ee to sha pe the pla y to suit the
character’s state of mind. The or dinary con ventional r ealist is in the position of
the div er whose hands and f eet ar e bound, and w ho is depriv ed of a pipe line
through w hich he can inhale o xygen and comm unicate with the surf ace.107
Chekho v was no ‘or dinary con ventional r ealist’. We have seen ho w thr ough
the cr eation of a per ceptible subte xt he cr eated a ‘pipe line’ w hich su pplied the
necessary lif e-giving pr operties that allo wed for the comm unication of the
playwright’s o wn vision of r eality and all this w as achiev ed w hile still r emaining
within the bounds of r ealistic con ventions .
In the ne xt cha pter w e will e xamine The Seagull , in particular , its tw o
markedly diff erent pr oductions b y Evtikh y Karpo v in St P etersburg in 1896 and
by Konstantin Stanisla vski in Mosco w in 1898. Chekho v was to see his fir st
masterpiece interpr eted in w ays that caused him considera ble anguish. Chekho v’s
response to these tw o productions r eveals m uch a bout his o wn vie ws about ho w
the pla y ought to be perf ormed. Despite Chekho v’s reserv ations , Stanisla vski’s
production pr oved to be such a theatrical success that the surviv al of the Mosco w
Art Theatr e was ensur ed.
ENDNOTES
1 Glicksber g, C. I., Modern Literary Perspectivism , Southern Methodist Univ ersity Pr ess, Dallas , 1970,
p. 78.
2 Strindber g, A., ‘For eword to Miss J ulie’, quoted in Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Brec ht, Penguin,
Harmonds worth, 1968, pp . 81–2.
3 Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., trans ., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia
Press, Berkeley, 1975, p . 280.
4 When he w as a m edical student, Chekho v earned mone y to su pport himself and his f amily by churning
out f arcical short stories f or a v ariety of comic journals . Almost as if he f elt asham ed to ackno wled ge
these hurriedl y-written w orks, Chekho v distanced himself fr om them b y emplo ying a v ariety of
pseudon yms, the most common one being ‘Chekhonte’. In 1889, Chekho v receiv ed a letter fr om the
then-f amous writer , Dmitry Grig orovich, w ho encoura ged him to tak e his writing talent mor e seriousl y.
Partly as a r esult of this r ecognition, Chekho v beg an to w ork on his writing technique and took m uch
greater car e with his writing . The r esult w as incr easing f ame for his e xpertise in this literary g enre.
5 Krutch, J . W., Nation , 31 October 1928, in Em eljano w, V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage, Routled ge
and K egan Paul, London, 1981, pp . 338–9.
6 Magarshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 21.
7 Ibid., pp . 19–20.
8 Avilova, L., Chekhov in My Lif e: A Love Story , Methuen, London, 1989, p . 89.
122Interpreting Chekhov

9 Rayfield, D ., Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art , Paul Elek, London, 1975, p . 15.
10 Hingle y, R., A New Lif e of Chekhov , Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1976, p . 108.
11 Ibid., p . 88.
12 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. F . Mar ks, 1 October 1902, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol.
1, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1968, p . 189.
13 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Bibilin, 14 February 1886, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 151.
14 Simmons , E. J ., Chekhov: A Biography , Jonathan Ca pe, London, 1963, pp . 579–80.
15 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., pp . 150–1.
16 Ibid., p . 151.
17 Gottlieb , V., Chekhov and the V audeville , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1982, p . 187.
18 Chekho v, A., Smoking Is Bad f or You (1889), in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 1, Oxf ord
Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1968, p . 191.
19 Chekho v, A., Smoking Is Bad f or You (1890), in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 1, p . 197.
20 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 152.
21 Rapaport, I., Acting: A Handbook of the Stanislavski Method , Crown Publisher s, New York, 1955, p .
62. I use the term subte xt in a wider sense than Ra paport to include not onl y motiv ation, but all ideas ,
values and beliefs that ar e part of the inner lif e of a character .
22 Chekho v, A., Smoking Is Bad f or You (1890), p . 199.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Chekho v, A., Smoking is Bad f or You (1903), in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 1, pp . 157–8.
26 Gottlieb , V., op. cit., p . 178.
27 Ibid., p . 182.
28 Chekho v, M., quoted in Makar off, D ., ‘Notes on the Pla y’, in Chekho v, A., Platonov , Methuen,
London, 1961, p . 7. The man uscript of this unpublished and untitled pla y was onl y disco vered in 1920.
It has been perf ormed in v arious cut v ersions and is usuall y called Platonov . Possibl y the most successful
version of this pla y is Michael F rayn’s ada ptation, entitled Wild Honey .
29 Rayfield, D ., op. cit., pp . 96–7.
30 Ibid., p . 99.
31 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 9 A pril 1889, in J osephson, M., ed., The Personal Papers
of Anton Chekhov , Lear , New York, 1948, p . 150.
32 Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Chekho v and Naturalism: F rom Affinity to Div ergence’, Comparative Drama , Vol.
4, No . 4, Winter 1970–71, p . 224.
33 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 40.
34 Hagan, J ., ‘Chekho v’s Fiction and the Idea of “Objectivity”’, Proceedings of the Modern Language
Association , Vol. 81, October 1966, p . 414.
35 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . M. Yezhov, 27 October 1887, quoted in Simmons , E. J ., op. cit., p . 136.
36 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v betw een 10 and 12 October 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The
Oxford Chekhov , Vol. 2, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1967, pp . 284–5.
37 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 24 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 287.
38 Anon ymous r eviewer, quoted in Valenc y, M., The Breaking Str ing, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, Oxf ord,
1966, p . 86.
39 Chekho v, A., Ivanov , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 197.
40 Chekho v, A., Fir st draft ending of Ivanov , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, pp . 325–6.
41 Chekho v, A., Ivanov , p. 183.
42 Strindber g, A., ‘A uthor’s For eword to Miss J ulie’, in Sprigg e, E., ed., Six Pla ys of Str indberg ,
Doubleda y Anchor Books , New York, 1955, p . 64.
43 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 24 October 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 285.
44 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, betw een 10 and 12 October 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The
Oxford Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 285.
123Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

45 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 20 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 286.
46 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 4 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 285.
47 Ibid., p . 286.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., p . 285.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., p . 286.
52 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 20 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, pp . 286–7.
53 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, 2 September 1903, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on
the Short Story , the Drama, and Other Literary T opics by Anton Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York,
1966, p . 201.
54 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . Leykin, 15 No vember 1887, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., pp . 70–1.
55 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. N. Davydo v, 1 December 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 288.
56 One is r eminded of m elodramas lik e Hazle wood’s Lady Audley’s Secret , where the lead character
convenientl y ‘goes mad and dies’ at the end of the pla y!
57 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. N. Davydo v, 1 December 1887, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol.
2, p. 288.
58 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin betw een 4 and 6 October 1888, quoted in Hingle y, R., The
Oxford Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 289.
59 Jones, D., quoted in Allen, D ., ‘Da vid J ones Dir ects Chekho v’s Ivanov ’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol.
4, No . 15, A ugust 1988, p . 246. Accor ding to Moto wo Kobatak e, Chekho v’s character s ‘often giv e voice
to their f eelings and the other character s on the sta ge are uncertain w hether the y ought to listen or not’.
(Kobatak e, M., ‘Soliloquy and Modern Drama’, Theatre Annual , Vol. 18, 1961, p . 22.) Rather than being
embarrassed at another character’s e xpression of f eelings , it is mor e accurate to sa y that Chekho v’s
character s are usuall y una ware of other’s f eelings , being bound u p with their o wn inner liv es.
60 Ibid., p . 243.
61 Ellis-Fermor , U., The Frontiers of Drama , Methuen, London, 1964, p . 96.
62 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Chekho v, 3 December 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 289.
63 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 84.
64 Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 69.
65 Simmons , E. J ., op. cit., p . 138.
66 Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 69.
67 Ibid.
68 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 19 December 1888, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 2, p . 290.
69 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 December 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 76.
70 See Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 69.
71 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 December 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 80.
72 Ibid., pp . 81–2.
73 Ibid., pp . 78–9.
74 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p . 142.
75 Chekho v, A., Letter to F . A. Fy odorov-Yurkowsky, 8 J anuary 1889, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord
Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 296.
76 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 2 January 1889, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol.
2, p. 295.
77 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 31 December 1888, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord
Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 295.
124Interpreting Chekhov

78 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 6 February 1889, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2,
p. 297.
79 Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 297.
80 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 December 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 77.
81 Chekho v, A., The Duel, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1970,
Vol. 5. p . 147.
82 Berdnikov, G., ‘Ivanov : An Anal ysis’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov , Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey,
1967, p . 90.
83 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 Ma y 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 144.
84 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 10 Ma y 1886, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 37.
85 Sobolev , Y., ‘Tchekho v’s Cr eativ e Method’, in K oteliansk y, S. S., ed., Anton Tc hekhov: Literary and
Theatr ical Reminiscences , Benjamin Blom, Ne w York, 1965, p . 11. For a similar ar gument see Ha gan, J.,
op. cit., p . 417.
86 Esslin, M., ‘Chekho v and the Modern Drama’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion ,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985, pp . 135–6.
87 Tolsto y, L., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 16.
88 Chekho v, A., Ivanov , p. 179.
89 Hagan, J., op. cit., p . 415.
90 Chekho v, A., quoted in Melching er, S., op. cit., p . 75.
91 Skaftymo v, A., ‘Principles of Structur e in Chekho v’s Pla ys’, in J ackson, R. L., op . cit., pp . 74–5.
92 Chekho v, A., Gooseberr ies, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 9, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1975, p . 35.
93 Skaftymo v, A., op . cit., p . 75.
94 Meyerhold, V., ‘Naturalistic Theater and the Theater of Mood’, in J ackson, R. L., op . cit., pp . 65–6.
95 Beck erman, B ., ‘The Artifice of “Reality” in Chekho v and Pinter’, Modern Drama , Vol. 21, 1978, p .
154.
96 Skaftymo v, A., op . cit., p . 73.
97 Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Eliot , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1953, p . 21.
98 Hingle y, R., ‘Intr oduction’ to Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 2.
99 Chekho v, A., r ecalled b y Kuprin, A., in Laffitte, S ., Chekhov , Angus and Robertson, London, 1974,
p. 16.
100 Devine, G ., ‘Intr oduction’, in Chekho v, A., Platonov , Methuen, London, 1961, p . 7.
101 Chekho v, A., Letter to Yakov Polonsk y, 22 February 1888, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov: A
Life, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1970, p . 144.
102 Jackson, R. L., ‘P erspectiv es on Chekho v’, in J ackson, R. L., op . cit., p . 12.
103 Worrall, N ., ‘Robert Sturua’s Interpr etation of Chekho v’s Three Sisters : An Experim ent in
Post-modern Theatr e’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld
Culture , Peter Lang , New York, 1997, p . 79.
104 When Laur ence Senelick claims that: ‘Sturua’s ener getic and e xuberant pr odding unblock ed the
constipation of the English a pproach to Chekho v’ (Senelick, L., The Chekhov Theatre , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1997, p . 348.), or w hen Nick Worrall states that: ‘The critics w ho
complained that the pr oduction left them “unmo ved” w ere demanding sentim ental pr oductions of a
categ oricall y preordained type, based on esta blished traditions’ (W orrall, N ., op. cit., p . 82), the y both
imply that it is incorr ect to think that ther e could be ‘pr eferred readings’ of Chekho v’s w orks. It ma y
well be that Sturua’s unblocking of the constipation of the English a pproach to Chekho v resulted onl y
in his pr oducing his o wn diarrhoea. One w onder s if Worrall has consider ed the possibility that being
‘unmo ved’ b y a perf ormance of a Chekho v pla y is a sur e sign that the pr oduction is an inadequate
realisation of the w ork.
105 Worrall, N ., op. cit., p . 82.
106 Ibid., pp . 82–3.
107 Gassner , J., The Theatre in Our Times , Crown Publisher s, New York, 1963, p . 16.
125Failed Experiments: The Early Plays

Chapter 4. The Seagull : From Disaster
to Triumph
I reall y do believe that no pla y can be set up by even the most talented producer
without the author’s personal guidance and directions … There are dif ferent
interpretations , but the author has the r ight to demand that his pla y is perf ormed
and the parts pla yed wholl y according to his own interpretation … It is necessary
that the particular atmosphere intended by the author is created. (Anton Chekho v)1
A conductor is entitled to his own interpretation of a score; a director is entitled to
his own interpretation of a pla y. The question is , at what point does leewa y become
licence? (Michael Heim)2
Despite the f act that he f elt that Ivanov (1887) had not been interpr eted corr ectly
by critics and theatrical practitioner s alik e, Chekho v had scor ed a minor theatrical
success with that pla y. He w as to endur e the pain of seeing his ne xt pla y, The
Wood Demon (1889), f ail misera bly in its Mosco w pr oduction. J . L. Sty an is
probably corr ect w hen he asserts that:
The f ormer was a success with the public because it w as mor e closel y modelled
after the kind of m elodrama w hich w as common thr oughout Eur ope at that
time; the latter w as a f ailure because Chekho v had discar ded too man y of those
theatrical con ventions the audience e xpected.3
Chekho v was to w ait six y ears bef ore he a gain risk ed pr esenting a ne w pla y
for pr oduction. The Seagull (1896) is a transitional pla y that onl y partiall y achiev es
his aim of sho wing ‘lif e as it is’ in a r ealistic manner . The pla ywright did not
totall y avoid emplo ying the dramatic clichés that he had inherited fr om the
theatrical tradition of his da y. Alan Se ymour is quite corr ect w hen he points to
the e xaggerated claims that ar e made a bout The Seagull in terms of its ne w
‘realistic’ dramatur gy and contrasts them with w hat Chekho v actuall y achiev ed:
The author is … quoted as the g reat master of natural dialo gue, seemingl y casual
conversations w hich r eveal character and atmospher e indir ectly. How is this
for indir ect r evelation? Med vedenk o (Act 1, The Seagull ): ‘Nina Mikhailo vna
[Zary echnaia] is to act in a pla y written b y Konstantin Ga vrilo vich [T replev].
They are in lo ve with each other’ … and this to Masha w ho has liv ed in the
house all her lif e and ma y be pr esum ed to be alr eady in possession of this
information.4
This rather clumsy e xposition scene is symptomatic of the w ork of a writer
who w as still learning his trade as a dramatist. P ossibl y the most a wkw ard
hang over from the earlier non-r ealistic dramatur gical practices that Chekho v
seems to ha ve inherited w as the use of the aside and soliloquy . These con ventions
127

are unsuita ble in a drama that is aiming to be lif elike. Dir ect ad dress to an
audience has a long tradition in theatr e, but it f eels a ppropriate onl y in the type
of drama that ackno wled ges its o wn theatricality .
Chekho v, at the tim e of writing The Seagull , could not a void including man y
asides and soliloquies in the pla y. These pr e-realistic con ventions can cr eate
difficulties f or dir ector s attempting to achiev e the lev el of dramatic r ealism that
Chekho v desir ed. Irina’s aside in Act Three – ‘No w he’s mine’ – that mar ks her
triumphant r eassertion of po wer over her lo ver, Trigorin, r eminds one of the
heavily whisper ed asides of gloating m elodrama villains and can easil y produce
a chea p laugh.5 Treplev’s long soliloquy to wards the end of Act Four , in w hich
he talks a bout his insoluble writing pr oblems , is difficult to perf orm in the
realistic manner that Chekho v desir ed. Michael F rayn found Chekho v’s use of
soliloquy in The Seagull so a wkw ard that he ‘w as tempted to r eorganise the
scenes a little to a void the need f or soliloquy’.6 While Chekho v ma y not ha ve
totall y emancipated himself fr om the dramatur gy of m elodrama and the w ell-made
play, nev ertheless , The Seagull is vastly mor e natural and less o vertly theatrical
than his earlier full-length pla ys.7
The initial r eception of the pla y was not f avourable. In f act, The Seagull had
such a disastr ous pr emier e at the Ale xandrinsk y Theatr e in St P etersburg on 17
October 1896 that the author v owed: ‘I shall never either write pla ys or ha ve
them acted.’8 In fact, the catastr ophe that occurr ed on opening night had mor e
to do with f actor s outside the artistic str engths or w eaknesses of the pr oduction.
The ev ening’s entertainm ent had been chosen as part of a benefit perf ormance
for the w ell-kno wn perf ormer, E. I. Levk eyeva, whom Heim describes as ‘a f at,
mustachioed comic actr ess popular f or her comic r oles’.9 Presuma bly the audience
expected som ething in k eeping with the particular talents of this entertainer
and w as unlik ely to a ppreciate the subtle n uances of this ne w type of drama.
The audience ma y well ha ve kno wn that Chekho v had described The Seagull as
a com edy and consequentl y were bem used and u pset b y what the y witnessed:
Although ther e was no part f or her in the pla y, her f aithful audience filled the
theater e xpecting to be entertained — if not the w ay she entertained them, then
at least with br oad theatrical eff ects. (Pashenka , the pla y imm ediatel y preceding
The Seagull , had been a pplauded wildl y by the sam e kind of audience. It told
the story of a caf e sing er who marries into an aristocratic f amily, then esca pes
back to her f ormer lif e and shoots her self w hen her husband com es after her .)
Looking f orward to an ev ening of either f arce or m elodrama, the y made
vociferous fun of Masha’s sn uff, Treplev’s banda ge, and could onl y have been
bitterl y disa ppointed w hen Treplev’s suicide took place offsta ge. Chekho v
forced himself to sit thr ough tw o acts , but finall y he fled — fir st the theater ,
then St P etersburg.10
128Interpreting Chekhov

Lydia A vilova, an admir er of Chekho v, was pr esent at that fir st perf ormance
and has left us a f ascinating e yewitness description of w hat occurr ed on that
occasion. She, lik e man y other s in the audience, a ppear s to ha ve found the pla y
difficult to under stand. Her comm ents ar e useful insof ar as the y help us to g ain
some idea of ho w the pla y was theatricall y interpr eted in its initial pr oduction.
In particular , Avilova describes the manner in w hich the actr ess pla ying Nina
performed Treplev’s pla y. As w e shall see, the w ay in w hich this symbolist
playlet is interpr eted b y dir ector s and actor s largely determines ho w the pla y
as a w hole is interpr eted and defines the param eters within w hich an y audience
makes its o wn r eading . It is clear fr om A vilova’s description of the audience
response to Act One of The Seagull that the fir st audience f ound Treplev’s pla y
laugha ble:
The pla y seem ed to ha ve no m eaning f or m e. It seem ed to g et entir ely lost. I
strained m y ear s to catch ev ery w ord of ev ery character w ho might be speaking .
I listened with the g reatest possible attention. But I could not mak e anything
out of the pla y and it left no impr ession on m e. When Nina Zar echna ya beg an
her monolo gue, ‘P eople, lions , eagles …’ I hear d a curious noise in the stalls
and I seem ed to com e to with a start. What w as the matter? It seem ed to m e that
suppressed laughter passed o ver the r ows of people belo w; or w asn’t it laughter ,
but an indignant m urmur? Whatev er it w as, it w as som ething unpleasant,
something hostile … The curtain cam e do wn, and sud denly som ething
indescriba ble ha ppened: the a pplause w as dr owned b y boos , and the mor e
people a pplauded, the louder w as the booing . And it w as then that I could
clearl y hear the people laugh. And the y did not just laugh: the y roared with
laughter . The audience beg an to com e out into the corridor s and the f oyer, and
I hear d ho w som e of them w ere highl y indignant, w hile other s gave vent to
their disa pproval in bitter and v enomous w ords. ‘Som e symbolic trash!’ ‘Wh y
doesn’t he stick to his short stories?’11
Avilova’s description of the r esponse to Act Four conjur es up a scene in
which the St P etersburg audience destr oyed Chekho v’s pla y even mor e ruthlessl y
than Irina Ar kadina had demolished her son’s symbolist drama. The fir st-night
audience and the ‘star’ actr ess had som ething in common in terms of their
theatrical tastes . Both a ppear to ha ve had little sympath y with the ‘ne w forms’
of drama being off ered them:
In the last act, w hich I lik ed very m uch and w hich f or a tim e even made m e
forget the f ailure of the pla y, Kommissarzhevska ya (Nina), r ecalling Treplyov’s
[Treplev’s] pla y in w hich she had acted the World Soul in the fir st act, sud denly
tore off a sheet fr om the sof a, wra pped it r ound her self, and a gain beg an her
monolo gue, ‘P eople, lions , eagles …’ But she had bar ely tim e to start w hen the
whole theatr e beg an to r oar with laughter . And that in the most dramatic and
moving place in the pla y which should ha ve made ev eryone cry! They laughed
129The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

at the sheet, … ev eryone r oared with laughter , the entir e theatr e laughed, and
the end of the pla y was completel y ruined. No one w as mo ved by the shot that
put an end to Treplyov’s lif e and the curtain cam e down to the accompanim ent
of the sam e boos and jeer s which had dr owned the f ew timid cla ps at the end
of the fir st act.12
It was not just the thw arted e xpectations of an audience hung ry for an
evening of light entertainm ent that pr ovoked the f ailure of the fir st production
of The Seagull . It is g enerall y argued that ‘the main r eason f or its earl y failure
was that Chekho v’s artistic intention w as not under stood b y the perf ormers’.13
Most accounts of this fir st production jud ge it solel y in terms of w hat occurr ed
on the disastr ous fir st night. Daniel Gillès’ description of the r ehear sals that
Chekho v attended, and w hich su pposedl y gave him nightmar es, is fairly typical
of this kind of totall y neg ative approach to the St P etersburg production:
Under bad dir ection the actor s, man y of w hom had not y et learned their parts ,
under stood nothing of the character s the y were playing or of the poetry of the
play itself, and the y perf ormed with the bombast and g randiloquence that w ere
mandatory on Russian sta ges in those da ys. They seem ed not to under stand
what Chekho v meant w hen he often interru pted them to r epeat: ‘The main
thing , my childr en, is that it’s a bsolutel y unnecessary to mak e theatre of it. The
character s are simple, or dinary people.’14
The implication that the St P etersburg production had in volved dir ectorial
misinterpr etation and actor incompetence w as certainl y the ar gument put f orward
by the co-f ounder of the Mosco w Art Theatr e, Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, when
trying to con vince Chekho v that his compan y should be allo wed to pr oduce the
Mosco w premier e of the pla y. He wr ote encoura gingl y to the r eluctant dramatist:
Rest assur ed that ev erything will be done to assur e the pla y’s success … I am
sure that y ou w on’t e xperience an ything with us similar to w hat ha ppened in
the P etersburg production. I will consider the ‘r ehabilitation’ of this pla y one
of my greatest achiev ements.15
The closer one looks at the a vailable evidence, the mor e it becom es clear that
the pr oduction in St P etersburg w as not quite the debacle that both
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o and Stanisla vski w ere happy to assum e it had been.
Subsequent perf ormances a ppear to ha ve been r eceiv ed with less hilarity than
occurr ed on the fir st-night fiasco . Simon Karlinsk y has ar gued that e ye-witness
evidence sugg ests that Yevtikh y Karpo v’s St P etersburg production, ‘w hile
under -rehear sed and b y no m eans ideal, w as not as bad as subsequent leg end
made it out to be’.16 The y oung and lar gely unkno wn actr ess, Vera
Kommissarzhevska ya, who took o ver the r ole of Nina fr om the f amous actr ess
Mariy a Savina fiv e days bef ore opening , wrote to Chekho v four da ys after that
eventful night, claiming that subsequent perf ormances had been theatrical
130Interpreting Chekhov

triumphs . ‘Victory is our s,’ she effusiv ely wr ote, ‘the pla y is a complete,
unanimous success , just as it ought to be, just as it had to be. Ho w I’d lik e to
see y ou no w, but w hat I’d lik e even mor e is f or you to be pr esent and hear the
unanimous cry of “A uthor”.’17
Chekho v ma y have been partiall y con vinced b y the r eassurances pr ovided
by this actr ess w hose talent he admir ed, but he nev ertheless could not f orget
how poorl y the actor s had perf ormed on the opening night. He wr ote to his
brother Mikhail on the f ollowing da y that the actor s ‘acted as if the y were
asham ed to be in the theatr e. The perf ormances w ere vile and stu pid. The moral
of the story is: I shouldn’t write pla ys.’18 On 22 October , Chekho v wr ote to
Suvorin sa ying that he had r ecovered fr om his g ruelling theatrical e xperience
to the e xtent that no w he ‘w ouldn’t ev en mind doing another pla y’, but he could
not r esist describing the conditions under w hich his pla y had been pr oduced.
‘Actuall y ther e was onl y one g enuine r ehear sal, at w hich it w as impossible to
tell w hat w as going on; the pla y was completel y lost in a f og of vile acting .’19
Even Kommissarzhevska ya, who had impr essed Chekho v in r ehear sal to such
an extent that he wr ote to his br other Mikhail on 15 October sa ying that she
‘acts amazingl y’,20 had pr oved to be disa ppointing . ‘Kommissarjevska ya is a
marv ellous actr ess … but at the perf ormance she too succumbed to the pr evailing
mood of hostility to ward my Seagull and w as intimidated b y it, as it w ere, and
her v oice f ailed her .’21
Chekho v, ever the r ealist, thank ed one of the fir st-night audience w ho had
written to ‘pour healing balm on the author’s w ounds’, but r efused to den y the
harsh reality of his o wn e xperience:
I did not see ev erything at the fir st perf ormance, but w hat I did see w as vague,
dingy, dreary, and w ooden. I had no hand in assigning the parts , I wasn’t giv en
any new scenery , ther e were onl y tw o rehear sals, the actor s didn’t kno w their
parts — and the r esult w as general panic, utter depr ession of spirit; ev en
Kommissarjevska ya’s perf ormance w as nothing m uch, though her pla ying at
one of the r ehear sals w as so pr odigious that people in the or chestra w ept and
blew their noses .22
It is important not to confuse the fir st-night perf ormance with the pr oduction
as a w hole. Chekho v had e xpressed onl y minor dissatisf action with
Kommissarzhevska ya’s interpr etation of the r ole of Nina during r ehear sals. He
had ask ed her to tone do wn her perf ormance of Treplev’s pla y, since, as he
pointed out to her , ‘Nina is a y oung girl br ought u p in the country … she finds
herself on a sta ge for the fir st tim e … she suff ers from sta ge-fright, she is v ery
nervous'.23
When he sa w the pla y, Chekho v was disa ppointed with the perf ormance,
and ev en with the pla ying of K ommissarzhevska ya. Ho wever, it is clear that
131The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

this neg ative reaction w as exacerbated b y the f act that she had not done her self
or the r ole justice on opening night as a r esult of ha ving been ‘thr own’ b y the
bizarr e beha viour of the audience. Chekho v’s disa ppointm ent ma y well ha ve
been heightened b y the f act that he f elt that the r ole of Nina w as of central
importance in the pla y. He is r eported to ha ve told Karpo v, the dir ector of the
production, that ‘this part m eans everything to m e in this pla y’.24
Chekho v w as clearl y impr essed b y K ommissarzhevska ya’s o verall
interpr etation of the r ole. Clara Hollosi pr ovides evidence of ho w enthusiastic
the pla ywright w as about the perf ormance of this actr ess:
Despite his r eaction to this f ated pr emier e, Chekho v maintained a corr espondence
with K ommissarzhevska ya until the end of his lif e, and he al ways remember ed
her and her perf ormance f ondly. For instance, Efr os giv es his account of a
conversation with Chekho v on the occasion of the Ale xandrine Theatr e’s revival
of The Seagull in 1902: ‘W e recalled the fir st Seagull in P etersburg. A cheerful
smile a ppear ed on Chekho v’s sullen visa ge w hen he r emember ed
Kommissarzhevska ya’s Nina. I don’t r emember the e xact w ords, only the tone
— a tone of delight.’ Ev en a y ear bef ore his death, w hen the Mosco w Art Theatr e
was pr eparing a guest perf ormance in St P etersburg of The Seagull , Chekho v
sugg ested that the y invite K ommissarzhevska ya to pla y the r ole of Nina.25
Hollosi’s article e xamines and compar es the perf ormance of
Kommissarzhevska ya in Karpo v’s St P etersburg pr oduction, with that of
Roxono va in Stanisla vski’s Mosco w Art Theatr e production in 1898. Ha ving
shown that Chekho v ob viousl y preferred the earlier interpr etation of Nina’s
role, Hollosi nev ertheless r efuses to ackno wled ge that Ro xono va’s interpr etation
of the r ole w as in an y way inferior to that of K ommissarzhevska ya. Hollosi states
that her article:
… does not intend to sugg est that either of the tw o Nina interpr etations
discussed … is ‘corr ect’ or ‘incorr ect’ in accor dance with Chekho v’s lik es or
dislik es: since Stanisla vski the dir ector -oriented theatr e has long w on its right
for independent interpr etations of the classics .26
Hollosi’s g enuflection to the concept of dir ector’s theatr e denies the r eal value
of her r esear ch. By accepting the idea that ther e is no necessary ne xus betw een
the pla ywright’s pla y and the dir ector’s interpr etation of it, she allo ws for no
possibility of dir ectorial misinterpr etation. She concludes b y making the trivial
claim that her stud y ‘simpl y wishes to thr ow light on Chekho v’s r eactions to
some earl y stage interpr etations of one of his f ascinating ambiguous character s’.27
What Hollosi’s r esear ch has achiev ed, I believ e, is m uch mor e significant than
she claims .
If one does not accept the highl y questiona ble claim that dir ector s have a
‘right’ to ‘independent’ interpr etations , in w hich their dir ectorial decisions need
132Interpreting Chekhov

bear no r elation to w hat Susanne Lang er has called the ‘immanent f orm’ of the
play; if w e can accept that som e productions ar e better than other s, on the g round
that the y mor e full y realise the action of the pla y; and if, in f act, w e accept that
a play can be misinterpr eted, then w e can learn fr om Hollosi’s article the e xtent
to w hich Stanisla vski misinterpr eted the r ole of Nina and distorted the
significance of Treplev’s symbolist pla y. Ultimatel y, the inf ormation su pplied
in Hollosi’s article helps g reatly to e xplain w hy Chekho v felt Stanisla vski did
not under stand his pla ys.
We need to e xamine the w ays in w hich Stanisla vski f ailed to r ealise on sta ge
the vision of r eality e xpressed in Chekho v’s pla yscript and pr ovide som e
explanation w hy this dir ector , despite ha ving misinterpr eted The Seagull ,
nevertheless had such a success with this pr oduction that the Mosco w Art
Theatr e adopted an ima ge of a sea gull as its emblem.
Stanisla vski w as honest enough to admit in his later writings that he f ound
The Seagull ‘strang e and monotonous after its fir st reading’ and, ev en after ha ving
listened to Nemir ovich-Danchenk o explain the pla y and ha ving g rown to lik e
the character s, he conf essed that ‘as soon as I r emained alone with the script of
the pla y, I ceased to lik e it and w as bor ed with it’.28 Despite his misgivings ,
Stanisla vski set a bout pr eparing a detailed mise-en-scène for the pla y in the
manner of the autocratic dir ector . As he himself put it: ‘At that tim e, while our
actor s were yet untrained, the despotic m ethods of the sta ge dir ector w ere in
full f orce. The sta ge director of necessity becam e the onl y creator of the pla y.’29
An e xamination of Stanisla vski’s pr ompt-book f or this pr oduction r eveals
his obsession with making the sta ge ‘lifelike’ and pr ovides evidence that helps
us to under stand w hy this auteur dir ector often missed the artistic point of
Chekho v’s under stated dramatur gy. In his writings on the theatr e, Me yerhold,
who pla yed Treplev in this pr oduction, r ecalled a typical case of Stanisla vskian
overkill. The dir ector’s lo ve of literal r ealism w as combined with his lo ve of
melodrama to pr oduce the kind of ‘theatricality’ that Chekho v was specificall y
trying to a void:
One of the actor s proudly told Chekho v that the dir ector intended to bring the
entir e household, including a w oman with a child crying , on to the sta ge at the
close of the thir d act of The Seagull . Chekho v said: ‘He m ustn’t. It w ould be lik e
playing pianissimo on the piano and ha ving the lid sud denly crash do wn.’ ‘But
in lif e it often ha ppens that the pianissimo is interru pted quite une xpectedl y
by the f orte,’ r eported one of the actor s. ‘Yes, but the sta ge demands a deg ree
of artifice,’ said A. P . ‘You ha ve no f ourth w all. Besides , the sta ge is art, the
stage reflects the quintessence of lif e and ther e is no need to intr oduce an ything
superfluous on to it.’30
133The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

Chekho v was too ill to lea ve Yalta and com e up to Mosco w to see the Mosco w
Art Theatr e’s ‘successful’ pr oduction of The Seagull , but he begg ed to see a
special perf ormance of the pla y when he had r ecovered enough to tra vel to
Mosco w earl y in 1899. Chekho v had e xplained to Stanisla vski w hy it w as vital
for him to see the pr oduction: ‘Listen, it is necessary f or m e. I am its author .
How can I write an ything else until I ha ve seen it?’31 Stanisla vski sta ged a
special perf ormance, without the use of sets , for Chekho v’s benefit. Being a ble
to concentrate on the actor s’ interpr etations of their r oles, Chekho v soon made
it clear to Stanisla vski that he dislik ed the dandified manner in w hich the dir ector
played the r ole of the writer , Trigorin, but his most scathing criticism w as aim ed
at the actr ess Ro xono va for w hat he f elt w as her inept portra yal of the r ole of
Nina. Writing to Maxim Gor ky soon after he had seen this perf ormance, he
conceded that it ‘w asn’t bad on the w hole’, but w as deepl y distr essed b y sev eral
performances: ‘I can’t jud ge the pla y with equanimity , because the sea gull her self
gave such an a bomina ble perf ormance — she blub bered loudl y thr oughout.‘32
Stanisla vski’s o wn account of Chekho v’s reaction r eveals just ho w upset the
playwright w as at Ro xono va’s depiction of Nina as a w eeping neur otic. During
the act br eaks in the perf ormance of the pla y the dir ector observ ed Chekho v
and noted that ‘his f ace bor e no signs of inner jo y’. At the conclusion of the pla y
he deliv ered his critique of the acting:
Chekho v praised som e of the actor s, other s receiv ed their full m eed of blam e.
This w as true of one actr ess especiall y, with w hose w ork Chekho v was
completel y dissatisfied. ‘Listen,’ he said, ‘she can’t act in m y pla y. You ha ve
another actr ess w ho could be m uch finer in the part, w ho is a m uch better
actress.’33
When Stanisla vski pointed out that to r eplace Ro xono va in the r ole w ould
be tantamount to firing her , Chekho v appear s to ha ve been so u pset b y her
interpr etation that, in his desir e to ha ve her r eplaced, he ev en w ent as f ar as to
threaten the dir ector . ‘Listen,’ Stanisla vski r eports him sa ying, ‘I will tak e the
play away from y ou.’ Despite hoping that Chekho v would calm do wn and f orget
about the idea of r eplacing Ro xono va, Stanisla vski w as surprised w hen he k ept
repeating: ‘Listen, she can’t act in m y pla y.’34
The f act that Chekho v was ‘appalled’ b y ‘the h ysterical interpr etation of
Nina’35 has been noted b y man y critics , and most assum e that the actr ess w as
to blam e for this depiction. Ho wever, evidence cited in Hollosi’s article sugg ests
that Ro xono va was attempting an interpr etation of the r ole that w as uncong enial
to her but w hich had been f oisted on her b y Stanisla vski. As Braun has pointed
out, the autocratic a pproach that characterised Stanisla vski’s dir ecting style at
this sta ge of his car eer m eant that he contr olled ev ery elem ent of the pr oduction.
‘Every detail of the pr oduction w as prescribed, including the actor’s ev ery mo ve,
gestur e, and v ocal inflection.’36 Apparently Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, who w as
134Interpreting Chekhov

in char ge of the ‘literary’ interpr etation of the pla y’s ‘content’, had interpr eted
Nina in a positiv e manner . However, Stanisla vski, w hose assigned task w as the
‘formal’ sta ge realisation of that interpr etation, disa greed with his partner’s vie w
of Nina’s character .37
Essentiall y, Stanisla vski r egarded Nina as a f ailure in both her lif e and her
art. He had, as Ma garshack points out in his bio graphy of the dir ector , ‘entir ely
misunder stood the character of Nina and in doing so distorted the ruling idea
of the pla y’.38 That ruling idea w as bound u p with Nina, and in particular with
her a bility to g row, suff er and ultimatel y to endur e the painful vicissitudes of
living a lif e without illusions . She embodies the hopeful aspects of Chekho v’s
overall vision of r eality . Unless she is interpr eted in a positiv e manner , this
‘com edy’ becom es a f orlorn eleg y celebrating the a bsurdity of the human
condition. The Seagull becom es the pla y described b y Gillès , nam ely, ‘the drama
— or the com edy, accor ding to the author’s self-eff acing and dishonest subtitle
— of ambitions that will nev er be r ealised, of inevita bly doom ed ambitions’.39
If, as I ha ve argued, Chekho v is demonstra bly not an a bsurdist, but rather a
cautious optimist — ‘a believ er in a brighter futur e for the human race’, as
Magarshack puts it — then, in or der to allo w this pla y to ‘imper ceptiv ely [force]
the spectator to identify himself with this belief’,40 Nina’s speeches to Treplev
near the end of Act Four m ust be perf ormed in a manner that sugg ests that she
is not deluding her self:
NINA. … Constantine [T replev], I kno w no w, I’ve com e to see, that in our w ork
— no matter w hether w e’re actor s or writer s — the g reat thing isn’t f ame or
glory , it isn’t w hat I used to dr eam of, but simpl y stamina. You m ust kno w ho w
to bear y our cr oss and ha ve faith. I ha ve faith and things don’t hurt m e so m uch
now. And w hen I think of m y vocation I’m not afraid of lif e.41
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, who had a high r egard for the actr ess Ro xono va,
even telling Chekho v that this ‘spirited y oung actr ess’ had been described b y
the painter Iv anov as ‘A little Duse’,42 felt mo ved to tell Chekho v that her
performance had not been u p to the standar d of the other perf ormers in the
otherwise highl y successful fir st-night perf ormance of the pla y in Mosco w. The
reasons that Nemir ovich cites f or this r elativ e failure are revealing . Having giv en
a detailed description of the w onderful r eception giv en to the perf ormance, he
comm ents on the acting:
Weakest of all w as Roksano va who w as confused b y Alekseiev [Stanisla vski],
who dir ected her to pla y lik e som e idiot. I g ot ang ry with her and demanded
that she g o back to the earlier l yrical tone. That confused her .43
Any actor w ho has ev er been sim ultaneousl y dir ected b y two dir ector s with
very diff erent ideas a bout the sam e sho w will a ppreciate w hy Ro xono va had
every right to be ‘confused’. Chekho v had seen tw o rehear sals on 9 and 11
135The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

September 1898 and, pr esuma bly, the actr ess pla ying Nina had been f ollowing
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s ‘lyrical’ interpr etation of the r ole, w hich seems to ha ve
accor ded with Chekho v’s o wn conception. He wr ote to the writer Yezhov: ‘I
saw tw o rehear sals; I lik e it. Ro xano va is quite g ood.’44 He r eceiv ed ne ws in
Yalta ho wever w hich sugg ested that som ething w as wr ong with Ro xono va’s
performance b y the tim e the pla y actuall y opened. Chekho v had ask ed Yezhov
to write and giv e him his impr essions of the perf ormance. Yezhov replied:
Seagull-Zar echna ya — Mm e Roxono va was over-anxious to act w ell, but she
couldn’t ev en giv e a glimpse of the g entle Nina. Her attitude w as all wr ong, it
was as if she w ere groping blindl y, and in each monolo gue she w as sear ching
for the corr ect path, but alas , could not find it.45
Chekho v’s ang er at the w ay Nina had been turned into a sob bing wr eck
under Stanisla vski’s dir ection is r ecorded vividl y in Olg a Knipper’s m emoir s.
In particular Chekho v was furious at the w ay Act Four — the Act in w hich Nina
was su pposed to f ace the w orld’s har dships with ‘f aith’ — had been totall y
misinterpr eted:
Chekho v, the mild-manner ed Chekho v, walked on the sta ge with his w atch in
his hand, looking g rave and pale, and declar ed in a v ery determined v oice that
everything w as excellent, ‘but,’ he contin ued, ‘I sugg est that m y pla y should
end with the Third Act: I shall not permit y ou to pla y the Fourth Act.’ He w as
dissatisfied with man y things , chiefl y with the tempo of the pla y. He w as very
excited, and told us that the Fourth Act w as not fr om his pla y.46
Stanisla vski had not simpl y indulg ed his penchant f or making the sta ge
‘lifelike’ by including w hat w as to becom e his trademar k — the use of a
multiplicity of naturalistic sound eff ects and atten uated pr egnant pauses — he
had transf ormed the action of Chekho v’s pla y to such an e xtent that, f ar from
being a drama in w hich inauthentic and spineless beha viour is sho wn to r educe
life to a bsurdity, and coura geous endurance and w ork is seen as the hope f or
impr oving the conditions of lif e, it becam e a self-pitying depiction of fin-de-sièc le
gloom and despair . The pla y for Stanisla vski w as about the r omantic tra gedy of
the misunder stood and underv alued artist, and this interpr etation w as pushed
by the dir ector with all of the sentim entality that he used so eff ectiv ely on his
productions of m elodramas . ‘The tra gedy,’ he claim ed, ‘is self-evident. Can the
provincial mother under stand the comple x longings of her talented son?’47
Once ha ving decided that Treplev w as som e sort of g enius ‘with the soul of
Chekho v and a true compr ehension of art’,48 Stanisla vski had to find an
explanation w hy this g reat talent w asn’t imm ediatel y recognised w hen Treplev’s
symbolist pla ylet w as perf ormed. The sca pegoat w as near at hand. ‘Nina
Zarechna ya is the cause of the f ailure of Treplev’s talented pla y.’49
136Interpreting Chekhov

In My Lif e in Art Stanisla vski outlines the r eading of Nina that he tried to
impose on Ro xono va. It bear s little r esemblance to the ‘l yrical’ interpr etation
suggested b y Nemir ovich-Danchenk o and lacks an y of the maturity and r esilience
that is implied in Chekho v’s script, and w hich w as such an important aspect of
the vision of r eality that he wished to depict. Writing in the o verblo wn florid
style that w as so cong enial to him, Stanisla vski cr eates the m elodrama r eplete
with villains and her oes in w hich his Nina can function:
She is not an actr ess, although she dr eams of being one so as to earn the lo ve of
the w orthless Trigorin. She does not under stand w hat she is pla ying. She is too
young to under stand the deep gloom of the soul of Treplev . She has not y et
suffered enough to per ceive the eternal tra gedy of the w orld. She m ust fir st fall
in love with the scoundr elly Lovelace Trigorin and giv e him all that is beautiful
in woman, giv e it to him in v ain, at an accidental m eeting in som e low inn. The
young and beautiful lif e is def ormed and killed just as m eaninglessl y as the
beautiful w hite sea gull w as killed b y Treplev because of nothing to do . Poor
Nina, bef ore under standing the depth of w hat she is pla ying, must bear a child
in secr et, m ust suff er hung er and priv ation man y years, dragging her self thr ough
the lo wer depths of all the pr ovincial theatr es, must com e to kno w the
scoundr elly attentions of m erchants to a y oung actr ess, must com e to kno w her
own giftlessness , in or der to be a ble in her last f arewell m eeting with Treplev
in the f ourth act of the pla y to f eel at last all the eternal and tra gic depth of
Treplev’s monolo gue, and perha ps for the last and onl y tim e say it lik e a true
actress and f orce Treplev and the spectator s in the theatr e to shed hol y tear s
called f orth b y the po wer of art.50
Here we have the perf ect e xample of the limitations of Stanisla vski as a
director of Chekho v’s pla ys. While not being politicall y radical, the pla ywright’s
social ideas w ere far mor e progressiv e than the conserv ative Stanisla vski, w hose
attitude to wards Nina r eveals ho w little he under stood this ‘ne w w oman’.
Stanisla vski’s str ength la y in his a bility to cr eate e xciting theatr e.
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s own criticisms of Stanisla vski’s a pproach ar e extremely
perceptiv e and highlight both the dir ector’s str engths and w eaknesses:
You ar e an e xceptional regisseur , but so f ar onl y for melodrama or f or farce, for
productions full of dazzling sta ge eff ects, but w hich bind y ou neither to
psycholo gical nor to v erbal demands . You trample u pon ev ery cr eativ e
production. Som etimes you ha ve the g ood f ortune to fuse with it; in such an
instance the r esult is e xcellent, but mor e often after the fir st tw o acts the author ,
if he ha ppens to be a g reat poet or a g reat pla ywright, begins to call y ou to
account f or your inattention to his pla y’s deepest and most significant inner
movements. And that is w hy with the thir d act y our perf ormances begin their
downw ard turn.51
137The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

We now ha ve evidence concerning the w ays in w hich Stanisla vski chang ed
the m eaning of the pla y. The Russian critic, M. Str oyeva, noted ho w Nina w as
encoura ged to pr esent her self as a f ailure, an ima ge of ‘ruined illusions’. This
critic’s description of w hat Ro xono va actuall y did in perf ormance in or der to
carry out Stanisla vski’s wishes is included in Hollosi’s article on the tw o
interpr etations of Nina. It g oes som e way to e xplain w hy the critic N . Ye. Efr os,
who w as otherwise deepl y impr essed b y The Seagull , should ha ve found
Roxono va’s Nina unsatisf actory , and w hy Chekho v should ha ve reacted so
negatively to this characterisation:
The actr ess, writes Str oyeva, emphasised mainl y the f all of a human being
broken by life’s vicissitudes . The figur es of Nina and Treplyov were associated
in this perf ormance with motifs of despondenc y, nerv ous a gitation, sharp
collisions , and half-h ysterical sob bings . To under score the them e of def eat,
Stanisla vski omitted this line fr om the last scene: 'I am a sea gull … No , that’s
not it. I’m an actr ess. Oh w ell.’ The w hole monolo gue w as pr esented in ‘a single
stiff pose’, she w as ‘exhausted’, ‘leaning her tir ed head on her hand’, and onl y
straightened her self in the end. The r ecollection of Treplyov’s pla y was
accompanied b y the endless r oar of the wind and the sound of rain thr ough the
open door . Nina’s e xit w as pr epared by the dir ector so as not to lea ve any doubt
in the spectator a bout Nina’s gloom y, or rather tra gic, futur e.52
When w e look back at the description b y the actr ess M. Chitau-Karmina,
who pla yed the r ole of Masha in the earlier St P etersburg production, of the
way Kommissarzhevska ya attempted to pla y Nina, w e can see ho w much closer
she w as to Chekho v’s own conception of the r ole than Ro xono va’s tearful f ailure
was to be. A pparently the original intention in the fir st production w as to ridicule
Treplev’s pla y by staging it ‘in a comic v ein of old-f ashioned taste and spirit’.53
That plan w as abandoned w hen K ommissarzhevska ya pla yed the r ole in a
non-burlesque manner . This ‘serious’ pla ying of the symbolist pla ylet made it
possible f or Dorn, the doctor in the pla y, to praise both the pla ylet and Nina’s
performance in it, without a ppearing to be a complete f ool. If Treplev’s drama
is pla yed in such a w ay that both the on-sta ge and off-sta ge audiences ar e forced
to jud ge it as laugha ble balder dash, then Dorn m ust a ppear to the off-sta ge
audience as a character w ho is inca pable of discriminating betw een dramatic art
and dramatic rub bish. Left alone after the pla y, Dorn soliloquises:
Well, I don’t kno w. Perhaps it’s all rather be yond m e, perha ps I’v e gone mad,
but I lik ed the pla y. It has som ething . When that child spok e about loneliness ,
and then afterw ards w hen the Devil’s r ed eyes appear ed, m y hands shook with
excitem ent. It w as all so fr esh and innocent. Look, I think he’s coming . I want
to be as nice a bout it as I can.54
138Interpreting Chekhov

Even though Chekho v’s use of the non-r ealistic theatrical con vention of the
soliloquy fits uneasil y into the ne w kind of r ealistic drama he w as attempting
to write, it does sugg est that an audience is su pposed to interpr et Dorn’s account
of his r esponse to Treplev’s pla y as an honest one. His being alone on sta ge when
he relates his e xperience ensur es the v eracity of his comm ents since he can ha ve
no reason to lie to the audience a bout his positiv e reaction to Treplev’s and
Nina’s eff orts. Chitau’s description of K ommissarzhevska ya’s perf ormance w ould
certainl y sugg est that Dorn’s f avourable r esponse to Nina’s acting and to
Treplev’s pla y was not ludicr ously ina ppropriate:
She started the monolo gue in a lo w tone of her w onderful v oice g raduall y raising
it and eng rossing all the attention to its modulations . Then she g raduall y lowered
her v oice as if e xtinguishing a fir e, and pr onouncing the last w ords ‘and earth
will all ha ve been g raduall y turned to dust’ it almost died do wn.55
While som e of the audience r esponded neg atively to the pla y,
Kommissarzhevska ya’s individual perf ormance elicited ra pturous praise. Chitau
records that ‘ev erybod y felt that the brightness that emanated fr om the pla ying
of this actr ess, kept radiating in the theatr e. When she cam e out to bo w alone,
the audience cheer ed her with enthusiasm.’56 Kommissarzhevska ya pla yed the
role of Nina in sev eral later pr oductions and, accor ding to contemporary accounts ,
she al ways mana ged to con vince the audience that Nina w as talented. Indeed,
Hollosi points out that K ommissarzhevska ya’s pla ying of Nina w as in line with
Chekho v’s unsentim ental vie w of w omen. Stanisla vski ma y ha ve held the
old-f ashioned m elodramatic vie w that to lose her vir ginity to Trigorin w as for
Nina to ‘giv e him all that w as beautiful in w oman’, but no where in his writings
does Chekho v proclaim this antiquated se xist standpoint. K ommissarzhevska ya
even felt that Chekho v in The Seagull had:
… enriched the portra yals of Russian w omen with a ne w facet: that of an
awakening cr eativ e per sonality . An unha ppy love aff air no long er destr oys
such a w oman, but activ ates her to find her true v ocation.57
Hollosi r ecounts the story of K ommissarzhevska ya sending a friend a
photo graph, pr esuma bly of her self, on w hich she had written a quotation fr om
The Seagull : ‘When I think of m y vocation, I am not afraid of lif e.’ The str ength
of character implicit in this quotation w as totall y lacking in Stanisla vski’s
interpr etation. Ro xono va’s Nina ‘in the fir st act … imitated naiv ete and in the
final scene w avered betw een tearful m elodrama and patholo gical contriv ances’.58
As Hollosi accuratel y points out:
The essence of K omissarzhevska ya’s portra yal of Nina is this activ e acceptance
of life together with all its har dships . This them e returns r epeatedl y in Chekho v’s
later w orks, and it seems it is not a coincidence that K omissarzhevska ya’s
interpr etation and perf ormance ca ptivated the author so m uch.59
139The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

I have dealt with the mar kedly div ergent dir ectorial interpr etations evident
in the St P etersburg and Mosco w productions not in or der to belittle Stanisla vski,
but rather to sugg est that it is possible to misinterpr et a pla y and still pr oduce
a resounding success . Mor e importantl y, I wish to ar gue that it is nev er justifia ble
for a dir ector to be totall y ‘independent’ of the ‘literary te xt’ w hen pr eparing
the ‘perf ormance te xt’. Finding the m eans to comm unicate Chekho v’s pla y is
surely mor e likely to pr oduce a rich theatrical e xperience than simpl y relying
on a dir ector’s ‘w hims of temperam ent and chance outbur sts of f ancy’.60
Raymond Williams has sugg ested that a major pr oblem f aced b y dir ector s of
Chekho v has arisen because of the pla ywright’s adoption of the con ventions of
realism. Williams ar gues that the r ealistic f orm militates a gainst the possibility
of a dir ector achieving an y realisation of the pla y’s action, since the mor e
complete the achiev ement of v erisimilitude, the less visible the action becom es.
If Har old Pinter is corr ect in his observ ation that in our da y-to-da y living , ‘The
more acute the e xperience the less articulate its e xpression’,61 then a f orm of
drama that attempts to be lif elike will onl y be a ble to e xpress the banal surf ace
of lif e, while the important inner e xperience r emains hid den. In eff ect the
dramatic ‘te xt’ that utilises the con ventions of r ealism is , as Williams describes
it, ‘incomplete’, and the pla y can onl y be fleshed out thr ough the ima ginativ e
interpolations sugg ested b y the dir ector and embodied in the mise-en-scène and
the actor s’ ‘subte xt’.
Williams sums u p what he sees as the major pr oblem of Chekho vian
dramatur gy and the limitations of the con ventions of r ealism in the f ollowing
way:
The r epresentation of a ppearances , of w hat is e xternal and on the surf ace, can
be dir ectly dramatized, in that patient sta ge dressing and carpentry . In Chekho v
or Ibsen, on the other hand, w hat is visible and dir ectly expressible, is no mor e
than a counterpoint to the unr ealized lif e — the inner and common desir es,
fears, possibilities — w hich struggles to find itself in just this solidl y sta ged
world. When w e speak of naturalism, w e must distinguish betw een this passion
for the w hole truth, f or the liberation of w hat cannot y et be said or done, and
the confident and ev en complacent r epresentation of things as the y are, that
things ar e what the y seem. This latter con vention of the naturalist ha bit, has
been surprisingl y dura ble; it still su pports a majority of our dramas , in all f orms .
But the serious and e xploring drama, fr om Ibsen and Chekho v and Strindber g
to Br echt and Beck ett, w as faced al ways with a contradiction: that w hich it
seem ed to mak e real, in theatrical terms , was what it wished to sho w as a limited
reality , in dramatic terms . All the difficulties of perf orming Chekho v com e from
this contradiction.62
Notwithstanding Williams’ ar guments, it is clear that Chekho v does , in f act,
provide the necessary encoded signals in the te xts of his pla ys that allo w a
140Interpreting Chekhov

director w ho is willing to seek them out to decipher them and thus to be in a
position to theatricall y realise the action of Chekho v’s pla ys without ha ving to
resort to the ‘w hims’ and ‘f ancies’ that Nemir ovich-Danchenk o felt Stanisla vski
emplo yed. Chekho v, of cour se, w as committed to a f orm of art w hich aim ed, as
part of its pr oject, to hide its o wn artifice, but ev en though he wished his pla ys
to sim ulate r eal lif e, he al ways remained an artist w ho nev er confused art with
life. His artistry in volved using the con ventions of pr osaic r ealism and
transcending the limitations that Williams thought w ere inher ent in that f orm.
So successful w as he in doing this that T. S. Eliot w as grudgingl y led to sa y that
Chekho v did things of w hich he, Eliot, w ould not otherwise ha ve thought pr ose
to be ca pable.
One of Chekho v’s earliest r eferences to The Seagull shows that he w as
consciousl y trying to cr eate a ‘ne w form’ of drama that w ould r eplace the chea p
theatricality of m elodrama and the m echanical structur e of the w ell-made pla y.
‘I am writing a pla y, … I am writing it with considera ble pleasur e, though I sin
frightfull y against the con ventions of the sta ge.’63 The main con vention of the
stage that Chekho v was sinning a gainst w as the r equir ement that pla ys be full
of external or w hat Ma garshack calls dir ect action. Instead of pr oducing e xciting
on-sta ge events, Chekho v was attempting to write a w ork of indir ect action,
where the main ev ents of the drama tak e place off-sta ge and the te xt reflects
only the trivial surf ace of lif e. This pla ytext, ho wever, incorporated sufficient
readable signals to the dir ector , and ultimatel y the actor , to impl y a coher ent
and rich subte xt that could be comm unicated to an audience in perf ormance.
Chekho v wished to sho w his spectator s ima ges of people v ery lik e themselv es
who w aste their potential b y living ‘sill y trivial liv es’. Consequentl y, he depicted
his character s in a w ay that sho wed them doing v ery little that is significant in
terms of o vert action — indeed, often doing things that ar e am using in their
banality . It is the task of the actor s to mak e the audience a ware of the character s’
subte xtual desir e to be mor e significant and eff ectiv e than the y actuall y are.
The tra gic subte xt of unfulfilled desir es is juxta posed with the comic te xt of
silly trivial beha viour and the audience’s per ception of the g ap betw een the
character s’ external and internal liv es pr oduces the kind of synthetic
tragi-com edy that w e now recognise as Chekho vian.
In a letter to Suv orin, Chekho v points out the trivial elem ents that he intended
to use f or the surf ace action of The Seagull : ‘It is a com edy with thr ee female
parts , six male, f our acts , a landsca pe (vie w of a lak e), lots of talk on literatur e,
little action and tons of lo ve.’64 The ‘tons of lo ve’ does not pr oduce the kind of
romantic com edy in w hich ev ery J ack g ets his Jill. That w ould be the
dramatisation of the successful achiev ement of desir e. In The Seagull , and in
various w ays in Chekho v’s later pla ys, the pr esentation of r elationships in volves
a whole daisy-chain of unr equited lo vers, all of w hom seem to choose the wr ong
potential mate to dote on. Each w ould-be lo ver is attracted to another per son,
141The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

but seems to be a ware onl y of that per son’s outer lif e. This trivial outer lif e is
evident in the te xt. If these lo vers were to pa y attention to the signs that
periodicall y surf ace fr om the subte xtual inner lif e of the character s the y are
attracted to , they would r ealise ho w unr ecipr ocated and pointless their lo ve is.
This lack of a wareness of the other is not pr esented as som e existential malaise
that is an inevita ble part of the human condition, but is simpl y one of the m eans
that Chekho v emplo ys to sho w that self-centr ed beha viour mak es human beings
ridiculous . The character s in the chain ar e always so acutel y aware of their o wn
anguish and desir es that the y are una ware of, or ignor e the suff ering of the other
character s who lo ve them.
Brooks and Heilman accuratel y describe the chain of lo vers who ar e unlo ved,
but f ail to note that m uch of the pain e xperienced b y these character s is
self-inflicted, r esulting fr om their o wn hopelessl y egocentric beha viour:
Medev enko is in lo ve with Masha, w ho is in lo ve with Treplev , who is in lo ve
with Nina, w ho is in lo ve with Trigorin, w ho is in lo ve (at least in his o wn w ay)
with Madam e Arcadin, w ho is in lo ve with her self.65
All of the character s in the chain at som e tim e in the pla y becom e
self-obsessed; som e of them nev er acquir e the necessary objectivity to see
themselv es and other s clearl y. The opening dialo gue of the pla y presents a perf ect
example of this self-obsession:
MED VEDENK O. Why do y ou w ear black all the tim e?
MASHA. I’m in mourning f or my life, I’m unha ppy.
MED VEDENK O. Why? [Reflects.] I don’t under stand. You’re health y and y our
father’s quite w ell off, ev en if he’s not rich. I’m m uch w orse off than y ou —
I’m onl y paid tw enty-thr ee roubles a month, and w hat with pension deductions
I don’t ev en get that. But I don’t g o round lik e som eone at a funeral. [ They sit
down. ]
MASHA. Mone y doesn’t matter , even a poor man can be ha ppy.
MED VEDENK O. Yes — in theory . But look ho w it w orks out. Ther e’s m e, my
mother , my tw o sister s and m y young br other . But I onl y earn tw enty-thr ee
roubles and w e need f ood and drink, don’t w e? Tea and sug ar? And tobacco?
We can har dly mak e ends m eet.
MASHA. [ Looking back at the stage .] The pla y will be on soon.66
Masha, as w e will soon learn, is not in mourning f or an yone w ho has died,
she is simpl y in lo ve with Treplev , who does not lo ve her . Both her costum e and
her speech ar e excessiv e responses to w hat is a sad but har dly extraor dinary
occurr ence. Steiner justl y observ ed that ‘m elodrama’, in its pejorativ e sense,
occur s when ‘the eff ect is in variably in g ross e xcess of the cause’.67 Masha’s
beha viour is ludicr ously melodramatic f or this v ery r eason. Quoting a line fr om
a short story written b y the bleakl y pessimistic Mau passant and trailing ar ound
142Interpreting Chekhov

‘like Niobe, all tear s’, can be seen as the sill y pose that it is , only if the dir ector
encoura ges the actor pla ying the r ole to sugg est to an audience that Masha’s
beha viour is e xcessiv e. In the script, Chekho v provides clear signals to the
director to indicate that Masha is indeed o ver-dramatising her situation. He has
her almost instantaneousl y drop the pose of suff ering tra gic her oine and adopt
a much mor e pra gmatic and do wn-to-earth manner . Masha r efuses to put u p
with an y romantic nonsense fr om Med vedenk o when he w hines a bout his
unrequited lo ve for her . Far fr om tr eating him lik e som e tragic lo ver who, like
herself, ‘is in mourning f or his lif e’, Masha’s r esponse is brutall y realistic. She
is blithel y una ware of the g ap betw een her m elodramaticall y excessiv e response
to her o wn unlo ved situation and her r ealisticall y har dheaded r esponse to
Medvedenk o’s similar lo veless condition. What she sa ys to Med vedenk o applies
with equal v alidity to her o wn situation:
MASHA. What rub bish. [ Takes snuf f.] Your lo ving m e is all v ery touching , but
I can’t lo ve you back and that’s that. [ Offers him her snuf fbox.] Have som e.68
Masha’s a brupt shift fr om the w orld of r omantic m elodrama to that of modern
realism should alert dir ector s to the f act that the audience is not m eant to tak e
her g randiose beha viour too seriousl y. It is peculiarl y appropriate that
Medvedenk o is so bound u p with his o wn pr oblems , especiall y his obsession
with mone y, he totall y fails to r espond to Masha’s ‘tra gic’ beha viour . He is also
completel y una ware of the r eal reason f or Masha’s unha ppiness . At the end of
the fir st act Masha brings her subte xtual anguish into the te xt when she v oices
her pr oblems to Dr Dorn. He r eplies in an under standing manner but his
comm ents ha ve a m eaning similar to Masha’s statem ent to Med vedenk o earlier
in the act w hen she r ecognised the situation but accepts that ‘that’s that’:
MASHA. I’m so unha ppy. No one, no one kno ws ho w I suff er. [Lays her head
on his breast, softl y.] I love Constantine.
DORN . What a state the y’re all in. And w hat a lot of lo ving. Oh, ma gic lak e!
[Tenderl y.] But w hat can I do , my child? What can I do?
CURTAIN.69
Chekho v has written Masha’s conf ession of her secr et love in the langua ge
of romantic m elodrama, and it w as just this kind of sentim ental drama that he
was trying to a void writing . Having unquestioningl y emplo yed man y of the
techniques of m elodrama in pla ys lik e Platonov and Ivanov , Chekho v incr easingl y
used these outdated techniques ir onicall y and ev en par odicall y in The Seagull
and the pla ys that f ollowed.
Dr. Dorn pla ys the r ole of raisonneur in The Seagull . He r efuses to tr eat Masha’s
dramatic conf ession as if it w ere som e tragic revelation. Dorn’s am used r esponse
provides the norm b y w hich an audience is encoura ged to jud ge the
appropriateness or otherwise of Masha’s beha viour . If a dir ector has the actor
143The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

play Dorn in a manner that emphasises both his w armth and his wisdom, as
Chekho v’s te xt implies , then an audience will be mor e likely to see Masha fr om
his point of vie w. She is a child in matter s of the heart and has y et to learn that
life must g o on ev en if r omance is not fulfilled.70
During the tw o years that separate Acts III and IV Masha has made an
unha ppy marria ge with the boring schoolteacher , Med vedenk o, and, although
she still lo ves Treplev , she a ppear s to ha ve acquir ed a mor e realistic vie w of her
situation than she had at the beginning of the pla y. It is her mother , Polina, w ho
remains the incura ble romantic. She is still hopelessl y in lo ve with Dr Dorn and,
despite his rather cool r esponse to her , she contin ues to beha ve like som e lovesick
heroine in a w ork of r omantic fiction. When P olina attempts to encoura ge Treplev
to ‘be a bit nicer’ to her ‘poor Masha’, the daughter’s r esponse is evidence that
she at least has ceased to liv e her lif e in the o ver-dramatised w orld of r omantic
melodrama. Lik e Nina, she learns ho w to endur e in the pr osaic r eal w orld:
POLIN A. … Please be a bit nicer to m y poor Masha, dear .
MASHA. [ Making up the bed. ] Leave him alone, Mother .
POLIN A. [ToTREPLEV .] She’s such a nice girl. [ Pause .] A w oman needs nothing ,
Constantine, just a f ew kind looks . I’ve learnt that.
[TREPLEV gets up from the desk and goes out without speaking .]
MASHA. No w you’ve anno yed him. Why go on at him?
POLIN A. I’m sorry f or you, Masha.
MASHA. A lot of use that is!
POLIN A. My heart aches f or you. I see ev erything , you kno w, I under stand.
MASHA. Don’t be so sill y. Unha ppy love affairs are onl y found in no vels. What
nonsense! The thing is , don’t giv e way to it, and don’t moon ar ound w aiting
for the tide to turn. If lo ve enter s your heart, g et rid of it. My husband’s been
promised a job in another part of the country . I’m g oing to f orget all this w hen
we mo ve. I’ll tear it fr om m y heart.
[A melanc holy waltz is pla ying in the next room but one .]
POLIN A. That’s Constantine pla ying, he m ust be depr essed.
MASHA. [ Silentl y does two or three waltz steps .] The thing is not to k eep seeing
him, Mother . If onl y Simon g ets that ne w job , I’ll be o ver this in a month, tak e
it from m e. It’s all so sill y.71
The pr oduction notes that Stanisla vski made f or his pr oduction of The Seagull
clearl y sho w that he did not discern an y of the g entle ir ony that underlies
Chekho v’s use of m elodramatic e xcess . Stanisla vski’s o wn lo ve of theatricality
and m elodrama led him to see character s lik e Masha as w holly tra gic and
consequentl y lines lik e, ‘I’m in mourning f or my life, I’m unha ppy’, ar e tak en
seriousl y and under scored with a battery of sta ging eff ects that ar e not specified
by Chekho v. The comic ir ony implied in Chekho v’s script is subm erged in the
doom-laden mise-en-scène provided b y the dir ector:
144Interpreting Chekhov

The pla y starts in dar kness , an (A ugust) ev ening . The dim light of a lantern on
top of a lamp-post, distant sounds of a drunkar d’s song , distant ho wling of a
dog, the cr oaking of fr ogs, … the slo w tolling of a distant chur ch-bell — help
the audience to g et the f eel of the sad, monotonous lif e of the character s.72
Just in case the audience might still miss the point that the drama that is to
follow is of a portentous and gloom y natur e, he includes ‘Flashes of lightning ,
faint rumbling of thunder in the distance’.73 Against such a backg round, it is
hardly surprising that Masha’s opening line should ha ve been deliv ered without
any comic ir ony. Peter Holland is sur ely corr ect ho wever, when he observ es
that Masha’s ‘comm ent, vie wed by Stanisla vski as an e xpression of an essentiall y
tragic attitude, seems rather to be so off-hand as to be mocking’.74 In
Stanisla vski’s interpr etation, ther e is no per ceivable g ap betw een a ‘tra gic
subte xt’ and a ‘comic te xt’. Instead, Stanisla vski pr ovides sta ge-business f or the
actor pla ying Masha that mak es her outer lif e as tra gic as her inner lif e.
In the scene in Act Four w here she talks with P olina a bout ho w ‘sill y’ and
pointless her lo ve for Treplev is , Stanisla vski tries to ensur e that his audience
is in no doubt that it will be tra gicall y impossible f or Masha ‘to f orget all this’
and not to ‘giv e way to it’. Masha’s r esolv e is under cut b y sev eral ‘sighs’, and
her statem ent, ‘I’ll be o ver this in a month’, is accompanied b y the f ollowing
business:
Masha sighs a gain, w altzes to the windo w, stops beside it, looking out into the
darkness , and taking out a handk erchief stealthil y, wipes the f ew tear s that r oll
down her cheeks .75
As Holland points out: ‘The stealthiness is the co ver for the r evelation of the
‘truth’ of her f eelings . Stanisla vski vie ws her consistentl y as som eone in the
agonies of unfulfilled lo ve, a pr olong ed scr eam of frustrated y earning that
Chekho v would pr obably not ha ve recognised.’76
One of the major pr oblems f or toda y’s dir ector s of Chekho v is that, f or man y
people, Stanisla vski’s interpr etations ar e often tak en to be ‘authentic’ Chekho v.
Yet tim e and a gain the pla ywright complained of this kind of gloom y
interpr etation. In 1902, he wr ote to Ale xander Tikhono v:
You sa y you w ept o ver my pla ys. You ar e not the onl y one. But I did not write
them f or this . It w as Stanisla vsky who made them so tearful. I intended
something quite diff erent.77
Revie wers and dir ector s alik e produce v ariations on the gloom y Chekho v
inspir ed by Stanisla vski’s sombr e vision of his pla ys. Milton Shulman of the
Standard , reviewing Philip Pr owse’s 1984 pr oduction of The Seagull , confidentl y
asserts that: ‘ The Seagull by Chekho v is a pla y about people w ho ha ve resigned
themselv es to unha ppiness but still cling pr ecariousl y to hope.’78 The pr oduction
145The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

attempted, accor ding to Shulman, to con vey an ‘atmospher e of compassionate
futility’, and no m ention is made of an y positiv e vision of r eality that might be
present in the pla y or the pr oduction. Ther e has been a tradition on the British
stage in particular to pla y Chekho v in this lugubrious manner . St J ohn Irvine’s
review of Film er’s 1929 pr oduction of The Seagull at the Arts Theatr e Club in
London ev ocativ ely captures the mood of that pr oduction:
Wave after w ave of gloom r olled off the sta ge … When som eone said, ‘Ther e
must be man y fish in the lak e!’, he spok e as if he w as certain that an yone w ho
ate a fish w ould imm ediatel y com e out in a rash or contract ptomaine
poisoning .79
Patrick Miles quotes the r eaction of the e xpatriate Russian dir ector ,
Komisarjevsk y, to mid-1920s British pr oductions w hich a ped Stanisla vski’s
approach. After seeing The Seagull , he wr ote that he had 'rar ely laughed so
heartil y … w hen the nonsense to w hich this simple pla y had been r educed b y
a meaningful , monotonous and dr eary pr oduction w as accepted b y the audience
as a highbrow affair'.80
Not ev eryone in Britain in the earl y part of the century w as tak en in b y the
misinterpr etation of Chekho v’s pla ys as dramas of pessimism. F rank Swinnerton,
for example, wr ote in a r eview in Nation in 1920 that to pr esent Chekho v as a
‘solemn’ pla ywright w as inaccurate:
This is r eally to f alsify the spirit of Chekho v, who w as an artist and a humorist
… Until this f act is g rasped, and Chekho v is pla yed with som e lightness and
naturalness of deportm ent, w e shall al ways lose the true quality of his dramatic
work.81
Charles Sturrid ge’s 1985 London pr oduction of The Seagull provides a clear
illustration of the difficulties in volved in finding the a ppropriate balance betw een
the comic and tra gic elem ents of the pla y. In the opening scene of the pla y,
Sturrid ge dir ected Phoebe Nicholls in the r ole of Masha in an a ppropriatel y
comic manner b y ha ving her pla y her f amous fir st line in a par odicall y
melodramatic f ashion that clearl y indicated to the audience that her ‘tra gic’
beha viour w as decidedl y excessiv e. Michael Billington, r eviewing this
production, praises Sturrid ge’s attempt to emphasise the comic potential of the
script and describes ho w the actor achiev ed this eff ect: 'When Phoebe Nicholls’
Masha sa ys she is in mourning , she flings her self tempestuousl y on a
chaise-longue and then spr eads her arms wide ad ding "f or m y life": it g ets a
laugh.'82
In the sam e production, the dir ector ad ded a piece of business at the end of
the pla y that w as also highl y melodramatic. Ho wever, unlik e his earlier use of
this o vertly theatrical f orm, w hich had been in sympath y with Chekho v’s o wn
gently par odic use of it, Sturrid ge created a mom ent of pur e melodrama w hich
146Interpreting Chekhov

was in no sense ir onical. The kind of chea p theatricality emplo yed in this piece
of business epitomises the sort of m elodramatic ‘ev ent’ that Chekho v was
desperatel y trying to a void in his dramas of ‘indir ect’ action and the sort of
theatrical o verkill that r eminds one of Stanisla vski at his w orst. Francis King
described his neg ative response to w hat occurr ed. ‘When brutall y violating
Chekho v’s subtl y mor dant close to the pla y, [Masha] spra ys the sta ge with v omit
at the ne ws of K onstantin’s suicide, the dir ector once a gain displa ys his imperf ect
sympath y with his author .’83 As Milton Shulman pointed out, ‘the usual impact’
of the e xplicitl y non-theatrical ending specified b y Chekho v in his sta ge
directions ‘is dev astating’. Sturrid ge’s coup-de-theatre , in the f orm of Masha’s
vomiting , is parado xicall y less eff ectiv e in that it strains f or the kind of
theatricality that is alien to Chekho v’s drama. As Shulman rightl y states: 'Not
only does this action mak e nonsense of the doctor’s intention to pr event Ar cadina
hearing a bout her son’s death, but it neg ates and spoils the pla y’s under stated
climax b y intr oducing an elem ent of ph ysical vulg arity that affr onts Chekho v’s
fastidious and cultiv ated style.'84
Director s who ar e tempted to intr oduce ob viousl y theatrical business into
their mise-en-scène might do w ell to r emember that Chekho v’s stated aim w as to
write pla ys that w ould not conf orm to the theatrical demands of m elodrama and
the w ell-made pla y but be true to lif e. It is the or dinary quality of w hat ha ppens
in a Chekho v pla y that needs to be r emember ed by dir ector s. Important ev ents
do occur but the y should not be f oregrounded if the dir ector wishes to r ealise
Chekho v’s pla y.
In The Seagull several character s are playing lotto at the tim e of K onstantin’s
[Treplev’s] suicide and thus this potentiall y theatrical ev ent is bar ely noticed
by those on-sta ge. This w as pr ecisel y the eff ect that Chekho v had tried,
unsuccessfull y, to achiev e in his earlier pla ys. He had at last mana ged to ‘write
a play in w hich people com e and g o, eat, talk a bout the w eather , and pla y car ds
… and at the sam e tim e their ha ppiness is made or their liv es are being ruined’.85
Chekho v realised ho w inno vative his pla y was and that it w as ‘contrary to all
the rules of dramatic art’ in that ‘I beg an it forte and ended it pianissimo ’.86 It
is to Sturrid ge’s cr edit that, w hen he cam e to r evive his pr oduction, he r estor ed
Chekho v’s o wn under stated ending to the pla y.
One of the mor e important dir ectorial decisions that needs to be made w hen
directing The Seagull is ho w to interpr et the k ey role of Treplev himself. He is
a comple x and ambiguous character . Any dir ector w ho examines the pla ytext
closel y will find evidence that Treplev should not be interpr eted as being either
a misunder stood g enius or an untalented nincompoop . He shar es som e of the
playwright’s o wn ideals , yet also has som e of the f ailings that Chekho v saw in
the intellectuals of his da y. The status accor ded Treplev’s pla ylet in an y overall
production is of piv otal significance. It has been v ariousl y interpr eted as a w ork
147The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

of genius and as a piece of decadent nonsense. Hanna Scolnico v argues that the
unnam ed pla ylet should be called The Seagull . She claims that: ‘The ev aluation
of the inset Seagull is crucial, f or at stak e is our under standing of Chekho v’s
own artistic aims and achiev ements.’87
Treplev is clearl y som eone w ho believ es that ne w forms of dramatic art ar e
requir ed. Lik e Chekho v, he r ejects the thesis dramas of his da y but, unlik e the
writer of The Seagull , Treplev also seems to r eject the kind of r ealistic drama in
which he is in f act appearing as a character:
TREPLEV . … the theatr e’s in a rut no wadays, if you ask m e — it’s so one-sided.
The curtain g oes u p and y ou see a r oom with thr ee w alls. It’s ev ening , so the
lights ar e on. And in the r oom y ou ha ve those g eniuses , those high priests of
art, to sho w you ho w to eat, drink, lo ve, walk a bout and w ear their jack ets.
Out of m ediocr e scenes and lines the y try to dra g a moral, som e commonplace
that doesn’t tax the brain and might com e in useful a bout the house.88
Chekho v is no mor e to be identified with Treplev than he should be identified
with Trigorin, the other writer in the pla y, simpl y because that character ha ppens
to shar e som e of Chekho v’s own writing ha bits. Treplev’s pla y is clearl y modelled
on the sort of e xperim ental dramas being written at the tim e by ‘decadent’ or
‘symbolist’ writer s, the terms being used as synon yms in Chekho v’s da y. We
know that Chekho v had an ambiv alent attitude to wards the Symbolists . He w as
certainl y excited b y the Belgian symbolist dramatist, Maurice Maeterlinck. While
he w as still w orking on The Seagull , Chekho v wr ote to Suv orin r ecomm ending
that som e of this Belgian’s w ork be perf ormed in Russia: ‘Wh y don’t y ou try
staging Maeterlinck at y our theater? If I w ere a dir ector of y our theater , in tw o
years I w ould mak e a Decadent Theater of it — or try to .’89 Chekho v ma y even
have been influenced b y Maeterlinck’s inno vative staging of The Blind in w hich,
as he told Suv orin, ther e was ‘a ma gnificent scenic eff ect … with the sea and a
lighthouse in the distance’.90 Treplev’s pla y is pr ovided with a similarl y
magnificent scenic eff ect in the f orm of a ‘r eal’ backdr op of a lak e with a ‘r eal’
moon r eflected in it.91
Despite an ob vious attraction to certain aspects of symbolism, particularl y
the mo vement’s commitm ent to finding ne w forms to e xpress inner subjectiv e
reality , Chekho v would ha ve found the nihilistic and anti-scientific aspects of
the mo vement totall y unaccepta ble. As Laur ence Senelick points out:
[Chekho v’s] attitude to ward the Russian decadents w as satirical w hen it w as
not do wnright hostile. He is r eputed to ha ve said, ‘the y’re swindler s, not
decadents! They try to palm off r otten g oods — r eligion, m ysticism and all
kinds of devilishness … They’ve concocted it all to delude the public. Don’t
you believ e them!’92
148Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s ambiv alence to wards the symbolist mo vement is r eflected in The
Seagull and can be pr ofitably reflected in pr oduction. Ev en though the
psycholo gical r easons f or Treplev’s choosing to write a symbolist drama ar e
clearl y connected with his desir e to struggle a gainst the po wer that his mother
has o ver him, the integ rity of Treplev’s aims need not be questioned. His eff orts
to achiev e an identity , both artistic and per sonal, that w as independent of Irina
would sur ely have been seen in a f avourable light b y Chekho v whose o wn desir e
‘to be a fr ee artist and nothing mor e’93 is w ell kno wn. Treplev’s desir e for
personal fr eedom is mirr ored in Chekho v’s description of himself as som eone
who ev entuall y mana ged to squeeze ‘the sla ve out of himself, dr op by drop’ and
who w oke up one morning and f elt that the blood in his v eins w as ‘no long er
that of a sla ve but that of a r eal human being’.94 For Chekho v, both per sonal
and artistic emancipation w ere desira ble and insepara ble, and it is part of
Treplev’s tra gedy that, unlik e Nina, he cannot achiev e either . Rejecting the idea
that talent and fr eshness is all that a writer needs , Chekho v wr ote:
Talent and fr eshness can ruin a g reat deal — that’s near the truth. Outside of a
plenitude of material and talent, som ething of no lesser importance is needed.
Maturity is needed f or one thing; secondl y, a sense of personal freedom is
indispensa ble. Yet onl y of late this sense beg an to burn within m e.95
Near the end of the pla y Treplev com es to the r ealisation that he has f ailed
to achiev e artistic independence. Looking at his o wn writings he sa ys: ‘I’v e
talked so m uch a bout ne w techniques , but no w I f eel I’m g raduall y getting in
the old rut.’ He ev en loses f aith in the belief that ‘ne w forms’ ar e necessary —
a belief that had sustained him u p until this point: ‘Y es, I’m mor e and mor e
convinced that old or ne w techniques ar e neither her e nor ther e.’96 Having lost
any sense of artistic purpose, he is confr onted b y Nina w ho, while she ma y not
be an e xceptionall y talented actr ess, has nev ertheless f ound her ‘v ocation’ and
is ‘not afraid of lif e’. His r esponse to her sho ws just ho w much he lacks an y
developed sense of artistic fr eedom and identity:
TREPLEV . [Sadly.] You’ve found y our r oad and y ou kno w where you’re going,
while I drift a bout in a maze of dr eams and ima ges, not kno wing w ho needs m y
stuff or w hy. I’ve no f aith and I don’t kno w what m y vocation is .97
Chekho v superbl y sugg ests Treplev’s lack of maturity , personal fr eedom and
independence in this character’s v ery last line. Nina has just embraced Treplev
impulsiv ely and run out thr ough the g arden. Left on his o wn, his last pathetic
words sugg est that, ev en at this sta ge in his lif e, he is una ble to cut the umbilical
cord that binds him to his mother: ‘[ After a pause .] It’ll be a pity if an yone sees
her in the g arden and tells Mother . It might u pset her .’98 Treplev demonstrates
the f act that he no w sees himself as a f ailure both as a human being and as an
149The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

artist, b y slo wly tearing u p all of his man uscripts and then lea ving the sta ge to
shoot himself.
From a dir ectorial standpoint, Chekho v’s depiction of Treplev seems to sugg est
that this character’s aims concerning the need f or ne w forms of dramatic art
should be pr esented positiv ely. What he aspir es to is admira ble, but,
unfortunatel y, he is not the g enius that Stanisla vski thought him to be, and his
dramatic achiev ement does not match his aspirations .
By pr esenting Treplev as a serious artist w ho fails to achiev e his ideals , a
director can a void the ina ppropriate e xtremes of interpr etation that ar e som etimes
indulg ed in. Too often, Treplev is pr esented as either a f ool or a g enius w hen,
in fact, Chekho v’s te xt sugg ests the potential f or a m uch richer comple xity of
characterisation. The one-dim ensional interpr etations of this character ar e often
the result of dir ector s failing to achiev e the necessary balance betw een the tra gic
and comic elem ents. As Arthur Ganz puts it: ‘the admir ers of the comic Chekho v
… ar e likely to find in Treplev … a h ysterical, attitudinizing w ould-be Hamlet,
whereas the ad vocates of the sensitiv e, m elanchol y pla ywright will see a
frustrated artist driv en to suicide’.99 Vera Gottlieb mak es a similar but mor e
general point w hen she claims that ‘the v ery essence of a Chekho v pla y lies in
its balance’. She quotes Irving Wardle in su pport of her ar gument that British
productions rar ely achiev e that balance. Wardle asserted that British Chekho v
fails because dir ector s ther e ‘cannot hold a balance betw een sympathetic
involvement and comic detachm ent’.100
One r ecent London pr oduction of The Seagull directed b y John Cair d appear s
to ha ve contin ued the British tradition of one-sided interpr etations of Chekho v.
Michael Billington’s r eview in The Guardian outlines the disastr ous r esults that
follow from approaching this pla y in such an unsubtle w ay. Having ar gued that
the ‘visual fussiness and o verelaboration’ of the mise-en-scène ‘works against the
spirit of the pla y’, Billington outlines his major criticism of Cair d’s dir ection:
But the pr oduction itself also tends to italicise emotional, as w ell as visual,
effects. We all kno w that Chekho v described the pla y as a com edy. But it seems
to m e nonsense to tr eat K onstantin’s [T replev’s] pla y as if it w ere a load of
symbolist tosh with Nina rushing r ound the sta ge like a jet-pr opelled ang el. It
diminishes K onstantin, it under cuts Dorn’s f aith in his talent and it obliterates
the point that K’s them e — the division betw een matter and spirit — r ecurs
throughout The Seagull . The art of dir ecting Chekho v is to giv e us his pol yphonic
richness rather than to editorialise or to giv e undue str ess to the tra gic or comic
element.101
Anthon y Clar k’s 1990 pr oduction of the pla y for the Birmingham Repertory
Compan y was fla wed in a similar f ashion. P aul Taylor, the r eviewer for The
Independent , described the w ay in w hich the dir ector trivialised Treplev’s pla y
150Interpreting Chekhov

by having a g roup of peasants ‘pr ovide a bsurdly irrelevant sound eff ects’ during
the perf ormance, and the on-sta ge audience perf orm ‘antics’ lia ble to raise a f ew
cheap laughs fr om the audience in the auditorium:
Disru pting the cohesiv eness and solemnity of the occasion, an untim ely pla gue
of mid ges reduces this g roup [the on-sta ge audience] to a set of fractious
individuals scratching and smacking their flesh and pr oducing w hat sounds
like a sub versive mock ery of a pplause.102
The Ro yal Shak espear e Compan y’s pr oduction of The Seagull used the Michael
Frayn translation that Anthon y Clar k had chosen earlier the sam e year. Terry
Hands , however, directed the pla y in a m uch mor e ‘pol yphonic’ manner . Paul
Taylor, who had not dislik ed Clar k’s pr oduction, nev ertheless r ecognised ho w
superior Hands’ interpr etation w as, particularl y when it cam e to the pr esentation
of Treplev’s pla y:
The tr eatm ent of that inset pla ylet is a g ood e xample of the shr ewdness and
sensitivity of Hands’ a pproach. By ha ving Ar cadina and the onsta ge audience
chomp Turkish Delight or s wat at an in visible pla gue of flies , director s often
minister to a sense that K onstantin’s high-flo wn symbolist drama is m erely
ridiculous and deserv es its humiliating public f ailure. Minimising such
distractions and f ocusing attention on the mak e-shift sta ge, this pr oduction lets
you feel the sad vulnera bility as w ell as the risibility of his botched sear ch for
a new artistic f orm … (For), if the pla y is talentless , what this v ersion of its
production mak es sur e you register is the beauty of the aspiration behind it.103
Treplev’s pla y, as Billington noted, does indeed concern itself with them es
that ar e important to Chekho v’s pla y as a w hole. This is one of the major r easons
why dir ector s who overlay this scene with g ratuitous comic business run the
risk of achieving the sam e results as the Shak espear ean clo wns w ho, as Hamlet
says, are willing to ‘set on som e quantity of barr en spectator s to laugh too;
though, in the m ean tim e, som e necessary question of the pla y be then to be
consider ed’.104
The struggle betw een spirit and matter is a ‘necessary question’ not just of
Treplev’s pla y but of The Seagull as w hole. Nina’s character , the World Spirit,
describes a w orld that has r eached a state of entr opy, which Webster’s Dictionary
defines as ‘the deg radation of the matter and ener gy in the univ erse to an ultimate
state of inert unif ormity’. This depr essing condition depicted in Treplev’s pla y
is actuall y a g rotesque par odic v ersion of the state of inert unif ormity that
epitomises the liv es of the character s in Chekho v’s pla y. Their w orld is one that
seems purposeless . They are lumps of matter without an y spiritual dim ension
that w ould giv e their liv es meaning . They have no f aith. Sorin is the su preme
example of entr opic man. At the end of his lif e, having w orked in w hat, on the
face of it, might seem to be a m eaningful occu pation, he denies its significance,
151The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

and sear ches patheticall y for meaning in trivial hedonistic pur suits. He sa ys to
Dorn:
SORIN . [Laughs .] It’s all right f or you to talk, y ou’ve enjo yed yourself. But w hat
about m e? Twenty-eight y ears I’ve worked for the Departm ent of J ustice, but
I haven’t liv ed yet, ha ven’t e xperienced an ything — that’s w hat it com es to .
So I w ant a bit of fun, it stands to r eason. You’ve always had y our o wn w ay
and y ou don’t car e, which is w hy you’re so giv en to idle chatter . But I w ant a
bit of lif e, so I drink sherry at dinner and smok e cig ars and so on. That’s all
there is to it.105
Sorin liv es w hat Sartr e would ha ve called an ‘inauthentic’ lif e because he
refuses to tak e any responsibility f or his actions , or rather , for his inaction. He
is reduced to an entr opic state in w hich he becom es ph ysicall y immobilised and
spends m uch of his tim e asleep . Sorin has made his lif e ‘absurd’ by adopting a
‘nothing to be done’ attitude to lif e that in volves the belief that his pr esent
condition is the r esult of f ate rather than his o wn inaction. He has nev er enjo yed
living in the country y et he contin ually returns ther e:
SORIN . … Isn’t it typical? I’v e nev er done w hat I lik ed in the country . At one
time I’d tak e a month off and com e down her e for a br eak and so on, but ther e’d
be so m uch fuss and bother w hen y ou got her e — y ou felt lik e pushing off the
mom ent y ou arriv ed. [ Laughs .] I w as always glad to g et away. Anyway, now
I’m r etired I’v e nowhere else to g o, that’s w hat it com es to. I ha ve to liv e her e,
like it or not.106
Sorin is onl y an e xtreme case of w hat Chekho v sho ws to be the normal
condition of living f or most of the character s in The Seagull . They fritter their
lives away, are constantl y bor ed, and ar e ultimatel y aware of their f ailure to liv e
fulfilling liv es. Dorn, the materialist w ho rejects the idea of an y transcendent
spiritual purpose to lif e, realises that lif e’s m eaning is totall y created b y human
beings w ho act purposefull y in accor dance with their ideals . His r esponse to
Sorin’s ‘bad f aith’ ma y, at fir st, seem rather blunt, but it is v ery m uch in tune
with Chekho v’s o wn cool objectiv e appraisal of the natur e of lif e. Furthermor e,
Dorn’s insistence that Sorin f ace lif e parallels Chekho v’s pr oject of making
audiences a ware of their o wn inauthentic and w asted liv es.
Without making an y overt jud gements, Chekho v was impl ying that the
beha viour of people such as Sorin, w ho liv e their liv es dr eaming a bout w hat
they would lik e to ha ve done rather than actuall y doing an ything to achiev e
their desir es, was both comical and a voidable. J ust as Masha wished to elev ate
the sadness she f eels at not being lo ved by Treplev into a r omantic m elodrama,
so Sorin wishes to dignify his f ailure by having it transf ormed into a sentim ental
novel of self-justification. Chekho v’s Dr Dorn is quick to attack such esca pist
self-dramatising:
152Interpreting Chekhov

SORIN . I’d lik e to giv e Constantine a plot f or a no vel. It ought to be called The
Man who W anted — L’homme qui a voulu. In youth I w anted to becom e a writer
— I didn’t. I w anted to speak w ell — I spok e atrociousl y. [Mocks himself .] ‘And
all that sort, er , of thing , er, don’t y er kno w.’ I’d be doing a summing u p
sometimes, and find m yself ja wing on and on till I br oke out in a s weat. I w anted
to marry — I didn’t. I w anted to liv e in to wn all the tim e — and her e I am
ending m y days in the country and so on.
DORN . You w anted to becom e a senior civil serv ant — and did.
SORIN . [Laughs .] That’s one thing I w asn’t k een on, it just ha ppened.
DORN . To talk a bout being f ed up with lif e at the a ge of sixty-tw o — that’s a
bit chea p, wouldn’t y ou sa y?
SORIN . Don’t k eep on a bout it, can’t y ou see I w ant a bit of lif e?
DORN . That’s just sill y. All lif e must end, it’s in the natur e of things .
SORIN . You’re spoilt, that’s w hy you talk lik e this . You’ve always had w hat
you w anted, so lif e doesn’t matter to y ou, y ou just don’t bother . But ev en you’ll
be afraid of d ying.
DORN . Fear of death’s an animal thing , you m ust g et over it. It onl y mak es sense
to fear death if y ou believ e in immortality and ar e scar ed because y ou’ve sinned.
But y ou ar en’t a Christian f or a start, and then — w hat sins ha ve you committed?
You’ve worked for the Departm ent of J ustice f or tw enty-fiv e years, that’s all.
SORIN . [Laughs .] Twenty-eight.107
It is important f or dir ector s not to o ver-sentim entalise Sorin, or to pla y Dorn
as a totall y unf eeling doctor . Too often in pr oductions Sorin’s self-pitying
comm ents ar e pla yed with little sense of the comic ir ony that is needed to
under cut them. Instead of Dorn being an objectiv e raisonneur gently laughing
at a character w ho is bemoaning the inevita ble fact that he is g etting old and
wishes that he could ha ve his tim e over again, the doctor is often pla yed as
someone w ho has becom e so c ynical and har d-hearted that he r efuses to tr eat a
patient w ho is ‘seriousl y ill’ with an ything else but placebos lik e Valerian dr ops,
soda or quinine.108
Treplev’s pla ylet depicts in symbolist f ashion w hat he sees as the curr ent
state of the w orld and, w hile that w orld is a depr essingl y bleak place w here ‘all
life, all lif e, all lif e has completed its m elanchol y cycle and died’, it is not be yond
redemption. Chekho v’s vision of r eality included a belief in the idea of g radual
progress that w ould ha ppen not just thr ough natural selection, but thr ough
human interv ention, and Treplev’s pla y also incorporates this ‘epic vision’.
Treplev e xpresses both his dislik e of lif e as it curr ently is and his f aith in a better
long-term futur e for humanity , in a symbolist f orm that is quite unlik e the f orm
of realism being dev eloped b y Chekho v, but the belief that a sense of purpose,
symbolised b y the World Spirit, is necessary to bring a bout impr ovements in
the lot of humanity w as central to Chekho v’s ev olutionary vision. The f act that
153The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

this pr ogress w ould tak e a long tim e concerned Chekho v deepl y. In the 1902
letter to Tikhono v, in w hich he e xpressed his certainty that people w ould ‘cr eate
another and better lif e for themselv es’ once the y realised ho w ‘bad and dr eary’
their liv es were, he ad ded: ‘I will not liv e to see it, but I kno w it will be quite
different, quite unlik e our pr esent lif e’.109 Treplev is lik ewise a ware of the
gradual natur e of chang e. Nina, pla ying the r ole of the World Spirit, is giv en
the following speech:
NINA. … Lik e a prisoner flung into a deep , empty w ell, I kno w not w here I am
or what a waits m e. All is hid den fr om m e except that in the cruel, unr elenting
struggle with the Devil, the principle of Material For ce, I am destined to triumph.
Then shall Spirit and Matter unite in w ondr ous harmon y, then shall the r eign
of Cosmic Will comm ence. But that will onl y com e about after a long , long
succession of millennia, w hen Moon, bright Sirius and Earth shall g raduall y
have turned to dust. Until then ther e shall be horr or upon horr or.110
Rather than pr esent Treplev’s pla y as either a w ork of g enius or ‘tosh’, a
director needs to pr esent this symbolist drama in a manner that r eflects Chekho v’s
ambiv alent attitude to wards this character and his art. It is not Treplev’s vision
of reality that is def ectiv e, but the f orm in w hich he e xpresses it. The w eakness
of Treplev’s pla y is that it is too r emoved fr om real lif e. Chekho v’s art in volved
presenting ‘lif e as it is’ as r ealisticall y as w as possible. This ‘lif e’ was a depiction
of ‘lif e as it should not be’. Without sacrificing artistic objectivity b y intr oducing
any jud gemental ‘thesis’ and without a bandoning the con ventions of sta ge
realism, Chekho v attempted to impl y an idea of ‘lif e as it should be’.
Treplev’s a pproach to writing is criticised in The Seagull by other character s.
We can discount the criticisms made b y Irina, w ho, because she per ceives her
son’s pla y as a per sonal attack on the type of drama she perf orms in, is biased
in her dismissal of it as ‘e xperim ental rub bish’. Sev eral other character s have
no reason to be pr ejudiced a gainst Treplev’s dramatic eff orts. Dr Dorn, f or
instance, lik ed the pla y and w as especiall y impr essed b y its content: ‘Y ou took
your plot fr om the r ealm of a bstract ideas , and quite right too , because a w ork
of art simpl y must express som e great idea.’ Ho wever the f orm in w hich Treplev
expressed his vision did not impr ess the doctor as m uch. In particular , he is
disturbed b y the v agueness of this symbolist pla y and pr oceeds to giv e Treplev
what turns out to be a pr ophetic w arning:
DORN . And then a w ork of art m ust e xpress a clear , precise idea. You m ust
know w hy you write, or else — if y ou tak e this pictur esque path without
knowing w here you’re going y ou’ll lose y our w ay and y our gifts will destr oy
you.111
As w e have seen, Treplev loses f aith in himself and his art and, because he has
no purpose or aim, kills himself.
154Interpreting Chekhov

Nina su pplies the other telling criticism of Treplev’s art w hen she complains
to him that: ‘Y our pla y’s har d to act, ther e are no living people in it.’112 Trigorin
appear s to ha ve no r eason to attack Treplev’s w ork and comm ents on w hat he
believ es to be the r eason f or the y oung er writer’s limited success . His comm ent
supports Nina’s earlier jud gement:
TRIGORIN . Things ar en’t g oing too w ell, he still can’t find his r eal lev el. Ther e’s
something v aguely odd about his stuff, and som e of it seems rather wild. None
of his character s is ev er really aliv e.113
Treplev’s r eaction to Nina’s criticism is significant in that it indicates to
anyone f amiliar with Chekho v’s o wn artistic cr edo just ho w diff erent his
symbolist aesthetic is fr om his cr eator’s r ealism. Kno wing that Chekho v would
certainl y not ha ve agreed with Treplev’s artistic vie ws is useful in helping a
director or actor decide ho w sympatheticall y or otherwise to portra y this
character . Attacking the con ventions of r ealism, Treplev scornfull y exclaims:
‘Living people! We should sho w life neither as it is nor as it ought to be, but as
we see it in our dr eams .’114 This statem ent is the complete antithesis of
Chekho v’s o wn vie ws about drama. Not long after he had written The Seagull ,
he criticised the Norw egian dramatist Bjoernson f or writing a pla y that had ‘no
action, no living character s and no dramatic inter est’.115
Like the other self-dramatising character s in this pla y, Treplev cannot com e
to terms with r eality and consequentl y mak es of his o wn lif e a symbolist drama
in which he dr eams that he is the doom ed suff ering tra gic her o.116 At the end
of the pla y, Treplev e xpresses his unha ppiness in the o verblo wn langua ge he
had used in his symbolist pla ylet. In that earl y drama, ‘the principle of Material
Force’ had destr oyed lif e on Earth with the r esult that:
NINA. … It is cold, cold, cold. Empty , empty , empty . Terrible, terrible, terrible.
[Pause .] The bodies of living cr eatur es ha ve turned to dust, and eternal matter
has con verted them into stones , water, clouds … I am lonel y … Lik e a prisoner
flung into a deep empty w ell, I kno w not w here I am or w hat a waits m e.117
In Act Four , Treplev describes his o wn depr essed and lif eless state as f ollows:
TREPLEV . I’m lonel y, I ha ven’t the w armth of an yone’s dev otion. I f eel cold,
as in a v ault, and all I write is so dry , stale, dismal. Sta y her e Nina, I beg y ou,
or let m e go with y ou.118
The lack of maturity that is evident in Treplev’s a ppeal with its e xcessiv e
histrionic self-pity sugg ests that Chekho v did not wish Treplev to be interpr eted
as a ‘her o’. Character s like Masha, Sorin and Treplev all suff er genuine pain,
and Chekho v’s depiction of them sugg ests that he wishes his audiences to pity
them, but the r esponse of all thr ee character s to their suff ering is e xcessiv e.
Their v ain attempts to assum e a tra gic statur e and their adoption of a f atalistic
155The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

attitude to lif e mak e them ludicr ous as w ell as pathetic. As Laur ence Senelick
rightl y points out: ‘Abneg ation of r esponsibility on g rounds of human impotence
was not sympathetic to Chekho v’s w ay of thinking .’119
It is pr ecisel y because Nina is a ble to tak e responsibility f or her o wn lif e by
facing r eality , rather than running a way from it, that she, lik e the World Spirit
she once imper sonated, is ‘destined to triumph’. She o vercomes her earlier
romantic f antasies a bout lif e and the theatr e and no long er needs the comf orting
support of dr eams and symbols — r eality is sufficient. Nina’s matur e adjustm ent
to reality is r epresented b y her r efusal to see her self an y long er as a sea gull. The
seagull acquir es various la yers of symbolic significance in Chekho v’s pla y, and,
as Senelick has pointed out, both Treplev and Trigorin use the sea gull to
symbolicall y ‘position’ Nina in the r ole of victim:
When, in Act IV , she r epudiates the soubriquet, ‘I’m a sea gull. No , not that’,
she r ejects not onl y Treplyov’s martyr -bird, but Trigorin’s fictitious
happy-free-and-then-ruined cr eatur e. Nina, ha ving f ound her calling , is not
ruined but surviv es, if onl y in an anti-r omantic, w orkada y world.120
In a scene in Act Two, Treplev associated himself with the dead sea gull. He
threatens to kill himself unless Nina r eturns his lo ve. Nina’s r esponse to this
immatur e piece of emotional blackmail is to r eject his hea vy-handed symbolism,
and this should pr epare an audience f or her later r efusal to be identified with
this lif eless object:
[TREPLEV lays the seagull at her f eet.]
NINA. What does that signify?
TREPLEV . I meanly killed that sea gull this morning . I lay it at y our f eet.
NINA. What’s wr ong with y ou? [ Picks up the seagull and looks at it. ]
TREPLEV . [After a pause .] I shall soon kill m yself in the sam e way.
NINA. You’ve chang ed so m uch.
TREPLEV . Yes, but w ho chang ed fir st? You did. You’re so diff erent to m e now,
you look at m e coldl y and y ou find m e in the w ay.
NINA. You’re touch y latel y and y ou al ways talk so m ysteriousl y, in symbols
or som ething . This sea gull’s a symbol too , I su ppose, but it mak es no sense to
me, sorry .121
As Peter Holland points out, it is a sign of Nina’s essential sanity that she can
finall y reject this symbolic identification with the sea gull. Characteristicall y, it
is Treplev w ho ‘w ould rather talk in symbols than f ace u p to the r eality of his
life, a childish eg ocentricity that culminates in his suicide’.122
It is a ppropriate that the audience ultimatel y associates the sea gull with
Treplev rather than with Nina. The inert ph ysical pr esence of the bir d, when it
is fir st br ought on sta ge and later w hen it a ppear s in stuff ed form ar e suita bly
overblo wn symbols f or the decadent writer w ho fir st attempts suicide and then
156Interpreting Chekhov

succeeds in killing himself. Chekho v, whose o wn mastery of symbolic r ealism
was becoming incr easingl y subtle, w as able to use this crude symbolism in m uch
the sam e way that he used m elodrama — f or the purpose of par ody. John
Gielgud, w ho pla yed the r ole of Treplev in Esm e Film er’s 1925 pr oduction, f ailed
to detect Chekho v’s par odic deflation of the y oung symbolist, believing him to
be ‘a v ery r omantic character , a sort of miniatur e Hamlet’. Despite this
sentim entalised a pproach to the r ole, ev en Gielgud could not o verride Chekho v’s
comic intentions , as, much to the actor’s cha grin and disma y, audiences r efused
to tak e the symbolic sea gull seriousl y:
I resented the laughter of the audience w hen I cam e on in the second act holding
the dead sea gull, but on a v ery small sta ge it did look rather lik e a stuff ed
Christmas g oose, ho wever car efully I arrang ed its wings and legs bef orehand.123
Chekho v’s potentiall y tra gic character s are depicted with a deg ree of ir onic
detachm ent that critics lik e Vera Gottlieb compar e to Br echt’s distancing
techniques .124 Certainl y Chekho v created a per ceptible g ap betw een the tra gic
inner liv es of his character s and their comic public beha viour and, if this g ap is
made per ceptible in pr oduction, then that ‘anaesthesia of the heart’, that Ber gson
thought w as necessary in com edy in or der to allo w an audience to laugh at w hat
would otherwise be per ceived as a painful situation, can be achiev ed.
Stanisla vski’s pr oduction used v ery little ‘anaesthesia’ and pr oduced a tra gic,
bleeding heart v ersion of The Seagull . Esm e Film er tried, less successfull y, to do
the sam e, but the comic potential of the symbolicall y portentous sea gull could
not be su ppressed.
In mor e recent pr oductions of the pla y, particularl y in Britain, dir ector s have
attempted to f oreground the comic aspects of the drama, but at the cost of the
tragic elem ents. So m uch ‘anaesthesia’ is administer ed that the heart is stopped
altogether . Charles Osborne’s r eview of Mik e Alfr eds’ pr oduction of The Seagull
in 1991 describes such a dir ectorial a pproach:
Coarsening Chekho v, however, appear s to ha ve been the principal intention of
this sta ging. Chekho v called his pla y a com edy, but it is dir ected (b y the
perpetrator of this ‘ne w version’) as e xtremely crude f arce. It’s all v ery w ell to
break a way from the English sentim ental Chekho v of a g eneration a go, but in
this instance the ba by of eleg ant com edy has been thr own out with the
bath-w ater of autumnal m elanchol y.125
The manner in w hich dir ector s have recentl y interpr eted the scene in w hich
Irina Ar kadina temporaril y mana ges to stop her lo ver, Trigorin, fr om lea ving
her and running off with Nina illustrates the dang ers involved in o verstressing
the comic aspect of the scene. In ad dition, these pr oductions r eveal the
herm eneutic pr oblems that inevita bly face dir ector s who pr oduce pla ys fr om
an earlier period. The significance of the pla ywright’s w ork that w ould ha ve
157The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

been clear to the pla y’s original audiences ma y now be misinterpr eted or becom e
unreadable to a modern audience.126
In a speech that is deepl y insulting to the a ging Irina Ar kadina, Trigorin asks
her to set him fr ee so that he can indulg e in the fulfilm ent of his dr eam of
experiencing w hat he calls ‘y oung lo ve’. He r omanticall y en visions an
‘enchanting and ma gical lo ve that s weeps y ou off y our f eet into a mak e-believ e
world’ and, claiming that ‘this lo ve has com e at last’, asks Irina ‘Wh y should I
run a way from it?’ Irina a ppear s to be in a hopelessl y vulnera ble position w hen
she r esponds to his a ppeal. Chekho v’s sta ge direction sa ys that she is ‘tr embling’
when she r eplies: ‘No , no, no. You can’t talk to m e like that, I’m onl y an or dinary
woman. Don’t tortur e me, Boris . I’m terrified.’ Ho wever, within a pa ge of
dialo gue, Chekho v has this quite e xtraor dinary w oman win back contr ol of her
man, ev en if onl y for the tim e being . Chekho v sho ws us Irina using all of her
theatrical skills to dominate Trigorin. She turns the situation into a m elodramatic
‘scene’ and pla ys her r ole with all of the skill and all of the theatrical quack ery
of a Sarah Bernhar dt.127 The ‘scene’ comm ences w hen Irina transf orms her self
from tr embling def ensiv eness into ang ry attack:
TRIGORIN . … But no w, you see, this lo ve has com e at last, it calls m e on. Why
should I run a way from it?
IRIN A. [Ar kadina] [ Angr ily.] You m ust be mad.
TRIGORIN . Perhaps I am.
IRIN A. You’re all conspiring to torm ent m e toda y. [Cries.]
TRIGORIN . [Clutc hes his head. ] She doesn’t under stand, she w on’t under stand.
IRIN A. Am I r eally so old and ugl y that y ou don’t mind talking to m e about
other w omen? [ Embraces and kisses him. ] Oh, y ou’re mad. My marv ellous ,
splendid man. You’re the last pa ge in m y life. [Kneels down. ] My delight, m y
pride, m y joy! [Embraces his knees .] If you lea ve me for one hour I shan’t surviv e,
I shall g o mad, m y wonderful, splendid one. My master .128
Despite Trigorin’s embarrassm ent at this public displa y of Irina’s passion f or
him, he is una ble to stop her using ev ery technique in her po wer to k eep him.
She insists that he is a ‘r eckless bo y’ w ho needs to be pr otected fr om doing
‘something crazy’. She asserts her o wner ship of him: ‘y ou’re mine, all of y ou’.
Finall y, she praises his artistic skills to the skies , and then, using all of her o wn
artistry , she destr oys his r esolv e to lea ve her and r estor es her contr ol over him:
IRIN A. [Ar kadina] … Too m uch her o-worship, you think? Think I’m flattering
you? Then look in m y eyes, com e on. Do I look lik e a liar? Ther e, you see, I’m
the onl y one w ho appreciates y ou, I’m the onl y one w ho tells y ou the truth, m y
wonderful darling . You will com e, won’t y ou? You w on’t desert m e, will y ou?
158Interpreting Chekhov

TRIGORIN . I’ve no will of m y own, nev er ha ve had. I’m a fla bby, spineless
creatur e that al ways does w hat it’s told — sur ely that’s not w hat w omen lik e.
Take me then, carry m e off, but don’t ev er let m e move one step fr om y our side.
IRIN A. [To herself .] Now he’s mine. [ Off-handedl y and casuall y.] Actuall y, you
can sta y on if y ou w ant. I’ll lea ve on m y own and y ou can com e later , in a w eek’s
time. What’s the hurry after all?
TRIGORIN . No, we may as w ell go together .
IRIN A. As y ou lik e. We’ll g o together if y ou sa y so.129
In this scene, Chekho v has r everted to the m ethod of ‘dir ect action’ that w as
the standar d practice of dramatists of the tim e who wr ote w ell-made pla ys and
romantic m elodramas . This o vertly theatrical scene is ho wever giv en realistic
justification b y Chekho v, because it is Irina Ar kadina, a specialist actr ess in
these theatrical g enres, who ‘perf orms’ the scene. Despite the f act that Irina is
not spoofing the con ventions of m elodramatic acting but using them in a serious
manner to win back Trigorin, the v ery f act that such a ‘perf ormance’ is placed
by Chekho v in a lar ger drama of ‘indir ect action’ encoura ges an audience to
notice ho w stylisticall y diff erent this scene is fr om m uch of the r est of the pla y.
In such a theatricall y low-key conte xt, Irina’s m elodramatic beha viour cannot
help a ppearing e xcessiv e and ev en ludicr ous, and consequentl y she cannot help
appearing to be acting . The g ap betw een her r eal terr or at losing Trigorin and
the a bsurdly theatrical m ethods she emplo ys to k eep him, if pr esented in
performance, is lik ely to cr eate the a ppropriate balance betw een the tra gic and
the comic aspects of her character .
The difficulty f or the actor perf orming this scene is pr ecisel y that of pla ying
both the sympathetic and the laugha ble aspects of the character . In Charles
Sturrid ge’s pr oduction of The Seagull , the scene w as reduced to the lev el of
physical f arce. Victoria Radin vividl y described the comic business that Irina
[Vanessa Red grave] emplo yed to win back Trigorin [J onathan Pry ce]. She ‘g rabs
[him] b y the knees , throws him to the g round and cra wls betw een his out-spr ead
legs w hile f ondling his bottom and declaring him to be a g reat writer’.130 The
major pr oblem of taking a f arcical a pproach to this scene, and to Chekho v in
general, is that the tra gi-comic balance is inevita bly lost. Michael Billington’s
review of Vanessa Red grave’s perf ormance highlights the f act that, b y pla ying
this r ole in a f arcical manner , the ‘anaesthesia of the heart’ becam e total and it
was difficult to f eel in an y way sympathetic to ward Irina Ar kadina. Sturrid ge’s
production:
… com es equipped with a perf ormance b y Vanessa Red grave as Ar kadina that
often bor ders on the g rotesque and that sugg ests a pr ofound misunder standing
of the natur e of Chekho v’s genius … I don’t den y that Ms Red grave is fascinating
to watch (not least in the scene w here she uses ev ery er otic trick in the book to
keep hold of Trigorin). But in editorialising a bout Ar cadina, she misses an y
159The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

sense of her r esidual humanity: this is a w oman w ho (accor ding to the te xt) once
took m edicine to a w ounded w asherw oman and bathed her childr en in a tub .
You’d nev er guess that fr om Ms Red grave’s focus on Ar kadina’s eg otistic
triviality .131
This f arcicall y one-sided and jud gemental a pproach to the r ole of Irina a ppear s
to ha ve been part of the dir ector’s interpr etation, rather than an in vention of
Redgrave’s.132 Sturrid ge’s pr oduction had originall y had Samantha Egg ar
playing Irina, but, as F rancis King noted in his r eview, the r equisite tra gi-comic
balance w as lacking , with the r esult that Irina becam e ‘funn y’ but w as in no
way ‘mo ving’:
What is otherwise amiss with this pr oduction is crystallised in Samantha Egg ar’s
performance as Ar kadina. Certainl y, the character is selfish, sill y and trivial.
But the finest e xponents of the r ole — J oan Plo wright, P eggy Ashcr oft and
above all Isa bel J eans — f ound in her , as Chekho v himself sur ely did, both
humanity and pathos .133
Vera Gottlieb has f orcibly argued that Sturrid ge’s pr oduction utilised the
techniques of English f arce in this scene in particular , and consequentl y
‘vulg arized both the character and the pla y at that mom ent’.134 Francis King is
surely not claiming too m uch w hen he asserts , in his r eview of the r evival of
this Sturrid ge production, that ‘the sight of Ar kadina and Trigorin g rappling
amor ously with each other on the floor is sur ely alien to this most subtle of
playwrights’.135
However, while ther e is g eneral critical a wareness that Chekho v’s pla ys ar e
not simpl y farces, curr ent British dir ector s, who exhibit a lauda ble determination
to avoid the earlier tra gic ‘gloom and doom’ a pproach, still seem to find it difficult
to pr oduce these pla ys without intr oducing crassl y ina ppropriate comic
stage-business . John Cair d, in his pr oduction of The Seagull , with J udy Dench
as Irina, had his actor s play the scene in w hich Irina tries to stop Trigorin fr om
leaving her in a manner that ev en outdoes Sturrid ge in its use of o vertly farcical
and g rossly ina ppropriate business . Sturrid ge’s Irina ‘rugb y-tackles Pry ce
[Trigorin] to the floor , pins him do wn and massa ges his haunches as he springs
more or less fr ee, thus demonstrating her se xual po wer over him’.136 In Cair d’s
production, the ha pless Trigorin is not ev en allo wed to wr estle fr ee from Irina’s
sexual ad vances:
In Ar kadina’s thir d-act scene of a basem ent, he is flattened w hile Dench, in a
displa y of ridiculous vulg arity, chang es the usual knee-clutching business to
knee-tr embling se xual interf erence. She kisses his f eet, g ropes his priv ates and
works her w ay up to an or gasmic embrace. She g ets to her f eet, lights a cig ar
and, w hile the writer instinctiv ely reaches f or his notebook, casuall y thr ows
160Interpreting Chekhov

down, ‘Do sta y if y ou w ant to’. It is a highl y char ged comic mom ent, but
unjustifia bly coar se.137
Many modern dir ector s of The Seagull seem to believ e that their audiences
will be una ble to g rasp the significance of Ar kadina’s pla ying this scene as
authentic m elodrama, and so , they cut the specific business specified b y Chekho v
and r eplace it with easil y under stood f arcical business . In f act, ev en though a
modern audience ma y not ha ve direct experience of the kind of m elodramas that
actor s like Sarah Bernhar dt or Ar kadina pla yed in, the heightened langua ge and
gestur es used b y Irina in this scene ar e easil y readable as being e xcessiv e. The
clear contrast betw een this heightened beha viour and the or dinary ev eryda y
mode of ad dress used b y the character s, including Irina, else where in the pla y,
makes it possible f or the scene to be pla yed for both its pathos and humour .
Certainl y, if J eremy Kingston’s r eaction is r eliable, then Susan Fleetw ood’s
performance as Irina in Terry Hands’ 1991 r evival of his earlier pr oduction
achiev ed pr ecisel y that double per spectiv e on the character that is so vital if an
audience is to be induced to both laugh at and be sympathetic to wards her . Irina
turns fr om her son:
… w hose self-r espect she has shatter ed to w eave her spell u pon Trigorin,
whipping her tear s into fury , enveloping the poor f ellow in a she-bear’s hug
and g obbling him u p. Half-w ay thr ough this outbur st of furious sob bing a
chang e in tone com es into her v oice, f aint but definite. She is e xpressing the
panic of a w oman w hose lo ver ma y be lea ving her , but the artist in her , the
actress, is feeling its w ay forward again. Lik e Roger Allam’s m ellifluous Trigorin
noting do wn little phrases f or his stories , she is noticing the sound of her ra ge.
Its timbr e may be helpful w hen ne xt she pla ys in La Dame aux Caméllias .138
The Seagull is in som e ways a transitional drama that sho ws Chekho v in the
process of a bandoning outdated theatrical con ventions or using them in a ne w
way. The f act that Chekho v had not y et totall y emancipated himself fr om the
use of the con ventions of the w ell-made pla y led one critic to describe The Seagull
as ‘the last of Chekho v’s piece-à-thèse ’.139 It is certainl y true that the author
does pr opound the thesis that people need endurance in or der to find fulfilm ent
in both art and lif e. While the pla y certainl y uses m uch of the machinery of
romantic m elodrama and the w ell-made pla y, Chekho v had alr eady begun to
use these con ventions par odicall y. By the tim e he cam e to write his ne xt pla y,
Uncle Vanya, man y of the o vertly theatrical clichés pr esent in The Seagull had
gone. The pla ywright’s epic vision is not stated, but rather implied in the action
— an action that mirr ors the drama of or dinary dail y life in a m uch mor e realistic
manner than had been achiev ed in The Seagull .
161The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

ENDNOTES
1 Chekho v, A., quoted in Nilsson, N . A. ‘Intonation and Rh ythm in Cecho v’s Pla ys’, in Eekman, T.,
ed., Anton Cec hov 1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill, Leiden, 1960, p . 173.
2 Heim, M., ‘Chekho v and the Mosco w Art Theatr e’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A
Critical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981, p . 139.
3 Styan, J. L., Chekhov in Perf ormance , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1971, p . 9.
4 Seymour , A., ‘Summ er Sea gull, Winter Lo ve’, The London Magazine , May 1964, p . 63.
5 John Barber , in his r eview of Charles Sturrid ge’s 1985 pr oduction of The Seagull , noted that Samantha
Eggar’s w ay of pla ying this aside w as funn y, but ‘the am usem ent com es a little too pat, so that the
pitifulness often g ets lost. Samantha Egg ar, … as the f ading actr ess, actuall y faces the stalls ,
conspiratoriall y, to win a laugh on ‘No w he’s mine!’ w hen Trigorin at last yields .’ (Barber , J., Daily
Telegraph , 29 A pril 1985.)
6 Frayn, M., in Chekho v, A., The Seagull , Allen & Unwin, London, 1989, p . xviii. Som e director s avoid
the pr oblem of trying to justify the soliloquies r ealisticall y by not attempting to achiev e verisimilitude
at all. J ohn Cair d’s 1994 pr oduction emplo ys the kind of symbolist a pproach to the pla y’s pr oduction
that is in line with Me yerhold’s ideas a bout ho w Chekho v should be interpr eted. Robert He wison
reports ho w the ‘symbol, f antasies and incestuous desir es’ evident in the pla y ‘appear to justify Cair d’s
treatm ent of the te xt as mor e of a dr eam-pla y than w e have becom e used to . It helps to mak e sense of
the br eaks Chekho v made with the otherwise naturalistic con ventions of the script b y giving sev eral
character s brief soliloquies deliv ered dir ectly to the audience.’ (He wison, R., Sunda y Times , 17 J uly
1994.)
7 Alan Se ymour e xcuses Chekho v’s use of earlier dramatic f orms on the g rounds that he w as still learning
his trade. ‘If The Seagull seems to bristle with tricks left o ver from the nineteenth-century m elodrama
(the r elentless ‘planting’ of K onstantin’s ev entual suicide, f or example) these can be allo wed, for this
was the fir st pla y of Chekho v’s matur e period, the fir st pla y of this ne w kind.’ Se ymour then astutel y
points out that, because Chekho v had not as y et full y dev eloped his ne w form of r ealistic drama, he
created difficulties f or futur e director s sear ching f or the a ppropriate style in w hich to pla y this drama.
‘Any of the pla ys sets g reat pr oblems to their dir ector and in this h ybrid the pr oblems ar e magnified.’
(Seymour , A., op . cit., pp . 63–4.)
8 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 18 October 1896, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on the Short Story ,
the Drama, and Other Literary T opics by Anton Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 147.
9 Heim, M., op . cit., p . 134.
10 Heim, M., loc. cit.
11 Avilova, L., Chekhov in My Lif e: A Love Story , Methuen, London, 1989, pp . 88–9.
12 Ibid., pp . 92–3.
13 Slonim, M., Russian Theater from the Empire to the Soviets , Methuen, London, 1963, p . 121.
14 Gillès , D., Chekhov: Observer without Illusion , Funk & Wagnalls , New York, 1968, pp . 221–2.
15 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 21 A ugust 1898, in Benedetti, J ., ed., The Moscow
Art Theatre Letters , Routled ge, Ne w York, 1991, p . 31.
16 Karlinsk y, S., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess, Ber keley, 1975, p .
282.
17 Kommissarzhevska ya, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 21 October 1896, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 283.
18 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Chekho v, 18 October 1896, in Hellman, L., The Selected Letters of
Chekhov , Hamish Hamilton, London, 1955, pp . 193–4.
19 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 22 October 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit., pp . 194–5.
20 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Chekho v, 15 October 1896, in F riedland, L. S ., loc. cit.
21 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. K oni, 11 No vember 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit., p . 197.
22 Chekho v, A., Letter to E. Sha vrova, 1 No vember 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit., pp . 195–6.
23 Chekho v, A., quoted in Balukhaty , S. D., ed., The Seagull Produced by Stanislavsky , Dennis Dobson,
London, 1952, p . 22.
24 Chekho v, A., quoted in Hollosi, C ., ‘Chekho v’s Reaction to Two Interpr etations of Nina’, Theatre
Survey , Vol. 24, Nos 1 & 2, 1983, p . 118.
25 Hollosi, C ., loc. cit.
162Interpreting Chekhov

26 Ibid., p . 125. Hollosi is corr ect to point out that ther e can be no single definitiv e interpr etation of
The Seagull or of an y role in the pla y, but it does not f ollow from this that all interpr etations ar e equall y
valid. She is perf ectly accurate w hen she states that: ‘Almost all of the major character s in Chekho v’s
plays ar e ambiguous; their interpr etation poses no small task f or dir ector s and actor s. The figur e of
Nina Zar echna ya in The Seagull , in particular , has been construed in man y ways. She has been seen as
a soaring sea gull; a tumbled, tousled bir d; a talentless country girl; an em erging artist of pr omise; a
high-r eaching neur otic wr eck; a futur e actr ess of Ar kadina’s v ein; and so on.’ (Hollosi, C ., op. cit., p .
117.) What I wish to contest in Hollosi’s ar gument is her belief that all of these interpr etations ar e in
some way equall y valid.
27 Ibid.
28 Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 321.
29 Ibid., p . 322.
30 Meyerhold, V., in Braun, E., ed., Meyerhold on Theatre , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1969, p . 30.
31 Chekho v, A., quoted in Stanisla vski, C ., op. cit., p . 356.
32 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 9 Ma y 1899, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 357.
33 Stanisla vski, C ., op. cit., p . 357.
34 Ibid., p . 358.
35 Braun, E., The Director and the Stage , Methuen, London, 1982, p . 65.
36 Ibid., p . 63.
37 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o realised later that such a division of artistic la bour w as unw orkable. The
idea that ‘in the artistic r egion w e would ha ve equal rights’ and that ‘he had the last w ord in the r egion
of form and I in the r egion of content ‘ was, as an artistic solution to the pr oblems of dir ection, ‘b y no
means a wise one’ because, as he soon disco vered, ‘f orm could not be torn fr om content’. This point of
artistic demar cation Nemir ovich-Danchenk o ruefull y remar ked, ‘w as to becom e the most e xplosiv e in
our m utual r elations’. (Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles , London,
1968, p . 107.) As Benedetti has noted: ‘For Nemir ovich, w ork on The Seagull represented the ideal.
Stanisla vski w as be wilder ed by the pla y. Nemir ovich spent tw o days going thr ough the te xt, anal ysing
and e xplaining . The concept therefore was his; Stanisla vski’s sta ging w as an embodim ent of that concept.
That w as ho w Nemir ovich conceiv ed their w orking r elationship: himself, content; Stanisla vski, f orm.
It is significant that in all his corr espondence with Chekho v, Nemir ovich r efers to himself as the dir ector .’
(Benedetti, J ., op . cit., p . 14.) Stanisla vski w as ev entuall y to insist on combining the functions of
interpr etation and sta ging w hen dir ecting and this combination has no w becom e the normal r ole for
director s toda y.
38 Magarshack, D ., Stanislavsky: A Lif e, Faber & Fa ber, London, 1986, p . 181.
39 Gillès , D., op. cit., pp . 228–9.
40 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 184.
41 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1967, p . 280.
42 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., quoted in Balukhaty , S. D., op. cit., p . 63.
43 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 18–21 December 1898, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit.,
p. 44.
44 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . M. Yezhov, 21 No vember 1898, quoted in Hollosi, C ., op. cit., p . 122.
45 Yezhov, N. M., Letter to A. Chekho v, n.d., quoted in Hollosi, C ., loc. cit.
46 Knipper , O., quoted in Balukhaty , S. D., op. cit., p . 81.
47 Stanisla vski, C ., op. cit., p . 354.
48 Ibid., p . 355.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid. The su pposedl y ‘giftless’ Nina, in Stanisla vski’s pr oduction, can ma gicall y acquir e the necessary
talent to becom e ‘a true actr ess’ in or der that the dir ector can cr eate a coup-de-théâtre in w hich the
sentim ental tear -jerking potential of the scene is milk ed to its limit.
51 Ibid.
52 Hollosi, C ., op. cit., p . 123.
53 Ibid., p . 119.
54 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 245.
163The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

55 Chitau-Karmina, M., quoted in Hollosi, C ., loc. cit.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., p . 120.
58 Ibid., p . 124.
59 Ibid., p . 122.
60 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., op. cit., p . 121.
61 Pinter , H., ‘Writing f or the Theatr e’, in Pinter Pla ys, Vol. 1, Methuen, London, 1976, p . 11.
62 Williams , R., Drama in Perf ormance , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1972, pp . 130–1.
63 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 21 October 1895, in Hellman, L., op . cit., p . 189.
64 Ibid.
65 Brooks, C. and Heilman, R. B ., Understanding Drama , Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Ne w York, 1966,
p. 492.
66 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 233.
67 Steiner , G., The Death of T raged y, Faber & Fa ber, London, 1961, p . 161.
68 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 233.
69 Ibid., p . 247.
70 An earl y version of the pla y explicitl y stated at the end of Act One that Dr Dorn w as Masha’s f ather .
In the final v ersion of the pla y, references to ‘m y child’ a ppear to ha ve a mor e innocent a vuncular
meaning . Som e dir ector s in their pr oductions do sugg est the possibility that Dorn could be Masha’s
father .
71 Ibid., pp . 269–70.
72 Stanisla vski, C ., in Balukhaty , S. D., op. cit., p . 139.
73 Ibid.
74 Holland, P ., ‘The Dir ector and the Pla ywright: Contr ol Ov er the Means of Pr oduction’, New Theatre
Quarterl y, Vol. 3, No . 11, A ugust 1987, p . 213.
75 Stanisla vski, C ., in Balukhaty , S. D., op. cit., p . 253.
76 Holland, P ., op. cit., p . 214.
77 Chekho v, A., quoted in Melching er, S., op. cit., p . 62. In the te xtual notes a ppended to J ean-Claude
Van Itallie’s 1974 translation of The Seagull , Paul Schmidt corr ectly identifies Chekho v’s neg ative attitude
towards interpr etations that made his character s into cry-ba bies:
The sta ge direction almost crying (skvoz sl yozy) is one that Chekho v uses o ver and o ver in his
plays; it occur s four tim es in this one. The Russian phrase literall y means ‘thr ough tear s’, but
on no account does it m ean that Chekho v wants the actor or actr ess in question to cry , or
even necessaril y to com e near it. So man y of them did, especiall y under Stanisla vski’s
over-wrought dir ection, that Chekho v had to write to Stanisla vski’s partner at the Mosco w
Art Theater , Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, on October 23, 1903: ‘I often use the phrase “almost
crying” in m y sta ge directions , but that indicates onl y a character’s mood, not actual tear s.’
(Schmidt, P ., ‘Textual Notes’, in Chekho v, A., The Seagull, A New V ersion , Van Itallie, J-C ., trans .,
Harper & Ro w, New York, 1977, p . 93.)
78 Shulman, M., Standard , 27 A pril 1984.
79 Irvine, St J ., Observer , 29 September 1929, quoted in Miles , P., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Sam &
Sam, England, 1987, p . 21. The temptation to par ody such gloom y productions has pr oved irr esistible
and, as Laur ence Senelick has noted, w hen he e xamined Bur enin’s 1917 par ody of Chekho v, ‘the par odist
is confusing the pla y with the pr oduction’, in this case Stanisla vski’s Mosco w Art Theatr e productions .
In Bur enin’s par ody entitled ‘Cherry J am on a Treacle Base. A w hite drama with mood. And not a single
act’, Chekho v is seen as the writer of pr oto-a bsurdist pla ys full of hopelessness and despair:
Yes, on the w hole lif e is, so to speak, a hole. What ar e human beings born f or? To fall into
the hole. Lif e has no m eaning . Her e I sit in an old, sort of bar onial, aristocratic house, though
in fact it’s r emar kably bour geois. I sit and sm ear the ta ble with tr eacly jam made fr om Vladimir
cherries . Ther e in the or chard, the actor s and actr esses , made u p as bir ds, are chirping and
cuck ooing . Ther e, beside the ta ble, the pr operty flies ar e flying on the strings w hich Messr s
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o and Stanisla vsky are tugging with r emar kable eff ort. The g ramophone
reproduces the buzzing of flies . What is all this f or? Why is all this? For , so to speak, ‘mood’
and the pla y’s success , because without actor s and actr esses’ chirping and cuck ooing , without
164Interpreting Chekhov

flies’ buzzing , it w ould flop … But in a thousand, in a million y ears new people will be born.
And the y too will sm ear tr eacly cherry jam on the ta ble as I am no w doing . But the y, these
people of a f ar-off da y, will pr obably be mor e intellig ent and will not cr eate and pr esent
pseudo-r ealistic pla ys with mood, in w hich ther e is no m eaning and in w hich o ver the cour se
of four acts character s, for no r eason at all, carry on dialo gues lik e those in langua ge prim ers
for French and German … (Bur enin, V. P., quoted in Senelick, L., ‘Stuff ed Sea gulls: P arody
and the Reception of Chekho v’s Pla ys’, Poetics T oday, Vol. 8, No . 2, 1987, p . 290.)
80 Miles P ., op. cit., p . 13.
81 Swinnerton, F ., Nation , 17 J uly 1920, quoted in Miles , P., op. cit., p . 9.
82 Billington, M., Guardian , 29 A pril 1985.
83 King , F., Sunda y Telegraph , 5 Ma y 1985.
84 Shulman, M., Standard , 29 A pril 1985.
85 Ibid., pp . 74–5.
86 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 21 No vember 1895, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p . 146.
87 Scolnico v, H., ‘Chekho v’s Reading of Hamlet ’, in Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P ., eds , Reading Pla ys:
Interpretation and Reception , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1991, p . 201.
88 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 236.
89 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 2 No vember 1895, quoted in Van Itallie, J-C ., op. cit., p . 90.
90 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 12 J uly 1897, quoted in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit., p . 265.
91 The lak e and the moon ar e of cour se no mor e real than ar e the other sta ging and lighting eff ects used
in The Seagull , but just as Hamlet attempts to con vince an audience that he is a r eal per son with an
actual ‘motiv e and cue f or passion’ as opposed to the pla yer who onl y acts his passion, so in Chekho v’s
play we are ask ed to see the setting f or Treplev’s pla y not as a ‘theatrical set’, but as som ething that is
as ‘real’ as the setting of The Seagull as a w hole. Since that setting is itself a ‘theatrical set’, the parado x
involved in the attempt to cr eate an y ‘illusion of r eality’ is f oregrounded.
92 Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v’s Drama, Maeterlinck, and the Russian Symbolists’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed.,
Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981, pp . 161–2.
93 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 4 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton
Chekhov , The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 81.
94 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 107.
95 Ibid.
96 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 277.
97 Ibid., p . 280.
98 Ibid., p . 281.
99 Ganz, A., Realms of the Self: V ariations on a Theme in Modern Drama , New York Univ ersity Pr ess,
New York, 1980, p . 38.
100 Gottlieb , V., ‘Chekho v in Limbo: British Pr oductions of the Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Scolnico v H. and
Holland, P ., eds , The Pla y Out of Context: T ransf erring Pla ys from Culture to Culture , Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1989, p . 163.
101 Billington, M., Guardian , 9 July 1994.
102 Taylor, P., Independent , 23 February 1990. It should be noted that Mr Taylor f ound the comic
business surr ounding the perf ormance of Treplev’s pla y ‘witty’, r egardless of its ina ppropriateness .
103 Taylor, P., Independent , 8 No vember 1990.
104 Shak espear e, W., Hamlet , Act 3, Scene 2.
105 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 250.
106 Ibid., p . 234.
107 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 271.
108 David Ma garshack quotes fr om a letter to Suv orin in w hich Chekho v gave som e medical ad vice to
the 58-y ear-old publisher w ho had been suff ering fr om gid dy spells . The pr escription w as much the
same as that off ered by Dr Dorn to Sorin in The Seagull , and this sugg ests that, f ar from being heartless ,
Dorn is pr oviding w hat w as consider ed at the tim e to be the best tr eatm ent for this m edical condition.
(See Ma garshack, D ., The Real Chekhov , Allen and Unwin, London, 1972, pp . 42–3, f ootnote 1.)
109 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Tikhono v, 1902, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , p.
14.
165The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

110 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 241.
111 Ibid., p . 246.
112 Ibid., p . 238. Nina’s taste ma y not be v ery sophisticated and she a ppear s to lik e the sort of r omantic
melodramas that Treplev’s mother acts in. Som e of her criticisms of Treplev’s ne w form of drama might
apply equall y well to Chekho v’s ne w dramatic f orm. She complains that ‘Ther e’s not m uch action, it’s
just a lot of speeches . I think a pla y needs a lo ve inter est’. Nev ertheless , Nina’s comm ent that Treplev’s
play did not depict ‘living people’ w ould ha ve been r egarded as a major f ault b y Chekho v, who w as
himself so committed to using the con ventions of r ealism.
113 Ibid., p . 276.
114 Ibid., p . 238.
115 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 20 J une 1896, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist ,
p. 20.
116 Man y of the them es that w ere important in Russian symbolist literatur e are utilised b y Chekho v
in his depiction of Treplev . P. Gur ev, in a book on Russian symbolist poetry , outlines som e of these
recurring motifs . Chekho v’s use of these them es testifies to both his kno wled ge of this literary mo vement
and his subtle debunking of the mor e pretentious aspects of it. ‘The them e of solitude is the fundam ental
motif of symbolist poetry . In all of the e xperiences of the symbolist poets , we encounter , either dir ectly
or in r eflected f orm, the f act of their estrang ement not onl y from the lif e of g roups, but also fr om the
life of another individual, ev en their belo ved. Solitude is b y turns e xtolled as the delight and ha ppiness
of lif e — it alone r emains to the man not wishing to mingle with the cr owd — and cur sed: he strains
to br eak out of it, seeks salv ation among people, in lo ve for a w oman, but in v ain. He r emains alone
and alienated fr om all … All the f orces of his soul r ecede deep into the individual; his surr oundings
inter est him less and less , and he separates himself fr om lif e, as it w ere, with a translucent scr een thr ough
which ev erything seems to him less r eal, phantomlik e. The r eal w orld loses som ething in palpa bility
and w eight, and r eality com es to r esemble a dr eam; but, in e xchang e, the ima ges eng ender ed by the
soul acquir e the brilliance and f orce of actuality .’ (Gur ev, P., ‘Summing Up Russian Symbolist P oetry’,
in Ra binowitz, S ., ed., The Noise of Change: Russian Literature and the Cr itics (1891–1917) , Ardis, Ann
Arbor , 1986, pp . 106–10.)
117 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 241.
118 Ibid., p . 279.
119 Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v’s Drama, Maeterlinck, and the Russian Symbolists’, in Barricelli, J-P ., op.
cit., p . 164.
120 Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v and the Irr esistible Symbol: A Response to P eter Holland’, in Redmond, J .,
Drama and Symbolism: Themes in Drama 4 , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1982, p . 246.
121 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 253.
122 Holland, P ., ‘Chekho v and the Resistant Symbol’, in Redmond, J ., op. cit., p . 235.
123 Gielgud, J ., Early Stages , The Falcon Pr ess, London, 1948, p . 84.
124 See Gottlieb , V., Chekhov and the V audeville , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1982, pp .
126 and 128.
125 Osborne, C ., Daily Telegraph , 25 A pril 1991.
126 These pr oblems of interpr etation ar e made mor e difficult in the case of a writer such as Chekho v
because, not onl y are audiences incr easingl y removed fr om the tim e in w hich the pla ys w ere written,
they are also culturall y removed because these w orks ar e Russian, not English, in origin. For a discussion
of these particular pr oblems of dir ectorial interpr etation, see Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P ., op. cit.
127 Chekho v saw Bernhar dt perf orm and wr ote: ‘W e are far from w orshipping Sarah Bernhar dt as a
talent.’ In her portra yal of Adrienne Lecouvr eur Chekho v admitted ‘Ther e were brief passa ges in her
acting w hich mo ved us almost to tear s’, but he ad ded that ‘the tear s failed to w ell up onl y because all
the enchantm ent is smother ed in artifice. Were it not f or that scurvy artifice, that pr emeditated
tricksiness , that o ver-emphasis , honest to g oodness , we would ha ve bur st into tear s, and the theatr e
would ha ve rocked with a pplause’. (Chekho v, A., ‘Mor e about Sarah Bernhar dt’, December 1881, in
Senelick, L., Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists , Univ ersity of Texas Pr ess, Austin,
1981, p . 87.)
128 Chekho v, A., The Seagull , p. 265.
129 Ibid., pp . 265–6.
130 Radin, V., New Statesman , 9 A ugust 1985.
166Interpreting Chekhov

131 Billington, M., Guardian , 5 A ugust 1985.
132 Trigorin is another character w ho is often pla yed jud gementall y and not fr om his o wn point of
view. We kno w that Chekho v dislik ed the f act that Stanisla vski pla yed this character as a dand y. In
Anthon y Clar k’s 1990 pr oduction, Chekho v’s w eak-willed writer w as made into a rather nasty seducer:
‘Expatiating on the hollo wness of his f ame, Guinness [T rigorin] lets y ou see, in the f aintly calculating
look in his e yes, how the no velist is using this soul-bearing [sic] e xercise as a w ay of besotting the girl
[Nina] further .’ (Taylor, P., Independent , 23 February 1990.)
133 King , F., Sunda y Telegraph , 5 Ma y 1985.
134 Gottlieb , V., ‘Chekho v in Limbo: British Pr oductions of the Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Scolnico v, H. and
Holland, P ., op. cit., p . 166.
135 King , F., Sunda y Telegraph , 11 A ugust 1985.
136 Coveney, M., Financial Times , 5 A ugust 1985.
137 Coveney, M., Observer , 10 J uly 1994.
138 Kingston, J ., The Times , 12 J uly 1991.
139 Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 281.
167The Seagull: From Disaster to Triumph

Chapter 5. Uncle Vanya : ‘A Glimmer
of Light Shining in the Distance’
Futility and f atality , the unromantic f atality of everyda y events , the overwhelming
weight of boredom and banality are its central themes . (Mar c Slonim)1
The spine of the pla y: to make lif e better , find a wa y to be happy . (Har old Clurman)2
Uncle Vanya, which r eceiv ed its Mosco w pr emier e in October 1899, a ppear s to
be in man y ways a mor e con ventional pla y than The Seagull . One r eviewer of
the Mosco w Art Theatr e 1924 touring pr oduction comm ented that ‘ Uncle Vanya
is a pla y not f ar removed in construction fr om the old tim e melodrama thriller s
of the Am erican sta ge’.3
Despite the pla y’s a pparent simplicity , it has pr oved to be just as open to
radicall y opposing interpr etations as an y of Chekho v’s dramas . Both in Russia
and the West, the gloom and doom v ersion of Uncle Vanya has tended to
predominate with both critics and dir ector s. Fiona Scott-Norman, a Melbourne
critic r eviewing Gale Ed wards’ 1991 pr oduction, baldl y states , ‘Vanya is about
the futility of lif e’. She ar gues that, ev en though the pla y ma y not ha ve had this
pessimistic m eaning at the tim e it w as written, no w, ‘in our modern, Godless ,
society , that is the onl y interpr etation, because w e cannot shar e the hope of
Sonya that w e will find peace w hen w e die’.4 Certainl y Oleg Yefremov’s Mosco w
Art Theatr e pr oduction that tour ed to London in 1989 carried on the
Stanisla vskian tradition of pr esenting Chekho v’s dramas as if the y were tragedies .
This bleak vie w of Chekho v almost inevita bly leads to critics and r eviewers
inappropriatel y associating his cautiousl y optimistic vision of r eality with the
‘nothing to be done’ school of Absur dism. So , Milton Shulman begins his r eview
of Yefremov’s pr oduction as f ollows:
Chekho v’s Uncle Vanya has nev er been a barr el of laughs but the Sla vic gloom
into w hich it is plung ed by the Mosco w Art Theatr e’s pr oduction at the L yttelton
is not m erely dramatic but philosophical. Ev erything fr om the v ast set wr eathed
in mist and g ardens steeped in dead br own lea ves to the mo vements of the actor s
carrying their bur dens of despair lik e hea vy kna psacks , proclaims a mood almost
as glum as a light com edy conceiv ed by Sam uel Beck ett.5
In the light of such depr essing interpr etations , it ma y appear surprising that a
critic of the standing of Da vid Ma garshack should sum u p his anal ysis of the
play by confidentl y asserting that the ‘principal them e of Uncle Vanya, ther efore,
is not frustration, but coura ge and hope’.6
The f act that Uncle Vanya, in common with man y of Chekho v’s other dramas ,
has been interpr eted in a v ariety of w ays led the Melbourne Times critic, Chris
169

Boyd to mak e the ludicr ous sugg estion that the pla y might not m ean an ything
at all:
Uncle Vanya is sur ely Chekho v’s most beguiling and baffling pla y. Though its
portentous them es peal thr ough the 20th century , one m ust fir st ask, is Chekho v
really attempting to say anything? The pla y is, after all, open to countless
readings .7
Since an y dir ector will inevita bly ‘impose an interpr etation’ on a pla y such
as Uncle Vanya and mak e it ‘sa y’ som ething , it is sur ely wiser that such
interpr etativ e decisions be guided b y inf ormed critical ar gument, rather than
simpl y sugg esting that the pla y should m ean w hatev er the dir ector wishes it to
mean.
Chekho v originall y off ered Uncle Vanya, which had pla yed successfull y for
two years in the pr ovinces , to the Mosco w Mal y Theatr e, one of the oldest state
theatr es, rather than to the Mosco w Art Theatr e. Ho wever, every pla y produced
in state theatr es had fir st to be passed b y the official Theatrical and Literary
Committee. When this august bod y decided that the pla y could not be pr esented
until certain chang es had been made, Chekho v withdr ew his off er from the Mal y
and off ered it to the Mosco w Art Theatr e instead. For all of his r eserv ations
about Stanisla vski’s pr oduction of The Seagull , Chekho v seems to ha ve
appreciated the f act that this ne w, priv ate theatr e compan y which w ould perf orm
his pla y without alterations w as lik ely to be mor e attuned to the natur e of his
innovative dramatur gy than the mor e traditional g overnm ent-contr olled theatr e
compan y. He w as not disa ppointed, f or although the fir st night of the Mosco w
Art Theatr e production of Uncle Vanya did not elicit as ra pturous a r esponse as
that accor ded the fir st night of their pr oduction of The Seagull , nev ertheless the
play becam e an enormous success . A month after it opened, Chekho v wr ote
enthusiasticall y to A. L. Vishnevsk y, the actor w ho pla yed the r ole of Uncle
Vanya, about ho w grateful he w as to ha ve disco vered the Mosco w Art Theatr e:
… I thank hea ven that after ha ving sailed the sea of lif e, I ha ve finall y landed
on so w onderful an island as the Art Theater . When I ha ve childr en, I will f orce
them to pra y to God eternall y for all of y ou.8
The r elativ ely small amount of corr espondence and contemporary comm entary
concerning the Mosco w Art Theatr e production of Uncle Vanya that has surviv ed
is particularl y revealing in r espect of the incr easing tensions that w ere beginning
to dev elop betw een the tw o founder s of the Art Theatr e. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o
clearl y felt that he had a deeper under standing of Chekho v’s pla y than
Stanisla vski, and he w as not frightened to e xpress this vie w in his corr espondence
with both the pla ywright and the dir ector . An e xamination of this artistic quarr el,
combined with Chekho v’s own recorded comm ents a bout this pr oduction, su pply
director s of toda y with v aluable hints a bout ho w the pla ywright and the tw o
170Interpreting Chekhov

theatrical dir ector s of the Mosco w Art Theatr e thought Uncle Vanya should be
interpr eted. The f act that artistic consensus w as reached ma y go som e way to
explain w hy this pr oduction w as such a success . Three da ys bef ore the pla y
opened, Me yerhold wr ote to thank Chekho v for ha ving giv en him som e useful
advice on ho w to a pproach the r ole of J ohannes in Hau ptmann’s Lonel y People .
In the cour se of this letter , he described his impr essions of ho w Stanisla vski and
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o were conducting the r ehear sals of Uncle Vanya:
The pla y is e xtremely well put to gether . What I note most of all in the pr oduction
as a w hole is the sense of r estraint fr om beginning to end. For the fir st tim e the
two dir ector s complem ent each other perf ectly; one, a dir ector and actor , has
great ima gination, although inclined to g o too f ar in the actual sta ging; the other ,
a director and dramatist, def ends the inter ests of the author . And he seems quite
evidentl y to ha ve the u pper hand. The fram e does not hide the pictur e. Not
only are the basic ideas car efully preserv ed by not burying them in a hea p of
useless details , they are rather skilfull y brought out.9
Meyerhold clearl y sugg ests that Stanisla vski normall y lack ed ‘restraint’ but
that, in this case, his tendenc y to in vent all sorts of e xtraneous business , which
buried the central ideas of a pla y, had been k ept in check b y
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o. Meyerhold kne w that Chekho v would be sympathetic
to such criticism of Stanisla vski, as the pla ywright had onl y recentl y written a
letter to him in w hich he had w arned the actor that he w ould ha ve to r esist the
director’s tendenc y to g o for exaggerated eff ects that w ere theatrical rather than
lifelike.10
In his m emoir s, My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Nemir ovich-Danchenk o
recalled Stanisla vski’s lo ve of both m elodramatic e xcess and naturalistic
exaggeration in the pr eparation of his mise-en-scène .11 Stanisla vski’s obsession
with w hat Me yerhold called the ‘hea p of useless details’, w hich had been a
featur e of his earlier w ork, aff ected the earl y rehear sals of Uncle Vanya. Benedetti
notes that ‘Stanisla vski f ound his w ay into the character of Astr ov with
difficulty’, and this ‘insecurity in the earl y sta ges of r ehear sal’ manif ested itself
in a tendenc y for him to becom e ‘overactiv e’. Astr ov was giv en all sorts of
irrelevant ‘business’ b y the actor:
Thus he w ander ed round the house and g arden, noting ev erything , examining
the plants , picking the heads off dead flo wers. Abo ve all he s watted mosquitoes
… The pr oduction plan contains instructions to ev eryone to s wat them and
even, as an ad ded pr otection, to put handk erchiefs o ver their f aces.12
In his m emoir s, Nemir ovich-Danchenk o could not r esist quoting Chekho v’s
humor ous criticism of this w eakness in Stanisla vski’s a pproach to the r ole:
171Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

Like every inno vator he [Stanisla vski] f ell into e xtremes, but as ev ery detail
went thr ough m y dir ection I w as in a position to cast aside an ything that seem ed
superfluous or questiona ble.
Within a y ear, in Uncle Vanya, he w ould co ver up the head a gainst mosquitoes ,
would str ess the chirp of the crick et behind the sto ve; for these eff ects theatrical
criticism w ould g o to g reat lengths to a buse the Art Theatr e. Ev en Chekho v,
half jesting , half in earnest, w ould sa y: ‘In m y next pla y I’ll mak e the stipulation:
“The action tak es place in a land w hich has neither mosquitoes nor crick ets nor
any other insects w hich hinder con versation betw een human beings .”’13
At the tim e of the fir st Mosco w Art Theatr e production of Uncle Vanya,
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o was m uch mor e upset b y Stanisla vski’s w ork on the
play than the entry in his m emoir s indicates . In a long letter written on the da y
the pla y opened, he complained to Stanisla vski a bout the w ay the pr oduction
had dev eloped. He f elt that, due to the r estricted r ehear sal tim es, he had not
been a ble to comm unicate to the dir ector certain major r eserv ations that he had
about som e of his dir ectorial decisions . Nemir ovich-Danchenk o lam ents:
… w e have so little tim e for discussion that one cannot neg otiate full y and
logicall y. And w e both ar e aware that it is a wkw ard to disa gree during
rehear sals. It is embarrassing in fr ont of the actor s, don’t y ou think?14
Claiming to be attempting to satisfy the needs of ‘the inter esting and better
part of the public’ rather than m erely the r eviewers, Nemir ovich-Danchenk o,
apart fr om insisting that Stanisla vski kno w Astr ov’s lines better , ask ed him to
make certain chang es to the pr oduction. One of these ‘concessions’ that he f elt
‘oblig ed’ to ask f or concerned the theatrical business that Stanisla vski had devised
for himself:
1) in y our r ole as Astr ov I don’t w ant a handk erchief on y our head to k eep off
mosquitoes , it’s a detail I simpl y cannot tak e. And I can tell y ou for certain that
Chekho v won’t lik e it; I kno w his tastes and cr eativ e natur e extremely well. I
can tell y ou for certain that this particular detail doesn’t intr oduce an ything
new. I’ll w ager that it will m erely be n umber ed among those ‘e xcesses’ w hich
just irritate and bring no ad vantage either to the theatr e or to the w ork you ar e
doing … Finall y, even fr om the point of vie w of r eal lif e it is f ar-fetched. In
short I cannot find an y appreciable ar gument f or it, not one serious ar gument
of an y kind w hatsoev er. And pr ecisel y because ther e is no ar gument f or it I
cannot see w hy you w on’t giv e it u p when I ask y ou.15
At fir st, Stanisla vski r efused to giv e up these bits of business , clinging to
them as if the y were som e sort of security blank et. So , as Benedetti notes , ‘the
handk erchief and the mosquitoes r emained. Onl y graduall y, as r ehear sals
progressed and confidence g rew, did the w elter of detail disa ppear .’16 The
172Interpreting Chekhov

artistic ‘r estraint’ that Me yerhold had noticed dev eloping during r ehear sals in
the pr oduction as a w hole w as graduall y incorporated b y Stanisla vski into his
own perf ormance as Dr Astr ov and, to his surprise, this r esulted in a
characterisation that w as univ ersally admir ed. He is r eported to ha ve said to
Olga Knipper in astonishm ent: ‘I do nothing and the public lo ves it.’17
The useful lesson that can be learnt fr om Stanisla vski’s e xperience in pla ying
the r ole of Astr ov is that m uch of the art of acting Chekho v lies in the a bility of
the actor to pla y his or her r ole with an almost classical simplicity . Chekho v’s
advice to the actor s rehear sing in Karpo v’s St P etersburg production of The
Seagull remains as useful f or toda y’s actor s and dir ector s as it w as in 1896. ‘Abo ve
all,’ Karpo v reports Chekho v saying, ‘avoid theatricality . Try to be as simple as
possible. Rem ember that the y are all or dinary people.’18 Stanisla vski cam e to
see the v alue of such an under stated a pproach to characterisation.19
As a dir ector , Stanisla vski nev er overcame his ha bit of burying the central
ideas of Chekho v’s pla ys in ‘a hea p of useless details’. It w as Me yerhold w ho
pinpointed the potential f or Chekho v’s pla ys to be tr eated in this manner . As
the Russian critic S . Balukhaty noted:
In Me yerhold’s opinion the use of ima ges which ar e impr essionisticall y scatter ed
onto a can vas mak es up the basic characteristic of Chekho v’s dramatic style; it
provides the dir ector with material suita ble for filling out the character s into
bright, defined figur es (types). Hence, the characteristic enthusiasm of dir ector s
for details w hich distract fr om the pictur e as a w hole.20
One of the clear est examples of the kind of pr oblems that arise fr om such
excessiv e ‘filling out’ of a character can be seen w hen one e xamines the
performance giv en by Anton y Sher as Astr ov in Sean Mathias’ 1992 pr oduction
of Uncle Vanya. Anyone w ho has seen Sher’s perf ormances as the homicidal
Richar d in Richard III , or as the ar ch hypocrite Tartuff e in Molièr e’s pla y of the
same nam e, will r ealise that this actor has a highl y theatrical and often
idiosyncratic a pproach to his r oles. Christopher Ed wards, in his r eview of
Mathias’ pr oduction, thought that Sher’s perf ormance as Astr ov was ‘vital’, but
makes the damning comm ent that ‘Sher will nev er be a true ensemble actor , I
imagine’.21 Other r eviewers echo this criticism. Malcolm Rutherf ord of the
Financial Times pointed out that Sher ‘m ust be one of the har dest actor s to
discipline to a team perf ormance, particularl y when he is not the ca ptain’.22
Nothing is mor e fatal in pla ying Chekho v than if an actor dra ws attention to
himself as a star perf ormer rather than as a m ember of an ensemble, but this w as
precisel y what Sher a ppear s to ha ve done. K enneth Hurr en in the Mail on Sunda y
talked about ‘a cou ple of “actorish” perf ormances’ w hich marr ed w hat w as
otherwise f elt to be a fine pr oduction. Sher’s perf ormance Hurr en described as
‘amusingl y full of tricks fr om som e actor s’ handbook’.23 Man y reviewers noted
173Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

the self-centr ed natur e of Sher’s perf ormance. Ev en Christopher Ed wards, who
liked his interpr etation of Astr ov, pointed out that Sher ‘cannot help but g rab
attention and he g oes a bout it with his usual thor oughness her e’.24 The most
revealing r eview of Mathias’ pr oduction and Anton y Sher’s perf ormance w as
that written b y Charles Spencer f or the Daily Telegraph . Spencer’s anal ysis of
why this Uncle Vanya ‘misses g reatness’, despite ha ving the services of ‘an
exceptionall y distinguished cast’, sugg ests that this pr oduction f ell into the tra p
of being o vertly theatrical rather than attempting to be natural and lif elike:
In Sean Mathias’s sta ging y ou ar e too often a ware that y ou ar e watching
unusuall y gifted actor s acting .The best Chekho v productions cr eate the illusion
that y ou ar e watching not a car efully constructed pla y but the untid y spra wl
of lif e itself. Her e ther e’s a self-consciousness , a determination to be fr esh and
original at all costs . Mathias a ppear s to ha ve little tim e for the art w hich conceals
art.25
Chekho v’s commitm ent to the use of the con ventions of r ealism m eant that,
unlik e Mathias , he w as attempting to cr eate art in a f orm that b y definition tried
to hide its artifice. Sher , consciousl y or not, adopted the piece of ‘business’ with
the handk erchief w hich Stanisla vski had so lo ved and w hich
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o had so despised. Spencer , like Nemir ovich-Danchenk o
before him, points to the ina ppropriateness of such theatrical trick ery:
I must conf ess that I ha ve a particular pr oblem with Anton y Sher , greatly
admir ed by man y, who pla ys Astr ov. Mr Sher is f amous f or his h yperactiv e
flambo yance and he is una ble to r epress it ev en in Chekho v. The Doctor mak es
his fir st entrance dr enched in s weat and panting f or br eath bef ore going thr ough
an ela borate ritual of w etting a handk erchief and placing it a bsurdly on his
head. Of cour se all of this is m eant to sho w that Astr ov has just rid den a long
way and that it’s v ery hot, but w hat y ou actuall y think is her e’s old Anton y
Sher indulging in another ela borate piece of business . How long , you w onder ,
will it be bef ore he’s l ying pr one on the floor? Ans wer: about tw o min utes, and
he has plenty of other tricks u p his sleev e as the ev ening w ears on.26
Sher’s perf ormance as Astr ov epitomises the kind of histrionic e xcess that
Chekho v constantl y railed a gainst. The pla ywright’s lo ve of br evity and
under statem ent is constantl y attested to in the ad vice he g ave to other writer s
during the w hole of his car eer. So, in a letter written just prior to the Mosco w
Art Theatr e production of Uncle Vanya, we find Chekho v explaining w hat he
found ‘lacking’ in Maxim Gor ky’s writing:
I’ll begin b y saying that in m y opinion y ou lack r estraint. You ar e like a spectator
in a theater w ho expresses his enthusiasm so unr eserv edly that he pr events
himself and other s from listening .27
174Interpreting Chekhov

A few weeks later Chekho v elaborated on this criticism. Ha ving praised Gor ky’s
talent, he ad ded:
The onl y weak point is the lack of r estraint, the lack of g race. When a man
expends the f ewest possible mo vements on a giv en act, that is g race. In y our
movements one is a ware of su perfluity .28
It is pr ecisel y this ‘lack of g race’ that characterised Anton y Sher’s perf ormance.
By doing too m uch he made the pla y’s central action mor e difficult to r ead.
Gregory Mosher’s television v ersion of Uncle Vanya did not simpl y fail to
follow Chekho v’s ad vice a bout the pla y, but instead a ppear ed to be perv ersely
trying to incorporate as man y of the elem ents that the author had specificall y
objected to in Stanisla vski’s pr oduction. This Anglo-Am erican v entur e, produced
by the BBC in association with WNET Ne w York in 1990, in volved a stylisticall y
uneasy combination of British and Am erican actor s. The v erisimilitude that
Chekho v’s drama demands w as destr oyed b y having Ser ebryakov pla yed b y
the Scottish actor , Ian Bannen, w hile his daughter , Son ya, was pla yed by the
American actr ess Rebecca Pid geon. Ha ving hear d Dr Astr ov, the man she lo ves,
state that the onl y thing that still thrills him is ‘beauty’, Son ya lam ents:
SONY A. [Alone .] Oh, ho w dreadful not to be beautiful. It’s dr eadful. And I kno w
I’m not beautiful, I kno w, I kno w, I kno w. Coming out of chur ch last Sunda y
I hear d som e people talking a bout m e and one w oman said, ‘She’s such a nice,
kind girl. What a pity she’s so plain.’ So plain.29
The pr oblem in this pr oduction is that dramatic cr edibility is further strained
by the f act that, no matter ho w har d she tries to den y the f act, Ms Pid geon is a
remar kably beautiful w oman. The r esult is that she a ppear s to be r emar kably
lacking in per ception a bout her o wn a ppearance and Dr Astr ov seems to be
simpl y blind. Mary Eliza beth Mastrantonio is a ppropriatel y beautiful in the r ole
of Helen, Ser ebryakov’s y oung wif e, but her str ong Am erican accent a gain has
the eff ect of dra wing attention to the incong ruity of mixing actor nationalities
in a pr oduction otherwise attempting to achiev e complete r ealism.
Mosher’s dir ectorial perv ersity ho wever is ev en mor e evident in his r ejection,
conscious or otherwise, of Chekho v’s ad vice on ho w he wished certain sections
of the pla y to be perf ormed in or der to a void misinterpr etation. Olg a Knipper ,
who w as pla ying the r ole of Helen in the Mosco w Art Theatr e production, had
had difficulty in arriving at a satisf actory interpr etation of the r ole, with the
result that her perf ormance on the opening night w as unsatisf actory .30 She
wrote to Chekho v about her difficulties in accepting som e of Stanisla vski’s ideas
on ho w to pla y certain scenes . Knipper wr ote that she w as:
… rather put out b y a comm ent of Stanisla vski’s on Astr ov’s last scene with
Helen [Y eliena]. He w ants Astr ov to ad dress Helen as an ar dent lo ver seizing
175Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

on his passion as a dr owning man clutches at a stra w. In m y opinion if that w ere
the case Helen w ould f ollow him and w ouldn’t ha ve the coura ge to ans wer,
‘You really are absurd’. On the contrary , he speaks to her in the most c ynical
way, even som ehow making fun of his o wn c ynicism. Am I right or not?31
Chekho v’s r esponse w as clear . As f ar as he w as concerned, Stanisla vski’s
interpr etation, as pr esented b y Knipper , was totall y incorr ect. To pla y Astr ov
as an ar dent lo ver, Chekho v claim ed, w as ‘Wr ong, quite wr ong’. The pla ywright
then pr ovided an e xtremely lucid e xplanation of w hy such an a pproach w as
incorr ect:
Astrov is attracted to Helen [Y eliena], she ca ptivates him with her beauty , but
in the last act he alr eady kno ws ther e’s nothing doing . He kno ws Helen’s g oing
away for good so f ar as he’s concerned and in this scene he speaks to her in the
same tone as w hen he talks a bout the heat in Africa. And he kisses her quite
casuall y because he has nothing better to do . If Astr ov mak es a g reat to-do a bout
this scene the entir e mood of Act Four , which is quiet and a pathetic, will be
ruined.32
This potentiall y useful ad vice w as ignor ed in Mosher’s pr oduction. Ian Holm,
a deepl y gloom y Astr ov, played this scene with the sam e passionate intensity
advocated b y Stanisla vski, w hile Mary Eliza beth Mastrantonio’s Helen w ept
tears of anguish at her ina bility to find the coura ge to ha ve an aff air with the
tortur ed doctor .
Ronald Hingle y claims that Chekho v ‘found Stanisla vski’s interpr etation
over-flambo yant’.33 One can onl y speculate on w hat the pla ywright w ould ha ve
made of Mosher’s dir ectorial embellishm ents to Uncle Vanya. One of the most
glaring e xamples of this Am erican dir ector’s distortion of Chekho v’s m eaning
occurr ed at the climactic mom ent in Act Three w hen Vanya mak es his inept
attempt to shoot Ser ebryakov. At this point in the pla y Marina is comf orting
Sonya while, off-sta ge, Vanya and the Pr ofessor a ppear to be contin uing their
earlier on-sta ge quarr el. Chekho v’s te xt runs as f ollows:
MARIN A. … Don’t g rieve, my poor darling . [Looking at the centre door , angr ily.]
Dear m e, the f eather s are flying. A pla gue on those g eese!
[A shot of f stage . HELEN [Y eliena] is heard to scream. SONY A shudders .]
MARIN A. Oh, a cur se upon y ou!
SEREBR YAKOV. [Runs in, stag gering and terr ified.] Stop him, stop him! He’s
gone mad!
[HELEN andVOYNITSKY [V anya] are seen strug gling in the doorwa y.]
HELEN . [Yeliena] [ Trying to take the revolver from him. ] Giv e it to m e. Giv e it to
me, I tell y ou!
VOYNITSKY . [Vanya] Let m e go. Let g o of m e. [Frees himself , runs in and looks
around f or SEREBR YAKOV.] Wher e is he? Ah, ther e he is . [Fires at him. ] Bang!
176Interpreting Chekhov

[Pause .] Missed him, did I? Missed him a gain, eh? [ Angr ily.] Oh, hell, hell! Hell
and damnation! [ Bangs the revolver on the f loor and sinks exhausted in a c hair.
SEREBR YAKOV looks stunned.
[HELEN leans against the wall almost f ainting .] HELEN . Get m e away from her e.
Take me away, I don’t car e if y ou kill m e, but I can’t sta y her e. I can’t.
VOYNITSKY . [Desperatel y.] Oh, w hat am I doing? What am I doing?
SONY A. [Quietl y.] Nann y darling! Nann y!
CURTAIN.34
At this point in the pla y, we have an almost perf ect e xample of Chekho v’s
tragi-comic technique. This highl y melodramatic scene, r eplete with tw o pistol
shots , may initiall y sugg est to an audience that Vanya has committed suicide
off-sta ge, lik e Treplev in The Seagull . Chekho v then incr eases the theatrical
excitem ent b y intr oducing the theatrical twist of ha ving the possibility of suicide
removed and r eplacing it b y the ev en mor e dramatic situation of a potential
murder occurring on-sta ge. Ha ving dev eloped the m elodramatic possibilities of
the scene to their utmost, Chekho v then pr oceeds , through the use of comic
bathos , to transf orm it into som ething that, if it w ere not also potentiall y tragic,
would be akin to f arce. Eff ectiv e tragic action turns into empty comic g estur e.
In Mosher’s pr oduction, the off- and on-sta ge shots ar e present, as in
Chekho v’s script, but the dir ector ad ds an e xtra piece of sta ge business that is
entir ely at v ariance with the tra gi-comic tone of the pla y. After Da vid Warner
as Vanya says ‘Bang!’, he is giv en a line w hich he deliv ers in a quietl y menacing
fashion. That line — ‘All right. All right. One mor e tim e.’ He then slo wly
approaches Ser ebryakov, who stands stock-still, f earlessl y staring Vanya in the
eyes, points the r evolver under the pr ofessor’s chin and then pulls the trigg er.
A click rather than an e xplosion is hear d, and Vanya then ‘ sinks exhausted into
a chair’. Mosher’s interpolation is certainl y highl y theatrical and is part of a
tradition of m elodramatic o verstatem ent that accor ded with Stanisla vski’s taste
for excess , but it is the complete antithesis of the Chekho v’s artistic attempt to
‘show life and m en as the y are, and not as the y would look if y ou put them on
stilts’.35
Chekho v’s ad vice to the actr ess pla ying the r ole of Son ya provides further
evidence of his deep desir e to a void e xternalised m elodramatic perf ormance. In
her Reminiscences , the actor I. S . Buto va recounts Chekho v’s comm ents:
Anton P avlovich once sa w a perf ormance of Uncle Vanya. In the thir d act Son ya
went do wn on her knees on the line ‘Father , you m ust be m erciful!’, and kissed
his hands . ‘You m ustn’t do that, that isn’t w hat drama is’, said Anton Chekho v.
‘The w hole m eaning or drama of a per son lies internall y, not in outer
manif estations . Ther e was drama in Son ya’s lif e prior to this mom ent, and ther e
177Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

will be subsequentl y, but this is just an occurr ence, a contin uation of the pistol
shot. And the pistol shot is not a drama either , but an occurr ence.’36
Almost all of the dir ectorial flourishes intr oduced b y Mosher in his pr oduction
of Uncle Vanya helped to transf orm the pla y into an e xtremely portentous and
bleak tra gedy. Chekho v’s ir onic humour , which is f ound, f or example, in Vanya’s
ludicr ous attempt to shoot the pr ofessor , was almost totall y subm erged in the
gloom y fatalism that pr edominated in this v ersion of the pla y. What w as missing
in this pr oduction w as a sense of the dualistic vision of r eality , inher ent in
Chekho v’s w orks, that manif ests itself in the f orm of synthetic tra gi-com edy. In
all of Chekho v’s pla ys, and in Uncle Vanya in particular , the vision of r eality is
expressed in terms of both a short vie w and a long vie w. The short vie w is
essentiall y pessimistic and is e xpressed in a tra gic form, w hile the long vie w is
essentiall y optimistic and is associated with the comic aspect of the pla y. Dr
Astrov and Son ya are the tw o character s in the pla y who embod y the combined
short and long vie ws of lif e. Arriving at an a ppropriate interpr etation of these
roles can be the k ey for a dir ector seeking to find that delicate balance betw een
hope and despair at the heart of Chekho vian tra gi-com edy. It is , of cour se, u p
to an y giv en dir ector to find the specific mise-en-scène that, at the particular
time of his or her pr oduction, will r ealise that interpr etation f or an audience.
While Dr Astr ov is not a portra yal of Chekho v himself, the pla ywright
invested this character with man y of his o wn beliefs . In particular , Chekho v’s
dualistic vision of r eality is r eflected in Astr ov’s alternation betw een moods of
hope and despair . Just as the terminall y sick Dr Chekho v kne w that, fr om his
individual short-term vie w, ther e was little he could do to impr ove humanity’s
lot during his brief lif etime, so Dr Astr ov, in his dar ker moods , is depr essed b y
the fact that his o wn pun y efforts seem pointless and will ev en fail to be noticed.
At the beginning of the pla y the o verworked doctor is in just such a depr essed
mood. He has just lost a patient and this r eminds him of the limitations of his
profession and his o wn ina bility to significantl y impr ove the lot of the peasants .
Astrov, in this mood, loses the scientific objectivity that is vital f or surviv al in
the pr ofession of m edicine w here the inevita bility of death is a giv en. He r ecounts
how his per sonal emotions becam e involved w hen his patient died. This leads
him to v oice his curr ent f eeling that perha ps his w ork, and lif e in g eneral, ar e
futile:
ASTR OV. … They brought som eone in fr om the rail way, a switchman. I g ot
him on the ta ble to operate, and damned if he didn’t ha ve to die on m e under
chlor oform. Then just at the w orst possible mom ent m y feelings did com e to
life and I f elt as guilty as if I’d m urdered the man. I sat do wn and closed m y
eyes lik e this . And I thought of the m en and w omen w ho will be aliv e a hundr ed
or a cou ple of hundr ed years after w e’ve gone, those w e’re preparing the w ay
178Interpreting Chekhov

for. Will the y have a g ood w ord to sa y for us? You kno w, Nann y, they won’t
even remember us .
MARIN A. Men ma y forget, but God will r emember .
ASTR OV. Thank y ou for saying that. You put it w ell.37
Astrov’s long-term epic vision of a better lif e, evidenced b y his r eference to
the futur e generations f or w hom he and other s are working, is at this point
eclipsed b y his short-term sense of futility . What w e witness her e is a mom entary
loss of f aith on Astr ov’s part. We later find out that, unlik e Marina and Son ya,
Astrov has no belief in God to sustain him. In Act Two, after ha ving drunk too
much v odka, he embar ks on a late-night talk with Son ya in w hich he describes
this lack of f aith and sense of hopelessness b y using a m etaphorical ima ge:
ASTR OV. … You kno w, som etimes when y ou w alk in a w ood on a dar k night
there’s a glimm er of light shining in the distance, isn’t ther e? Then y ou don’t
notice ho w tir ed you ar e or ho w dar k it is or ho w the thorns and twigs hit y ou
in the f ace. As y ou w ell kno w, I work har der than an yone else r ound her e, the
most a wful things ar e always ha ppening to m e and ther e are tim es when the
whole business r eally gets m e down. But f or me ther e’s no light shining in the
distance.38
Despite Astr ov’s awareness that fr om his per sonal individual vie wpoint ther e
is no hope, he nev ertheless contin ues to beha ve in a manner that tak es into
account futur e generations . Lik e Chekho v, he contin ues to practise m edicine
and also , like the pla ywright, he plants tr ees in or der to halt the en vironmental
degradation that w ould ad versely affect the living conditions of those y et unborn.
Though Dr Astr ov does not a ppear to believ e in an y afterlif e, he r etains his f aith
in the idea of cr eating a better futur e for humanity . When Astr ov describes the
ways in w hich the Russian f orests ‘ar e crashing do wn bef ore the ax e’,39 he does
not ascribe this ecolo gical disaster to f ate. Accor ding to Astr ov, it is human
beings w ho ar e responsible because the y ha ve chosen to beha ve in this
irresponsible manner:
ASTR OV. … Man has been endo wed with r eason, with the po wer to cr eate, so
that he can ad d to w hat he’s been giv en. But u p to no w he hasn’t been a cr eator ,
only a destr oyer. For ests k eep disa ppearing , rivers dry u p, wild lif e’s becom e
extinct, the climate’s ruined and the land g rows poor er and uglier each da y.40
The f act that Astr ov says that man has been a destr oyer ‘up to no w’, implies
that in the futur e he could be a cr eator . If the deg radation had com e about
because it w as in the natur e of things to deg enerate, then Chekho v would indeed
have presented a w orld vie w in w hich ther e was ‘nothing to be done’. Ho wever,
Astrov’s ar gument sugg ests that the disaster s that occur to the en vironment ar e
the r esult of ‘no-one doing an ything’. It is ‘all because man’s so lazy’41 that he
‘destr oys ev erything with no thought f or the morr ow’.42 Astr ov has little f aith
179Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

in the pr esent but it is because he does ha ve faith in the ‘morr ow’ that he plants
his tr ees:
ASTR OV. … You don’t tak e any of this seriousl y, and — and perha ps I r eally
have got a bee in m y bonnet. But w hen I w alk past our villa ge woodlands w hich
I’ve saved fr om the ax e or hear the rustle of m y own sa plings , planted with m y
own hands , I feel that I too ha ve som e slight contr ol over the climate and that
if man is ha ppy a thousand y ears from no w I’ll ha ve done a bit to wards it m yself.
When I plant a y oung bir ch and later see it co vered with g reen and s waying in
the br eeze m y heart fills with pride …43
While Helen ma y be indolent and inca pable of in volving her self in an y useful
occupation, she is intellig ent enough to see her o wn lack of w orth w hen compar ed
to Astr ov. She admits to Son ya that she is ‘just a tir esom e character and not a
very important one’,44 but she r ecognises , like Son ya, that part of w hat mak es
the doctor attractiv e is his belief in the possibility of cr eating a better futur e:
HELEN . [Yeliena] … he has coura ge, flair , tremendous vision. When he plants
a tree he’s alr eady working out w hat the r esult will be in a thousand y ears’
time, alr eady glimpsing man’s futur e happiness . People lik e that ar e rar e and
should be cherished.45
Astrov’s vision is not one that includes per sonal ha ppiness . The v odka he
drinks ma y temporaril y anaesthetise the pain of enduring the g rinding natur e
of his w ork, but w hat sustains him is f aith in the futur e. The passion he sho ws
for his r esear ch into and docum entation of the en vironmental deg radation of
his district is made a bundantl y clear in the long speeches that Chekho v giv es
him in Act Three, w hen he e xplains his r esear ch to Helen. It is onl y when he
realises that she is not r eally inter ested in en vironmental issues and has som ething
else on her mind that he stops his heartf elt description of his w ork. Ther e is
absolutel y no sense of ir ony in these speeches , but rather a tone of serious
commitm ent:
ASTR OV. … The g eneral pictur e is one of g radual and unmistaka ble decline,
and it ob viousl y needs onl y another ten or fifteen y ears to becom e complete.
You’ll tell m e it’s the influence of civilization, that the old lif e obviousl y had
to mak e way for the ne w. All right, I see w hat y ou m ean. If r oads and rail ways
had been built in place of the ra vaged w oodlands , if w e had f actories , workshops
and schools , the peasants w ould ha ve becom e healthier , better off and mor e
intellig ent. But y ou see, nothing of the sort has ha ppened.46
It is onl y when Astr ov realises the r eal purpose of Helen’s priv ate consultation
that the bantering ir onic tone a ppear s. He w ags his fing er at her and calls her
‘a little bo x of tricks’, ‘little v ampir e’, and a ‘beautiful furry little w easel’.47
Attracted as he is to Helen’s beauty , he evinces no r eal passion f or her . Indeed,
180Interpreting Chekhov

when the tim e com es for him to sa y goodb ye, he r ealisticall y appraises the
situation b y pointing out to Helen that their w ould-be aff air w as really onl y a
comic interlude w hich f or a brief tim e took the place of his r eal passion:
ASTR OV. … No sooner do y ou and y ou husband turn u p in this place than
people her e who ar e getting on with their w ork, all busy cr eating som ething ,
have to dr op ev erything and do nothing all summ er but attend to y ou and y our
husband’s g out. You tw o have inf ected us all with y our idleness . I’ve been
under y our spell and I’v e done nothing f or a w hole month w hile all the tim e
people ha ve been f alling ill and the villa gers have been g razing their cattle in
my newly planted w oods … And I’m quite sur e of this . If y ou’d sta yed on her e
we’d ha ve had a full-scale disaster on our hands . It w ould ha ve been the end
of me and y ou w ouldn’t ha ve com e out of it too w ell either . All right then, off
with y ou. The sho w is o ver.48
When dir ector s overemphasise the ‘lo ve’ betw een Astr ov and the pr ofessor’s
wife the y push the pla y towards the type of clichéd boulev ard dramas that
Chekho v was trying to a void. Chekho v depicts Astr ov in an anti-r omantic
fashion, not as som e thw arted passionate lo ver but as a r ealist w ho sees lif e
without illusions and endur es. It is Uncle Vanya, or Uncle J ohnn y as he should
be in English, w ho attempts to be the passionate lo ver, and Chekho v depicts his
attempts at seduction in a comic f ashion.
Nothing could be mor e ludicr ous than Vanya’s perf ect comic entrance bearing
autumn r oses f or Helen and finding her in the arms of Astr ov. It is Vanya who,
having w asted his o wn lif e, blam es the pr ofessor f or his o wn lack of vision and
then mak es the comicall y ludicr ous claim, w hich ev en he r ealises is sill y, that,
but f or the pr ofessor , he w ould ha ve been a man of g enius:
VOYNITSKY . [Vanya] My lif e’s ruined. I’m gifted, intellig ent, coura geous. If
I’d had a normal lif e I might ha ve been a Schopenhauer or a Dosto yevsky. But
I’m talking nonsense, I’m g oing mad. Mother dear , I’m desperate. Mother!
MRS . VOYNITSKY . [Sternl y.] Do as Ale xander sa ys.49
Vanya’s pain is r eal, but his r eaction to w hat is in eff ect a mid-lif e crisis is
ludicr ously ina ppropriate. Her e he acts with a lack of maturity and emotional
independence similar to Treplev in The Seagull , but in this case it is ev en mor e
grotesque as Vanya is mid dle-a ged and still beha ves lik e a child in his mother’s
presence. It is Astr ov who is f orced to mak e Vanya face the har sh reality of his
life when the unha ppy self-pitying man asks the doctor to help him either to
create a ne w life or help him out of this one. Astr ov giv es ad vice to Vanya similar
to that w hich Dr Dorn had giv en to Sorin in The Seagull when that character
bemoaned his unliv ed lif e. He r efuses to bolster Vanya’s illusions:
VOYNITSKY . [Vanya] … What am I to do? What am I to do?
ASTR OV. Nothing .
181Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

VOYNITSKY . Giv e me som e medicine or som ething . Oh m y God I’m f orty-sev en.
Suppose I liv e to be sixty , that m eans I still ha ve thirteen y ears to g o. It’s too
long. How am I to g et thr ough those thirteen y ears? What am I to do? Ho w do
I fill the tim e? Oh can y ou think — ? [ Fever ishly clutches ASTR OV’s arm. ] Can
you think w hat it w ould be lik e to liv e one’s lif e in a ne w way? Oh, to w ake up
some fine, clear morning f eeling as if y ou’d started living all o ver again, as if
the past w as all f orgotten, g one lik e a puff of smok e. [Weeps.] To begin a ne w
life — Tell m e, ho w should I begin? Wher e do I start?
ASTR OV. [Annoyed. ] Oh, g et away with y ou. Ne w lif e indeed. Our situation’s
hopeless , yours and mine.
VOYNITSKY . Is it?
ASTR OV. I’m perf ectly certain of it.
VOYNITSKY . Please giv e me som ething . [Pointing to his heart. ] I’ve a burning
feeling her e.
ASTR OV. [Shouts angr ily.] Oh, shut u p! [More gentl y.] Those w ho liv e a century
or tw o after us and despise us f or leading liv es so stu pid and tasteless , perha ps
they’ll find a w ay to be ha ppy, but as f or us — Ther e’s onl y one hope f or you
and m e, that w hen w e’re resting in our g raves w e ma y have visions . Even
pleasant ones perha ps. [Sighs .]50
While he holds out no hope f or an y salv ation in his o wn lif etime or in an y
afterlif e, Astr ov is a ble to endur e because of his f aith in futur e generations .
Astrov is one of those character s in Chekho v’s pla ys and short stories w ho
embod y what Morris F reedman has called ‘Chekho v’s morality of w ork’. The
importance of interpr eting this character in terms both of his short-term
pessimism and his long-term optimism cannot be o verstressed as it is onl y when
both ar e realised on sta ge that Chekho v’s tra gi-comic vision can be e xperienced
by an audience. F reedman is accurate w hen he points to the centrality of Astr ov
in the action of Uncle Vanya:
It seems to m e especiall y meaningful that the most ener getic, the most vital, the
most balanced, the most intellig ent, and, all in all, the most attractiv e per son
in the pla y carries the point that w ork as it has m eaning after death is the onl y
good and m eaningful w ork that w e can ultimatel y do.51
Sonya shar es Astr ov’s faith in the efficac y of w ork but, unlik e him, she is
consoled b y her belief in God and an afterlif e. It is this f aith that allo ws her to
endur e her individual pain at not being lo ved by Dr Astr ov. The inconsola ble
Vanya, ha ving lost his f aith in the usefulness of w ork, com es to the r ealisation
that he has w asted his lif e. While Chekho v ma y not ha ve believ ed in God, ther e
is little doubt that he could a ppreciate the sustaining po wer of such a belief f or
those w ho could ha ve faith. Both Astr ov’s faith in ecolo gy and Son ya’s faith in
God could be interpr eted as a rather blatant thesis , advocating the need f or faith,
were it not f or Chekho v’s ir onic under cutting of their most committed utterances .
182Interpreting Chekhov

Astrov’s examination of the ma ps that sho w the ecolo gical dama ge occurring in
Russia and his f ervent r esolution to do som ething to r everse this pr ocess is
under cut b y the f act that Helen [Y eliena] is f ar mor e inter ested in him as an
attractiv e man than as a visionary man of ideas . The scene witnessed b y the
audience is not one in w hich an en vironmental thesis is driv en hom e. Instead,
the scene is one of comic ‘cr ossed wir es’ in w hich the committed Astr ov is so
engrossed in ad vancing his thesis that he is comicall y una ware that Helen
[Yeliena] is not listening to his ideas .
In a similar f ashion, Son ya’s long speech of f aith at the end of the pla y is
under cut b y the f act that she is pr eaching to the uncon verted. Vanya appear s
to ha ve little f aith in the e xistence of Son ya’s God and, ev en though he has no w
resum ed w orking, he no long er has f aith in the v alue of w ork. Son ya’s lyrical
last speeches ar e pla yed against a backg round of Vanya’s quiet sob bing. Ther e
is no need f or the actor to con vey any tone of ir ony in Astr ov’s speeches a bout
his f aith in ecolo gical mana gement. Helen’s am used r esponse to his ‘lectur e’
provides the scene as a w hole with that tone. Similarl y the actr ess pla ying Son ya
can let the character’s f aith in the afterlif e shine out in all its sustaining
commitm ent at the end of the pla y. The sharp juxta position of Son ya’s hope
with Vanya’s despair under cuts the po wer of her polemics w hile it enriches the
tragi-comic comple xity of the pla y’s conclusion:
SONY A. Well, it can’t be helped. Lif e must g o on. [ Pause .] And our lif e will g o
on, Uncle Vanya. We shall liv e thr ough a long succession of da ys and endless
evenings . We shall bear patientl y the trials f ate has in stor e for us . We shall
work for other s — no w and in our old a ge — nev er kno wing an y peace. And
when our tim e com es we shall die without complaining . In the w orld be yond
the g rave we shall sa y that w e wept and suff ered, that our lot w as har sh and
bitter , and God will ha ve pity on us … And w e shall find peace. We shall, Uncle,
I believ e it with all m y heart and soul … P oor, poor Uncle Vanya, you’re crying .
[Through tears .] Ther e’s been no ha ppiness in y our lif e, but w ait, Uncle Vanya,
wait. We shall find peace. [ Embraces him. ] We shall find peace.52
Regardless of w hether audience m ember s shar e Son ya’s f aith in the
compensating r ewards of the afterlif e, it does seem to be important that the actor
playing the r ole should sho w that Son ya believ es what she sa ys. Imposing an
ironic under cutting of this last speech of Son ya’s mak es the pla y into an
unremittingl y bleak e xperience that is alien to the tra gi-comic e xperience that
occur s when Chekho v’s vision of r eality is full y realised. For this r eason, the
kind of interpr etation of the r ole of Son ya giv en b y Frances de la Tour in
Christopher Fettes’ criticall y acclaim ed 1982 pr oduction is a ppropriate and did
not w arrant F rancis King’s final criticism. Ha ving praised this actor f or bringing
‘her incompara ble gift f or pathos to the r ole of the plain, y earning Son ya’ and
saying that she w as able in her perf ormance to ‘wring the heart’, King comm ents:
183Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

My onl y criticism of her perf ormance is that, w hen she deliv ers that last pitia ble
speech in w hich she tries to comf ort Vanya with a pr omise of final r est, she does
so as though Son ya really believ es what she is sa ying. I am sur e that she does
not.53
I can find no su pporting evidence, either e xternal or internal, f or King’s
assertion that Son ya doesn’t believ e what she sa ys. Again F reedman seems to
me to be near er the truth w hen he sa ys that, in the w orld of Uncle Vanya, ‘perha ps
the onl y meaning in lif e is to be f ound in looking f or meaning in lif e’.54 While
no specific f aith is v alorised b y Chekho v in Uncle Vanya, the necessity of ha ving
something to believ e in is ad vocated b y the pla ywright. To den y this leads to
the sort of misinterpr etation made b y Eric Bentle y in his w ell-kno wn article on
the pla y. Bentle y refuses to see Astr ov’s position as in an y way positiv e or
normativ e and pr oceeds to giv e a character anal ysis that, if it w ere to be f ollowed
in a pr oduction of the pla y, would r esult in an essentiall y absurdist v ersion of
the action. In Bentle y’s vie w, Astr ov is lik e all of the character s in the pla y —
a daydreamer who talks but does nothing:
Astrov is not to be cong ratulated on his beautiful dr eams; he is to be pitied. His
hope that mankind will som eday do som ething g ood operates as an e xcuse f or
doing nothing no w. It is an e xpression of his o wn futility , and Astr ov kno ws
it. Ev en in the earl y version he w as not r eally a Wood Demon. That w as onl y
the ir onical nicknam e of a crank. In the later v ersion ev en the nicknam e has
gone, and Astr ov is ev en mor e of a crank. When Yelena [Helen] arriv es he lea ves
his forests to r ot. Clearl y the y were no r eal fulfillm ent of his natur e but an
old-maidish hob by like Persian cats .55
Dr Astr ov ma y appear to be a crank to those character s who do nothing to
impr ove life, but to those, such as Son ya, who w ork, he a ppear s to be almost
heroic. It is har dly surprising that in Act One, w hen confr onted b y Son ya’s
adulation and the other character s’ scepticism at his attempts to do som ething
to save Russia’s f orests, he should co ver his embarrassm ent b y calling himself
a ‘crank’. Astr ov’s real attitude is r evealed in his long late-night discussion with
Sonya, when, ha ving drunk a lot of v odka, he pour s out his f eelings to her . He
admits that he ma y appear od d to other s, but that is onl y because these other s
think ‘shallo w little thoughts’ and ‘not one of them can see f arther than the end
of his o wn nose’.56 It is quite clear fr om his beha viour and the tone of this
speech that Astr ov is frustrated b y the small-mindedness of those ar ound him
who, because of their irr esponsible lack of eff ectiv e action, mak e him seem the
odd one out. No one else seems to be doing an ything:
ASTR OV. … They com e crawling u p to y ou, look at y ou side ways on and then
complain. ‘Oh, he’s a psy chopath’ or ‘He talks a lot of hot air’. And w hen the y
don’t kno w ho w to la bel m e the y say, ‘He’s an od d fellow, odd.’ I lik e forests.
184Interpreting Chekhov

So that’s od d. I don’t eat m eat, so that’s od d too . They don’t ha ve
straightf orward, decent, fr ee relationships an y mor e either with natur e or with
other people. That’s g one entir ely. [Is about to have a dr ink.]57
If one g rants the f act that Astr ov and, to a certain deg ree, Son ya are normativ e
character s in Uncle Vanya who embod y Chekho v’s morality of useful w ork, then
it becom es difficult to justify a bsurdist critical interpr etations of the pla y, such
as that put f orward by Eric Bentle y, or bleak pr oductions , such as that of Gr egory
Mosher . In most pr oductions of the pla y that I ha ve seen, Marina’s simple
expression of f aith that, ev en though futur e generations ma y not r emember the
work people lik e the doctor ha ve done to impr ove people’s liv es, ‘God will
remember’ w as followed by a bitter r esponse fr om the doctor . Astr ov’s line,
‘Thank y ou for sa ying that. You put it v ery w ell’,58 was deliv ered in an
extremely patr onising manner , with hea vy ir ony, impl ying that this sill y old
woman w as clearl y talking nonsense. If w e accept that Chekho v presents f aith,
whether in futur e generations or in the afterlif e, as infinitel y preferable to the
inertia and despair that r esults fr om ha ving no f aith in an ything , then it is quite
possible that Astr ov’s reply to Marina, the one per son he admits ha ving ‘a soft
spot f or’,59 might mor e appropriatel y be deliv ered without ir ony. It then becom es
the e xpression of g enuine g ratitude at being r eminded that it is mor e productiv e
to ha ve faith in the long vie w rather than succumb to the despair that r esults
from concentrating onl y on the short vie w of lif e.
It is clear that Chekho v, the scientificall y trained materialist, did not believ e
in God. But he equall y felt that humans needed to believ e in som ething in or der
to avoid the despair and inertia that r esults fr om an acceptance of the a bsurdity
of life. In Mar ch 1892, in a letter to a friend, he wr ote: ‘I ha ve no r eligion no w’.60
Chekho v expresses her e a similar per ception to that v oiced b y Astr ov in Uncle
Vanya when that doctor w as at his most depr essed: ‘ther e’s no light shining in
the distance’.61 Chekho v, however, even in his dar kest mom ents, did not entir ely
accept this bleak per ception. He f elt that som e kind of disease w as afflicting
him.
Chekho v’s own double per ception of short-term hopelessness and long-term
faith w as, as w e have seen, r eflected in the seemingl y contradictory beliefs of
Dr Astr ov, whose concern f or the futur e seems to be combined with a per sonal
fatalism. A brief entry in his Notebooks captures perf ectly Chekho v’s o wn
contradictions w here the question of f aith w as concerned. It r eads: ‘He w as a
rationalist, but he had to conf ess that he lik ed the ringing of chur ch bells .’62
To claim categ oricall y that God either e xists or doesn’t e xist w as seen as simplistic
by the pla ywright. Chekho v’s vie ws on the w hole question of f aith w ere comple x.
In his diary he once wr ote:
Betw een ‘Ther e is a God’ and ‘Ther e is no God’ lies a g reat expanse w hich the
sincer e sage tra verses with m uch difficulty . The Russian kno ws onl y one of
185Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

these tw o extremes, for the mid dle g round betw een them does not inter est them.
Hence, he usuall y kno ws nothing or v ery little.63
Chekho v’s Notebooks are litter ed with comm ents concerning the need to ha ve
a purpose in lif e. It is not difficult to see ho w Astr ov’s aim to impr ove the
environment f or futur e generations w ould be seen as admira ble b y the per son
who wr ote: ‘W e jud ge human activities b y their g oal; that activity is g reat of
which the g oal is g reat.’64 It is also clear that the e xpressions of f aith made b y
such character s as Marina and Son ya were unlik ely to ha ve been seen as the
naive mumblings of a pair of misguided believ ers by the per son w ho wr ote:
Faith is a spiritual f aculty; animals ha ve not g ot it; sa vages and uncivilized
people ha ve merely fear and doubt. Onl y highl y dev eloped natur es can ha ve
faith.65
Three years bef ore he died w e find Chekho v still concerned with ad vocating
the need to ha ve som e kind of f aith. So , having giv en details of the ad vanced
stage of his illness , he w arns his friend, Victor Mir olubo v, against becoming a
follower of a philosophical society cr eated b y Vasili Rosano v, but sugg ests that
he still hold on to his beliefs , even if onl y in his ‘o wn decenc y’: 'One should
believ e in God; if one doesn’t ha ve faith, though, its place should not be tak en
by sound and fury but b y seeking and mor e seeking , seeking alone, f ace to f ace
with one’s conscience.'66
Organised r eligion, lik e organised political parties and mo vements, was inimical
to Chekho v but, as I ar gued earlier , this does not impl y that he had no use f or
faith in a g eneral humanist sense.
If dir ector s of Uncle Vanya were to tak e account of Chekho v’s o wn beliefs ,
they might see mor e clearl y how ina ppropriate it is to interpr et Astr ov as a bitter
failure crushed b y the bor edom and inertia that surr ounds him, and the y would
not trivialise the vision of r eality e xpressed b y character s like Son ya and Marina.
A balance betw een hope and despair needs to be r ealised on sta ge in an y
production that hopes to adequatel y present Chekho v’s pla y.
Gary Saul Mor son has written one of the mor e useful r ecent articles on
Chekho v in g eneral, and on Uncle Vanya in particular , in w hich he pr ovides
valuable insights that ar e of g reat use to dir ector s. In the fir st place, he r eminds
us of som e of Chekho v’s concerns that perm eate both the f orm and content of
his pla ys:
It might be said that the fundam ental them e of Chekho v’s pla ys is theatricality
itself, our tendenc y to liv e our liv es ‘dramaticall y’. ‘T rue lif e’ does not g enerall y
conform to sta ge plots , except w hen people try to endo w their liv es with a
spurious m eaningfulness b y imitating literary character s and scenes … That is
what Chekho v’s major character s typicall y do . His pla ys center on histrionic
186Interpreting Chekhov

people w ho imitate theatrical perf ormances and model themselv es on other
melodramatic g enres.67
As w e saw in the pr evious cha pter on The Seagull , character s such as Masha,
Sorin, Treplev and Irina constantl y overdramatise their situations . They vainly
and ludicr ously try to giv e their pr osaic liv es the kind of significance that
character s in r omantic m elodramas ha ve. It w as pr ecisel y Voynitsk y’s tendenc y
to fantasise his o wn pathetic lif e that led to Astr ov and Son ya attempting to
make him f ace the r eality of his lif e. Typical of Uncle Vanya’s fantasised dramatic
scenarios is the one in w hich he ima gines w hat his lif e might ha ve been if he,
instead of the pr ofessor , had married Helen. In one of those undisguised
soliloquies that function rather a wkw ardly in this essentiall y realistic drama,
Voynitsk y pla ys the r ole of a y oung lo ver in his ima gined drama:
VOYNITSKY . [Vanya] [Alone .] She’s g one. [ Pause .] To think that ten y ears ago
I used to m eet her at m y sister’s w hen she w as onl y sev enteen and I w as
thirty-sev en. Why didn’t I f all in lo ve then and ask her to marry m e? It w ould
have been the most natural thing in the w orld. And she’d be m y wif e now. Yes.
And tonight the storm w ould ha ve woken us both. She’d be scar ed of the
thunder and I’d hold her in m y arms and w hisper , ‘Don’t be afraid. I’m her e.’68
Chekho v’s par odic use of r omantic m elodrama undermines an y her oic
potential in Vanya’s reverie. The audience should see a f orty-sev en-year-old
man beha ving in an entir ely ina ppropriate manner — lik e an adolescent
dramatising his se xual f antasies . The choice of w ho to cast in the r ole of Vanya
is important, since it is vital that the character does not assum e her oic dim ensions .
It is essential that the a ppropriate ph ysical ev ents be cr eated on sta ge in or der
to trigg er the desir ed ph ysic ev ents in the audience. Michael Red grave’s pla ying
of Vanya in Stuart Bur ge’s 1963 television pr oduction of Laur ence Olivier’s
Chichester Festiv al production g ave the character a deepl y tra gic quality partl y
because the actor’s nobility w as transf erred to the character . The casting of the
less her oic Wallace Sha wn in Louis Malle’s 1994 film, Vanya on Forty-Second
Street , by contrast w as a k ey factor in highlighting the comicall y ordinary natur e
of ‘Uncle J ohnn y’. For Chekho v’s tra gi-comic characterisation to be achiev ed
on sta ge, it is vital that an audience sees the g ap betw een Vanya’s claim that he
could ha ve been a Schopenhauer and his actual or dinariness . As Mor son observ es:
In most pla ys, people beha ve ‘dramaticall y’ in a w orld w here such beha viour
is appropriate. The audience, w hich liv es in the undramatic w orld w e all kno w,
participates vicariousl y in the mor e inter esting and e xciting w orld of the sta ge
… In Uncle Vanya, by contrast, the w orld in w hich the character s live resembles
everyda y life, but the character s nev ertheless g o on beha ving ‘dramaticall y’.
Consequentl y, actions that w ould be tra gic or her oic in other pla ys her e acquir e
tonalities of com edy or ev en farce.69
187Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

In Uncle Vanya, Chekho v creates situations that ar e potentiall y tra gic for the
play’s nominal pr otagonist. Despite this , Vanya’s attempts to ha ve himself seen
as a per son of tra gic statur e are constantl y under cut b y Chekho v. Vanya’s
ludicr ous attempts to seduce Helen [Y eliena] and kill her husband mak e him
comicall y pathetic rather than tra gicall y her oic. His claim that Ser ebryakov
stopped him fr om being a Schopenhauer or a Dostoevsk y is a further e xample
of his comic tendenc y to o verpla y his part. Vanya can attack Ser ebryakov for
acting the r ole of an important scholar w ho pr etends to kno w all a bout art, but
he seems lar gely una ware of his o wn r ole-pla ying. Again, Mor son mak es an
astute observ ation a bout the difficulties that f ace the actor pla ying one of those
character s who overdramatise their liv es:
One r eason the pla y has pr oved so difficult to sta ge in the right tonality — as
critics and dir ector s have constantl y noted — is that the actor s must o veract
and call attention to their theatrical status but without ceasing to pla y real people
who trul y suf fer.They must not o ver-overact. Their perf ormance m ust allude
to but not shatter the dramatic fram e.70
By activ ely sub verting the theatricality of m elodrama, Chekho v produces a
kind of drama in w hich ther e are no clear -cut her oes or villains . Harv ey Pitcher
is sur ely corr ect w hen he sa ys that, though som e Chekho vian character s are
more sympathetic than other s, it is dang erous to tak e sides in their pr esentation.
No character should be jud ged by the dir ector and actor to be ‘g ood’ or ‘bad’.
As Pitcher sa ys:
To regard the Pr ofessor , for example, as an ‘evil e xploiter’ and Vanya as a
‘virtuous victim’ misses the w hole point of Vanya’s portra yal, w hich is to sho w
the plight of a man w ho really has no one but himself to blam e for the m ess that
he has made of his lif e.71
Vera Gottlieb has pointed out that, in man y recent British pr oductions , the
decision to interpr et Chekho v’s pla ys without due r egard to their ‘sad comicality’
has r esulted in g rave distortions of their m eaning:
Thus the interpr etation of the pla ys as tra gedies simpl y ignor es both the content
and the f orm; w hile those pr oductions w hich ha ve recentl y pla yed u p the
comedy have also f ailed to fuse f orm and content e xactl y because the com edy
has not been seen as emanating fr om the philosoph y and ideas of the pla ys —
comic styles ha ve been e xplor ed, but not the serious function of the com edy.72
The delicate balance betw een the comic and the tra gic is difficult, but not
impossible to achiev e. In a 1990 pr oduction of Uncle Vanya directed b y Paul
Unwin, the r ole of Vanya was perf ormed by Timoth y West in a manner that led
Christopher Ed wards, the theatr e critic of the Spectator , to describe the
performance as ‘the most con vincing perf ormance of the part I ha ve seen’. What
188Interpreting Chekhov

Edwards sa w was a perf ormance in w hich the ‘sad comicality’, alluded to b y
Gottlieb , was clearl y achiev ed:
… Vanya’s spluttering ra ges and the truculent moodiness that lie behind them
expose the 47-y ear-old as a dour , immatur e adolescent. It is Vanya’s tra gedy to
be ridiculous . The f amous mom ent w here he fir es at the Pr ofessor and misses ,
twice, sums Vanya’s lif e up. Farcicall y, he has missed all of his opportunities .
But this is pr ecisel y what mak es the pla y so aff ecting . When he bur sts into tear s
of frustration West is both ridiculous and heart-r ending at the sam e tim e.73
If the critic f or the Guardian , David Foot, is to be believ ed, ho wever, the
same production f ailed to cr eate the r equisite tra gi-comic balance f or the
production as a w hole, mainl y as a r esult of the bleak manner in w hich P atrick
Malahide interpr eted the r ole of Astr ov. Foot had no pr oblem with this
interpr etation, since he wr ongly assum ed that the vision of r eality embodied in
Chekho v’s pla y is completel y tragic. ‘P aul Unwin, the dir ector , is faithful enough
to the pessimistic spirit of the pla y’, Foot claims and, consistent with this
one-sided vie w, proceeds to praise the actor’s interpr etation of the doctor’s r ole:
Patrick Malahide’s Astr ov, wearisom e, embitter ed, idealism painfull y thw arted,
is portra yed with unr elenting despair . Her e is both the most complicated and
inter esting character on vie w.74
If Unwin tipped the balance of his pr oduction to wards the tra gic, then the
Renaissance Theatr e Compan y production, jointl y dir ected b y Peter Eg an and
Kenneth Brana gh, o verbalanced the pla y towards the comic. The compan y
advertised their pr oduction on the poster as ‘The Bouncing Chekho v’, w hich,
as Allison P earson noted, made it a ppear that ‘Anton P avlovich, the master of
sleight of mind and heart, needed the Carry On treatm ent’. P earson described
the eff ect of this particular a pproach:
Half the cast act as though the y are in a Chekho v pla y: their vivid inner liv es
surface in details w hich sugg est the y have made the long m ental journe y to the
Serebryakov estate. The r est ha ve apparently tak en an A wayday to
Ayckbourng rad. It is a missed opportunity with a g reat pla y that is all a bout
wasted chances .75
Pearson’s last comm ent highlights the f act that the particular tonality chosen
by a giv en dir ector does not simpl y aff ect the style of pr oduction, it lar gely
determines the m eaning of the pla y. Vera Gottlieb g oes ev en further w hen she
points out that such dir ectorial decisions ha ve a political dim ension to them.
She ar gues that Chekho v uses com edy for philosophical and political purposes .
Comedy is used as a kind of ‘alienation eff ect’ that w orks against the cr eation
of an y ‘cathartic e xperience’ and highlights both the choices that the character s
have made and the f act that the y could ha ve made diff erent choices . The
189Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

distancing eff ect of com edy allo ws spectator s to see the situation mor e clearl y
than if the y are encoura ged to ha ve the kind of uncritical empathetic r esponse
that pur e tragedy tends to pr omote.
Chekho v seems to ha ve been acutel y aware of the function of comic distancing
well bef ore Brecht popularised the idea. He e xplained to Suv orin w hat a writer
had to do to a waken the r eading public’s a wareness: ‘One m ust shock it, rather ,
and then it will think mor e.’76 It was by using the ‘shock’ of comic incong ruity
in Uncle Vanya that Chekho v was able to mak e his audiences see ho w man y of
the character s had w asted their liv es. Chekho v’s purpose in doing this w as to
raise the consciousness of the audience to a lev el that might mak e them question
the w ays in w hich the y are leading their o wn liv es. Mor son sugg ests that the
self-dramatising character s who refuse to f ace r eality in Uncle Vanya act as
reminder s to audience m ember s of their o wn esca pist tendencies:
… the audience contemplates r eal people — people lik e themselv es — w ho liv e
citational liv es, that is , lives sha ped b y literary r ole-pla ying, lives consisting
not so m uch of actions as of allusions . We are ask ed to consider the e xtent to
which our o wn liv es are, lik e the title of the pla y, citational.77
Morson’s ar gument sugg ests that Chekho v’s pla ys ar e part of that tim e-honour ed
tradition that emplo ys com edy as a f orm of social corr ectiv e. This certainl y seems
to be consistent with Chekho v’s comm ent in his Notebooks that: ‘Man will onl y
becom e better w hen y ou mak e him see w hat he is lik e.’78
As with Mor son, Gottlieb’s anal ysis is significant because it r estor es the
emphasis on the function and purpose of Chekho v’s pla ys at a tim e when f ar
too man y productions of his pla ys ar e simpl y exercises in the cr eation of mood:
… the debate a bout tra gedy and com edy goes deeper than questions of content
and f orm, and becom es a philosophical and political debate. To put it crudel y:
the tra gic vie w of human impotence in the f ace of seemingl y inevita ble forces,
implies an acceptance of the w orld or der as it manif ests itself and w orks out its
design in the character s on sta ge. The assumption of human impotence, the
acceptance of ‘that w hich is’, the belief in ung overnable e xternal f orces, and
the insistence on ‘a bsolutes’, all becom e part of a r etrograde w orld vie w. This
philosoph y, I would sugg est, w as complete anathema to Chekho v, whose concern
as a scientist and as a writer w as with the e xposur e of contradictions , and not
an ann ulment or denial of contradictions . His aim w as to e xpose, and not to
tranquilize, w hat Colerid ge called ‘the lethar gy of custom’.79
Uncle Vanya is a pla y about lost opportunities that embodies an implied
criticism of the beha viour that pr oduces such w asted liv es. It onl y mak es sense
to criticise or blam e people or character s if the y are seen to ha ve the fr eedom of
action that mak es them r esponsible f or their beha viour . The character s in this
play are not the helpless pla ythings of f ate. Chekho v’s criticism of his character s
190Interpreting Chekhov

is not ho wever expressed polemicall y — in his dramatic univ erse ther e are no
villains to be vilified or her oes to be the subject of adulation. The dev astation
of the en vironment that is r ecorded in Uncle Vanya has com e about not because
humans ar e venal, but because, as Astr ov says, ‘the y’re backw ard and ignorant’80
and ‘man’s so lazy’.81 Because the pla ywright believ ed that ignorance can be
cured by education, and laziness b y work, Chekho v’s vision of r eality al ways
expresses long-term hope. An under standing of Chekho v’s vision of r eality will
inevita bly lead dir ector s to cr eate the ph ysical ev ents on sta ge that will cause
the audience to e xperience the a ppropriate psy chic ev ents. Consequentl y, it is
vital that this optimistic elem ent be pr esent in pr oductions of this pla y. Uncle
Vanya, as Allison P earson points out, depicts a ‘r ecognition’ situation in w hich,
'the character s have measur ed out their liv es in linseed-oil bills and sno wy da ys
around the samo var, only to be a gonisingl y awakened to the might-ha ve-beens
and the should-ha ve-beens b y the arriv al of outsider s.'82
The past lif e has been w asted and the pr esent lif e, ‘lif e as it is’, is awful; but
the futur e, ‘lif e as it should be’, may well be better if humans can learn fr om
their mistak es. In the short term, ther e is nothing f or the character s to do but
endur e. This does not m ean that the y should sit ar ound and mope but, rather ,
do as Astr ov and Son ya and ev en Uncle Vanya do in their diff erent w ays: w ork.
Chekho v believ ed that ‘the po wer and salv ation of a people lie in its intellig entsia,
in the intellig entsia w ho think honestl y, feel, and can w ork’.83 This idea w as
to be of central importance in his ne xt pla y, Three Sisters .
ENDNOTES
1 Slonim, M., Russian Theater from the Empire to the Soviets , Methuen, London, 1963, p . 128.
2 Clurman, H., ’Dir ector’s Notes f or Uncle Vanya’, in On Directing , Collier Macmillan, Ne w York, 1974,
p. 261.
3 Anon., World, 29 J anuary 1924.
4 Scott-Norman, F ., In Press , 3 July 1991.
5 Shulman, M., Evening Standard , 15 September 1989.
6 Magarshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 225. Richar d Gilman, in an
article in w hich he took the Br oadway theatr e reviewers to task f or what he f elt w as their inept criticism
of Mik e Nicols’ 1973 pr oduction, made a similar point to Ma garshack w hen he said that none of these
critics ‘said the important non-clichéd thing a bout Uncle Vanya: that lik e the other thr ee last g reat pla ys
of Chekho v it is not a bout f ailure but a bout stamina ’. (Gilman, R., ‘Br oadway Critics Meet Uncle Vanya’,
Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 4, No . 13, February–A pril 1974, p . 68.)
7 Boyd, C ., Melbourne Times , 10 J uly 1991.
8 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. L. Vishnevsk y, 3 No vember 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton
Chekhov , The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 355. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o records sev eral other
favourable comm ents made b y Chekho v about the tim e that Uncle Vanya was pr oduced: ‘Anton
Pavlovitch’s f eeling f or the Art Theatr e grew steadil y. I remember the dates w hen ther e were letter s
from him containing such e xpressions: ‘I am r eady to be a door -keeper in y our theatr e’; or ‘I en vy the
rat w hich liv es under the w alls of y our theatr e’; or , in ans wer to a disturbed letter of mine … ‘A
trembling note is audible in y our w ords. Oh, don’t giv e up! The Art Theatr e is the best pa ge of that
book w hich will one da y be written a bout the contemporary Russian theatr e. This theatr e is y our pride;
it is the onl y theatr e that I lo ve, though I ha ven’t been in it ev en once.’ (Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V.,
My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles , London, 1968, pp . 195–6.)
191Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

9 Meyerhold, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 23 October 1899, in Benedetti, J ., The Moscow Art Theatre
Letters , Routled ge, Ne w York, 1991, pp . 58–9.
10 A reading of Chekho v’s letter to Me yerhold written in earl y October 1889 (see Benedetti, J ., op. cit.,
pp. 56–7) m ust sur ely explode the m yth, lar gely created b y Stanisla vski in his My Lif e in Art , that
Chekho v was inca pable of giving actor s any useful ad vice. Stanisla vski w ould ha ve his r eader s believ e
that Chekho v, when ask ed to talk to actor s about his pla ys, ‘would g row confused, and in or der to find
a way out of this strang e situation and g et rid of us , he w ould tak e advantage of his usual statem ent:
“Listen, I wr ote it do wn, it is all ther e.”’ (Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980,
p. 361.) In f act, Me yerhold, w ho w as ackno wled ged to be one of the Mosco w Art Theatr e’s most talented
actor s, activ ely sought Chekho v’s ad vice. ‘Dear and r espected Anton P avlovich, … I ha ve been giv en
the r ole of J ohannes in Hau ptmann’s Lonel y People . Would y ou help m e to stud y this r ole? Write and
tell m e what y ou expect fr om som eone pla ying the r ole of J ohannes? Ho w do y ou see J ohannes?
(Meyerhold, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 29 September 1889, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit., p . 55.) Me yerhold’s
reaction to Chekho v’s detailed ad vice sho ws that he f ound the pla ywright’s comm ents on r ole
interpr etation to be lucid, per ceptiv e and useful to the actor . ‘I clasp y our hand w armly and thank y ou
for ha ving pointed out w hat y ou thought w as typical of J ohannes . Onl y som eone lik e you could be
content to sk etch in the g eneral characteristics y et with such mastery that the character em erges with
complete clarity … Mor eover ev erything y ou indicated … imm ediatel y sugg ests a host of details w hich
are in tonal harmon y with the basic tonality of the portrait of an intellectual w ho is lonel y, eleg ant,
health y and at the sam e tim e sad.’ (Me yerhold, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 23 October 1899, in Benedetti,
J., op. cit., p . 58.)
11 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s description of Stanisla vski’s mise-en-scène for Tsar Fyodor provides ample
evidence that this dir ector ador ed melodramatic e xcess . Emplo ying ‘mo vements, costum es and pr operties ,
by no m eans al ways historicall y accurate’, Stanisla vski set a bout cr eating his g randiose spectacle: ‘If
the original hats w ere high, he m ust mak e them e xcessiv ely high; if the sleev es were long , he m ust
make them so long as to necessitate their being contin ually tuck ed in; if the door in the manor w as
small, he had to r eproduce a door so small as to f orce the actor s to bend lo w in or der to pass thr ough.
He had r ead som ewhere that the bo yers, in a ppearing bef ore the Tsar, bowed thrice to the g round.
Well, in our r ehear sals the bo yers got do wn on their knees , touched the floor with their f oreheads , rose
and w ent do wn a gain — not less than tw enty tim es … And fr om this bright piling u p of colour s, ima ges,
outcries , we had to turn a bout-f ace to the sad ev eryda y realities of Chekho v.’ (Nemir ovich-Danchenk o,
V., op. cit., pp . 153–4.) Stanisla vski f ound this ‘a bout-f ace’ m uch har der to achiev e than his partner .
12 Benedetti, J ., Stanislavski: A Biography , Methuen, London, 1988, p . 93.
13 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., op. cit., p . 163.
14 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to C . Stanisla vski, 26 October 1889, in Benedetti, J ., The Moscow
Art Theatre Letters , p. 59.
15 Ibid., p . 60.
16 Benedetti, J ., Stanislavski: A Biography , p. 94.
17 Stanisla vski, C ., quoted in Benedetti, J ., op. cit., p . 97. The actor Leonid Leonido v has left a g raphic
description of ho w eff ectiv e Stanisla vski’s histrionicall y low-key perf ormance w as: ‘I ha ve seen man y
good perf ormances and man y great actor s, but nev er ha ve I e xperienced an ything lik e it bef ore. I
realised w hat it w as: her e one believ ed ev erything; her e was no trace of theatricality; it almost seem ed
that ther e were no actor s on the sta ge and no pr eviousl y contriv ed mise-en-scènes . Everything w as so
simple, just as in r eal lif e, but beneath this simplicity one becam e aware of the seething cauldr on of
human passions .’ (Leonido v, L., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Stanislavsky: A Lif e, Faber and Fa ber,
London, 1986, p . 192.)
18 Chekho v, A., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 184.
19 At this tim e, Stanisla vski w as in the pr ocess of disco vering thr ough practice the k ey elem ents of
what w ould later becom e his system of acting . His m uch admir ed pla ying of Astr ov had been pr eceded
by an equall y truthful characterisation of Lo vborg in Ibsen’s Hedda Gabbler . This perf ormance, accor ding
to Benedetti, mar ked a critical mom ent in Stanisla vski’s dev elopm ent as an actor . ‘It is difficult to locate
precise turning points in an actor’s car eer but it is w orth noting that this perf ormance f ollows imm ediatel y
on the encounter with Chekho v and the demands his pla ys made on the actor’s inner lif e. In subsequent
seasons Stanisla vski g ave perf ormances in w hich the psy cholo gical is emphasized rather than e xternal
appearance and technique.’ (Benedetti, J ., op. cit., p . 87.)
20 Balukhaty , S., quoted in Bitsilli, P ., Chekov's Art: A Stylistic Anal ysis, Ann Arbor , 1983, p . 116.
21 Edwards, C., Spectator , 7 Mar ch 1992.
192Interpreting Chekhov

22 Rutherf ord, M., Financial Times , 27 February 1992.
23 Hurr en, K., Mail on Sunda y, 1 Mar ch 1992.
24 Edwards, C., loc. cit.
25 Spencer , C., Daily Telegraph , 27 February 1992.
26 Ibid.
27 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 3 December 1898, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 320.
28 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 3 January 1899, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 323.
29 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1964, p . 40.
30 Knipper r esisted Stanisla vski’s dir ection in this pr oduction and the r esult w as that, on opening night,
she acted poorl y. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o reported to Chekho v that ‘Knipper caused us g reat anno yance.
At the dr ess rehear sal people said she w as fascinating , enchanting , etc. Today she g ot fluster ed and
overpla yed the w hole part fr om beginning to end.’ (Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v,
27 October 1889, in Benedetti, J ., The Moscow Art Theatre Letters , p. 63.) Knipper kne w that she had
performed badl y and in a letter to Chekho v, having said ‘I pla yed so a ppallingl y — w hy?’, she attempted
to giv e an e xplanation f or her f ailure. ‘The pr oblem to m y mind is this: the y wanted m e to f orget my
own conception of Elena because the dir ector f ound it boring but I had not been a ble to carry the idea
right thr ough. They imposed a diff erent conception on m e on the g rounds that it w as essential f or the
play. I held out f or a long tim e and w as still opposed to it at the end … On the fir st night I w as inf ernall y
nervous and simpl y panick ed … If I had been a ble to pla y the w ay I w anted, pr obably the fir st night
would not ha ve worried m e so … It’s a wful to think of the futur e, of the w ork ahead, if I ha ve to r esist
the dir ector’s y oke again.’ (Knipper , O., Letter to A. Chekho v, 27–29 October 1889, in Benedetti, J ., op.
cit., p . 65.)
31 Knipper , O., Letter to A. Chekho v, 26 September 1889, quoted in Hingle y, R., op . cit., p . 301. The
role of Astr ov was one of Stanisla vski’s most successful portra yals. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o wr ote to
Chekho v: ‘W e present Astr ov as a materialist in the best sense of the term, inca pable of lo ving, relating
to women with eleg ant cynicism. Ther e is sensitivity but no passion ther e. And all this in that half-joking
form w omen find so attractiv e.’ (Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., quoted in Benedetti, J ., Stanislavski: A
Biography , p. 96.) Olivier’s justl y famous interpr etation of Astr ov in his 1963 pr oduction of the pla y
followed closel y the kind of a pproach outlined b y Nemir ovich-Danchenk o.
32 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . Knipper , 30 September 1889, quoted in Hingle y, R., op . cit., pp . 301–2.
33 Ibid., p . 301.
34 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, pp. 56–7.
35 Chekho v, A., quoted in Fen, E., ed., Chekhov Pla ys, Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1954, p . 19.
36 Buto va, I. S ., Reminiscences , quoted in Worrall, N ., File on Chekhov , Methuen, London, 1986, p . 48.
Hingle y has pointed out that the incident r eferred to in Buto va’s w ork ‘actuall y precedes the shot and
does not f ollow it as Chekho v is made to sugg est’. (Hingle y, R., op . cit., p . 302.)
37 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 20.
38 Ibid., pp . 38–9.
39 Ibid., p . 27.
40 Ibid., p . 28.
41 Ibid., p . 27.
42 Ibid., p . 48.
43 Ibid., p . 28.
44 Ibid., p . 42.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid., p . 48.
47 Ibid., pp . 49–50.
48 Ibid., p . 63.
49 Ibid., p . 55.
50 Ibid., pp . 60–1.
51 Freedman, M., ‘Chekho v’s Morality of Work’, Modern Drama , Vol. 5, No . 1, 1962, p . 88.
52 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 67.
193Uncle Vanya: ‘A Glimmer of Light Shining in the Distance’

53 King , F., Sunda y Telegraph , quoted in London Theatre Record for 15 J uly–15 A ugust 1982.
54 Freedman, M., op . cit., p . 89.
55 Bentle y, E., ‘Chekho v as Pla ywright’, Kenyon Review , Vol. 11, No . 2, Spring 1949, pp . 233–4.
56 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 39.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid., p . 20.
59 Ibid., p . 39.
60 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 9 Mar ch 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 202.
61 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 39.
62 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., eds , The Notebooks of Anton Tc hekhov , The Ho garth Pr ess, London,
1967, p . 61.
63 Chekho v, A., quoted in Simmons , E. J ., Chekhov : A Biography , Jonathan Ca pe, London, 1963, p .
588.
64 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 6.
65 Ibid., p . 26. Giv en such positiv e views to wards people with an a bility to believ e in som ething g reater
than themselv es, it should not be so surprising to disco ver that, as Simon Karlinsk y puts it: ‘Chekho v’s
own f avourite among the hundr eds of stories he wr ote w as The Student , a v ery brief story that, in
moving and utterl y simple terms , states the case f or the importance of r eligious traditions and r eligious
experience f or the contin uation of civilization.’ (Karlinsk y, S., ‘The Gentle Sub versive’, Intr oduction
to Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess,
Berkeley, 1975, p . 13.)
66 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Mir olubo v, 17 December 1901, in Hellman, L., The Selected Letters of Anton
Chekhov , Hamish Hamilton, London, 1955, p . 296.
67 Mor son, G . S., ‘Pr osaic Chekho v: Metadrama, the Intellig entsia, and Uncle Vanya’, Tri-Quarterl y,
No. 80, Winter 1990–91, p . 134.
68 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 35. Chekho v giv es Helen a similar type of undisguised soliloquy in
Act Three w hen she m editates out loud a bout her f eelings f or Astr ov. Despite ha ving incr easingl y
master ed the con ventions of r ealism in Uncle Vanya, Chekho v had not y et found a w ay of entir ely
avoiding the use of pr e-realistic sta ge con ventions .
69 Mor son, G . S., op. cit., p . 135.
70 Ibid., p . 136. It w as pr ecisel y because of Anthon y Sher’s tendenc y to ‘o ver-overact’ in Sean Mathias’
1992 pr oduction that his perf ormance as Astr ov was marr ed.
71 Pitcher , H., The Chekhov Pla y, Chatto & Windus , London, 1973, p . 7.
72 Gottlieb , V., ‘The P olitics of British Chekho v’, in Miles , P., ed., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1993, p . 153.
73 Edwards, C., Spectator , 17 No vember 1990.
74 Foot, D ., Guardian , 10 No vember 1990.
75 Pearson, A., Independent on Sunda y, 18 A ugust 1991.
76 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 17 December 1891, in F riedland, L. S ., Chekhov: Letters on the
Short Story , the Drama, and Other Literary T opics , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 102.
77 Mor son, G . S., loc. cit.
78 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., op . cit., p . 15.
79 Gottlieb , V., loc. cit.
80 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, p. 48.
81 Ibid., p . 27.
82 Pearson, A., loc. cit.
83 Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., loc. cit.
194Interpreting Chekhov

Chapter 6. Three Sisters : ‘Oh if we
could only know!’
In his pla ys he [Chekhov] expresses the view that it would take at least two to three
hundred years , or perhaps even a thousand years , to br ing about a cardinal c hange
in human nature , and in the Three Sister s he makes the idealist V ershinin his
mouthpiece on the future of mankind. (David Ma garshack)1
And reall y the whole structure of the pla y is designed to undercut V ershinin. He
insists that lif e is al ways becoming ‘steadil y easier and br ighter’. But more than
three years go by in the course of the pla y, and nothing c hanges – not at any rate
for the better – nothing even begins to c hange . (Michael F rayn)2
Three Sisters , mor e than an y of Chekho v’s pla ys, has been r ead as a deepl y
pessimistic, almost nihilistic pla y, by man y critics , both in Russia and in the
West. Bev erly Hahn described it as ‘a pr ofoundl y sad pla y’, bef ore adding,
‘Lionel Trilling calls it one of the sad dest w orks in all literatur e’.3 Man y
productions ha ve lik ewise been e xtremely bleak aff airs. Chekho v’s so-called
‘pessimism’ led one r eviewer of Theodor e Komisarjevsk y’s 1926 London
production to describe the pla ywright as ‘the dramatist of disillusionm ent, of
frustrated hopes , and of human f ailure’.4 In 1984, Simon Karlinsk y optimisticall y
claim ed: ‘In the West, the dura ble cliché of the mor ose, despondent Chekho v
has latel y been ca ving in under the onslaught of inf ormed critical writing and
of the pr oductions of the pla ys that do not r educe them to gloom and twilight.’5
Karlinsk y’s observ ations ha ve turned out to be a case of wishful thinking because,
two decades later , man y critics and dir ector s contin ue to r egard Chekho v as a
pessimistic Absur dist bef ore his tim e. Richar d Gilman, in a m uch praised book
on Chekho v’s pla ys, ha ving giv en his cha pter on Three Sisters the
mock-Beck ettian subtitle ‘I Can’t Go On, I’ll Go’, pr oceeds to e xplicitl y link
Chekho v with that Absur dist dramatist. We are told that Beck ett’s Waiting f or
Godot has such pr ofound affinities with Three Sisters ’.6 After claiming that w hat
Chekho v dramatises is not an action but a condition, Gilman outlines his Absur dist
‘nothing to be done’ r eading of the pla y:
That Three Sisters doesn’t seem to be taking us an ywhere is, once a gain, a matter
of Chekho v’s ha ving written it so that w e see tim e’s eff ects not as rational or
even irrational consequences , not as consequences at all but as an accum ulation,
like the sand that mor e and mor e covers Winnie in Beck ett’s Happy Da ys, where
time is render ed in a visual m etaphor . Eventful immobility , or mo vement ar ound
a still center , or a cir cle, or a series of flat planes rather than a mor e or less
straight line — an y of these ima ges will help fr ee us fr om an inherited,
195

chronolo gicall y and narrativ ely anchor ed w ay of looking at Three Sisters , a
perspectiv e disastr ous to under standing .7
Like man y critics w ho anal yse Three Sisters , Gilman corr ectly indicates the
importance of ‘tim e’ in this pla y, but his assumption that Chekho v’s use of tim e
is similar to the w ay Beck ett uses the concept is unw arranted and, to use his
own expression, ‘disastr ous to under standing’. The kind of stasis that is pr esented
in Happy Da ys and that is giv en verbal f orm b y Pozzo in Waiting f or Godot has
little to do with Chekho v. When P ozzo cries out: ‘Ha ve you not done torm enting
me with y our accur sed tim e! It’s a bomina ble! When! When! … one da y we were
born, one da y we shall die, the sam e day, the sam e second, is that not enough
for you?’,8 he is indeed pr esenting a non-chr onolo gical pictur e of tim e. In
Beck ett’s Absur dist w orld ther e is, as Estra gon sa ys, ‘Nothing to be done’.
Chekho v’s w orld, b y contrast, is deepl y embed ded in chr onolo gical tim e.
His audiences ar e sho wn character s who ar e quite literall y ‘wasting their tim e’.
As I ar gued earlier , Chekho v’s pla y does not depict a w orld in w hich ther e is
nothing to be done, but one in w hich ‘no one is doing an ything’. Through their
own inertia and passivity , the character s in Three Sisters mak e their liv es absurd.
They ma y abdicate their r esponsibility f or action and ev en see themselv es as
‘Beck ettian’ f ated character s, but this is not w hat the o verall action of Chekho v’s
play depicts . Chekho v emplo ys the idea of tim e passing as a w arning and, in
this, is closer to Andr ew Marv ell’s concept of tim e than Beck ett’s. Marv ell w as
acutel y aware of ho w short a tim e human beings ha ve on earth and so wished
to avoid w asting it:
But at m y back I al waies hear
Time’s wingéd Charriot hurrying near:
And y onder all bef ore us l ye
Desarts of v ast Eternity .9
Chekho v, like Marv ell, is implicitl y reminding his audience not to w aste their
lives in the w ay that the character s on-sta ge waste their s. Far fr om being static,
time in Chekho v’s pla ys runs a way so f ast that character s are bewilder ed at its
speed. Andr ew, at the end of the pla y, begins his vivid description of the w asted
lives of the Pr ozorovs and those lik e them with an anguished v ersion of the ‘ubi
sunt’ them e: ‘Wher e is m y past lif e, oh w hat has becom e of it …?’10
Critics such as Gilman and, as w e shall see, such dir ector s as Mik e Alfr eds
privileg e the nihilistic character s such as Dr Chebutykin w ho espouse an
Absur dist vie w of lif e.11 Chebutykin‘s point of vie w, however, is not identical
to the pla ywright’s vie w expressed in the action of the pla y.12 As Ho ward Moss
has noted:
The doctor ma y comf ort himself with bo gus philosoph y and claim nothing
matter s but the other s tend to confirm not his thesis but its perv erse cor ollary .
196Interpreting Chekhov

By the indecisiv eness of their actions , by their ina bility to deal head-on with
what is central to their liv es, they mak e, in the end, w hat matter s futile.13
The kind of Absur dist interpr etation ad vocated b y critics lik e Gilman
contin ues in mor e recent pr oductions of Three Sisters . In 1986, tw o years after
Karlinsk y had heralded the demise of the ‘gloom and twilight’ school of Chekho v,
Mike Alfr eds dir ected the pla y in a manner that led Michael Billington to describe
this painfull y dra wn-out pr oduction as ‘the most unr elievedly tragic Three Sisters
I have seen f or som e tim e’.14 Alfr eds discussed his interpr etation of the pla y
with Da vid Allen w ho quotes the dir ector as sa ying:
Chekho v calls Three Sisters a drama. It is certainl y not a com edy, although it is
full of bitter ir onies and has comic mom ents. It is a dramatic pla y that is aspiring
towards tra gedy (although it does not quite fit the classic definition of tra gedy
— none of the character s has true tra gic statur e) … The pla y discloses a w orld
in which people ar e lost … The activ e them e of the pla y is ho w people cope
with f ailure, either b y constructing f antasies of a futur e ha ppiness , or
withdra wing into c ynicism, or b y trying to pr etend that all is w ell … Ther e
needs to be in perf ormance too , an emotional dang er, and a sense of a desolate
emotional landsca pe.15
Here is Gilman’s Beck ettian Chekho v realised with a v engeance! As Sheila Fo x
comm ented after seeing Alfr eds’ pr oduction: ‘This is bullet-in-the-back
-of-the-neck Chekho v. Three and a half hour s of full-thr ottle futility and
hopelessness .’16
With som e exceptions , nota ble f or their rarity , ther e ha ve been f ew
productions in the West that ha ve presented Three Sisters as a trul y optimistic
drama. Ev en Ma garshack, w ho pioneer ed the attack on the pessimistic school
of Chekho v interpr etation, could find little evidence to su pport the mor e extreme
Soviet r eadings w hich see in his w ork a po werful pr ediction of the bright futur e
that w as to r esult fr om the Comm unist Rev olution of 1917. As Ma garshack points
out, Chekho v ‘was nev er impr essed b y the f acile optimism of the r evolutionaries
who believ ed that b y sweeping a way the old or der the y would esta blish peace
and harmon y on earth’.17
Karlinsk y ma y have been rather too hopeful in his claims a bout the ‘ca ving
in’ of the ‘gloom and twilight’ school of Chekho v interpr etation. He w as mor e
accurate a bout the w ays in w hich, ‘In the So viet Union, the equall y short-sighted
image of the politicall y corr ect pr oto-bolshevik Chekho v, bequeathed b y the
Ermilo vs of the 1930s and 40s’18 was giving w ay to mor e balanced vie ws of his
work. It is rar e toda y for character s such as Trofimo v in The Cherry Orc hard or
Vershinin in Three Sisters to be perf ormed as though the y were the her oic
mouthpieces of Chekho v’s su pposedl y radical r evolutionary ideals . The
pessimistic ‘Absur dist’ Chekho v is certainl y mor e in evidence toda y than the
197Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

optimistic ‘So viet’ v ersion, but neither of these polarised r eadings of his pla ys
does them justice. The comple xity of Chekho v’s vision of r eality is lost w hen
the pla ys ar e interpr eted in a monopathic manner . Man y reductionist r eadings
result, at least partiall y, from a simplistic r eading of the pla ywright’s ‘political’
stance. As Vera Gottlieb claims: 'The ideas v oiced in all of Chekho v’s w ork,
whether literary or dramatic, ar e certainl y not those of a r eactionary , nor indeed
of a r evolutionary , but of a pr ogressiv e or humanist.'19
Mike Alfr eds’ ‘r eactionary’ interpr etation of Three Sisters deliv ered the clear
message to the audience that hopelessness w as the cor e featur e of the human
condition and that, as one r eviewer put it, ‘Chekho v is r eally writing a bout the
illusion of ha ppiness , the a bsurdity of our quest f or it’.20 It w as just such an
extremely pessimistic r eading that led Michael Billington to conclude his r eview
of this pr oduction with the heartf elt cry: ‘What I hung er for is mor e of the
peculiar Chekho vian balance betw een hope f or the race and deep per sonal
despair .’21
Given Stanisla vski’s pr opensity to interpr et Chekho v’s pla ys as tra gedies ,
one might ha ve supposed that he w ould be the dir ector accor ded the dubious
honour of ha ving initiated the long line of gloom y productions of Three Sisters .
Perhaps surprisingl y, Stanisla vski’s pr oduction ev entuall y turned out to be one
which pr esented a balance betw een ‘hope’ and ‘despair’. As Nick Worrall has
noted, ‘Chekho v himself w as well pleased with the pr oduction w hich, w hen he
saw it in September 1901, he said w as sta ged better than the pla y was written’.22
Worrall points out that Stanisla vski’s ‘pr oduction of Three Sisters can be
described as an ideolo gical fusion of opposites — f orm and content, positiv e
and neg ative, optimism and pessimism, m eaning and non-m eaning , and ev en,
“East” and “W est”’.23 The So viet critic, N . M. Str oyeva quotes evidence fr om
Stanisla vski’s pr oduction scor e that sugg ests an un usual sensitivity on the
director’s part to wards the mor e positiv e aspects of Chekho v’s vision of r eality .
Stanisla vski stated that those w orking on the pr oduction should do nothing that
would cause them ‘to miss our main quarry , which is to pr esent the author’s
final and optimistic summing u p, which compensates f or the man y sad parts of
the pla y’.24 So Str oyeva argues that:
The surmounting of the sorr ow at the end of this pla y is the most important
task of all f or a dir ector . He sees the ‘affirmativ e thought of the author’ as
Chekho v’s character s, even in tim es of deepest per sonal g rief, find the str ength
to raise themselv es to the lev el of dr eams a bout the futur e happiness of humanity .
Stanisla vski dir ected that Olg a’s final w ords be spok en ‘as buo yantly as
possible’.25
Stanisla vski did not arriv e at his balanced interpr etation of Three Sisters
immediatel y. It seems lik ely that he once a gain relied on Nemir ovich-Danchenk o
198Interpreting Chekhov

to clarify f or him the m eaning of the pla y. Certainl y, as Worrall points out,
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o ‘had a g reater enthusiasm, initiall y, for the w ork of
Chekho v than did Stanisla vsky’.26 Furthermor e, apart fr om ha ving a g reater
artistic affinity with Chekho v than did Stanisla vski, Nemir ovich-Danchenk o
was also closer to the pla ywright in matter s of ideolo gy. The ‘pr ogressiv e or
humanist’ Chekho v had a concern f or social issues that w as shar ed b y the
co-founder of the Mosco w Art Theatr e. As Senelick points out: ‘The Art Theatr e
was liberal but f ar fr om radical; its social conscience r esided mainl y in
Nemir ovich, f or Stanisla vsky was essentiall y apolitical’.27
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s contribution to the pr oduction of Three Sisters was
attested to b y A. L. Vishnevsk y, the actor cast as K ulygin, in a letter to
Chekho v,28 but his eff orts w ere not publicl y ackno wled ged. Worrall comm ents:
‘Despite the significant part pla yed b y Nemir ovich-Danchenk o in r ehear sals,
especiall y during J anuary, the onl y dir ector s’ nam es to a ppear on the pr oduction
poster w ere those of K. S . Stanisla vsky and V. V. Luzhsk y’.29 Nemir ovich-
Danchenk o had less of a pr oblem than Stanisla vski in ackno wled ging the artistic
contribution made b y his co-dir ector in the initial pr oduction. In My Lif e in the
Russian Theatre he wr ote: ‘ TheThree Sisters has r emained the best pr oduction
of the Art Theatr e, not onl y because of the su perb ensemble, but also because
of the fine mise-en-scène by Stanisla vsky’.30
In 1940, tw o years after Stanisla vski’s death, the eighty-thr ee-year-old
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o undertook his o wn pr oduction of Three Sisters . His
reading of the pla y was certainl y a mor e optimistic one than Stanisla vski’s .
Laurence Senelick outlines som e of the diff erences betw een the tw o Mosco w
Art Theatr e director s’ vie ws of the pla y’s action:
In 1901, Leonid Andr eev had declar ed the pla y’s them e-song to be ‘T o want to
live, excruciatingl y, agonisingl y, painfull y to w ant to liv e!’ But Stanisla vsky
had notated this tune so as to be sung , ‘It’s impossible to liv e’. Nemir ovich, in
line with Stakhano vite optimism, chose to sing tw o diff erent tunes: longing f or
a better lif e (not a plang ent, w hiny longing to esca pe lif e, but som ething activ e
though dev oid of the elem ent of struggle), and deep f aith in the futur e, in
Tusenbach’s storm a bout to br eak o ver the land and s weep a way deceit,
mone y-grubbing and antipath y to w ork. The character s were seen not as futile
and trivial, but as fine minds in ma gnificent and handsom e bodies . They were
to be interpr eted in a style of ‘virile str ength’.31
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s reading of Three Sisters , which he outlined in his
autobio graphy, aptly illustrates the w ays in w hich it is so easy to lose the
precarious balance betw een ‘hope’ and ‘despair’ that is so important an elem ent
of Chekho v’s vision of r eality . Writing in 1938, onl y tw o years bef ore his
relativ ely optimistic pr oduction of the pla y, but r eferring to the original 1901
production in w hich he had colla borated with Stanisla vski,
199Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

Nemir ovich-Danchenk o describes w hat he took to be the vision e xpressed in
the pla y:
The ev ents of the pla y crept along ev en as lif e itself during this epoch, in a tir ed
sort of w ay, without an y visible lo gic. Human beings acted under the influence
of chance ha ppenings; the y did nothing to build their o wn liv es. Her e is the
substance of his fir st act: a birthda y party , the spring , gaiety , birds singing ,
bright sunshine. And of the second act: triviality g raduall y tak es into its hands
the po wer over the sensitiv e, nobl y inclined human beings . Of the thir d act: a
confla gration in the neighbourhood, the entir e street is aflam e; the po wer of
triviality g rows intenser , human beings som ehow flounder in their e xperiences .
The f ourth act: autumn, the colla pse of all hopes , the triumph of triviality .
Human beings ar e as chess pa wns in the hands of in visible pla yers. The a bsurd
and the pathetic, the noble and the w orthless , the intellig ent and the stu pid,
are all interw oven …32
Statem ents such as , ‘Human beings acted under the influence of chance
happenings’, and, ‘Human beings ar e as chess pa wns in the hands of in visible
players’, can easil y be interpr eted as e xistential statem ents a bout the hopelessness
of the human condition. This is the ‘Absur dist’ Chekho v, who su pposedl y depicts
a world in w hich ther e is ‘Nothing to be done’. This is pr ecisel y ho w the
right-wing r eactionary critic of Suv orin’s New Times ,Viktor Bur enin, interpr eted
the 1901 pr oduction. Chekho v, he claim ed, ‘is the minstr el of hopelessness’.33
But, as Vera Gottlieb has con vincingl y argued, ‘Chekho v is not Beck ett’.34
A closer look at Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s anal ysis of Three Sisters reveals a
more balanced and less pessimistic r eading than a ppear s at fir st sight. When he
writes , ‘the y did nothing to build their o wn liv es’, he implies that it w as possible
for these character s to ha ve created better liv es for themselv es, but that, b y their
inaction, the y abdicated their r esponsibility to do so . Chekho v’s character s in
Three Sisters and, indeed, in all of his f our major pla ys, beha ve in a ridiculousl y
unreasona ble w ay in the f ace of the social situation in w hich the y find themselv es.
They beha ve foolishl y and, to a lar ge extent, cr eate their ‘sill y trivial liv es’
themselv es. The Am erican w oman w ho, having seen a pr oduction of Three Sisters
in 1942, observ ed that she ‘could not see m uch sense in thr ee adults spending
four acts in not going to Mosco w when all the tim e they had the price of a railr oad
ticket’35 was perha ps mor e per ceptiv e than is g enerall y ackno wled ged. Ther e
is som ething ludicr ously ‘incong ruous’ a bout the Pr ozorov sister s not doing
anything . Again Gottlieb per ceptiv ely notes that Chekho v’s character s carry
‘some measur e of r esponsibility f or their o wn liv es, and it is partl y this w hich
in Russian terms mak es the pla ys comedies’ .36 The character s mak e their liv es
pointless b y their r efusal to act.
Gottlieb has ar gued else where that our con ventional vie w of f arce and com edy
where ‘situation or cir cumstance dictate character and action — and r ender
200Interpreting Chekhov

character s impotent’ — a vie w which has m uch in common with ‘Absur dist’
work – is contrasted in Russia b y what is ‘virtuall y an oppositional r eading’ in
which comic and f arcical ‘action and cir cumstance arise lar gely from character:
there is potential f or chang e, albeit often unr ealised on sta ge’.37 Because the y
do nothing eff ectiv e to alter their situation, Chekho v’s character s becom e, at
least potentiall y, the objects of com edy’s critical laughter . Chekho v’s com edy
accor ds with the Classic and Neo-Classic ‘social corr ectiv e’ theories of com edy
and depends on the belief that humans ar e corrigible. Ag ain, Gottlieb is sur ely
correct w hen she points out that: ‘The leitmotif of pla y after pla y is ‘ tak zhit
nelzya’ — one cannot and m ust not liv e like that’.38 Chekho v uses f arce and
comedy to achiev e a similar aim to that espoused b y Molièr e, who claim ed that
‘the purpose of com edy is to corr ect the vices of m en’.39 Gottlieb is a gain
perceptiv e when she claims that Chekho v ‘uses f arce, as he does m elodrama, to
expose the f arcical’.40
As w e shall see, Stanisla vski did not find it easy to see the com edy in Chekho v
and, accor ding to Senelick, the ‘brightness’ of the fir st production of Three Sisters
‘was dimm ed by the “lachrymosity” w hich Chekho v complained Stanisla vsky
had ad ded to his w ork and w hich intensified o ver tim e’.41
Three Sisters was the fir st of Chekho v’s pla ys to be written specificall y for
the Mosco w Art Theatr e and the pla ywright attended the fir st reading of his
initial draft to the compan y on 29 October 1900. The r eading w as followed by
a discussion w hich, accor ding to Stanisla vski, ang ered Chekho v: ‘After the
reading of the pla y, som e of us , talking of our impr essions of the pla y, called it
a drama, and other s even a tra gedy, without noticing that these definitions
amazed Chekho v.’42 The pla ywright w alked out of the m eeting and, w hen
Stanisla vski called on him at his hotel, he f ound Chekho v still furious:
I do not r emember ev er seeing him so ang ry again … But the r eal reason (f or
Chekho v’s ang er) w as that he had written a ha ppy com edy and all of us had
consider ed the pla y a tra gedy and ev en wept o ver it. Evidentl y Chekho v thought
that the pla y had been misunder stood and that it w as alr eady a failure.43
Simon Karlinsk y has ar gued that the a bove account giv en by Stanisla vski is a
piece of r evisionism, written decades after the ev ent, that bear s little r elation to
the f acts. He claims that Stanisla vski’s ‘interpr etation of the pla y is flatl y
contradicted b y Chekho v’s o wn letter s at the tim e he w as writing Three Sisters
and b y all the other contemporary docum entation w e have, in w hich Three
Sisters is in variably referred to as a drama’.44
Chekho v wr ote to Olg a Knipper e xpressing his doubts a bout Stanisla vski’s
ability to r espond sensitiv ely enough to his ne w pla y. ‘Let it lie on the ta ble a
bit … Four important f emale parts , four y oung w omen of the u pper class; I
cannot lea ve that to Stanisla vsky — with all due r espect f or his gifts and
201Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

under standing . I m ust ha ve at least a peek at the r ehear sals.’45 Edward Braun
has ar gued that Chekho v feared that Stanisla vski might caricatur e the military
character s in the pla y: ‘Reluctant to surr ender all contr ol to Stanisla vsky,
Chekho v nominated in his a bsence a certain Colonel P etrov to act as military
consultant on the pr oduction.’46 Accor ding to Harv ey Pitcher , ‘Chekho v had
made u p his mind in ad vance that the pla y was bound to be a f ailure’. The
playwright had r eached this conclusion as a r esult of being ‘alarm ed by reports
of ho w Stanisla vsky was interpr eting Three Sisters’ .47
Whatev er the truth of Stanisla vski’s v ersion of w hat ha ppened at the fir st
reading of Three Sisters and Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s claim that Chekho v ‘sev eral
times repeated “I’v e written a v audeville piece!’’’,48 Chekho v set a bout r ewriting
the pla y. When it w as completed he did not call it "a Com edy", w hich had been
his g enre description of The Seagull and w as to be his description of The Cherry
Orchard, nor did he choose a rather v aguer description similar to "Scenes fr om
Country Lif e" that he had used to characterise Uncle Vanya. Instead, w hether
ironicall y or not, he chose to call Three Sisters "a Drama". Nemir ovich-
Danchenk o’s failure to ‘under stand w hy he called his pla y [a v audeville]’,49
and the r esponse of the Mosco w Art Theatr e per sonnel after the fir st reading
may have made Chekho v decide on this g eneric classification. He wr ote to Vera
Kommissarzhevska ya that the pla y ‘has turned out to be boring … its mood, I
am told, is gloomier than gloom’.50
Stanisla vski tended to assum e that it w as Chekho v, and not himself, w ho had
misinterpr eted the pla ys. In 1907, he confidentl y asserted:
As a matter of f act he nev er was able to criticise his o wn pla ys and he al ways
listened to the opinions of other s with inter est and astonishm ent. The opinion
that astonished him most of all — to the da y of his death he could not accept it
— w as that his Three Sisters (and later The Cherry Orc hard) was a serious drama
of Russian lif e. He w as sincer ely con vinced that it w as a g ay com edy, almost a
farce.51
Stanisla vski a ppear s to ha ve lack ed a clear idea a bout w hat kind of pla y he
was dir ecting . In 1909, he wr ote to Bar on Drizen and, as Laur ence Senelick states ,
‘confusedl y tried to e xplain’52 his a pproach to the pla y:
We under stood one thing: the pla y needed sadness and affliction. We attain
this sadness b y means of laughter , since thr ee quarter s of the pla y rests on
laughter . For the audience, ho wever, ther e was no laughter , the pla y emanated
an appalling sorr ow.53
Stanisla vski’s confusion a bout the pr ecise type of pla y he w as dealing with ma y
have arisen as a r esult of his g rowing a wareness that neither Chekho v’s extreme
view of the pla y as a com edy/farce, nor his o wn equall y one-sided vie w of the
play as a tra gedy/serious drama, adequatel y described the natur e of Three Sisters .
202Interpreting Chekhov

In his 1901 pr oduction of the pla y, Stanisla vski w orked against his natural bent
by attempting to incorporate the mor e optimistic and comic aspects of the pla y.
With the benefit of hindsight, he writes in his m emoir , My Lif e in Art :
The m en of Chekho v do not bathe, as w e did at that tim e, in their o wn sorr ow.
Just the opposite; the y, like Chekho v himself, seek lif e, joy, laughter , coura ge.
The m en and w omen of Chekho v want to liv e and not to die. They are activ e
and sur ge to o vercome the har d and unbeara ble impasses into w hich lif e has
plung ed them.54
Achieving an a ppropriate balance betw een ‘hope’ and ‘despair’ and betw een
the ‘a bsurd’ and the ‘pathetic’ in an y production of Three Sisters depends to a
large extent on ho w a dir ector interpr ets particular character s. What J oseph
Wood Krutch once said a bout interpr eting Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar
Named Desire applies with equal v alidity to Three Sisters : ‘Everything depends
on, as the phrase g oes, which side the author is on’.55 Much of Chekho v’s pla y
concerns itself with deliberations a bout ‘the m eaning of lif e’. Indeed, as Daniel
Gillès corr ectly observ es:
The m eaning of lif e … It is this question, contin ually stated or implied but nev er
resolv ed, on w hich the w hole pla y is f ounded. Ar ound this central them e
Chekho v built his drama lik e a m usical composition, a series of questions in
many voices that cr oss, harmonise, contradict one another , soar , or sink in
despair .56
Since it is Tuzenbach and Vershinin w ho carry on m uch of the e xplicit
discussion a bout the m eaning of lif e in this pla y, the w ay the y are interpr eted
is crucial. The deg ree of sympath y or antipath y the audience f eels to wards
particular character s is lar gely determined b y the dir ector’s interpr etation. A
director of Three Sisters who instructs the actor pla ying Vershinin to pr esent
the character as though he w ere merely a g arrulous windba g mouthing empty
platitudes will inevita bly lead an audience to discount the import of this
character’s speeches . Since Vershinin e xpresses the vie w that lif e, though
difficult, does ha ve meaning and will g raduall y impr ove thr ough human eff ort,
any interpr etation that mak es him a f ool eff ectiv ely neg ates his ideas . The v oice
of ‘hope’ is in this w ay eff ectiv ely silenced and ‘despair’ at the m eaningless of
life becom es the pr edominant vision of r eality e xpressed.
In Mik e Alfr eds’ 1986 pr oduction of Three Sisters , we find a clear e xample
of ho w the dir ector’s decision to dev alue Vershinin led to a bleak r eading . One
must assum e that Alfr eds believ ed that the author w as not on Vershinin’s side,
since he g ave his audience little r oom to find an ything of v alue in Vershinin’s
ideas . David Nathan’s r eview of the pr oduction m entioned ‘J ohn Price’s Vershinin
whose o wn pr etensions to philosophical depth ha ve nev er seem ed so shallo w’,57
while Michael Co veney observ ed that ‘J ohn Price mak es of Vershinin’s
203Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

philosophising an ackno wled ged bor e factor’.58 Here was ‘the windba g as local
saint’.59 In Alfr eds’ pr oduction Vershinin w as not simpl y presented as being
intellectuall y shallo w but w as also an emotional cripple. Eric Shorter wryl y
comm ented: ‘Is J ohn Price’s Vershinin ca pable of deep f eeling? Pr obably not.’60
With such a demolition job carried out b y Alfr eds on the major v oice of optimism
and hope in the pla y, it is har dly surprising that most r eviewers shar ed the
opinion e xpressed b y Helen Rose that ‘this twitch y nerv ous pr oduction, suffused
with doom fr om the outset, off ers an unr eliev edly pessimistic vie w of human
hope’.61
Seemingl y, it is difficult f or critics and dir ector s to a void polarised r eadings
of Chekho v’s character s. Vershinin in Three Sisters is pr esented either as ‘a
marr owless colonel w hose integ rity is questiona ble fr om the start’,62 a per son
whose ‘onl y con versational topic’ is his ‘philosoph y which he tr ots out at an y
opportunity’, and w hich is made u p of ‘trivial ideas’,63 or as an ‘idealist’,
Chekho v’s ‘mouthpiece on the futur e of mankind’.64 Three Sisters , possibl y
more than an y other Chekho v pla y, has been subject to polarised r eadings both
by critics and dir ector s. When the gloom and doom ‘Absur dist’ r eading is
rejected, it is often r eplaced b y a reading of unallo yed optimism, but this is just
as limiting and r eductionist a vie w as the pessimistic one. An ad vocate of the
‘Absur dist’ Chekho v, Richar d Gilman, finds little difficulty in characterising
the optimistic So viet r eading of the pla y as ‘pernicious nonsense’. Pr esuma bly
assuming that he — unlik e those pesk y Bolshies! — writes fr om an ideolo gicall y
free position, Gilman attacks this ‘misr eading b y Chekho v’s countrym en and
women’: 'Wher e ideolo gy enter s, Soviet (to stick to the no w outdated w ord)
criticism of Chekho v has been especiall y guilty of distortion in r egard to the
subject of the futur e in his pla ys, wishing to turn him into a pr ophet of the a ge
that f ollowed his , the bolshevik millennium'.65
The pr oblem with Gilman’s ar gument is that it onl y attacks stra w men such as
the So viet critic Vladimir Yermilo v who simplisticall y describe Chekho v’s
character s as ha ppy martyr s, willing ‘to postpone lo ve and ha ppiness to the
futur e, for those w ho com e after them’,66 but f ails to see that his o wn vie w of
a Beck ettian Chekho v is as simplistic a piece of ‘pernicious nonsense’ as that
peddled b y Yermilo v.
Michael F rayn is one of sev eral writer s who, despite alluding to evidence
that w ould sugg est the inadequac y of an y one-sided vie w of the pla y and its
character s, nev ertheless plumps f or a r eading that in validates an y of Vershinin’s
‘philosoph y’ and places Chekho v in the ‘nothing to be done’ school. F rayn
correctly highlights the importance of the particular mom ent in history w hen
Three Sisters first appear ed:
The pla y was written, it is true, at the beginning of a ne w and hopeful century ,
when belief in pr ogress w as high, and w hen the pr essur es upon the ar chaic
204Interpreting Chekhov

despotism of imperial Russia w ere plainl y becoming irr esistible. Man y people
shared with Vershinin and Tusenbach the vision of a futur e in w hich ev erything
would in one w ay or another be totall y chang ed. Som e influential comm entator s
have argued that Chekho v was one of them … But he made it a bundantl y clear
in his letter s … that the character s in his pla ys express their o wn vie ws, not
his.67
The f act that character s such as Vershinin ‘e xpress their o wn vie ws’ does
not m ean that Chekho v did not shar e man y of that character’s beliefs . That
Chekho v is notVershinin an y mor e than he is the nihilistic Chebutykin, does
not m ean that he is a bsent fr om his w ork.68 The r elationship betw een the beliefs
of the author and those of his character s is an ambiguous and comple x one. To
begin with, Chekho v rejected the o verly simplified characterisation that w as
common in m elodrama. In his earl y pla y Ivanov , he had attack ed the simplistic
value system of Lv ov, who classified people as ‘either saints or blackguar ds.’69
Chekho v’s characterisation of Vershinin is essentiall y non-jud gemental. He is
neither a villain nor a her o. In certain w ays he is portra yed unsympatheticall y
and y et he e xpresses ideas f or which the author f elt great sympath y. Vershinin
may indeed be a w eak man, a philander er, som eone w ho does not liv e up to his
ideals , and som eone w ho is a windba g, but this does not in validate w hat he sa ys.
Chekho v’s strateg y is to pr esent a g ap betw een the admira ble things that his
character s say about w hat m ust be done to mak e life better and the disastr ous
failure on their part to actuall y do an ything to bring this better w orld into being .
Ther e is nothing wr ong with Vershinin’s dr eam f or a better futur e, an y mor e
than ther e was an ything wr ong with Martin Luther King’s ‘dr eam’ of a non-racist
society in the United States , although, unlik e the civil rights campaigner ,
Vershinin f ails to turn his talk into action.
Three Sisters begins on a note of hope and optimism that is ev en reflected in
the w eather: ‘ Outside the sun is shining c heerfull y’.70 Both Olg a and Irina ar e,
quite literall y, full of the jo ys of spring . Almost imm ediatel y, however, their
vision of ha ppiness , symbolised b y their desir e to r eturn to an idealised ‘Mosco w’,
is imm ediatel y under cut b y the neg ative comm ents of Chebutykin and Tuzenbach
who ar e having a quite separate con versation in the neighbouring r oom:
OLGA. … Hea vens, how marv ellous! When I w oke up this morning and sa w
the g reat blaze of light and kne w that spring had com e — I f elt so ha ppy and
excited, I f elt I just had to g o back to Mosco w.
CHEB UTYKIN . [To SOLYONY andTUZENB ACH.] Not a chance in hell.
TUZENB ACH. Absolute nonsense of cour se.71
Chekho v thus pr epares his audience f or the disillusionm ent of at least tw o
of the Pr ozorov sister s. Masha, the unha ppily married thir d sister , is bar ely
205Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

included in her sister s’ dream of a better futur e, but their br other Andr ew is
part of the ‘Mosco w’ m yth that is deflated b y the ne xt room comm entator s:
OLGA. Yes, to Mosco w! As soon as w e can.
[CHEB UTYKIN andTUZENB ACH laugh. ]
IRIN A. Andr ew’s pr obably going to be a pr ofessor and he w on’t liv e her e
anyway. Ther e’s nothing stopping us e xcept poor Masha her e.
OLGA. Masha can com e and spend the w hole summ er in Mosco w ev ery y ear.
[MASHA softly whistles a tune .]
IRIN A. I onl y pra y it will w ork out all right.72
The dr eams of the Pr ozorovs ar e empty pr ecisel y because the y are not back ed
up by actions . Mer ely pra ying f or som ething to ha ppen does not pr oduce r esults
in Chekho v’s w orld.
In Three Sisters , Chekho v again tak es up the them e of w asted liv es. Andr ew
[Andr ey], instead of becoming a pr ofessor , as he had hoped, has becom e a county
councillor w orking f or the man w ho is his wif e’s lo ver. He com es to see that he
has f ailed to r ealise his potential:
ANDREW . [Andr ey] Wher e is m y past lif e, oh w hat has becom e of it — w hen
I was young , happy and intellig ent, w hen I had such glorious thoughts and
visions , and m y present and futur e seem ed so bright and pr omising? Why is it
we’ve har dly started living bef ore we all becom e dull, dra b, boring , lazy ,
complacent, useless and misera ble?73
Unlik e Sorin and Vanya, whose bad f aith leads them to blam e other s for their
plight, Andr ew, while not taking r esponsibility f or his f ailure, at least does not
blam e other s for his inaction. Masha is one character w ho ackno wled ges her self
as the cause of her f ailure, but she can onl y cope with this admission b y den ying
its importance in w ords that echo the leitmotif of Chebutykin. Imm ediatel y after
‘the muf fled sound of a distant shot ‘ that signals Tuzenbach’s death, the distr essed
Masha cries out: ‘I’v e made a m ess of m y life. I don’t w ant an ything no w. I’ll
be all right in a mom ent – It doesn’t matter .’74 It is the alcoholic and depr essiv e
Dr Chebutykin w ho most full y ackno wled ges his o wn r esponsibility f or failure.
Chekho v even cut the line, ‘I’v e done nothing all m y life and I’v e nev er had
time to do an ything all m y life’,75 probably because this might ha ve sugg ested
that the doctor w as shuffling off his r esponsibility f or his inaction. In the final
version of this speech of Chebutykin in Act I, the self-hating doctor bitterl y
blam es himself f or his f ailure and almost complete withdra wal from in volvement
in lif e. He off ers no e xcuses:
CHEB UTYKIN . [Laughs .] You kno w, I’ve nev er done a thing and that’s a f act.
Since I left the univ ersity I ha ven’t lifted a fing er, I’ve nev er ev en read a book.
I’ve read nothing but ne wspa pers.76
206Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s lif elong inter est in comm unity w elfare and education sugg ests
that his attitude, the attitude he wished his audiences to ha ve, towards the kind
of wilful ignorance and lethar gy epitomised b y Chebutykin, w as a neg ative one.
Dr Astr ov in Uncle Vanya has m uch in common with Dr Chebutykin, but their
respectiv e modes of beha viour in the f ace of lif e’s har dships diff er mar kedly.
Like Dr Chebutykin, Dr Astr ov has had to put u p with a har d life and has suff ered
the anguish of losing patients during operations . Like Chebutykin, Astr ov cannot
find consolation in the idea of an y transcendental significance to lif e. He honestl y
admits , ‘ther e are tim es when the w hole business r eally gets m e down. But f or
me ther e is no light shining in the distance. I don’t e xpect an ything f or myself
any mor e and I don’t car e for other people either .’77 Unlik e Chebutykin,
however, Astr ov involves himself in lif e. As he rightl y claims: ‘I w ork har der
than an yone else ar ound her e.’78 He has made a contin uing intensiv e stud y of
the en vironmental deg radation aff ecting the neighbourhood and is doing
something to impr ove the pr esent situation. The positiv e attitude that Chekho v
has to ward this activ e character is in sharp contrast to the neg ative attitude he
has to ward Chebutykin, w hose r esponse, ev en to the senseless killing of
Tuzenbach w hich he did nothing to stop , is to la pse into lethar gy and mouth
his nihilistic catch phrase:
CHEB UTYKIN . [Sits down on a benc h at the back of the stage .] I’m w orn out.
[Takes a newspaper out of his pocket. ] They ma y as w ell ha ve a cry . [Sings softl y.]
Tarara boomdea y, let’s ha ve a tune toda y. Anyway, what does it all matter?79
Chekho v has no need to sa y explicitl y that Chebutykin’s beha viour is
irresponsible and untena ble. All he has to do is depict Chebutykin as he is and
leave the audience to ev aluate his beha viour .
Chekho v’s desir e to a void an y explicit jud gement of his character s is often
forgotten b y dir ector s. This is especiall y the case w hen dealing with the character
of Natasha. P erhaps taking their cue fr om a comm ent in one of Chekho v’s letter s
to Stanisla vski, in w hich he ask ed that Natasha cr oss the sta ge ‘à la Lad y Macbeth,
with a candle’,80 critics and dir ector s turn Natasha into a m elodramatic villain.
Even Ma garshack, w ho points out that Chekho v ‘w arned the actor pla ying
Solyony not to mak e him “too coar se”, that is to sa y, not to mak e him into a
melodramatic villain’,81 characterises Natasha in just such a ‘coar se’ manner .
He calls her beha viour ‘vindictiv e’ and describes her as ‘a ruthless pr edator’.82
Later on in his anal ysis, he r efers to ‘Natasha’s trul y devilish beha viour’.83
Demonising of Natasha is tak en to its ultimate e xtreme in Brustein’s m elodramatic
interpr etation of Three Sisters . Since he believ es that ‘the conflict betw een cultur e
and vulg arity pr ovides the major them e’,84 Brustein describes Chekho v’s
character s in black-and-w hite terms . The thr ee sister s becom e synon ymous with
‘cultur e’ and Natasha with ‘vulg arity’. He r eads Chekho v’s characterisation as
though he w ere anal ysing Strindber g’s Ghost Sonata:
207Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

Women, to be sur e, often pla y a destructiv e role in Chekho v’s pla ys … Natasha
… is unique in the blackness of her motiv es. She might be a m ember of the
Humm el family of v ampir es: sucking u p people’s nourishm ent, br eaking
foundations , speculating in houses . She is a malignant g rowth in a benev olent
organism and her final triumph, no matter ho w Chekho v tries to disguise it, is
the triumph of pur e evil.85
What is lost b y such a jud gemental interpr etation of Natasha is an y sense of
Chekho v’s implied criticism of the ineff ectual passiv e beha viour of the Pr ozorovs.
One dir ector , Jonathan Miller , was aware that the traditional r eading of Natasha’s
character as som e sort of satanic f orce was not su pported b y Chekho v’s te xt:
The w orst thing one can sa y about her is that she kno ws exactl y what she w ants.
She simpl y embodies the g eneral banality of the sister s’ environment, without
conscious vindictiv eness or an y recognition of w hat she is doing . Once she has
a stak e in the big house, the sister s simpl y becom e an irr elevance in her lif e
and, ho wever wounding her tr eatm ent of them, her mind is on other things at
the tim e.86
Harv ey Pitcher notes that, w hile Natasha ma y be ‘an odious character … ther e
is such an impatient desir e to find som eone to blam e in Three Sisters , such a
gleeful rush to castig ate Natasha f or her most ob vious f ailings , that comm ent on
her has often been v ery su perficial’.87
In or der to r estor e the ‘objectivity’ of Chekho v’s characterisation of Natasha,
director s need to do som ething akin to w hat P eter Br ook did f or the character s
of Goneril and Reg an in his pr oduction of King Lear . Brook r efused to pr esent
Cordelia as a Cinder ella figur e who is destr oyed by her tw o ugl y sister s. Instead,
Brook took the Chekho vian a pproach of objectivity and r efrained fr om jud ging
Goneril and Reg an, allo wing them to be pla yed in a morall y neutral f ashion fr om
their o wn point of vie w.
With the nota ble e xception of Miller’s pr oduction, Natasha has rar ely been
played in English-speaking countries in a non-jud gemental w ay. Because she is
seen as ‘common’ and the thr ee sister s as ‘cultur ed’, dir ector s have tended to
present the pla y from an u pper-middle class elitist standpoint, and mid dle-class
audiences ha ve been onl y too ha ppy to identify with the dispossessed sister s
and hate the arriviste Natasha. The snob bery inher ent in this standar d
interpr etation is w ell br ought out b y Marina Majdalan y in an article in w hich,
while attempting to ‘maintain objectivity’ and r esisting ‘the temptation to r edress
the balance b y tilting it in Natasha’s f avour’, she tries to giv e her ‘a f air appraisal’:
While all comm entator s of Chekho v’s pla y dwell at length u pon the aesthetic
longings of the thr ee sister s and tenderl y evoke their sensitivity bruised b y
frustration, no compara ble sympath y is e xtended to Natasha, their br other’s
young wif e. She is indeed v ain, selfish and ev en ruthless , as she has been
208Interpreting Chekhov

categ orised; but w hat all these attributions ha ve crowded out is the f act that,
first and f oremost, she is a disoriented petite bourgeoise , sociall y insecur e and
lonel y in an alien and hostile en vironment.88
The hostility ad dressed to wards Natasha b y the thr ee sister s tak es the f orm of
a kind of ‘eff ortless su periority’ that is akin to the patr onising beha viour practised
in England b y the ‘g entry’ to wards the ‘g reat unw ashed’. Olg a and Masha deride
Natasha’s lack of dr ess sense; the y laugh at her attempts to speak one of the
foreign langua ges that the y have been f ortunate enough to ha ve learnt, but ha ve
largely forgotten; the y patr onisingl y explain that her ina ppropriate beha viour
is the r esult of not ha ving been br ought u p in the w ay that the y have.
Once w e step back fr om the jud gemental position in r elation to the character s
in Three Sisters , we find m uch of the beha viour of the ‘malignant g rowth’ at
least under standa ble, and m uch of the beha viour of the ‘benev olent or ganism’
reprehensible. Ho w fair is it that critics and dir ector s alik e har shly censur e
Natasha’s aff air with the successful Pr otopopo v while ‘not a w ord condemns
Masha’s passion f or Vershinin’?89 Masha betra ys a husband w ho, for all his
limitations , works har d and lo ves her , while Natasha betra ys a w eak lazy g ambler
who can sa y of her: ‘ther e’s som ething deg rading a bout her too , as if she is som e
kind of blind, g roping , scruffy little animal. She’s not a human being an yway.’90
Why is it that Masha’s beha viour is seen as less r eprehensible than Natasha’s?
Natasha’s dismissal of the Pr ozorovs’ old serv ant of thirty y ears, Anfisa, on the
‘economic rationalist’ g rounds that ‘she can’t w ork any mor e’91 is certainl y
cruel. Ho wever, the public humiliation that Masha inflicts on her cuck olded
husband w hen, in r eply to his sa ying to her , ‘You’re really a marv ellous cr eatur e.
I’m ha ppy, happy, oh so ha ppy’, she sharpl y retorts , ‘I’m bor ed, bor ed, oh so
bored’,92 is har dly less vicious . As Majdalan y justl y observ es: ‘For all Masha’s
extolled sensitivity , the callousness she displa ys to wards the long suff ering
Kulygin is br eathtaking , even by modern standar ds.’93
Three Sisters is not simpl y about a clash betw een ‘cultur e’ and ‘vulg arity’,
but a confr ontation betw een contrasting g roups of people, one of w hich is
‘passiv e’ and the other ‘activ e’ in the f ace of lif e’s pr oblems . Just as in The Cherry
Orchard Chekho v was to juxta pose Lopakhin’s activ e entr epreneurial a pproach
to the pr oblem of sa ving the estate with the ineff ectual passivity of Ga yev and
Mrs Ranevsk y, so in this pla y similar opposing g roups ar e contrasted. Harv ey
Pitcher points out the significance of this juxta position:
In the character s of Natasha and the unseen, but not unimportant Pr otopopo v,
Chekho v was intr oducing r epresentativ es of a ne w and rising mid dle class; and
it is impossible not to contrast w hat these tw o achiev e in the pla y with w hat
the Pr ozorovs fail to achiev e.94
209Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

Majdalan y likewise has noted ho w Chekho v incorporated the social backg round
of his tim e into both Three Sisters and The Cherry Orc hard: 'It is w ell kno wn that
Chekho v observ ed the social chang e that w as taking place in Russia, of w hich
the dominant f eatur e was the em ergence of the ne w comm ercial mid dle class ,
and dramatised it thr ough Natasha and later , in The Cherry Orc hard, through
Lopakhin.'95
The g eneral them e of w asted potentiality is giv en specific a pplication in
Chekho v’s depiction of the f ailure of the intellig entsia and the g entry to adjust
to the changing social cir cumstances . As Pitcher puts it:
The shelter ed liv es of f amilies lik e the Pr ozorovs, who w ere conscious of their
social and cultural su periority , and w hose house had until r ecentl y been full of
orderlies r eady to carry out their slightest wish, ma y tend to sa p all per sonal
initiativ e and to pr oduce a charming but ineff ectual br eed. Three Sisters shows
clearl y ho w the u pper classes could no long er rely on this position of
unchalleng ed su periority , and ho w their authority might ra pidly pass to mor e
vigorous elem ents fr om classes belo w. Andr ew has to tak e orders from
Protopopo v, just as Natasha assum es the position of authority in the sister s’
household.96
Natasha’s vulg arity triumphs lar gely because she activ ely pur sues her aims
for her self and her childr en, w hile the Pr ozorov family fail to do an ything to
stop her . The r esult is that the y are progressiv ely driv en out of their house. It
is important that the significance of Natasha’s dev elopm ent fr om the sh y,
awkw ard outsider of Act I into the confident householder of Act IV should not
be lost on an audience. If Natasha’s ra pacious beha viour is m eant to be vie wed
negatively, so also is the eff ete inactivity of the Pr ozorovs. As Majdalan y acutel y
observ es:
In observing this ev olution, the audience should r ecognise that Natasha’s ‘sins
of commission’ ar e balanced b y the Pr ozorovs’ ‘sins of omission’. The asperities
of her selfishness collide with the g ranite of their eg otism: she is vulg ar and
strives to becom e genteel; the y are refined and nev er ev en attempt to g room
her under standing or her manner s. She g rasps , they withdra w; she pushes , they
recoil.97
The pla ywright pr esented his audience with pr ovincial Russian society as
he sa w it. As Ronald Hingle y notes , ‘Chekho v’s w orks abound in den unciations
of pr ovincial Russian to wns’.98 Provincial to wns, including his birthplace,
Taganrog, seem ed alik e in their sterility . In 1887, at Easter , Chekho v described
his hom etown in a manner that sugg ests both his a wareness of the potentiality
of the place and his disgust at the w ay that potentiality has not been r ealised:
Sixty thousand inha bitants busy themselv es exclusiv ely with eating , drinking ,
procreating , and the y have no other inter ests, none at all. Wher ever you go
210Interpreting Chekhov

there are Easter cak es, eggs , local wine, inf ants, but no ne wspa pers, no books
… The site of the city is in ev ery r espect ma gnificent, the climate glorious , the
fruits of the earth a bound, but the people ar e devilishl y apathetic. They are all
musical, endo wed with f antasy and wit, highstrung , sensitiv e, but all this is
wasted.99
This cultural desert is v ery little diff erent fr om the one a gonisingl y described
by Andr ew in the last act of Three Sisters . Life as it is liv ed in the Pr ozorovs’
hometown — ‘a pr ovincial to wn, — it might be P erm’100 — has becom e totall y
trivial. Andr ew’s o wn f ailure to r ealise his potential is part of a social malaise
that has inf ected the w hole society:
ANDREW . [Andr ey] … We’ve nev er pr oduced a single scholar , or artist or
anyone with a touch of originality … All these people do is eat, drink and sleep
till the y drop do wn dead. Then ne w ones ar e born to carry on the eating ,
drinking and sleeping … the childr en ar e crushed b y vulg arity, lose an y spar k
of inspiration the y might ha ve had, and — lik e their f ather s and mother s before
them — turn into a lot of misera ble corpses , each e xactl y like his neighbour .101
The Pr ozorov sister s, their br other Andr ew, Tuzenbach, Vershinin,
Chebutykin, in f act most of the character s in the pla y apart fr om Natasha and
the serv ants, are highl y educated, y et all of these m ember s of the intellig entsia
mana ge to w aste their liv es in pr ecisel y the w ay that Andr ew describes in his
long ‘disguised soliloquy’ near the end of the pla y:
ANDREW . [Andr ey] … And to sa ve themselv es getting bor ed to tear s and put
a bit of spice in their liv es, the y go in f or all this sick ening g ossip , vodka,
gambling , litig ation. Wives deceiv e their husbands and husbands tell lies and
pretend the y’re deaf and blind to w hat’s g oing on …102
The intellig entsia ma y well be w asting their liv es, but Chekho v nev ertheless
does not giv e up faith in pr ogress. Science and the w ork of inconspicuous
individuals will, Chekho v asserts , eventuall y bring a bout an impr ovement in
humanity’s lot. The f act that the vision of a mor e hopeful futur e is carried b y
fallible character s such as Vershinin is further evidence of ho w great a g ap ther e
is betw een ‘lif e as it is’ and ‘lif e as it should be’.
Stanisla vski’s dealings with Chekho v led him to r ecognise the pla ywright’s
cautiousl y optimistic vision of r eality:
Anton P avlovich w as very off ended w hen he w as called a pessimist … Anton
Pavlovich w as the most optimistic believ er in the futur e I ev er met. He w ould
sketch with animation and f aith a beautiful pictur e of the futur e life of Russia.
As for the pr esent, he r elated to it honestl y and w as not afraid of the truth.103
Chekho v’s ‘optimism’, ho wever, did not in volve a belief in the transf ormation
of Russian society thr ough r evolution, as the So viet critics and dir ector s tried
211Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

to sugg est. Rather , as a f ollower of Darwin’s theories , Chekho v saw chang e as a
gradual ev olutionary pr ocess . Chekho v depicts w hat he sees and w hat he sees
does not r eflect the kind of vision that So viet artists admir e in w hich activ e
heroes chang e the w orld. P art of the suff ering that these character s endur e lies
in their consciousness of the gulf that has opened betw een their w ords and their
actions , betw een their dr eams and the r eality the y live. Vershinin, f or example,
is perf ectly well aware that his beha viour , especiall y with r egard to his aff air
with Masha, has not been admira ble. Alone with Olg a just bef ore his departur e
he asks her f orgiveness:
VERSHININ . Ah w ell, thank y ou for ev erything . And if ther e’s been an ything
at all amiss , please f orgive me. I’v e talk ed m uch too m uch. Please f orgive that
too. Don’t think too badl y of m e.104
The f allibility of Chekho v’s character s is of central importance in the total
action of the pla y. It is onl y by making per ceptible the g ap betw een w hat
character s say and w hat the y do that the pla ywright can lead m ember s of his
audience to r ecognise their o wn f ailure to bring a bout social impr ovement in
Russia. The critique of Vershinin’s beha viour made b y Pitcher is essentiall y
valid. He states: 'V ershinin’s fine w ords and noble aspirations ha ve nev er been
matched b y an y compara ble achiev ements in his per sonal lif e; and this
combination of noble sentim ents with practical ineff ectuality seems to epitomise
the w ell-m eaning Russian liberal of the late nineteenth century .'105
What Pitcher sa ys about Vershinin a pplies with equal v alidity to most of the
character s in Three Sisters , particularl y to the Pr ozorov family. This f ailure to
match w ord with deed w as intended to strik e a chor d of r ecognition in the
audience. Ther e is, for example, nothing inher ently stu pid or wr ong with Irina’s
lyricall y expressed ideal that ‘Man should w ork and toil b y the s weat of his
brow, whoev er he is — that’s the w hole purpose and m eaning of his lif e, his
happiness and his jo y.’106 Chekho v would almost certainl y ha ve felt g reat
sympath y with Irina’s sentim ent, if not her manner of e xpression. Ho wever,
what he pr esents to his audience is not som e mouthpiece f or himself, but a sill y
young w oman w ho, as her sister Olg a says, ‘wakes at sev en and lies in bed at
least till nine, just thinking’.107 The comic incong ruity that r esults fr om the
perception of the g ap betw een Irina’s w ords and her deeds is highlighted w hen
Chekho v pr ovides Olg a with the sta ge instruction: ‘ Laughs ’. It is Irina’s
beha viour , not her ideas , that is laugha ble.
In similar f ashion ther e is som ething comical a bout the aristocratic Tuzenbach,
who, on his o wn admission, has ‘nev er done a hand’s turn’108 all his lif e,
agreeing with Irina a bout the su preme value of w ork. Ho wever, even if w e find
it incr edible that Tuzenbach w ould ev er ha ve made a success of w orking in a
brickw orks, we should not discount his ar guments in f avour of w ork. Although
the So viet critics f ailed to see that ther e was a g ap betw een the content of
212Interpreting Chekhov

Tuzenbach’s ‘visionary’ speech and his o wn beha viour , they were nev ertheless
correct not to discount that content. Tuzenbach’s stirring w ords, written in
1900, m ust ha ve seem ed a r emar kable e xample of Chekho vian pr escience to
those w ho liv ed in the e xciting period imm ediatel y after the Russian r evolution
of 1917. It is not surprising that Tuzenbach’s f allibility should ha ve gone
unnoticed w hen the triumphant Bolsheviks r ead or hear d his r ousing speech:
TUZENB ACH. … The tim e has com e, an a valanche is mo ving do wn on us and
a great storm’s br ewing that’ll do us all a po wer of g ood. It’s practicall y on top
of us alr eady and soon it’s g oing to blast out of our society all the laziness ,
complacenc y, contempt f or w ork, rottenness and bor edom. I’m g oing to w ork
and in tw enty-fiv e or thirty-y ears’ tim e everyone will w ork. Ev eryone.109
Often in a Chekho v pla y, a character , however blind to their o wn f ailings ,
will highlight the mistak es of other s with perf ect lucidity and ma y, som etimes
unkno wingl y, destr oy the illusions of another character . We saw earlier ho w
Olga’s and Irina’s dr eam of g etting to Mosco w was under cut b y the a pparently
unrelated comm ents of Chebutykin and Tuzenbach. Vershinin contin ues this
explosion of the sister s’ ‘Mosco w myth’ b y presenting w hat he sees as its r eality .
Mosco w conjur es up thoughts f or him that ar e depr essing , even suicidal. In
contrast, he sees the place w here the sister s live in a positiv e light:
VERSHININ . … You ha ve a g ood health y climate, w hat I call a r eal Russian
climate. Ther e are the w oods and the riv er, and y ou’ve silv er bir ches too .
Charming modest bir ches, the y’re my favourite tr ee. This is a g ood place to
live.110
Vershinin’s comm ents serv e to highlight the f act that ther e is v ery little that
is wr ong with the ph ysical en vironment in w hich the Pr ozorovs liv e. What
makes the place intolera ble is the w ay the inha bitants liv e their liv es. Instead
of making use of the talents and educational privileg es the y have been giv en,
the Pr ozorovs ha ve started to g o to seed since the death of their f ather . Andr ew
talks of their f ather ha ving ‘inflicted education on us’, and conf esses , ‘since he
died I’v e started putting on w eight and in one y ear I’v e filled out lik e this , just
as if m y bod y had shak en off som e kind of bur den’.111 In the cour se of the pla y,
Chekho v mak es it quite clear to his audience that w hat this m ember of the
intellig entsia has cast off is the bur den of r esponsibility . Having been born into
an educationall y privileg ed lev el of society , Andr ew wastes his man y talents
and, instead of fulfilling his achiev able dr eam to becom e a univ ersity pr ofessor ,
turns into a compulsiv e gambler w ho w hines a bout his f ailure. He sells his and
his sister s’ shar e of their inheritance to pa y his g ambling debts , yet, significantl y,
even though his sister s kno w what he is doing , they do nothing to stop him.
Masha, inf ected b y the sam e malaise of idleness and neg ativity as her br other ,
also denies the v alue of her education. ‘Kno wing thr ee langua ges is a useless
213Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

luxury in this to wn,’ she asserts , then ad ds, ‘We kno w much too m uch.’112 It
is this denial of the v alue of education and, in particular , its po wer to eff ect
impr ovement in the quality of lif e, ho wever minimal, that dra ws fr om Vershinin
the fir st of sev eral ‘philosophical’ speeches . The audience’s r eading of the content
of these speeches depends on w hether this arm y officer is tak en seriousl y. Ther e
is considera ble evidence to sugg est that Chekho v had a high estimation of the
cultural standing of such officer s. Follo wing the 1874 arm y reforms of General
D. A. Mil yutin, the Russian arm y becam e associated with education. Accor ding
to Hingle y, ‘The arm y becam e a place w here peasants fir st learnt to r ead and
write … Chekho v was sympatheticall y disposed to wards the Russian Arm y’.113
Stanisla vski quotes Chekho v as sa ying that he didn’t w ant the soldier s in Three
Sisters to be pr esented as caricatur ed ‘heel-click ers’:
‘Ther e’s none of that,’ he ar gued rather heatedl y, ‘military per sonnel ha ve
chang ed, the y have becom e mor e cultur ed, man y of them ha ve even begun to
realize that in peacetim e the y should bring cultur e with them into r emote
backw aters.’114
The association of education and cultur e with the military is pointed out b y
Masha in the pla y when she compar es civilians with the military:
MASHA. … Other places ma y be diff erent, but in this to wn the most decent,
the most civilized and cultiv ated people ar e the military … But civilians in
general ar e often so rude, disa greeable and bad-manner ed.115
Despite his tendenc y to be long-winded, ther e is no r eason to doubt the
probable truth of Vershinin’s claim that the Pr ozorov sister s can mak e a
contribution to the impr ovement of society . Vershinin’s speech has a v ariety of
effects on his listener s. Andr ew slips a way ‘unobserved’ — he a ppear s to be a
lost cause — but it is this speech that brings Masha to lif e for the fir st tim e in
the pla y and mar ks the beginning of her attraction to ward Vershinin. While
Vershinin is clearl y not Chekho v’s alter eg o, man y of the sentim ents that he
expresses ar e similar to those w e kno w Chekho v believ ed in. In perf ormance,
it becom es necessary not to pr esent Vershinin as som eone w ho talks nonsense,
but as som eone w ho is attractiv e because of his commitm ent to positiv e ideas .
When pla yed in the committed w ay I ha ve sugg ested, it is har d to ima gine ho w
an audience w ould not see som e validity in Vershinin’s ‘aria’:
VERSHININ . Oh, w hat a thing to sa y! [Laughs .] You kno w much too m uch. I
don’t think ther e exists, or ev en could e xist, a to wn so dull and dr eary that it
had no place f or intellig ent, educated m en and w omen. Let’s su ppose that among
the hundr ed thousand inha bitants of this to wn — oh, I kno w it’s a backw ard,
rough sort of place — ther e’s no one else lik e you thr ee. Well, y ou ob viousl y
can’t hope to pr evail against the f orces of ignorance ar ound y ou. As y ou go on
living y ou’ll ha ve to giv e way bit b y bit to these hundr ed thousand people and
214Interpreting Chekhov

be swallowed up in the cr owd. You’ll g o under , but that doesn’t m ean y ou’ll
sink without trace — y ou will ha ve som e effect. P erhaps w hen y ou’re gone
there will be six people lik e you, then tw elve and so on, and in the end y our
kind will be in the majority . In tw o or thr ee hundr ed years life on this earth
will be beautiful be yond our dr eams , it will be marv ellous . Man needs a lift lik e
that, and if he hasn’t y et got it he m ust feel he’s g oing to g et it, he m ust look
forward to it, dr eam a bout it, pr epare for it. That m eans he m ust ha ve mor e
vision and mor e kno wled ge than his f ather or g randf ather ev er had. [ Laughs .]
And her e are you complaining y ou kno w much too m uch.
MASHA. [ Takes of f her hat. ] I’m sta ying to lunch.116
Hingle y argues that chang es Chekho v made to the script ‘serv e to emphasize
his [V ershinin’s] lack of inter est in w hat an yone else has to sa y’.117 Chekho v
had r ewritten Vershinin’s r esponse to Tuzenbach’s claim that to cr eate a better
futur e ‘we must g et ready for it and w ork for it’. Originall y Chekho v had
Vershinin r eply: ‘That ma y well be so .’ His r evision w as: ‘Y es, yes of cour se.’
Hingle y claims that this r evision is a ‘casual’ r emar k. Ho wever, even the r evised
line — ‘Y es, yes of cour se’ — need not be said ‘casuall y’ or in a dismissiv e way.
Any good actor could deliv er that line ‘enthusiasticall y’ and thus portra y
Vershinin as deepl y inter ested in Tuzenbach’s observ ations . Such r eadings ar e
dependent on dir ectorial decisions . It is perf ectly possible to interpr et Vershinin’s
quick changing of the subject after Tuzenbach joins in the con versation as a
realisation on his part that his ‘aria’ is sociall y ina ppropriate. He has onl y a little
earlier said to Andr ew, ‘I’m afraid y our sister s must be rather bor ed with m e
already’.118 Having made such a long and serious speech, it is quite in character
for Vershinin to becom e aware that he has been talking too m uch. He r ealises
that, w hile this is a topic that he f eels passionatel y about, it is har dly the tim e
or the place to embar k on a philosophical debate with Tuzenbach. Thus , when
Tuzenbach joins in the con versation b y arguing that w e must w ork now to bring
about a better futur e, Vershinin a grees, but pr oceeds to chang e the subject, so
as not to bor e the ladies . He r esorts to small talk a bout ‘w hat a lot of flo wers’
there are in this ‘splendid house’. This equall y pla yable interpr etation of
Chekho v’s te xt avoids pr esenting Vershinin as the self-centr ed eg otist that
Hingle y depicts .
Despite his belief that people should w ork, Tuzenbach denies the efficac y of
any human eff ort to impr ove life. It is in r esponse to his pessimistic vie w that,
even in tw o or thr ee hundr ed years ‘life itself w on’t chang e’,119 that Vershinin
puts f orward what is essentiall y an e xpression of his o wn faith in pr ogress. The
discussion betw een the tw o military m en is a v ariant on the natur e/nurtur e
debate that is still an issue toda y. Vershinin’s ar gument is r emar kably similar
to Chekho v’s own belief in the possibility of g radual pr ogress that can be br ought
about thr ough the n urturing eff orts of humans w orking to impr ove what has
215Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

been pr ovided b y natur e. Lik e Dr Astr ov in Uncle Vanya, Vershinin sees little
chance of imm ediate r ewards for human eff ort, but passionatel y believ es in the
long-term benefits:
VERSHININ . … My hair’s g oing g rey now and I’m g rowing old, but the tr ouble
is I kno w so pr ecious little. Still, w hen it com es to the things that r eally matter ,
there I do kno w my stuff pr etty w ell, I think. And I onl y wish I could mak e
you see that ha ppiness — w ell, w e haven’t g ot it, w e’ve no right to it, in f act
it isn’t m eant f or us at all. Our business is to w ork and g o on w orking, and our
distant descendants will ha ve any happiness that’s g oing. [Pause .] I won’t ha ve
it, but m y childr en’s childr en ma y.120
Tuzenbach pr esents the ar gument in f avour of a fix ed idea of natur e. His
views, while not as nihilistic as those e xpressed b y Dr Chebutykin, ar e
nevertheless close to the ‘nothing to be done’ school of thinking , since he believ es
that natur e programs all beha viour including that of humans .
TUZENB ACH. … For get your tw o or thr ee hundr ed years, because ev en in a
million y ears life will still be the sam e as ev er. It doesn’t chang e, it al ways goes
on the sam e and f ollows its o wn la ws. And those la ws ar e none of our business .
Or at least y ou’ll nev er under stand them.121
To illustrate his vie ws, Tuzenbach compar es human beha viour to that of the
migratory ha bits of cranes w ho ‘still k eep fl ying without ev er kno wing w hy
they do it or w here the y’re going’.122 This vie w of natur e and lif e as being
without purpose w as one that Chekho v denied. As som eone with a belief in
scientific pr ogress, Chekho v could not help r egarding such f atalistic vie ws as
life-den ying.
Certainl y, while Chekho v does not e xplicitl y jud ge Tuzenbach, he pr ovides
the ne wly invigorated Masha with a po werful speech w hich undermines
Tuzenbach’s idea that lif e is pr ogramm ed and purposeless:
MASHA. But w hat’s the point of it all?
TUZENB ACH. The point? Look, it’s sno wing out ther e. What’s the point of
that? [ Pause .]
MASHA. I f eel that man should ha ve a faith or be trying to find one, otherwise
his lif e just doesn’t mak e sense. Think of living without kno wing w hy cranes
fly, why childr en ar e born or w hy ther e are star s in the sk y. Either y ou kno w
what y ou’re living f or, or else the w hole thing’s a w aste of tim e and m eans less
than nothing .123
Even though Masha is deepl y unha ppy at ha ving to sa y farewell to Vershinin,
she e xpresses her f aith in the idea of lif e having a purpose. Tuzenbach had
asserted that humans , like the cranes , live ‘without kno wing w hy the y do it or
216Interpreting Chekhov

where the y’re going’. Originall y Masha’s speech finished b y rejecting the
inevita bility of this state of ignorance:
MASHA. Oh, listen to the band. They’re all lea ving us , and one has g one right
away and will nev er, nev er com e back, and w e shall be left alone to begin our
lives again. {W e must g o on living , we must. I shall g o on living , my dear s, one
must liv e. [Looks upwards .] Ther e are mig rating bir ds up ther e, the y fly past
every spring and autumn, the y’ve been doing it f or thousands of y ears and the y
don’t kno w why. But the y fly on and the y’ll g o on fl ying f or ages and a ges, for
many thousand y ears, until in the end God r eveals his m ysteries to them.}124
Chekho v cut the lines {…} at the r equest of Olg a Knipper , who w as pla ying
Masha. She had written to him and ask ed: ‘Does it matter if I mak e a cut in m y
last speech? If I find it difficult to sa y?’125 Chekho v had also been ask ed by
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o to mak e cuts in the final speeches of the pla y: ‘About
the 4th act. It needs cutting . I’ve just sent y ou a teleg ram but, to giv e a few
details , three long speeches f or the thr ee sister s is not a g ood idea. It’s both out
of key and untheatrical. A cut f or Masha, a big cut f or Irina. Onl y Olg a can off er
some consolation. Yes?’126 Whether or not these cuts w ere desira ble is open to
question. Certainl y, Chekho v agreed to mak e them, but w e should still note the
importance that he g ave, ev en in the final v ersion, to the e xpression of hope b y
all thr ee sister s. In Chekho v’s final v ersion it is Olg a who most full y expresses
both the anguish the Pr ozorovs feel in the f ace of ‘lif e as it is’ and the hope that
all thr ee sister s have that one da y the y will com e to under stand the purpose of
life. Olg a’s speech r eiterates Vershinin’s vision of lif e in w hich the pr esent
generation m ust pr epare the w ay for a better lif e for those y et unborn:
OLGA. … Oh, m y God! In tim e we shall pass on f orever and be f orgotten. Our
faces will be f orgotten and our v oices and ho w man y of us ther e were. But our
sufferings will bring ha ppiness to those w ho com e after us , peace and jo y will
reign on earth and ther e will be kind w ords and kind thoughts f or us and our
times.127
Chekho v concludes the pla y by juxta posing the nihilistic Chebutykin’s
‘Nothing matter s’ with Olg a’s repeated wish that ‘w e might find out w hat our
lives and suff erings ar e for’. She does not doubt that things do matter , that lif e
does ha ve a purpose, but she longs f or that purpose to be r evealed: ‘If w e could
only kno w, oh if w e could onl y kno w!’128
Like Vershinin, the thr ee sister s believ e in the possibility of a better futur e
and all of them ha ve som e inkling of ho w the y might mak e som e contribution
to help r ealise this futur e. Irina believ es that the purpose of lif e ‘will be kno wn
one da y … but till then lif e must g o on, w e must w ork and w ork and think of
nothing else’.129 The thr ee sister s all assert the v alue of that quintessentiall y
Chekho vian virtue of endurance and this is combined, as it w as by Nina in The
217Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

Seagull and Son ya in Uncle Vanya, with a f aith in the futur e. It is left to Vershinin
in his parting speech to elucidate the m eans b y which this better futur e can be
achiev ed. If pla yed sympatheticall y, Vershinin’s final philosophical ‘aria’, without
resorting to jud gemental pr eaching , can sugg est to an audience w ays in w hich
they can do som ething to impr ove the condition of their o wn liv es:
VERSHININ . … Lif e isn’t a bed of r oses. A lot of us think it’s a hopeless dead
end. Still y ou m ust admit things ar e getting brighter and better all the tim e,
and it does look as if w e’ll see a r eal br eak in the clouds bef ore very long …
Oh, if that could onl y happen soon. [ Pause .] If w e could onl y combine education
with har d work, you kno w, and har d work with education.130
It was to be in The Cherry Orc hard that Chekho v would sho w his audience,
even mor e explicitl y than in Three Sisters , the f ailure of an educated class w ho
don’t kno w ho w to w ork. In that last pla y, we find in the character of Lopakhin
a mor e sympathetic r epresentativ e than Natasha of that class w hich, w hile
knowing ho w to w ork, lacks education.
It should be clear that f allible cr eatur es lik e Vershinin need not be pr esented
as knights in shining armour in or der f or their ideas to be giv en som e validity .
It should also be clear that this v alidity is necessary if Chekho v’s vision of r eality
is to be r ealised on sta ge. The ideas of Vershinin and Tuzenbach as w ell as those
of the nihilistic Chebutykin and Sol yony need to be balanced a gainst each other .
The ‘philosopher s’ in Three Sisters , despite their per sonal inadequacies , must
be seen as ‘serious’ people in or der f or their ideas to ha ve any value f or an
audience. To privileg e the mor e nihilistic character s, as so often ha ppens in
productions toda y, is to distort the Chekho vian vision.
It is not surprising that ther e are certain mom ents in history w hen the
Chekho vian pr eferred reading that I am ad vocating seems mor e pertinent than
at other tim es. One can see w hy, after man y years of Stalinist oppr ession, the
hopeful vision of r eality e xpressed b y Vershinin w ould sound rather hollo w to
an audience g rown c ynical after ha ving e xperienced the f ailure of the Bolshevik
dreams . One important Russian pr oduction, that I believ e attempted to r ealise
the kind of balance betw een hope and despair that I ha ve sugg ested is at the
heart of the Chekho vian vision, w as that dir ected b y Geor gii Tovstono gov in
1965. The historical mom ent g ave this dir ector the opportunity to pr esent
Chekho v’s Three Sisters in a w ay that neither distorted the pla ywright’s vision
nor pr esented a w orld vie w that seem ed too r emoved fr om the audience’s o wn
experience.
Tovstono gov’s pr oduction occurr ed to wards the end of the ‘Tha w’, a brief
period of liberalisation in Russia after y ears of Stalinist oppr ession. At the tim e,
it becam e possible a gain to e xpress Chekho v’s sense of hope in a possible better
futur e without r esorting to the blind optimism of the mor e extreme Soviet
218Interpreting Chekhov

productions . Equall y, because the ‘Tha w’ w as a tim e of hope, the bleak
‘Absur dist’ a pproach to the pla y did not seem to be a ppropriate. Comparing his
interpr etation with that made b y Nemir ovich-Danchenk o in his 1940 pr oduction,
Tovstono gov pointed out the w ays in w hich his a pproach w as diff erent. He
argued that Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s pr oduction sugg ested ‘that the blam e for
a ruined lif e lay beyond the limits of human per sonality . Fine and noble people
were victimised b y the tim es and the social or der.’131 This depiction of
Chekho v’s character s as sensitiv e victims una ble to do an ything to contr ol their
fates seem ed questiona ble to Tovstono gov:
Is it onl y environment that pr events people fr om living full y, intellig ently, and
beautifull y? It is important to assert that it is not som ething or som eone fr om
outside that destr oys, but that the Chekho vian character s themselv es —
intellig ent, subtle, suff ering people — destr oy one another b y their o wn
passivity and irr esolution.132
Instead of assessing w hether Tovstono gov’s r eading of the pla y accuratel y
produces the action implied b y Chekho v’s pla ytext, Senelick uncharacteristicall y
resorts to ster eotyping the dir ector as a So viet stoo ge. He asserts:
A modern So viet conscience had to attribute m uch of the f ault to the character s
themselv es and their w eak wills . Their indiff erence and cruelty had to be f aced
up to, not justified.133
It not true that Tovstono gov ‘had to’ attribute the f ault to the character s. Rather ,
he recognised that Chekho v’s pla y contains an implied criticism of the beha viour
of his character s which w as intended to induce spectator s to look criticall y at
their o wn ‘sill y trivial liv es’. Tovstono gov was able to see the action of Chekho v’s
play clearl y partl y because he w as not dra wn into a ‘saints or blackguar ds’
approach to the pla ywright’s w ork. He sa w the pr oblems that r esult fr om such
polarised r eadings . If the ‘gloom and twilight’ v ersion of Chekho v has becom e
the def ault r eading of Three Sisters in the Western w orld, then the ‘w elcom e
bright w orld’ v ersion becam e the def ault r eading in So viet Russia. Tovstono gov
wished to a void both e xtremes in his o wn pr oduction:
In opposition to the notion of Chekho v as pessimist, another e xtreme attitude
arose: interpr eters beg an to look f or traits of the fighting r evolutionary in
Chekho v’s her oes. His pr otagonists w ere credited with a str ong will and m uch
energy, with coura ge and optimism. Historical and psy cholo gical truth w as
sacrificed to this conception.134
Tovstono gov’s belief that, in Three Sisters , Chekho v ‘not onl y sympathises
with his her oes and lo ves them, but also jud ges them in ang er’135 is, I w ould
argue, essentiall y accurate. Chekho v’s ‘jud gements’, ho wever, always remain
implicit rather than e xplicit. Chekho v rar ely loses his ‘objectivity’, ev en in
219Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

depicting a character such as Natasha. He allo ws the audience to mak e their o wn
judgement of her beha viour . Tovstono gov’s balanced a pproach r esulted in a
production that, w hile diff erent fr om Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s 1940 v ersion,
did not contradict it. His 1965 pr oduction ma y not ha ve been ‘perm eated with
faith in a better futur e’ as he claim ed Nemir ovich-Danchenk o’s 1940 pr oduction
had been, but, b y dir ecting his pr oduction ‘a gainst “the sla ve in man”, as
Chekho v put it, a gainst the amazing a bility of the intellig entsia to find
justification f or its inertia and indiff erence’,136 Tovstono gov did not e xclude
the possibility of cr eating a ‘better futur e’.
Three Sisters is possibl y the most difficult Chekho v pla y to classify in terms
of its g enre. Chekho v called it ‘A Drama in Four Acts’ and this at least sugg ests
that he w as aware that it w as dar ker in tone than his other pla ys. He admitted
as much in a letter to Vera K ommissarzhevska ya:
Three Sisters is finished… The pla y has turned out dull, pr otracted and a wkw ard;
I say — a wkw ard, because, f or instance, it has f our her oines and a mood, as
they say, gloomier than gloom itself … My pla y is comple x like a no vel and its
mood, people sa y, is m urderous.137
It has , as Gor don McV ay has noted, ‘inspir ed a be wildering v ariety of
interpr etations’: 'Three Sisters has been vie wed both as a tra gedy and as a com edy,
as a poignant testimon y to the eternal y earning f or love, ha ppiness , beauty and
meaning , or as a dev astating indictm ent of the f olly of inert g entility and v acuous
day-dreaming .'138
Certainl y, the pla y contin ues the e xploration of lif e as a constant struggle
betw een hope and despair that had been so mo vingl y dramatised in Uncle Vanya.
It is easy to see w hy the tra gic them e of loss and w aste can easil y overwhelm
the them e of f aith in a better futur e and lead dir ector s to interpr et the pla y as a
lament. It r emains important ho wever to constantl y attempt to pr esent a balance
betw een the dar ker and brighter elem ents of the pla y. McV ay is one critic w ho
is aware of the dual natur e of Three Sisters .While asserting that the pla y is ‘a
profoundl y serious piece in the questions it raises’, he notes the f act that ‘har dly
any them e or character in the pla y remains untouched b y laughter’.139 McV ay’s
analysis of Three Sisters is one that an y dir ector might w ell keep in mind w hen
directing this pla y. He accuratel y describes the balance that needs to be struck
in perf ormance betw een pr esenting the bleak r eality that Chekho v describes
with cool objectivity and comm unicating the underl ying aim of sugg esting
possibilities f or changing that r eality f or the better:
In Three Sisters , the bur den of sorr ow and non-achiev ement is balanced, and
even perha ps transcended, b y the y earning f or ha ppiness and fulfilm ent. The
portra yal of lif e as it is eng ender s a longing f or lif e as it should be.140
220Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v’s objectivity and his o verall aim should co-e xist in an y production. In
his final pla y, The Cherry Orc hard, Chekho v perf ected the synthesis betw een
these tw o elem ents of his dramatur gy.
ENDNOTES
1 Magarshack, D ., The Real Chekhov , Geor ge Allen and Unwin, London, 1972, p . 126.
2 Frayn, M., Chekhov Pla ys, Methuen, London, 1988, p . lix.
3 Hahn, B ., Chekhov: A Stud y of the Major Stor ies and Pla ys, Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1979, pp . 284–5.
4 A. E. W. in Star, 17 February 1926, quoted in Em eljano w, V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage ,
Routled ge and K egan Paul, London, 1981, p . 300.
5 Karlinsk y, S., ‘Russian Anti-Chekho vians’, Russian Literature , Vol. 15, 1984, p . 183.
6 Gilman, R., Chekhov’s Pla ys: An Opening into Eternity , Yale Univ ersity Pr ess, New Ha ven, 1995, p .
148.
7 Ibid., p . 159.
8 Beck ett, S ., Waiting f or Godot , Faber and Fa ber, London, 1965, p . 89.
9 Davison, D ., ed., Andrew Marvell: Selected Poetry and Prose , Harra p and Compan y, London, 1952, p .
84.
10 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1964, p . 133.
11 Not all of Chekho v’s depictions of m edical m en ar e sympathetic, and w e should be a ware that
sympatheticall y dra wn character s like Dr Dorn or Dr Astr ov are no mor e to be identified with Dr
Chekho v than is Dr Chebutykin. Chekho v follows the ad vice giv en to his elder br other Ale xander that
the dramatist should nev er identify with his character s. ‘Who w ants to kno w about m y life and y ours,
my thoughts and y our thoughts? Giv e people people – don’t giv e them y ourself …’ [Chekho v, A., Letter
to A. Chekho v, 8 Ma y 1889, in McV ay, G., Chekhov’s ‘Three Sisters’, Bristol Classical Pr ess, 1995, p . ix.]
12 In a similar w ay, the ‘Absur dist’ vie w expressed b y Macbeth in w hich he depicts lif e as being ‘full
of sound and fury , signifying nothing’ is not the vie w expressed b y Shak espear e in the pla y as a w hole.
13 Moss , H., ‘Thr ee Sister s’, The Hudson Review , Vol. 30, No . 4, 1977, p . 531.
14 Billington, M., Guardian , 3 A pril 1986.
15 Alfr eds, M., quoted in Allen, D ., ‘Exploring the Limitless Depths: Mik e Alfr eds Dir ects Chekho v’,
New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 2, No . 8, No vember 1986, p . 332.
16 Fox, S., City Limits , 3 A pril 1986.
17 Magarshack, D ., loc. cit.
18 Karlinsk y, S., loc. cit.
19 Gottlieb , V., ‘The P olitics of British Chekho v’, in Miles , P., ed., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1993, p . 148.
20 Coveney, M., Financial Times , 2 A pril 1986.
21 Billington, M., loc. cit.
22 Worrall, N ., ‘Stanisla vsky’s Pr oduction of Three Sisters ’, in Russell, R. and Barratt, A., eds , Russian
Theatre in the Age of Modernism , Macmillan, London, 1990, p . 27.
23 Worrall, N ., op. cit., p . 2.
24 Stanisla vski, C ., quoted in Str oyeva, N. M., ‘The Three Sisters at the M AT’, Tulane Drama Review ,
Vol. 9, No . 1, 1964, p . 52.
25 Stroyeva, N. M., op . cit., p . 51.
26 Worrall, N ., op. cit., p . 11.
27 Senelick, L., The Chekhov Theatre , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1997, p . 64.
28 See Worrall, N ., op. cit., p . 5.
29 Ibid., p . 9.
30 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles , London, 1968, p . 210.
31 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 189.
221Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

32 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., op. cit., p . 207.
33 Burenin, V., quoted in Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 65.
34 Gottlieb , V., ‘Chekho v in Limbo: British Pr oductions of the Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Scolnico v, H. and
Holland, P ., eds , The Pla y Out of Context: T ransf erring Pla ys from Culture to Culture , Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1989, p . 171.
35 Corrig an, R., ‘The Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Corrig an, R. and Rosenber g, J. L., eds , The Context and Craft
of Drama , Chandler Publishing Compan y, Scranton, 1964, p .139.
36 Gottlieb , V., loc. cit.
37 Gottlieb , V., ‘Wh y this Far ce?’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 7, No . 27, A ugust 1991, p . 224. The
essential diff erence betw een the oppositional philosophies of f arce and com edy accor ding to Gottlieb
‘is that w hereas “a bsurdism” demonstrates that “lif e” is a bsurd, and m uch F rench and English f arce
places its emphasis on situation, Chekho v’s emphasis is on the a bsurdity of his character s’. (p . 226.)
38 Gottlieb , V., ‘The P olitics of British Chekho v’, p. 148.
39 Molièr e, Defence of T artuf fe, 1669, quoted in Br ownstein, O . L. and Daubert, D . M., eds , Anal ytical
Sourcebook of Concepts in Dramatic Theory , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1981, p . 93.
40 Gottlieb , V., ‘Wh y this Far ce?’, p . 225.
41 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 66.
42 Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 371.
43 Ibid.
44 Karlinsk y, S. and Heim, M. H., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess,
Berkeley, 1975, p . 393.
45 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 15 September 1900, quoted in Valenc y, M., The Breaking Str ing,
Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, Oxf ord, 1966, p . 208.
46 Braun, E., The Director and the Stage , Methuen, London, 1982, p . 67.
47 Pitcher , H., Chekhov’s Leading Lad y, John Murra y, London, 1979, p . 83.
48 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., op. cit., p . 209.
49 Ibid.
50 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Kommissarzhevska ya, 13 No vember 1900, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of
Anton Chekhov , The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 383.
51 Stanisla vski, C ., ‘Memories of Chekho v’, in Ha pgood, E. R., ed., Stanislavski’s Legacy , Max Reinhar dt,
London, 1958, p . 98.
52 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 59.
53 Stanisla vski, C ., Letter to Bar on Drizen, 3 No vember 1909, quoted in Senelick, L., op . cit., pp . 59–60.
54 Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , pp. 373–4.
55 Krutch, J . W., ‘Modernism’ in Modern Drama , Cornell Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1953, p . 128.
56 Gillès , D., Chekhov: Observer without Illusion , Funk & Wagnalls , New York, 1968, p . 319.
57 Nathan, D ., Jewish Chronic le, 11 A pril 1986.
58 Coveney, M., loc. cit.
59 Ratcliff e, M., Observer , 6 A pril 1986.
60 Shorter , E., Daily Telegraph , 3 A pril 1986.
61 Rose, H., Time Out , 9 A pril 1986.
62 Styan, J. L., Chekhov in Perf ormance , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1971, p . 151.
63 Melching er, S., Anton Chekhov , Frederick Ung ar, New York, 1972, p . 140.
64 Magarshack, D ., loc. cit.
65 Gilman, R., op . cit., p . 176.
66 Yermilo v, V., quoted in Gilman, R., loc. cit.
67 Frayn, M., op . cit., p . lviii.
68 Maurice Valenc y mak es the inter esting observ ation that Chekho v, far from being ‘a bsent’ fr om his
plays and ‘detached’ fr om his character s, is ‘pr esent’ and ‘eng aged’ with them. He states: ‘In The Three
Sisters ,Vershinin evidentl y speaks f or Chekho v, and his vie ws ar e clear . But Chebutykin also speaks
for Chekho v, and his vie ws ar e equall y clear … The indeterminate ar ea betw een f aith and scepticism
222Interpreting Chekhov

measur es the e xtent of Chekho v’s spiritual discomf ort. Vershinin speaks f or his f aith; Chebutykin, f or
his doubt.’ (V alenc y, M., op . cit., p . 243.)
69 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 December 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 79.
70 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 73.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid., p . 74.
73 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 133.
74 Ibid., p . 136.
75 Ibid., p . 312.
76 Ibid., p . 77.
77 Chekho v, A., Uncle Vanya, pp. 38–9.
78 Ibid., p . 38.
79 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 138.
80 Chekho v, A., Letter to C . Stanisla vski, 2 J anuary 1901, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 391. Chekho v in
this letter w as not so m uch emphasising Natasha’s evil qualities as trying to stop Stanisla vski fr om
introducing a piece of ina ppropriate ‘business’ f or Natasha. As Str oyeva notes: ‘Originall y, as Stanisla vsky
had written Chekho v, the plan w as to ha ve “Natasha g o thr ough the house at night, putting out lights
and looking f or bur glars under the furnitur e’’’. (Str oyeva, N. M., op . cit., p . 48.) Chekho v tactfull y
steer ed Stanisla vski a way from this rather crude send-u p of Natasha b y sugg esting a mor e subtle
theatricality . ‘It seems to m e, though, that it w ould be better to ha ve her w alk acr oss the sta ge in a
straight line without a glance at an yone or an ything à la Lad y Macbeth, with a candle — that w ay it
would be m uch brief er and mor e frightening .’ (Karlinsk y, S., loc. cit.)
81 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 138.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid., p . 181.
84 Brustein, R., The Theatre of Revolt , Little, Br own and Compan y, Boston, 1964, p . 160.
85 Ibid., pp . 157–8.
86 Miller , J., quoted in Allen, D ., ‘Jonathan Miller Dir ects Chekho v’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 5,
No. 17, February 1989, pp . 56–7.
87 Pitcher , H., The Chekhov Pla y, Chatto and Windus , London, 1973, p . 127.
88 Majdalan y, M., ‘Natasha Iv anovna, the Lonel y Bourgeoise ‘, Modern Drama , Vol. 26, 1983, p . 305.
89 Ibid., p . 307.
90 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 130.
91 Ibid., p . 112.
92 Ibid., p . 118.
93 Majdalan y, M., loc. cit.
94 Pitcher , H., op . cit., p . 123.
95 Majdalan y, M., op . cit., p . 308.
96 Pitcher , H., op . cit., p . 124.
97 Majdalan y, M., op . cit., p . 306.
98 Hingle y, R., Russian Wr iters and Society 1825–1904 , Weidenf eld and Nicolson, London, 1967, p .
170.
99 Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 7 A pril 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 46.
100 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 16 October 1900, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on the Short Story the
Drama and Other Literary T opics by Anton Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 156.
101 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 133.
102 Ibid.
103 Stanisla vski, C ., ‘A. P . Chekho v at the Arts Theater’, in Turkov, A., ed., Anton Chekhov and His
Times , Univ ersity of Ar kansas Pr ess, Fayetteville, 1995, p . 116.
104 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 135.
105 Pitcher , H., op . cit., p . 126.
106 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 75.
223Three Sisters: ‘Oh if we could only know!’

107 Ibid., p . 76.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Ibid., p . 81.
111 Ibid., p . 84.
112 Ibid.
113 Hingle y, R., op . cit., pp . 208–9.
114 Stanisla vski, C ., op. cit., p . 111.
115 Chekho v, A, Three Sisters , p. 95.
116 Ibid., p . 84.
117 Ibid., p . 311.
118 Ibid., p . 83.
119 Ibid., p . 98.
120 Ibid., p . 99.
121 Ibid.
122 Ibid.
123 Ibid., p . 100.
124 Ibid., p . 138 and {p . 311}.
125 Knipper , O., Letter to A. Chekho v, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, p . 311.
126 Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 22 J anuary 1901, in Benedetti, J ., ed., The Moscow
Art Theatre Letters , New York, 1991, p . 99.
127 Chekho v, A., Three Sisters , p. 139.
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid., p . 135.
131 Tovstono gov, G., ‘Chekho v’s Three Sisters at the Gor ky Theatr e’, Tulane Drama Review , Vol. 13,
No. 2, 1968, p . 149.
132 Ibid.
133 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 204.
134 Tovstono gov, G., op. cit., p . 148.
135 Ibid., p . 149.
136 Ibid., p . 153.
137 Chekho v, A., Letter to V. F. Kommissarzhevska ya, 13 No vember 1900, in McV ay, G., op . cit., p .
xvi.
138 McV ay, G., op. cit., p . v.
139 Ibid., p . 67.
140 Ibid., p . 19.
224Interpreting Chekhov

Chapter 7. The Cherry Orchard :
Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form
Today, as never bef ore, Chekhov productions argue with one another , and eac h one
of them provokes discussion. This is because everyone has his own Chekhov . This
is true of producers [directors] and actors , and also of audiences and cr itics. They
do not al ways see eye to eye … But let us pause and ask ourselves: why are there
such divergent interpretations , and are they , in general, justif ied? Perhaps there
does exist a standard ‘reading of Chekhov’ f or all time , a model that can be violated
only at one’s per il? Does this diversity of interpretation have something to do with
producer’s [director’s] license , or is it prompted by the inherent f eatures of Chekhov’s
plays with their pol yphony and counterpoint, so that dif ferent people hear dif ferent
voices? (Marianna Str oyeva)1
Chekhov , to sum up , transcended the superf iciality that often adheres to optimistic
literature and at the same time escaped the morbidity that besets pessimistic
profundity; and he kept a c haracter istic balance in other important respects … [It
is by] remember ing especiall y the plain yet somehow elusive f act that there was
ever sympathy in his comed y and some degree of comed y in his sympathy , that we
may hope to br ing his pla ys authenticall y to the stage . (John Gassner)2
A month after Chekho v had written to the actr ess Mariy a Petrovna Lilina
informing her that his ne w pla y, The Cherry Orc hard, ‘has turned out not a drama,
but a com edy, in places ev en a f arce’,3 her husband Stanisla vski wr ote to the
playwright and inf ormed him that the pla y ‘is not a com edy, nor a f arce as y ou
have written, this is a tra gedy, whatev er esca pe to wards a better lif e you open
up in the last act’.4 So beg an the interpr etativ e contr oversy that has contin ued
to this da y. Unf ortunatel y, the quarr el about w hich g enre mor e aptly describes
The Cherry Orchard has g enerated mor e heat than light. Generations of dir ector s
and critics ha ve placed themselv es in w arring f actions that mirr or the original
polarised positions set u p by Chekho v and Stanisla vski. As Gilman rightl y points
out:
… fr om the beginning of its lif e on sta ge and in the critical and popular minds
the pla y has s wung betw een interpr etativ e polarities: naturalism and poetry ,
social lam ent and social pr ophesy , mor e contr oversially com edy and som ething
very close to a tra gic mood … What w e might call ‘the comic v ersus the
melancholic’ becam e a debate at the start.5
In the West, the belief that Chekho v was a deepl y pessimistic writer dev eloped
as a r esult of critics and dir ector s in Eur ope and Am erica sla vishl y following the
Mosco w Art Theatr e interpr etations made f amous b y Stanisla vski and
225

Nemir ovich-Danchenk o. Writing in 1966, Nicholas Mora vcevich ar gued that
the West dev eloped ‘a full-fled ged cult of Chekho vian gloom’, w hich w as not
challeng ed till after World War II. As a r esult, ‘a w hole g eneration of
theatr e-goers spent their liv es believing that the Chekho vian pla y calls f or a
refined sensibility , melanchol y disposition, r ed eyes, and a handk erchief’.6 Like
Gilman, Mora vcevich sa w interpr etativ e approaches to Chekho v in terms of
polarities . From the tim e when the Mosco w Art Theatr e produced The Seagull :
… the critical contr oversy over the rightful interpr etation of Chekho vian pla ys,
like a g reat pendulum, completed tw o full turns . Its initial s wing to wards the
larmoyante , mournful, and somnolent g ained mom entum thr ough the pr oductions
of Stanisla vski and Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, whose popular success easil y
obliterated the author’s occasional f eeble pr otests that the Mosco w Art Theatr e
director s and ensemble v ery fr equentl y saw in his w orks dim ensions and them es
he had no intention of r evealing .7
Accor ding to K enneth Tynan, British v ersions of Chekho v in the imm ediate
post Second World War years were even mor e larmoyante [tearful] than those
created b y the Mosco w Art Theatr e. Indeed, w hen the Russian compan y brought
their pr oduction of The Cherry Orc hard to London in 1958, Tynan used their
interpr etativ e approach as the norm b y which to jud ge the f ailings of English
Chekho v. In particular Tynan attack ed the w ay that pr oductions in Britain
tended to turn the Russian pla y into a distinctiv ely upper-class English aff air:
The g reat thing a bout the Mosco w Art Theatr e’s pr oduction of The Cherry
Orchard is that it blo ws the cobw ebs off the pla y. And w ho put them ther e?
Why we our selves. We have remade Chekho v’s last pla y in our ima ge … Our
Cherry Orc hard is a pathetic symphon y, to be pla yed in a mood of eleg y. We
invest it with a nostalgia f or the past w hich, though it runs right thr ough our
cultur e, is alien to Chekho v’s. His people ar e country g entry: w e turn them into
decadent aristocrats . Next, w e romanticise them. Their silliness becom es pitia ble
grotesquerie; and at this point our hearts w arm to them. They are not Russians
at all: the y belong to the g reat line of English eccentrics … Ha ving f oisted on
Chekho v a collection of patrician m ental cases , we then cong ratulate him on
having achiev ed honorary English citizenship . Meanw hile the calm, g enial
sanity of the pla y has flo wn out the windo w.8
Trevor Griffiths , whose contr oversial ‘ne w English v ersion’ of The Cherry
Orchard was dir ected b y Richar d Eyr e in 1977, attests to the r esilience of the
‘pathetic symphon y’ approach to the pla y that Tynan had pilloried in the late
nineteen-fifties . Griffiths f elt alienated fr om the kind of Chekho v that ‘especiall y
from the earl y sixties on … had com e to seem, in his content as m uch as his
form, inaliena bly bound u p with the fine r egretful w eeping of the privileg ed
fallen on har d tim es’.9 As a Marxist, Griffiths w as less w orried a bout questions
226Interpreting Chekhov

of genre than a bout political questions . What he objected to in pr evious English
translations and pr oductions w as that the y created a ‘r eactionary’ rather than a
‘progressiv e’ Chekho v. This Griffiths attributed to the f act that: 'For half a
century no w, in England as else where, Chekho v has been the almost e xclusiv e
property of theatrical class sectaries f or whom the pla ys ha ve been plang ent and
sorrowing ev ocations of an "or dered" past no long er with "us", its passing g reatly
to be mourned.'10
Griffiths’ political interpr etation of The Cherry Orc hard was an attempt to
reactiv ate the elem ent of social criticism that he f elt w as implied in Chekho v’s
play and w as a r eaction a gainst those pr oductions that transf ormed the pla y into
a sentim ental eleg y. Griffiths' v ersion of the pla y, by not allo wing audiences to
feel enough f or the character s whose w orld w as passing a way, lost som e of the
essential Chekho vian balance betw een the ha ppiness associated with futur e
hopes and the sadness associated with the loss of the past. Nev ertheless , his
version of The Cherry Orc hard was salutary because it r estor ed the elem ent of
hope and the possibility of social impr ovement that had been totall y lacking in
earlier English pr oductions .
David Ma garshack’s r eaction a gainst the kind of tearful pr oductions that
Griffiths hated w as to attack them f or being too gloom y. He has ar gued str ongly
that Chekho v’s pla ys should be interpr eted as com edies . Unf ortunatel y his
sensible ad vice has , on occasion, been tak en too f ar. Mora vcevich claims that as
a result of f ollowing Ma garshack’s a pproach, 'ev erything serious and sombr e
that the author ev er expressed in his pla ys w as deliberatel y minimised and
tucked beneath the alleg ed optimism and skittish boister ousness of the
Chekho vian comic m use.'11
The positiv e effect of Ma garshack’s emphasis on the com edic elem ents in
Chekho v has undoubtedl y been that pr oductions that f ollow his a pproach tend
to include som e humour and ev en optimism. It is no w rar er to find dir ector s
presenting totall y lugubrious interpr etations of a pla y such as The Cherry Orc hard.
However, ther e have been certain dir ector s who ha ve pushed Ma garshack’s
correctiv e idea to an e xtreme. We find som e productions of Chekho v’s pla y that
reduce it to f arce.
In 1977, Andr ei Serban dir ected the pla y in Ne w York. Within an
impr essionistic setting , the pr oduction, w hile not a voiding the pla y’s class
politics , emphasised its f arcical elem ents. Ther e were scenes of almost sla pstick
physicality . Senelick comm ented: ‘under statem ent w as less common than
athleticism: Dun yasha perf ormed a striptease and at one point tackled Yasha lik e
a football pla yer.’12 The o verall eff ect, accor ding to Senelick, w as that, ‘The
visual ima ges were often striking , but the m eaning w as often perv erse, and the
result unmo ving’.13 The cause of this f ailure to mo ve the audience almost
certainl y lay in the o veremphasis on com edy which, as Ber gson noted, r equir es
227The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

from spectator s an ‘anaesthesia of the heart’. Rocco Landesman is pr obably
correct w hen he asserts: ‘Serban tak es Chekho v’s statem ent that The Cherry
Orchard is a com edy too literall y’. Ar guing that Serban has turned Chekho v’s
comédie humaine into the Comédie Française , Landesman points out ho w both
the sta ging and the interpr etation ar e overstated. The pr oduction pr esented y et
another polarised r eading of the pla y that made it ludicr ous rather than comic:
… literalness is the pr oblem with ev ery aspect of this pr oduction. To sho w that
the character s are all childr en, Serban has them pla y with to ys; to pr esent the
threat of a ne w, strang e world, Serban puts in a ph ysical strang er in the
backg round. When Ga yev speaks of ‘glorious natur e’ the backdr op of
smok estacks g ets brighter . But w orst of all is Serban’s Trofimo v, whose vision
of the coming bra ve new world is literalized in a So viet arm y overcoat with r ed
lapels. He and An ya, it seems , go off to gether to start a ne w and better society .14
Possibl y one of the most e xtreme examples of the tendenc y to privileg e the
comical, or ev en farcical, aspects of The Cherry Orc hard at the e xpense of the
more sombr e elem ents is pr ovided b y Joel Ger shmann’s 1986 postmodern
production. In w hat the dir ector called ‘a comic Cherry Orc hard for the 80s’,
Gershmann almost totall y destr oyed the ne xus betw een the pla ywright’s pla y
and this ninety-min ute pr oduction of it. Senelick’s description giv es us som e
idea of just ho w far the dir ector w as willing to g o in or der to raise a laugh:
Spilling out of this corn ucopia of Rea gan-era pop cultur e was a Gaev obsessed
by television rather than billiar ds, Anya and Varya played by men in dra g, and
Yasha and Fir s their f emale counterparts . In the finale, Ranevska ya and her
brother departed f or the futur e carrying a giant Am erican Expr ess car d, as
Lopakhin enter ed with a buzzing chainsa w. The anar chic e xuberance of
iconoclasm pr ovoked a g ood deal of laughter …15
Magarshack’s corr ectiv e to the gloom and doom interpr etations of Chekho v
may have been salutary , but w hen the comic aspects of Chekho v’s pla ys ar e
overemphasised, as the y were in Ger shmann’s pr oduction, an equall y unbalanced
reading r esults . Examining this pr oduction, Ronald Leblanc attempted to ans wer
the question: ‘Does Ger shmann’s f arcical pr oduction of The Cherry Orc hard
“liberate” Chekho v or does it instead “destr oy” him?’16 His ans wer is that the
production does both:
By emphasising the pla y’s humor ous elem ents, Ger shmann’s v ersion certainl y
liberates the comic Chekho v from the Stanisla vskian ca ptivity of naturalism
and psy cholo gical r ealism that long imprisoned his pla y. But in combining r ock
music, drug use, and se xual pr omiscuity with a highl y emotional style of acting ,
the Am erican dir ector at the sam e tim e so modernised and vulg arised Chekho v
that he r ender ed him virtuall y unr ecognisa ble.17
228Interpreting Chekhov

Leblanc seems to m e to ha ve incorr ectly anal ysed Ger shmann’s pr oduction.
The com edy created b y all of the business the dir ector intr oduced did not so
much ‘liberate the comic Chekho v’, as liberate the comic Ger shmann.
Furthermor e, Leblanc incorr ectly assum es that ‘the comic Chekho v’ cannot be
liberated if one emplo ys the ‘psy cholo gical r ealism’ that Stanisla vski ad vocated.
Just because Stanisla vski’s o wn use of ‘psy cholo gical r ealism’ w as in the service
of an o verly lugubrious interpr etation of Chekho v’s pla y does not m ean that it
cannot be used in such a w ay as to allo w for the comic aspects of the pla y to be
realised on sta ge.
The pr oblem with polarised a pproaches to Chekho v, be the y the tra gic
approach popularised b y Stanisla vski or the comic a pproach encoura ged b y
critics lik e Ma garshack, is that the y both lose the vital sense of balance betw een
apparently conflicting polarities . In terms of characterisation, f or instance, w e
need a both/and rather than an either/or a pproach. I ha ve argued that Vershinin
in Three Sisters should not be pla yed as simpl y either ‘an empty windba g’ or ‘a
heroic visionary’, but as a fla wed human being with a w orthw hile vision of the
futur e. Similarl y, in The Cherry Orc hard, it is vital that the character Trofimo v
should not be pla yed as either ‘the her oic visionary Bolshevik’ or as ‘an
emotionall y immatur e student’, but as a combination of both. Michael F rayn is
one of the f ew writer s to see that Chekho v presents character s like Trofimo v
from a dual per spectiv e. Noting that in som e English pr oductions Trofimo v had
been pla yed as a totall y ‘inadequate and immatur e per sonality’, F rayn writes:
Chekho v plainl y tak es Trofimo v seriousl y as a man w ho holds sane and g enuine
convictions f or w hich he is pr epared to suff er. But then to g o to the opposite
extreme, as w as done in Trevor Griffiths’ ada ptation of the pla y and to turn
him into a ‘positiv e her o’ in the Socialist Realist sense, is also an a bsurdity.18
The both/and a pproach to characterisation needs to be a pplied not just to
individual character s but to the entir e cast. This is part of w hat Ra ymond
Williams is driving at w hen he ar gues that:
… the contradictory character , of the g roup and its f eeling , has to be con veyed
in the tone: a kind of nobility , and a kind of f arce, ha ve to co-e xist. (This is not,
by the w ay, a cue f or the usual question: ar e we supposed to laugh or cry at
such people and such situations? That is a servile question: w e have to decide
our r esponse f or our selves. The point is , always, that the character s and
situations can be seen, ar e written to be seen, in both w ays; to decide on one
part of the r esponse or the other is to miss w hat is being said.)19
An audience is mor e likely to e xperience that comple x response to his pla ys
which, f or want of a better term, w e call ‘Chekho vian’, if this fusion of opposites
is eff ected in perf ormance. A n umber of critics and dir ector s are aware of the
229The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

need f or this fusion to be made a pparent to audiences . Herbert Müller , for
example, notes:
In his humanity [Chekho v] was … mor e keenly aware at once of the ludicr ous
and the tra gic aspects of man’s f olly and futility . Humor runs all thr ough his
serious drama. It is onl y slightl y mor e pronounced in The Cherry Orc hard, which
he la belled a com edy, and w hich might be called the quintessence of
tragicom edy.20
Styan, perha ps mor e clearl y than an y other critic, sums u p Chekho v’s
extraor dinary achiev ement in The Cherry Orc hard. He points out the difficulty
that Chekho v faced in trying to achiev e his desir ed sense of balanced ambiguity
and the man y ways in w hich, as w e have seen, such a balance is easil y lost in
polarised interpr etations of the pla y. Styan writes:
In The Cherry Orc hard, Chekho v consummated his lif e’s w ork with a poetic
comedy of e xquisite balance, but so tr eads the tightr ope that his audience has
a har d tim e keeping its wits . This ultimate e xercise in Chekho vian com edy is a
lesson in funambulism. If, lik e recent So viet audiences w atching the w ork of
the Mosco w Art Theatr e, the y want r ousing polemics fr om Trofimo v, they can
hear them. If, lik e most Western audiences , the y want to mourn f or Mm e
Ranevsk y and her f ate, the y can be partl y accommodated. It is possible to see
Lyuba and Ga yev as shallo w people w ho deserv e to lose their or chard, or as
victims of social and economic f orces be yond their contr ol. It is possible to find
Anya and Trofimo v far-sighted enough to w ant to lea ve the d ying or chard, or
terribl y ignorant of w hat the y are forsaking . But if pr oduction allo ws either the
heroics of pr ophesy or the m elodrama of dispossession to dominate, then all of
Chekho v’s car e for balance is set at nought and the f abric of the pla y is torn
apart.21
Chekho v’s character s function on both objectiv e and subjectiv e lev els. On
the subjectiv e level of the subte xt, lif e may indeed a ppear tra gic, since character s
in Chekho v’s later pla ys ar e sadl y aware that the y have wasted their liv es. On
the objectiv e lev el of the te xt, ho wever, these sam e character s often beha ve in
a silly trivial manner that is essentiall y comic. The audience’s per ception of the
inter -relationship betw een these tw o lev els of r eality cr eates Chekho vian
synthetic tra gi-com edy. Chekho v’s tra gi-com edy is synthetic because the tra gic
and comic dim ensions of a character’s beha viour ar e per ceived at the sam e tim e.
Vanya’s entry with a bunch of flo wers for Helen in Act III of Uncle Vanya is
both tra gic and comic. In a Shak espear ean tra gi-com edy, by contrast, ther e is a
tendenc y to alternate serious and comic scenes .
Again, Chekho v’s tra gi-com edy is synthetic in the w ay that it deals with
character s. In Chekho v, ther e is no clear separation into high and lo w character s
230Interpreting Chekhov

as occur s in a pla y such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream . Instead, each character
combines traits that ar e both noble and ludicr ous. As Karl Guthk e comm ents:
… this device of internal character dichotom y realises its tra gi-comic eff ect b y
exploring the tw o sides of the dramatis persona in such a w ay that the y not onl y
offset each other , but impart their aesthetic quality (comic and tra gic
respectiv ely) to each other . Thus a ludicr ously dispr oportioned ph ysiognom y
may mak e an isolated noble mind all the mor e tragic in its suff ering w hile the
contrast with the highl y valuable human substances will mak e the shortcomings
of the outw ard appearance all the mor e comical …22
One can r eadil y see ho w, when dealing with a pla y such as The Cherry Orc hard
in w hich the land-o wning g entry ar e dispossessed of their estates , a dir ector
like Stanisla vski, with his w ealth y merchant backg round, should quite naturall y
sympathise with those ‘dispossessed’ character s. It is equall y clear ho w a
playwright such as Chekho v, the g randson of a serf, w hose ideal w as per sonal
freedom and w ho had ‘squeezed the sla ve out of himself, dr op by drop’23 should
have a m uch mor e ironic attitude to the demise of a highl y privileg ed class .
Peter Holland’s sociolo gical anal ysis pr ovides a partial e xplanation of
Stanisla vski’s interpr etation of the pla y. Holland, w ho sees Stanisla vski ‘imposing
the v alues of his o wn class on Chekho v’s pla y’ ar gues that Chekho v’s
science-based ‘g ently liberalizing pr ogressivism’ w as a ppropriated b y
Stanisla vski, 'w hose ev ery instinct thr oughout his lif e was as r eactionary as his
theatr e work was su pposedl y revolutionary and radical in its m ethod'.24
Robert Corrig an’s attack on Stanisla vski’s misinterpr etation of The Cherry
Orchard is not couched in socio-political terms , but in terms of w hat he sees as
the dir ector’s privileging of the actor o ver the pla ywright:
Because Stanisla vski, in the final anal ysis, failed to distinguish betw een art and
natur e, because he w as mor e concerned with cr eating natural truthfulness of
character rather than e xpressing with artistic r ightness the r ole of a character
who serv ed a specific function in the pla ywright’s f ormulation of a statem ent
about lif e in theatrical terms , it w as inevita ble that Stanisla vski w ould be a
failure as an actor and dir ector of Chekho v’s pla ys.25
Like Holland, Corrig an’s anal ysis is onl y a partial e xplanation of Stanisla vski’s
misreading of Chekho v’s pla y, and both critics ar e too e xtreme in their criticisms
of the dir ector . Stanisla vski w as not a totall y insensitiv e man. What he sa w in
Chekho v’s pla y was indeed ther e. Ther e is a tra gic elem ent in his dramas and
this elem ent is to be located in the subte xt that constitutes the inner lif e of his
character s. It is perha ps one of the g reatest achiev ements of the co-f ounder s of
the Mosco w Art Theatr e that the y dev eloped an acting system that allo wed
actor s to pla y not just the e xternalised te xt, but also the hid den subte xt. The
231The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

use of this system w as the essential m eans r equir ed for the full r ealisation of
Chekho v’s pla ys. As Ale xandr Skaftymo v rightl y observ ed:
K. S. Stanisla vski and V. I. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o detected the most significant
principle of the dramatic dev elopm ent in Chekho v’s pla ys, the so-called
‘under current’. Behind the surf ace of quotidian episodes and details the y
revealed the pr esence of a ceaseless inner intimate-l yrical curr ent …26
Stanisla vski w as in volved in an attempt to dev elop a naturalistic system of
acting based on theories of human beha viour that w ere curr ently being
propounded b y psy cholo gists such as Ribot and P avlov. He w as deepl y inter ested
in the hid den subjectiv e reasons and causes f or overt objectiv e beha viour . Quite
naturall y, he w as sensitiv e to this ne w inner r eality , which in Chekho v tends
to be tra gic. Stanisla vski’s w eakness , I believ e, stems fr om the overemphasis he
placed on this tra gic subte xt, w hich led him to encoura ge his actor s to allo w
these dar ker elem ents to almost totall y suppress the comic elem ents of the te xt.
A similar o veremphasis on the subte xt is to be f ound in Harv ey Pitcher’s
critical anal ysis of Chekho v’s pla ys. Pitcher r ecounts ho w Chekho v had been
dissatisfied at the o verly theatrical manner in w hich the actr ess pla yed Son ya
in the Mosco w Arts Theatr e production of Uncle Vanya: ‘[She] had at one point
in Act III thr own her self at her f ather’s f eet and started to kiss his hand.’ Pitcher
proceeds to quote Chekho v’s r eaction, but his comm ent f ollowing Chekho v’s
statem ent r eveals that Pitcher has onl y partiall y seen w hat the pla ywright w as
driving at:
‘That’s quite wr ong,’ he [Chekho v] comm ented, ‘after all, it isn’t a drama. The
whole m eaning , the w hole drama of a per son’s lif e are contained within, not in
outw ard manif estations … A shot, after all, is not a drama, but an incident.’
This is a helpful indication of Chekho v’s g eneral a pproach to pla ywriting , and
sugg ests that his pr esentation of the character s’ inner liv es might be r egarded
as the central f eatur e of Chekho v’s pla ys.27
‘The ostensible action of The Cherry Orc hard is very simple.’28 What the
audience sees is the pr esentation of a story in w hich a g roup of impo verished
owner s of an estate ha ve gather ed to gether in the v ain hope that the y can sa ve
the pr operty . They reject a practical plan that, w hile sa ving them financiall y,
would in volve cutting do wn the or chard and demolishing the old house. As the
owner s of the or chard do nothing to sa ve the estate, the or chard is sold to a rich
man of peasant stock. The f ormer owner s and their childr en lea ve, expressing
their v arious hopes a bout their futur e life.
The g eneral structur e of the pla y is built ar ound a pattern that Chekho v used
in all of his pla ys after Ivanov . It consists of an arriv al, a sojourn, and a departur e.
‘The principal action of The Cherry Orc hard is not dramatised.’29 Behind the
232Interpreting Chekhov

humdrum lif e of the te xt, ho wever, is an e xtremely comple x story w hich, as
Valenc y says:
… is told in snatches fir st by An ya, then b y Lyubo v Andr eyevna her self.
Nobod y dwells on it. It is kno wn to all the character s, and the y have no desir e
to hear it a gain fr om an yone. It is an e xposition without the slightest ur gency.30
Ther e are, in f act, sev eral stories w hich ar e not dramatised but w hich ar e
alluded to . Mrs Ranevsk y’s lo ve affair and her attempted suicide w ould ha ve
made the perf ect subject f or a Scribean m elodrama. Ev ery character has their
own individual story w hich, though not dramatised, is m entioned indir ectly in
the pla y, and a wareness of their stories helps to mak e the beha viour of each
character compr ehensible to an audience. For instance, a dir ector m ust mak e an
audience a ware that the r eason that ‘the eternal student’, Trofimo v, has not y et
finished his deg ree and has been thr own out of the univ ersity is not because of
laziness but because of his political activities .31
A detailed anal ysis of the opening scene of the pla y reveals just ho w
systematic Chekho v is in his depiction of the tw o lives of his character s. It also
reveals the clues that he has pr ovided f or actor s to assist them in portra ying this
duality of character . The Cherry Orc hard opens in the n ursery of the main house.
It is near da wn and Lopakhin is in an ob vious state of e xcitem ent and e xpectation:
LOPAKHIN . The train’s arriv ed, thank God. What tim e is it?32
Lopakhin’s e xcitem ent is objectiv ely sho wn to the audience, but the r eason
for it r emains a hid den part of his subjectiv e life. We imm ediatel y learn that
Lopakhin had intended to m eet the train on w hich Mr s Ranevsk y and the r est
of her entoura ge were expected to arriv e, but that he had f allen asleep . The g ap
betw een Lopakhin’s subjectiv e intention to m eet the train and the objectiv e fact
of his f ailure to do so is thus esta blished b y Chekho v, who then giv es Lopakhin
the pla y’s fir st ‘disguised soliloquy’. Although he is ostensibl y talking to the
maid Dun yasha, Lopakhin is essentiall y musing out loud to himself, especiall y
since the maid is so pr eoccu pied with her o wn inner lif e that she f ails to listen
to him. The fir st ‘disguised soliloquy’ pr ovides f or the audience the dramaticall y
necessary e xposition. Mor e importantl y, it esta blishes the e xistence of Lopakhin’s
inner lif e, his subte xt, by allo wing his normall y hid den priv ate hopes and beliefs
to rise briefl y to the visible surf ace of the te xt’s dialo gue. As Ma garshack sa ys:
… their inner lif e bur sts thr ough the outer shell of their ev eryda y appearance
and o verflows into a torr ent of w ords. It is this spontaneous and almost palpa ble
transm utation into speech of hid den thoughts and deepl y buried emotions that
is perha ps the most subtle e xpression of dramatic action in a Chekho v pla y.33
In the opening ‘disguised soliloquy’ of The Cherry Orc hard, Chekho v was
careful to pr ovide a r ealistic motiv ation f or Lopakhin’s speech b y making it seem
233The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

like the natural r esponse to his alr eady illustrated state of e xcitem ent. Lopakhin
reveals part of the r eason w hy he has risen bef ore dawn to m eet Liuba Ranevsk y.
He tells ho w, as a child, he had been a peasant on the Ranevsk y estate. Liuba
had sho wn sympath y towards him w hen his f ather had beaten him. Lopakhin,
though he has no w risen to be a rich and po werful man, has nev er ceased to be
grateful to Liuba f or her kindness:
LOPAKHIN . … ‘Don’t cry , little peasant,’ she said. ‘Y ou’ll soon be right as rain.’
[Pause .] Little peasant. It’s true m y father w as a peasant, but her e I am in m y
white w aistcoat and br own boots , bar ging in lik e a bull in a china shop . The
only thing is , I am rich. I ha ve plenty of mone y, but w hen y ou really get do wn
to it I’m just another country bumpkin. [ Turns the pages of his book. ] I w as
reading this book and couldn’t mak e sense of it. Fell asleep o ver it. [ Pause .]34
This mom entary closing of the g ap betw een the tw o levels of r eality , in w hich
the subte xt bub bles u p into the te xt, pr ovides the spectator s with the inf ormation
necessary f or them to see another g ap that will be of central importance later in
the pla y. Objectiv ely Lopakhin is a rich man, subjectiv ely he is still a peasant.35
The disjunction betw een his tw o liv es is r ealised theatricall y by creating an
obvious g ap betw een Lopakhin’s eleg ant clothes and his g auche and clumsy
movements. Lopakhin is a ware of the g ap betw een w hat he f eels himself to be
and w hat he is and has attempted to brid ge the g ap. The ignorant peasant
attempts to educate himself, but f ails. He can’t under stand the book he is r eading .
The g ap betw een his aims and his achiev ement is emphasised b y the f act that
he not onl y fails to under stand w hat he is r eading but, ha ving f allen asleep , also
fails to m eet the train.
Lopakhin no w pr oceeds to u pbraid the maid, Dun yasha:
LOPAKHIN . You’re too sensitiv e alto gether , my girl. You dr ess lik e a lad y and
do your hair lik e one too . We can’t ha ve that. Rem ember y our place.36
Lopakhin’s observ ation is objectiv ely corr ect and, as w e find out later w hen
Dunyasha r eveals a little of her o wn inner lif e, she does ha ve vague hopes of
climbing sociall y. Her manner of dr essing , her aff ected lad ylike beha viour ,
epitomised b y her ‘f ainting’, her w hite lad y’s hands and her constant po wdering
of her nose ar e noticea bly at v ariance with her actual social position. The
absurdity of Dun yasha’s pr etensions operates as a par ody of Lopakhin’s situation.
His style of dr essing doesn’t corr espond with his beha viour . It is pr ecisel y his
problem that he is not sur e of his ‘place’ — peasant or rich man. Consequentl y,
there is an ir onic disparity betw een w hat Lopakhin sa ys to Dun yasha and w hat
he himself does . This disparity betw een w hat character s say and w hat the y
actuall y do helps to comm unicate Chekho v’s dramatic w orld in w hich the
character s’ actions f ail to liv e up to their aims .
234Interpreting Chekhov

The most e xtreme example of the kind of dislocation betw een the subjectiv e
and objectiv e liv es of the character s is pr ovided b y Yepikhodo v, the
accident-pr one cler k, who enter s imm ediatel y after Lopakhin’s admonition of
Dunyasha:
Yepikhodov comes in carrying a bunc h of f lowers . He wears a jacket and br ightly
polished high boots whic h make a loud squeak. Once inside the room he drops the
flowers .37
Yepikhodo v seems , on the surf ace, to be a clo wn-lik e figur e. His boots squeak,
he dr ops the flo wers, he br eaks a billiar d cue, he bumps into furnitur e, he finds
blackbeetles in his kv ass, he w akes up with an enormous spider on his chest
and, to top it all, he talks in an e xtremely pretentious and sill y manner . This
walking disaster , who in som e translations is giv en the nicknam e of ‘T wo and
twenty misf ortunes’, cannot help a ppearing ludicr ous to both the other character s
and to an audience. Viewed fr om the outside, on the objectiv e lev el, he is , as
Magarshack describes him, 'a conceited half-wit w ho ima gines himself a highl y
educated per son because he possesses the bo vine patience to w ade thr ough
"learned" books he has not the brain to under stand'.38
But Yepikhodo v, with his pr etensions to learning and his a bsurd manner of
speaking , is not simpl y the one-dim ensional character w ho appear s in the te xt.
That is m erely his objectiv e manif estation; ho w he a ppear s to other s. His
subjectiv e inner lif e is f ar from farcical. He is , in f act, so unha ppy with himself
and his maladr oitness that he seriousl y contemplates committing suicide, and it
is for this r eason that he carries a gun.
The manif estations of the g ap betw een Yepikhodo v’s inner and outer liv es
are essentiall y ph ysical. His subjectiv e self is almost totall y cut off fr om the
objectiv e world. The y awning g ap betw een his inner and outer selv es, sho wn
by his ina bility to e xpress w hat he inw ardly feels e xcept thr ough his ludicr ous
manner of speech and beha viour , is further underlined b y what Ber gson w ould
call his comic ‘inelasticity’.39 Yepikhodo v’s inner self is una ble to contr ol his
outer self or the w orld of ph ysical objects w hich o verpowers him. Indeed, it
almost a ppear s that the ph ysical w orld is activ ely plotting a gainst him. The
result is that Yepikhodo v’s sensitiv e action of bringing flo wers, possibl y for
Mrs Ranevsk y, but mor e probably for Dun yasha, w hom he lo ves, is under cut
when he dr ops the flo wers.
Yepikhodo v’s pain is hid den fr om other character s partl y because he tries to
hide it. J ust as Lopakhin, in the f amous non-pr oposal scene with Varya in Act
IV, will talk a bout the w eather to hide w hat he is r eally feeling , so Yepikhodo v,
apart fr om allo wing himself a sigh that w ells u p from the subte xt of his inner
life, covers his o wn anguish b y discussing trivialities:
235The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

YEPIKHODO V. Ther e are thr ee deg rees of fr ost this morning and the cherry
trees ar e in full bloom. I can’t sa y that I think m uch of our climate. [ Sighs .] That
I can’t. It isn’t e xactl y co-operativ e, our climate isn’t. Then if y ou’ll permit a
further observ ation, Mr Lopakhin, I bought these boots the da y bef ore yesterday
and, as I mak e so bold to assur e you, the y squeak lik e som ething out of this
world. What could I put on them?40
Lopakhin, w hose o wn inner lif e is occu pied with his o wn concerns a bout
greeting Mr s Ranevsk y and telling her his plan to sa ve the estate, pa ys little
attention to Yepikhodo v’s w orries . His cur sory dismissal of Yepikhodo v leads
the cler k to r eveal a tin y part of his anguished inner lif e. In w hat is in eff ect a
miniatur e ‘disguised soliloquy’, Yepikhodo v mom entaril y closes the g ap betw een
his inner and outer liv es by bringing his o wn subte xt into the te xt:
LOPAKHIN . Leave me alone. I’m tir ed of y ou.
YEPIKHODO V. Everyda y som ething a wful ha ppens to m e. Not that I complain.
I’m used to it. Ev en raise a smile.41
Even though Lopakhin ma y not r egister the significance of Yepikhodo v’s remar k
an audience should be made a ware of its significance. F rom this point in the
play, whenev er Yepikhodo v smiles at the ‘disaster s’ that occur to him, the
audience should see the ludicr ous beha viour that is manif ested in the te xt and
also be a ware of the suff ering that is being endur ed in the hid den subte xtual
inner lif e behind this maladr oit character’s smile. As Yepikhodo v exits, he bumps
into a chair and pr esuma bly grins as he departs .
The v ain and rather stu pid Dun yasha, w ho doesn’t under stand an ything that
Yepikhodo v says to her , has onl y one inter est in the cler k and that is that ‘he’s
crazy a bout m e’.42 We learn that the besotted Yepikhodo v has alr eady proposed
to her . As w e see in Act II, Dun yasha’s slight inter est in Yepikhodo v vanishes
the mom ent that the odious social climbing serv ant Yasha arriv es. At this earl y
point of the pla y, Dun yasha has no other lo ve inter est. She sa ys to Lopakhin, ‘I
do sort of lik e him'43 and contin ues to pr ovide important inf ormation f or the
audience concerning Yepikhodo v. In an earl y example of w hat Ma garshack
called the ‘m esseng er’ elem ent, Dun yasha inf orms her uninter ested sta ge
companion:
He’s a most unf ortunate man, ev eryda y som ething g oes wr ong. That’s w hy he
gets teased her e. They call him ‘Simple Simon’.44
At this point in the pla y, the audience has been giv en all the necessary
information to be a ble to r ead Yepikhodo v as a tra gi-comic character . Without
knowled ge of both his subjectiv e and objectiv e lives, how he sees himself and
how other s see him, an audience w ould not be a ble to r ead the e xtraor dinary
scene that occur s at the beginning of Act II, w hich I will anal yse later .
236Interpreting Chekhov

Just bef ore the arriv al of Mr s Ranevsk y [Liuba], the old serv ant, Fir s, crosses
the sta ge muttering unintelligibl y. In his characterisation of Fir s, Chekho v creates
an extreme example of the disjunction betw een a character’s subjectiv e and
objectiv e lives. Firs is a man w ho exists almost entir ely in his subjectiv e inner
world. Cut off fr om the w orld because of his deafness , he is quite literall y living
in the past: ‘ He wears old-f ashioned servant’s livery and a top hat. ’45 He tr eats
the mid dle-a ged Ga yev as though he w ere still a child. He liv es his lif e as though
the emancipation of the serfs had nev er ha ppened. He is ph ysicall y cut off not
just fr om the subjectiv e lives of the other character s, which is the normal situation
for most of Chekho v’s character s, but also cut off fr om their objectiv e lives,
since most of their beha viour is e xpressed in speech that he can’t hear .
After Fir s’ brief tra versal of the sta ge in Act I, Mr s Ranevsk y and Ga yev
enter . At this point, Chekho v emplo ys the technique of the ‘tactless comm ent’
to illustrate ho w una ware Liuba Ranevsk y is of the inner liv es of other s:
MRS . RANEVSKY . [Liuba] The n ursery! My lo vely room! I slept her e when I
was a little girl. [ Weeps.] And no w I feel lik e a little girl a gain. [ Kisses her brother
andVARYA, and then her brother again. ] Varya hasn’t chang ed a bit, she still
looks lik e a nun. And I r ecognised Dun yasha. [ Kisses DUNY ASHA.]
GAYEV. The train w as tw o hour s late. Pr etty g ood, eh? What price that f or
efficienc y?46
Liuba is so bound u p with her subjectiv e world that she is una ware of the
subjectiv e lives of other s. Consequentl y, she mak es tw o ‘tactless’ r emar ks. Her
remar k about Varya looking lik e a n un might not at fir st be r ead as tactless b y
an audience as it has not as y et learnt an ything a bout the adopted daughter’s
inner lif e. It is onl y later that w e find out that Varya is single but in lo ve with
Lopakhin, w ho has not y et declar ed his o wn lo ve for her . We soon learn that
Varya, possibl y out of frustration at Lopakhin’s f ailure to declar e his lo ve, has
contemplated becoming a n un. To mak e the audience a ware that Varya is not
pleased with Liuba’s comm ent, the actr ess pla ying Varya need onl y sho w signs
of embarrassm ent at the tactless r emar k.
Liuba’s second ‘tactless comm ent’ is imm ediatel y per ceivable to an audience.
She sa ys that she has r ecognised Dun yasha, and b y implication this sugg ests
that she has f ailed to r ecognise Lopakhin. Ha ving been made a ware of Lopakhin’s
inner lif e in his ‘disguised soliloquy’, the audience is a ware of ho w much this
‘peasant’, as he subjectiv ely sees himself, desir es to be r ecognised b y Liuba, the
woman he so admir es and lo ves, and f or whom he has thought out a plan to sa ve
the estate. The audience has just hear d Lopakhin’s last line bef ore he g oes out
to welcom e Liuba: ‘I w onder if she’ll kno w me, we haven’t seen each other f or
five years’.47 An audience m ust ther efore be w ell a ware of the deep
disappointm ent Lopakhin f eels subjectiv ely at not being r ecognised w hile the
237The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

maid w as remember ed. The actor pla ying Lopakhin should r e-enter the sta ge in
a manner that sho ws his disa ppointm ent.
Gayev’s r emar k about the lack of efficienc y of the rail ways is another e xample
of creating a per ceivable disparity betw een w hat a character sa ys and w hat he
does. Gayev is a ware of other s’ inefficienc y but is totall y una ware that he is one
of the most inept and inefficient per sons in the pla y.
The opening section of the pla y that I ha ve just anal ysed is onl y thr ee pa ges
in its printed f orm y et, thr ough Chekho v’s application of such dramatic devices
as the ‘disguised soliloquy’ and the ‘m esseng er elem ent’, the audience is su pplied
with enough inf ormation to construct a coher ent subte xt for each of the
character s. Providing that dir ector s guide their actor s to cr eate their subte xtual
life, then an audience will be a ble to per ceive the systematicall y esta blished g ap
that a ppear s betw een the objectiv ely presented te xt and the implied subte xt.
By the use of the ‘disguised soliloquy’ and the ‘m esseng er elem ent’, Chekho v
was able to satisfy the demands of r ealism and y et overcome its limitations b y
comm unicating mor e than is said in the dialo gue. He w as able to pr esent the
humdrum surf ace of lif e, w hile at the sam e tim e presenting full y rounded
character s, each of w hom, lik e real human beings , has alr eady liv ed thr ough
past e xperiences w hich ha ve affected the w ay each acts , thinks and f eels at the
time when the audience sees them.
It is because an audience has been pr ovided with access to the inner lif e of
a character such as Lopakhin that the otherwise bizarr e scene in w hich he
intrudes on Varya and An ya in Act I becom es intelligible. The tw o sister s have
been talking a bout the f amily’s shorta ge of mone y and the desperate need that
they have to pa y off the inter est on the mortg age on the estate:
ANYA. … Ha ve you paid the inter est?
VARYA. What a hope.
ANYA. My God, ho w dr eadful.
VARYA. This estate is u p for sale in A ugust.
ANYA. Oh m y God!
LOPAKHIN . [Peeping round the corner and mooing like a cow .] Moo-oo-oo .
[Disappears .]48
Lopakhin’s intrusion is impossible f or an actor to justify or f or an audience
to interpr et unless it is g rounded in r eality . Lopakhin has pr obably overhear d
the sister s’ fatalistic con versation and, giv en that he believ es that he has a plan
that will sa ve the estate, he jokingl y pok es fun at the pessimism e xpressed b y
the tw o young w omen. With som e sort of r ealistic justification, such as the one
I have sugg ested, the bizarr e animal noise becom es pla yable and intelligible.
Possibl y one of the most subtle uses that Chekho v mak es of the disjunction
he has cr eated betw een the tw o lives of his character s in The Cherry Orc hard
238Interpreting Chekhov

relates to the ‘lo ve’ relationship betw een Lopakhin and Varya which culminates
in the ‘non-pr oposal’ scene to wards the end of Act IV . Bef ore anal ysing this
justly famous scene it is important to e xamine pr ecisel y how Chekho v provides
his audience with all the inf ormation necessary to r ead it.
The fir st mention of a possible marria ge betw een Varya and Lopakhin is
given in the scene betw een An ya and Varya that tak es place imm ediatel y after
Lopakhin’s bizarr e ‘mooing’ episode. The sister s quite naturall y begin to talk
about him:
ANYA. … Has he pr oposed, Varya? [V ARYA shakes her head. ] But he does lo ve
you. Why can’t y ou get it all settled? What ar e you both w aiting f or?
VARYA. I don’t think an ything will com e of it. He’s so busy he can’t be bother ed
with m e, he doesn’t ev en notice m e. Wretched man, I’m f ed up with the sight
of him. Ev eryone’s talking a bout our w edding and cong ratulating us , when
there’s nothing in it at all actuall y and the w hole thing’s so v ague. [ In a dif ferent
tone of voice .] You’ve got a br ooch that looks lik e a bee or som ething .
ANYA. [Sadly.] Yes mother bought it.49
The audience is no w apprised of the f act that ther e is g eneral consensus among
the other character s that Lopakhin and Varya will marry each other . What is
also of inter est is that An ya believ es that Lopakhin does lo ve Varya. Clearl y,
with ev eryone e xpecting this marria ge and y et with Lopakhin, f or som e reason
or other , not pr oposing , Varya is placed in a situation that is painful f or her .
Not surprisingl y, she chang es the subject and An ya picks u p the hint and g oes
on to chang e the subject her self.
One of the clichéd w ays of solving pr oblems in nineteenth-century w ell-made
plays was to marry off the indig ent her o or her oine to a w ealth y partner . In this
case the scène-à-f aire would be the pr oposal scene w hich w ould bring a bout the
reversal in the f ortune of the her o or her oine, and this w ould then lead to the
happy ending . Chekho v keeps teasing his audience with this possible
wish-fulfilm ent ending . The v ery r eal possibility that Varya will pr ove to be
the sa viour of the estate as a r esult of marrying Lopakhin is a voided b y her .
Instead, her ‘plan’ in volves a dr eam in w hich An ya achiev es that desir ed end:
VARYA. [Standing near the door .] You kno w darling , while I’m doing m y jobs
round the house I spend the w hole da y dreaming . I ima gine marrying y ou off
to a rich man. That w ould set m y mind at r est and I’d g o off to a con vent, then
on to Kiev and Mosco w, wandering fr om one hol y place to another . I’d just
wander on and on. What bliss!50
The spectator s have just hear d that Varya has been v ainly waiting f or a
proposal fr om Lopakhin. Mor e significantl y, the y have not hear d her sugg est
that she w ould r efuse him if he finall y did pr opose to her . Consequentl y, they
are able to r ead Varya’s description of the pr ospect of being a n un as ‘bliss’ as
239The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

a cover for her true f eelings . Being a n un is certainl y not Varya’s fir st choice of
occupation. Ev en in the a bortiv e proposal scene near the end of the pla y — a
scene w hich acts as a par ody of all such clichéd scenes in the drama of the tim e
— Varya places her self in a situation w here she hopes that Lopakhin will finall y
get round to asking f or her hand.
The Varya–Lopakhin marria ge is again alluded to at the end of Act I. Lopakhin
has outsta yed his w elcom e and, just bef ore he e xits, tries once too often to g et
Gayev and Liuba to think a bout his unpalata ble plan to sa ve the estate:
LOPAKHIN . … [ To MRS . RANEVSKY .] Think it o ver about those cotta ges, let
me kno w if y ou decide to g o ahead and I’ll g et you a loan of fifty thousand or
so. Giv e it som e serious thought.
VARYA. [Angr ily.] Oh do f or hea ven’s sak e go.
LOPAKHIN . All right I’m g oing. [Goes.]
GAYEV. Ill-br ed lout. Oh I beg y our par don, Varya’s going to marry him. He’s
Varya’s ‘y oung man’.
VARYA. Don’t o verdo it, Uncle.
MRS . RANEVSKY . But I should be onl y too pleased, Varya. He’s such a nice
man.51
Gayev is al ways tactlessl y talking out of place. Later in Act I, he describes his
sister as ‘a loose w oman’52 in ear shot of Liuba’s daughter , An ya. Her e, he
tactlessl y mak es insulting comm ents a bout Lopakhin in fr ont of his possible
futur e wif e. As usual, the r est of his f amily try to g et him to k eep quiet.
Importantl y, the audience learns that Liuba Ranevsk y, if not Ga yev, approves
of the match betw een Varya and Lopakhin. As w e shall see, Liuba’s a pproval is
extremely important to Lopakhin.
The thir d major discussion of the Varya–Lopakhin marria ge tak es place in
the mid dle of Act II. Liuba has just accused Lopakhin and his ilk of leading ‘dra b
lives’ and of talking a lot of ‘rub bish’. He a grees with her but, after a pause,
launches into a speech that r ecapitulates his fir st ‘disguised soliloquy’ in Act I,
in which he inf ormed us that subjectiv ely, despite his w ealth, he still f eels himself
to be a peasant:
LOPAKHIN . Quite right. To be honest, the lif e we lead is pr eposter ous. [Pause .]
My f ather w as a peasant, an idiot w ho under stood nothing , taught m e nothing ,
and just beat m e when he w as drunk, with a stick too . As a matter of f act I’m
just as big a n umbskull and idiot m yself. I nev er learned an ything and m y
hand writing’s a wful. A pig could write as w ell as I do , I’m asham ed to let an yone
see it.
MRS . RANEVSKY . You ought to g et married m y friend.
LOPAKHIN . Yes, that’s true enough.
MRS . RANEVSKY . Why not marry Varya? She’s a v ery nice girl.
240Interpreting Chekhov

LOPAKHIN . True.
MRS . RANEVSKY . She’s a nice simple cr eatur e. She w orks all da y long , and the
great thing is she lo ves you. And y ou’ve been f ond of her f or som e tim e too .
LOPAKHIN . All right, I’v e nothing a gainst it. She is a v ery nice girl. [ Pause .]53
One ‘m esseng er’, An ya, has told Varya that Lopakhin lo ves her . Now another
‘messeng er’, Liuba, has told Lopakhin that Varya loves him and r eminds him
that he seems ‘f ond’ of her . Lopakhin w orks fr om morn till night and Varya is
likewise a w orker. While neither party seems to be wildl y in lo ve with the other
in an y romantic sense, the match is nev ertheless e xtremely suita ble. Varya has
not v oiced an y abhorr ence at the idea and Lopakhin has nothing a gainst it. The
ground f or their pr oposal scene w ould seem to ha ve been pr epared. Certainl y,
Liuba thinks that the pr eparations ar e complete since, later in Act II, after she
has been fluster ed by the begging P asser -By and has giv en him a g old coin that
the family can ill aff ord to lose, she co vers her o wn embarrassm ent at the incident
by borr owing mor e mone y from Lopakhin, and then tactlessl y announcing the
Varya–Lopakhin eng agement in fr ont of the stunned cou ple. Their ensuing
embarrassm ent a gain fails to r esult in an y overt pr oposal:
VARYA. … Oh mother , we’ve no f ood in the house f or the serv ants and y ou
gave him all that mone y.
MRS . RANEVSKY . What’s to be done with m e? I’m so sill y. I’ll giv e you all I
have when w e get hom e. Yermola y, lend m e som e mor e mone y.
LOPAKHIN . At y our service.
MRS . RANEVSKY . Com e on, ev erybod y, it’s tim e to g o in. Varya, we’ve just
fixed you up with a husband. Cong ratulations .
VARYA. [Through tears .] Don’t mak e jok es about it, Mother .
LOPAKHIN . Am elia, g et thee to a n unnery .54
Varya, who is often lik ened to a n un, is placed in an e xtremely awkw ard position
by her mother’s r emar k. She sees her mother ‘spong e’ yet mor e mone y from
Lopakhin. For her to ha ppily go along with Liuba’s announcem ent could onl y
make it a ppear that she is also after Lopakhin’s mone y. Lopakhin, w ho had
shown his ang er at the P asser -By f or frightening Varya, is clearl y out of his
depth in the f ace of Varya’s distr ess at her mother’s tactless announcem ent about
their marria ge. In his embarrassm ent, he could har dly have chosen a less f elicitous
quotation than the g arbled line fr om Hamlet about a ‘n unnery’.
The ne xt reference to the Varya–Lopakhin marria ge occur s at the beginning
of Act III w here Trofimo v, who objects to Varya keeping such a close w atch on
Anya and himself and w ho claims to be ‘a bove love’, pok es fun at the poor
young w oman w ho reacts with ang er:
TROFIMO V. [Teasing her .] Mrs Lopakhin! Mr s. Lopakhin!
VARYA. [Angr ily.] Seed y-looking g ent!55
241The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

The anta gonism betw een the tw o contin ues later in the Act and leads to a
revealing inter chang e betw een Liuba and Varya that e xplains m uch to an
audience a bout w hy Varya finds her situation in r elation to her possible
engagement to Lopakhin so difficult to deal with. It pr ovides inf ormation that
will be vital f or helping an audience to r ead the Act IV non-pr oposal scene:
TROFIMO V. [Teasing VARYA.] Mr s. Lopakhin!
VARYA. [Angr ily.] Har k at the eternal student. He’s alr eady been sent do wn
from the univ ersity twice.
MRS . RANEVSKY . Why are you so cr oss Varya? If he teases y ou about Lopakhin,
what of it? If y ou w ant to marry Lopakhin, do — he’s a nice attractiv e man.
And if y ou don’t w ant to , don’t. Nobod y’s forcing y ou darling .
VARYA. I’m perf ectly serious a bout this , Mother , I must tell y ou quite plainl y.
He is a nice man and I do lik e him.
MRS . RANEVSKY . Well, marry him then. What ar e you w aiting f or? That’s
what I can’t see.
VARYA. I can’t v ery w ell pr opose to him m yself, can I? Ev eryone’s been talking
to me about him f or the last tw o years. Everyone g oes on and on a bout it, but
he either sa ys nothing or just mak es jok es. And I see his point. He’s making
mone y, he has a business to look after and he hasn’t tim e for me. If I had just a
bit of mone y — ev en a hundr ed roubles w ould do — I’d dr op ev erything and
go away. I’d g o to a con vent.
TROFIMO V. What bliss!56
Trofimo v’s cruell y ironic r esponse, w hich echoes Varya’s earlier comm ent
about entering a con vent, is nev ertheless a ppropriate, since the audience no w
hears from her o wn mouth ho w seriousl y she wishes to marry Lopakhin, rather
than becom e a nun. After crying , Varya leaves the sta ge to r eprimand Yepikhodo v
who has no w br oken a billiar d cue. The anta gonism betw een Varya and
Yepikhodo v and the r emar kable diff erence betw een them in terms of their
respectiv e efficienc y will also pr ove important w hen the audience com es to
interpr et the non-pr oposal scene. It is this anta gonism that leads to a brief mom ent
of real interaction betw een Varya and Lopakhin in Act III. It is one of the f ew
mom ents in the pla y when the y are on-sta ge alone to gether . Having had an
argument with Yepikhodo v, Varya loses her temper and, thinking that he is
coming back into the r oom, she lashes out with a stick as Lopakhin, rather than
the cler k, enter s. He has just r eturned fr om the auction at w hich he bought the
cherry or chard:
VARYA. … Oh, so y ou’re coming back, ar e you? … Then tak e that. [ Lashes out
just as LOPAKHIN comes in. ]
LOPAKHIN . Thank y ou very m uch.
VARYA. [Angr ily and der isivel y.] I’m e xtremely sorry .
LOPAKHIN . Not at all. Thank y ou for such a w arm w elcom e.
242Interpreting Chekhov

VARYA. Oh don’t m ention it. [ Moving a way, then looks round and asks gentl y.]
I didn’t hurt y ou did I?
LOPAKHIN . No, it’s all right. I’m g oing to ha ve a w hacking bruise though.57
The def ensiv e cover of joking is briefl y dropped w hen Varya’s tone becom es
‘gentle’, and an audience might w ell hope that this might at last be the scene
where the y can talk to each other and perha ps ev en becom e eng aged. Ho wever,
Chekho v thw arts the audience’s e xpectations once a gain b y bringing on Pishchik
to interru pt the w ould-be lo vers.
When Lopakhin announces to ev eryone that he has bought the cherry
orchard, Mr s Ranevsk y is ‘ overwhelmed ’ and nearl y faints . Varya’s response
appear s to in volve the total r ejection of Lopakhin, f or she ‘ takes the keys from
her belt, throws them on the f loor in the middle of the dra wing room and goes out ’.58
Certainl y, Lopakhin seems to think that Varya’s beha viour mar ks the end of
their r elationship . Towards the end of his speech in w hich he r ecounts w hat
happened at the auction and m uses amazedl y at his g ood f ortune, he r efers to
Varya’s m elodramatic e xit:
LOPAKHIN . … [ Picks up the keys , smiling f ondly.] She thr ew away the k eys to
show she’s not in char ge her e now. [Jingles the keys .] Oh w ell, nev er mind.59
Follo wing this a pparent r ejection b y the aristocraticall y brought u p Varya,
Lopakhin almost a ggressiv ely adopts the pose of the crass ne w owner as he
orders the band to pla y. He tells those pr esent that the y can ‘just w atch Yermola y
Lopakhin g et his ax e into the cherry or chard, w atch the tr ees com e crashing
down’.60 Almost imm ediatel y, the mor e sensitiv e side of this man w ho car es
for the Ranevsk y family, and especiall y for Liuba, manif ests itself w hen he tries
to comf ort the w oman he so admir es and lo ves:
LOPAKHIN . [Reproac hfully.] But w hy, oh w hy, didn’t y ou listen to m e bef ore?
My poor friend, y ou can’t put the clock back no w. [With tears .] Oh, if all this
could be o ver quickl y, if our misera ble, mix ed-up liv es could som ehow hurry
up and chang e.61
Pishchik, ho wever, tells Lopakhin to ‘lea ve her alone’ and tak es Liuba into
another r oom. This second r ejection b y the m ember s of the class that he has
tried to help leads Lopakhin to r evert to the coar se peasant self that the g entry
imply is his true natur e. He becom es the vulg ar ‘ill-br ed lout’ that Ga yev had
said that he w as and that he secr etly feared w as true. Ther e is both sadness and
bitterness mix ed in with the rich peasant’s jo y at o wning the estate. Chekho v
alerts us to this b y supplying the actor with the sta ge instruction ‘ ironicall y’:
LOPAKHIN . Hey, what’s u p? You in the band, let’s ha ve you pla ying pr operl y.
Let’s ha ve everything the w ay I want it. [ Ironicall y.] Her e com es the ne w squir e,
243The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

the o wner of the cherry or chard! [Accidentall y jogs a small table , nearl y knocking
over the candelabra. ] I can pa y for ev erything .62
It seems as if Lopakhin’s bitterness is partl y a result of his o wn failure to succeed
in his original plan to sa ve the cherry or chard for the Ranevsk y family and is
surely, in part, due to the loss of an y hopes he might ha ve had of marrying
Varya. His coar se beha viour is a r esponse to their r ejection of him. As a character
who has f ailed to squeeze the last dr op of ‘sla ve’ out of himself, he har dly seems
to ha ve expected an ything better . However, Lopakhin is to g et one mor e chance
in Act IV to pr opose marria ge to Varya.
With about fiv e min utes to spar e bef ore the Ranevsk y family have to lea ve
the estate, Mr s Ranevsk y speaks to Lopakhin a bout her tw o remaining w orries .
Her fir st worry concerns Fir s, but she is assur ed, wr ongly as it turns out, that
Firs has been sent to hospital. Liuba no w tries f or the last tim e to g et Lopakhin
to pr opose to Varya. Her fir st mo ve is to try and mak e him tak e pity on her .
When he f ails to r espond in the ‘ Pause’ , Liuba is f orced to be mor e direct with
him:
MRS . RANEVSKY . My other w orry’s Varya. She’s used to g etting u p earl y and
working, and no w she has nothing to do she’s lik e a fish out of w ater. She’s
grown thin and pale and she’s al ways crying , poor thing . [Pause .] As y ou kno w
very w ell, Yermola y, I had hoped — to see her married to y ou, and it did look
as if that w as ho w things w ere sha ping.63
Having begun her last-ditch attempt to g et Lopakhin to pr opose to Varya,
Liuba does ev erything she can to ena ble the cou ple to be alone to gether .
Presuma bly she giv es instructions to An ya to pr epare Varya for the big ev ent
and begins to clear the r oom of other people. Liuba’s speech and actions contin ue
as follows:
[Whispers to ANY A, who nods to CHARLO TTE. They both go out. ] She lo ves you,
you’re fond of her , and I ha ven’t the f aintest idea w hy you seem to a void each
other . It mak es no sense to m e.
LOPAKHIN . It mak es no sense to m e either , to be quite honest. It’s a curious
business , isn’t it? If it’s not too late I don’t mind g oing ahead ev en no w. Let’s
get it o ver and done with. I don’t f eel I’ll ev er pr opose to her without y ou
here.64
The audience m ust feel at this point that, at last, the y are going to g et the
long a waited pr oposal scene that will, at the last min ute, solv e everyone’s
problems . Lopakhin will g et his bride, Varya will g et her man and the f amily
will no w have access to mone y thr ough Varya’s marria ge so that all the character s
can liv e happily ever after . But this is Chekho v, not Scribe or Sar dou. The hint
that all ma y not g o well in the f orthcoming pr oposal scene is giv en by Lopakhin
when he sa ys that, without Liuba being pr esent, he doesn’t think he will be a ble
244Interpreting Chekhov

to pr opose. The ne w owner of the cherry or chard still sees himself as a peasant
and Varya as one of the g entry . He thus f eels that it is ina ppropriate f or him to
step a bove his class to ask her to marry him. Earl y in the pla y, Lopakhin had
said to Dun yasha: ‘Rem ember y our place’. No w, unlik e Dun yasha or the other
servant, Yasha, Lopakhin finds it almost impossible see his ne w ‘place’ in the
changing social or der. He needs Liuba, the w oman w hom he has admir ed,
respected and ev en loved since childhood, to activel y support him in his pr oposal.
The scene contin ues with rising e xcitem ent on the part of both Liuba and
Lopakhin and the onl y other r emaining per son, Yasha, is or dered out of the
room. The one sour note that is sounded occur s when it is disco vered that the
valet has drunk the champa gne that could ha ve been used to celebrate the
engagement:
MRS . RANEVSKY . [Liuba] That’s a v ery g ood idea. Why, it w on’t tak e mor e
than a min ute. I’ll call her at once.
LOPAKHIN . Ther e’s ev en champa gne laid on. [ Looks at the glasses .] They’re
empty , som eone m ust ha ve drunk it. [ Yasha coughs .] That’s w hat I call r eally
knocking it back.
MRS . RANEVSKY . [Excitedl y.] I’m so glad. We’ll g o out. Yasha, allez! I’ll call
her. [Through the door .] Varya, lea ve what y ou’re doing and com e her e a mom ent.
Come on! [ Goes out with YASHA.]65
Liuba, ha ving unsuccessfull y attempted to call Varya into the r oom, mak es
the f atal mistak e of lea ving the r oom to g et her . This lea ves Lopakhin on his
own without the su pport that he needs in or der to ha ve the nerv e to ask Varya
to marry him. The audience sees the nerv ous Lopakhin w aiting f or Varya and
Liuba to r eturn. The audience, lik e Lopakhin, hear s the off-sta ge encoura gement
of Varya to g o into the r oom to be pr oposed to:
LOPAKHIN . [With a glance at his watc h.] Yes. [Pause .]
[Suppressed laughter and whisper ing are heard from behind the door . After some
time VARYA comes in. ]66
Finall y, Varya appear s, but she is without Liuba, and the non-pr oposal scene
takes place. Both parties kno w why the y are in the r oom alone. Both of them
wish to g et eng aged, y et both ar e inca pable of asking the other . Lopakhin needs
the assistance of Liuba or at least the help of Varya her self. Varya feels that she
cannot ask Lopakhin to marry her . She is , after all, the financiall y dependent
one. Her g entrified u pbringing and her per ception of her g ender r ole, as w e
disco vered earlier , precludes her fr om popping the question, or ev en overtly
encoura ging Lopakhin to do so . She m ust be courted. As Ma garshack accuratel y
notes:
Face to f ace with Varya he [Lopakhin] is so conscious of her social su periority
that he cannot bring himself to pr opose to her , while Varya … is quite inca pable
245The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

of disr egarding the con ventions w hich demand that the lad y has to w ait for the
gentleman to pr opose to her .67
In this pla y that is centrall y concerned with the idea of chang e, Chekho v
depicts Varya and Lopakhin as tw o people w hose objectiv e outer liv es ha ve
chang ed radicall y. He has risen and she has f allen, economicall y and sociall y.
However, because Chekho v recognises that chang e is painful, he sho ws that
Varya and Lopakhin ar e unchang ed in their subjectiv e selv es. The ‘tra gic’ serious
subte xt underlies the ‘comic’ triviality of the te xt.68 Chekho v has pr ovided the
means to access the te xt and subte xt and per ceive the disjunction betw een the
two. Providing that the dir ector encoura ges the actor s to pla y the tw o elem ents,
an audience should e xperience the full comple xity of the Varya/Lopakhin
relationship .
The ‘non-pr oposal’ scene that f ollows Varya and Lopakhin being left alone
on sta ge, incorporates beha viour that is similar to that r equir ed in the acting
exercise called ‘passing the ball’. This e xercise in volves the actor s passing back
and f orth to each other the r esponsibility f or pr ogressing the scene. The audience
should clearl y sense the mo vement of r esponsibility . This scene is lik e a tennis
match in terms of ‘passing the ball’:
VARYA. [Spends a long time examining the lug gage.] That’s funn y, I can’t find
it anywhere.
(Subte xt: ‘W ell w e are alone. I’m w aiting f or you to mak e your pr oposal.’ P asses
ball.)
LOPAKHIN . What ar e you looking f or?
(Subte xt: ‘Oh no , please. You start.’ P asses ball.)
VARYA. I pack ed it m yself and I still can’t r emember . [Pause .]
(Subte xt: ‘No , you ar e the one w ho has to ask.’ [ Pause .] ‘Well, g o on. Sa y it.’
Passes ball.)
LOPAKHIN . Wher e are you going no w, Varya?
(Subte xt: ‘Wher e will y ou go if y ou don’t sta y her e with m e?’ P asses ball.)
VARYA. Me? To the Ra gulins’. I’v e arrang ed to look after their place, a sort of
housek eeper’s job .
(Subte xt: ‘W ell, unless I sta y her e and contin ue to run this estate, I will be
forced into the dem eaning position of being a lo wly housek eeper f or the
Ragulins . It’s u p to y ou.’ P asses ball.)
LOPAKHIN . That’s in Yashnev o, isn’t it? It m ust be fifty od d miles fr om her e.
[Pause .] So lif e has ended in this house.
(Subte xt: ‘Y ashnev o? Sur ely you don’t w ant to be that f ar away from her e, and
from m e? [Pause .] Well fr om y our lack of r esponse, I assum e that y ou don’t
care. You realise that lif e in this house is o ver unless y ou sta y her e?’ Passes ball.)
246Interpreting Chekhov

VARYA. [Examining the lug gage.] Oh, w here can it be? Or could I ha ve put it in
the trunk? Yes, life has g one out of this house. And it will nev er com e back.
(Subte xt: ‘I can’t sta y her e forever. Are you going to sa y anything? Yes lif e in
this house is o ver unless y ou choose to let it contin ue by doing som ething lik e
living her e with m e.’ Passes ball.)
LOPAKHIN . Well, I’m off to Khar kov. By the ne xt train. I ha ve plenty to do
there. And I’m lea ving Yepikhodo v in char ge her e, I’v e tak en him on.
(Subte xt: ‘Please hurry u p and mak e som e effort to sho w me whether y ou w ant
to marry m e or not. Ther e’s not m uch tim e. Since y ou don’t seem to w ant to
stay, I’ve had to r eplace y ou. I’v e chosen Yepikhodo v. How do y ou feel about
that?’ P asses ball.)
The choice of Yepikhodo v, the most inept, accident-pr one per son in the pla y,
certainl y seems a strang e choice of character to r eplace the highl y efficient Varya.
What Lopakhin seems to be trying to do her e is to g oad Varya into objecting to
Yepikhodo v’s a ppointm ent. He kno ws ho w much she dislik es ‘Simple Simon’.
All he needs is to g et Varya to r espond b y saying som ething lik e, ‘Ho w on earth
can y ou think of emplo ying that f ool?’, and he will be a ble to r espond with
something lik e, ‘W ell w ho else is ther e who can do the job pr operl y?’ This in
turn is lik ely elicit the r esponse, ‘I can’. Once Lopakhin can engineer som e such
overt response fr om Varya to the eff ect that she wishes to sta y, the possibility
of his pr oposing to her becom es much mor e likely. What actuall y happens in
Chekho v’s non-pr oposal scene is that Varya is too pr oud to object o vertly to
Lopakhin’s choice of Yepikhodo v as mana ger for the estate:
VARYA. Oh, ha ve you?
(Subte xt: ‘Sur ely not? Oh w ell. If that’s w hat y ou really want, it’s u p to y ou.’
Passes ball.)
This seems to m e to be the mom ent w hen an audience should be made to f eel
that Varya’s inner lif e expressed in the subte xt is g oing to bub ble u p into the
text and so esta blish the sort of contact betw een her and Lopakhin that will lead
to the desir ed pr oposal. Lopakhin’s plo y nearl y succeeds but Varya’s pr oud
self-contr ol triumphs o ver her desir es. Seeing that ther e is no r esponse fr om
Varya, even after he has attempted to g oad her to speak, Lopakhin giv es up any
hope of marrying Varya. He r esorts to talking a bout the w eather until he is
rescued fr om this embarrassing scene b y being called else where:
LOPAKHIN . This tim e last y ear w e already had sno w, remember? But no w it’s
calm and sunn y. It’s a bit cold though. Three deg rees of fr ost, I should sa y.
(Subte xt: ‘I see, she doesn’t w ant m e. I’v e got to g et away from her e som ehow.
I’ve no idea w hat to sa y to her no w. I feel a complete f ool standing her e.’)
VARYA. I ha ven’t look ed. [Pause .] Besides , our thermom eter’s br oken. [Pause .]
247The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

(Subte xt: ‘I see, he doesn’t w ant m e. [Pause .] I feel totall y wr etched and don’t
know what to do or sa y.’)
The painful scene is br ought to an end b y an e xternal m eans:
[A voice at the outer door: ‘Mr. Lopakhin!’]
LOPAKHIN . [As if he had long been expecting this summons .] I’m just coming .
[Goes out quickl y.]
(Subte xt: ‘Thank God! I can g o.’)
[VARYA sits on the f loor with her head in a bundle of c lothes , quietl y sobbing . The
door opens and MRS . RANEVSKY comes in cautiousl y.]
MRS . RANEVSKY . Well? [ Pause .] We’d better g o.69
Varya allo ws her anguish to surf ace fr om her inner lif e onl y after Lopakhin has
left and Liuba enter s onl y when it is too late to help the cou ple to achiev e what
they both desir e. The g ap betw een aim and achiev ement could har dly be mor e
poignantl y expressed. The w onder is that Chekho v was able to find the w ay to
allow an audience to e xperience the character s’ dual liv es thr ough the interaction
of the g rotesque comic te xt and the pathetic tra gic subte xt. Neither Varya nor
Lopakhin can e xpress objectiv ely their subjectiv e feelings because it is impossible
for them to esca pe fr om their subjectiv e vie w and enter the objectiv e world
where the y could comm unicate with each other .
‘Life as it should be’ is implied b y Chekho v thr oughout the pla y. Though
little is actuall y achiev ed by the character s, ther e is a pr evailing sense of the
possibility of a better futur e. This optimistic vision is carried mainl y by the
young er generation, particularl y An ya and Trofimo v. Audiences ma y experience
the sadness associated with the f ate of Ga yev and Mr s Ranevsk y but this is
balanced b y a sense of hope f or the futur e. If the character s cannot themselv es
achiev e a better futur e, the audience can. Trofimo v ma y be laughed at f or his
comic rigidity , especiall y his a bsurd priggishness a bout ‘lo ve’. Chekho v uses
the con ventions of nineteenth-century m elodrama to pok e fun at the student
who claims to be ‘a bove love’. In Act III, his e xtreme reaction to Liuba’s
statem ent, ‘Fanc y being y our a ge and not ha ving a mistr ess!’, is as a bsurdly
histrionic as Ar cadina’s ham-acting in The Seagull . Chekho v giv es Trofimo v a
melodramatic e xit, w hich is itself humor ous, but then pr oceeds to mo ve into the
realm of f arce by having him r eturn to mak e a second e xit, w hich is then f ollowed
by his f alling do wn a flight of stair s. This r eally is a ‘banana skin’ f arcical lazzi .
Trofimo v’s ideas , however, like those of Vershinin in Three Sisters , should not
be discounted b y an audience. As Robert Corrig an has noted:
Throughout his lif e Chekho v constantl y made the statem ent that ‘the truth
about lif e is ir onical’ and since he w as sho wing ‘lif e as it is’ almost all of his
dramatic devices w ere ironic. The ir ony is best seen in the disparity betw een
what his character s say and w hat the y do . Thus w e find in all of his pla ys
248Interpreting Chekhov

character s making brilliantl y incisiv e remar ks about themselv es and other
people, and y et the y are said in such a w ay and ar e put in such an incong ruous
and ludicr ous conte xt that w e do not stop to tak e them seriousl y when w e hear
them. The f orce of these statem ents is driv en hom e cum ulativ ely; w e are
suddenly aware as the pla y ends that in their actions the character s have done
just the opposite to w hat in their dialo gue the y have expounded the y should
do.70
One of the clear est examples of this ir onic technique in The Cherry Orc hard
occur s when Trofimo v expounds on w hat is wr ong in the Russia of his da y. He
has just criticised the human race f or being ‘crude, stu pid and pr ofoundl y
misera ble’ and claims that: ‘It’s tim e we stopped admiring our selves. The onl y
thing to do is w ork’.71 This last statem ent is trul y ironic in that Trofimo v seems
to do v ery little w ork. The ir ony deepens w hen the matur e-aged student launches
into w hat in Hingle y’s translation runs to tw enty-f our lines . This ‘tirade’ is in
fact the long est speech of the pla y. This searing indictm ent of the laziness of the
intellig entsia in Russia concludes with the deadl y earnest and rather humourless
Trofimo v making one final attack on this g roup within society:
TROFIMO V. … I loathe all these earnest f aces. They scar e me, and so do earnest
conversations . Why can’t w e keep quiet f or a chang e?
LOPAKHIN . I’m al ways up by fiv e o’clock, y ou kno w. I w ork from morning
till night …72
The sight and sound of the earnest and pr olix intellectual, Trofimo v, railing
against ev erything that he himself embodies is certainl y comic and under cuts
the character . Lopakhin is quick to point out ho w, in contrast to people lik e
Trofimo v, he actuall y does w ork. Ev en though Trofimo v is under cut b y the f act
that he does not practise w hat he pr eaches , his ar guments mak e good sense.
Comm enting on this speech, Ra ymond Williams concedes that Trofimo v ‘does
practicall y no w ork’, but astutel y argues: ‘This does not m ean that he is wr ong,
or that w hat he sa ys can be disr egarded’.73
We should r emember that this speech of Trofimo v’s w as one that the censor s
insisted on cutting because the material w as felt to be too inflammatory in its
criticism of the intellig entsia’s lack of action in assisting in the impr ovement of
the a ppalling social conditions that Chekho v depicts as pr evailing at the tim e.
Once w e concentrate less on the sing er and mor e on the song , we can r ecognise
the truth and importance of the content of Trofimo v’s speech:
TROFIMO V. … Her e in Russia v ery f ew people do w ork at pr esent. The kind
of Russian intellectuals I kno w … ar en’t looking f or an ything . They don’t do
anything . They still don’t kno w the m eaning of har d work … They talk of
nothing but w eighty issues and the y discuss a bstract pr oblems , while all the
time everyone kno ws the w orkers are abomina bly fed and sleep without pr oper
249The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

bedding, thirty or f orty to a r oom — with bedbugs ev eryw here, to sa y nothing
of the stench, the damp , the moral deg radation.74
Trofimo v’s ‘tirade’ e xpresses opinions a bout the intellig entsia that ar e
remar kably similar to comm ents Chekho v made sev eral y ears earlier . He wr ote
in a letter to I. I. Orlo v about the f ailure of the intellig entsia to impr ove the
quality of lif e in Russia:
I have no f aith in our intellig entsia, h ypocritical, f alse, h ysterical, ill-br ed, lazy;
I have no f aith in them ev en w hen the y suff er and complain, f or their oppr essor s
come from the sam e womb as the y … w hatev er com es to pass , science k eeps
advancing , social-consciousness incr eases … And all this is being done … despite
the intellig entsia en masse …75
Knowing that Chekho v had this mistrust of the intellig entsia, it is tempting
for a dir ector to see Trofimo v as Chekho v’s mouthpiece. Accor ding to Graham
Greene, Tyrone Guthrie ev en had the eternal student ‘inter estingl y made-u p to
look lik e Chekho v himself’.76 The point is , however, that Trofimo v is himself
a member of the intellig entsia and is the object of Chekho v’s ir ony. Lik e the
good ad vice giv en by Polonius in Hamlet , Trofimo v’s g ood sense is not to be
taken on its f ace v alue. While a r eactionary pr oduction of The Cherry Orc hard
is lik ely to pr esent Trofimo v as a comicall y inadequate and pr etentious student,
the mor e radical pr oductions , such as that of Trevor Griffiths , present the
character as a serious Bolshevik visionary . In both cases , the dualistic natur e of
Chekho v’s characterisation is obscur ed and the disjunctiv e gap betw een ‘w hat
is believ ed and w hat is liv ed’ closed.77 In contrast, Chekho v’s Trofimo v is both
fool and seer .
Perhaps the most e xtreme example of Chekho v’s depiction of the tw o lives
that his character s lead is to be f ound at the opening of Act II. Chekho v was
aware that this act w as diff erent fr om an ything else he had written and w as
worried that it might not be ‘theatrical’ enough. He wr ote to his wif e, Olg a
Knipper:
My pla y is mo ving, and I’m finishing cop ying Act Three toda y and starting
Act Four . Act Three is the least boring , but the second act is as boring and as
monotonous as a cobw eb.78
It opens with a g roup of f our character s emplo yed by the Ranevsk y family
lounging ar ound in the open air not long bef ore sunset. The f ates of Charlotte,
Yasha, Dun yasha and Yepikhodo v will all be determined b y what ha ppens to
the cherry or chard. An ya’s governess , Charlotte, is the most vulnera ble of this
quartet as her char ge has no w grown u p,79 and it is she w ho speaks fir st, in a
‘disguised soliloquy’. We disco ver that she acquir ed her perf orming skills fr om
her par ents, who died w hen she w as young , and that she had been adopted b y
250Interpreting Chekhov

a ‘German lad y’. She r ecounts ho w she f eels her self to be alone and an outsider .
At the mom ent w hen her speech becom es most poignant and mo ving Chekho v
under cuts her b y intr oducing a totall y comic eff ect:
CHARLO TTE. [ Meditativel y.] … Well, I g rew up and becam e a g overness . But
where I com e from and w ho I am I’v e no idea. Who m y par ents w ere I don’t
know either , very lik ely the y weren’t ev en married. [ Takes a cucumber out of
her pocket and starts eating it. ] I don’t kno w an ything . [Pause .] I’m longing f or
someone to talk to , but ther e isn’t an yone. I’m alone in the w orld.80
Eating a cucumber at the most ‘tra gic’ mom ent in her speech is a perf ect example
of what Ber gson is talking a bout w hen he outlines as a g eneral la w of com edy
that: ‘An y incident is comic that calls our attention to the ph ysical in a per son
when it is the moral side that is concerned’.81
As the conte xt sho ws us , the ‘som eone’ she is longing to talk to at this mom ent
is Yepikhodo v. The cler k, ho wever, fails to r egister Charlotte’s subte xtual a ppeal
because he is longing to talk to Dun yasha. He ser enades his lo ved one. It is
through the w ords of the song that he is a ble to e xpress his subte xtuall y felt
love for the maid. She is not inter ested in his attentions at this mom ent, as she
is mor e inter ested in making her self attractiv e to Yasha, w hom she is longing to
talk to . She brusquel y dismisses the ser enade. Meanw hile, Yasha is not r eally
inter ested in Dun yasha’s attentions , as he seems mor e inter ested in admiring
himself. Each of the character s, except Yasha, hurts the one w ho is asking f or
contact, and each la ys themselv es open to being hurt b y the one the y wish to
contact. Ag ain, the interpla y betw een the ‘ph ysical’ and the ‘moral’ is emphasised
by Chekho v. Wher e Charlotte had her cucumber , Yepikhodo v has his guitar ,
Dunyasha has her hand-mirr or and Yasha has his cig ar:
YEPIKHODO V. [Playing the guitar and singing .]
‘I’m tir ed of the w orld and its bustle,
I’m tir ed of m y friends and m y foes.’
How nice to pla y the mandolin.
DUNY ASHA. That isn’t a mandolin, it’s a guitar . [Looks at herself in a
hand-mirror , and powders her f ace.]
YEPIKHODO V. To a man crazed with lo ve it’s a mandolin. [ Sings softl y.]
‘If onl y my heart w ere delighted
By the w armth of an ar dour r equited.’
[YASHA joins in. ]
CHARLO TTE. The a wful w ay these people sing — ugh! Lik e a lot of h yenas.82
As part of his attempt to impr ess Dun yasha, Yepikhodo v pulls out a r evolver
that he sa ys he thinks of using to end his w oes. Eventuall y, Yepikhodo v’s total
rejection of her leads Charlotte to lea ve, but not bef ore, with hea vy ir ony, she
ridicules the cler k’s amor ous pr etensions:
251The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

DUNY ASHA. [ ToYASHA.] You’re ever so luck y to ha ve been a broad, though.
YASHA. Yes, of cour se. My sentim ents pr ecisel y. [Yawns, then lights a cigar .]
YEPIKHODO V. It stands to r eason. Abr oad ev erything’s pr etty compr ehensiv e
like. Has been f or ages.
YASHA. Oh, definitel y.
YEPIKHODO V. I’m a cultur ed sort of per son and r ead all kinds of r emar kable
books , but I just can’t g et a line on w hat it is I’m r eally after . Shall I g o on living
or shall I shoot m yself, I m ean? But an yway, I always carry a r evolver. Her e it
is. [Shows them his revolver .]
CHARLO TTE. Well, that’s that. I’m off. [ Slings the gun over her shoulder .]
Yepikhodo v, you’re a v ery clev er man and a most alarming one. Women m ust
be quite crazy a bout y ou. Brrr! [ Moves of f.] These clev er men ar e all so stu pid,
I’ve no one to talk to . I’m lonel y, oh so lonel y. I’m on m y own in the w orld,
and — and w ho I am and w hat I’m f or is a m ystery . [Goes out slowl y.]83
Chekho v had juxta posed the e xistential and tra gic with the trivial and comic
in The Seagull when he had Treplev shoot himself w hile his mother and friends
were pla ying Lotto . In The Cherry Orc hard, the tra gic/comic juxta position w as
created without Chekho v feeling the necessity to emplo y any overtly theatrical
device such as suicide. Chekho v’s aim had al ways been to write a trul y realistic
play in w hich character s involve themselv es with lif e’s trivialities , while ‘all the
time their ha ppiness is being esta blished or their liv es are broken up’.84 As w e
saw earlier , Lopakhin and Varya quite literall y ‘talk of the w eather’85 while
just such a per sonal disaster is ha ppening to them. In the case of Yepikhodo v,
Chekho v finall y achiev ed his aim. He kne w that ‘in r eal lif e, people do not shoot
themselv es, or hang themselv es, or mak e conf essions of lo ve every min ute’.86
Chekho v’s Yepikhodo v is a potential suicide rather than an actual one.87 Now,
in The Cherry Orc hard, through making it possible f or an audience to r ead the
two liv es of his character s, Chekho v was able to be ‘dramaticall y eff ectiv e’
without r esorting to the theatrics of m elodrama.
As soon as Charlotte lea ves, the maladr oit Yepikhodo v contin ues his attempt
to mak e himself ‘inter esting’. In his v erbose manner , he r elates the disaster s that
are always ha ppening to him. He then pauses in the hope that Dun yasha will
make som e comm ent. She doesn’t r espond, and so he contin ues his w ould-be
courtship of the girl with w hat m ust be one of the most ina ppropriate and,
consequentl y, patheticall y funn y small-talk lines that one could mak e to som eone
as feather -brained as Dun yasha. His attempt to mo ve her inter est a way from
Yasha is the f ollowing:
YEPIKHODO V. … [ Pause .] Have you ev er read Buckle’s History of Civilisation ?88
Not surprisingl y, the poor girl mak es no r esponse and so , after another pause,
Yepikhodo v scr ews u p his coura ge and asks her dir ectly to speak to him alone.
252Interpreting Chekhov

The seemingl y trivial scene, lik e that in w hich Irina Ar cardin pla ys Lotto in The
Seagull , takes place w hile mom entous ev ents ar e occurring , unbekno wn to most
of the character s on sta ge. A chance r emar k by Dun yasha a verts a potential
tragedy:
YEPIKHODO V. … [ Pause .] Might I tr ouble y ou for the f avour of a f ew words,
Miss Dun yasha?
DUNY ASHA. All right, carry on.
YEPIKHODO V. I would pr efer it to be in priv ate. [ Sighs .]
DUNY ASHA. [ Embarrassed. ] Very w ell then, onl y first go and g et me my cape.
You’ll find it in the cu pboar d or som ewhere. It’s rather damp out her e.
YEPIKHODO V. Oh certainl y, I’m sur e. At y our service. No w I kno w what to
do with m y revolver. [Takes the guitar and goes out strumming it. ]
YASHA. Simple Simon! The man’s a f ool, betw een y ou and m e. [Yawns.]
DUNY ASHA. Hea vens, I hope he doesn’t g o and shoot himself. [ Pause .]89
An audience needs to be made a ware that, had Dun yasha simpl y told Yepikhodo v
to lea ve her alone, the cler k would indeed ha ve kno wn w hat to do with his gun.
He w ould, lik e Treplev , have shot himself. Instead, Dun yasha, w hile trying to
get rid of him, asks her admir er to do her a little f avour, and the ha ppy cler k
puts his gun a way and picks u p his guitar . Dun yasha, f or one fleeting mom ent,
contemplates the possibility of Yepikhodo v committing suicide but, after a pause,
she f orgets the cler k and concentrates all of her attention on making her self
agreeable to Yasha.
Throughout the pla y, trivial ev ents mask significant ha ppenings . For e xample,
whenev er an ything occur s that Ga yev finds har d to deal with, he either pops a
sweet into his mouth or practises ima ginary billiar d shots . In Act III, a dance
takes place w hile off-sta ge the estate is being sold. At the end of the pla y, a
misunder standing leads to the sick Fir s being left behind to die in a lock ed house.
It is in Act II that Lopakhin mak es the most concerted attempt to g et Liuba
Ranevsk y to f ace the r eality of her financial situation and a bandon such f antasy
plans as sa ving the estate b y getting enough mone y from an aunt, or b y marrying
Anya to a rich man. Instead, he pr oposes the financiall y responsible, but
emotionall y unaccepta ble, idea of r eplacing the or chard and the old house with
summ er cotta ges that could be let pr ofitably.
In a w ell-made pla y, Act II w ould set into motion activities that w ould either
succeed or f ail in the final act of the pla y. In The Cherry Orc hard, however, the
only via ble plan to sa ve the or chard is quashed. The r eason a gain r esults fr om
the ina bility of character s to chang e as society chang es. Just as Varya and
Lopakhin do not becom e eng aged because the y cannot adjust their subjectiv e
views of themselv es and other s to the chang ed cir cumstances in w hich the y are
now placed, so Ga yev and Liuba still think and beha ve like rich landed g entry
253The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

rather than bankru pts. Their r esponse to Lopakhin’s economicall y sensible plan
is to a void the question of economics alto gether and to concentrate on outmoded
concepts of tradition and class . Facing the f act that the cherry or chard does not
produce a salea ble cr op ev ery y ear, Gayev had r esponded in Act I with the
economicall y useless statem ent that ‘This or chard is ev en m entioned in the
Encyclopedia’.90 Now, in Act II, w hen tim e to do som ething a bout their plight
is really running out, both Ga yev and Liuba r espond to Lopakhin’s irr efuta ble
argument that the estate will be lost unless the y follow his plan with statem ents
that sho w that the y have simpl y refused to adjust to their chang ed situation:
MRS . RANEVSKY .[Liuba] Cotta ges, summ er visitor s. Forgive me, but all that’s
so frightfull y vulg ar.
GAYEV. I entir ely agree.
LOPAKHIN . I’m g oing to bur st into tear s or scr eam or f aint. This is too m uch.
I’ve had a bout all I can stand!91
What the audience kno ws fr om this is that the estate will inevita bly be lost
and that no activities to sa ve it will tak e place. One of Chekho v’s inno vations
in this last pla y was to place the anagnor isis or recognition scene in Act II rather
than, as w as the usual dramatic m ethod, near the end of the pla y. The w hole of
Act II is a series of r ecognitions that ther e is ‘nothing to be done’ a bout sa ving
the cherry or chard because ‘no one is doing an ything’ to sa ve it. Liuba’s complete
disregard for her dir e financial situation is ca ptured perf ectly by the f act that,
though she kno ws that Varya is scrimping and scra ping in or der to pa y for food
to feed the serv ants, she g oes ar ound ‘squandering mone y’. She spills w hat little
mone y she has left on the g round and later giv es a g old coin to the P asser -By.
Each of the character s who com es up with their ideas on ho w to sa ve the or chard
is under cut b y another character , usuall y som eone w ho is important to the
character with the idea. So w hen Ga yev talks of ‘a g eneral w ho might let us ha ve
a loan’, Liuba destr oys that illusion with the r emar k: ‘He’s onl y talking nonsense.
Ther e is no such g eneral’.92
Each character’s vision of a better w orld is undermined b y som eone else.
Trofimo v’s visionary futur e where, ‘Mankind mar ches on, g oing fr om str ength
to str ength’93 once people learn to w ork, is under cut b y Lopakhin, w ho points
out that he alr eady does ‘w ork from morning till night’. His o wn vision of Russia
is in turn under cut b y Liuba:
LOPAKHIN . … When I can’t sleep I som etimes think — the Lor d gave us these
huge forests, these boundless plains , these v ast horizons , and w e who liv e among
them ought to be r eal giants .
MRS . RANEVSKY .[Liuba] You’re calling f or giants . That’s all v ery w ell in
fairy-tales , but else where the y might be rather alarming .94
254Interpreting Chekhov

At this point in the Act, the r ecognition scene occur s. What ev eryone sees
is that the or chard will be lost. In terms of the con ventions of r ealism operating
in this pla y, Gayev’s observ ation that ‘The sun has set, m y friends’, simpl y refers
to the tim e of da y. In ad dition, ho wever, Chekho v inf orms his audience that,
symbolicall y, the sun has set on the g entrified w orld of Ga yev and Liuba.
Chekho v uses Yepikhodo v as a device to trigg er the other character s’ individual
recognition scenes . All ar e aware that, lik e Yepikhodo v, their inner subjectiv e
reality does not match u p with the objectiv e reality of their social situation. Each
of the onsta ge character s project onto Yepikhodo v their o wn sense of anguish
at being una ble to brid ge the g ap betw een their tw o lives:
[YEPIKHODO V crosses the back of the stage pla ying his guitar .]
MRS . RANEVSKY . [Pensivel y.] Ther e goes Yepikhodo v.
ANYA. [Pensivel y.] Ther e goes Yepikhodo v.
GAYEV. The sun has set, m y friends .
TROFIMO V. Yes.
GAYEV. [In a quiet voice , as if giving a recitation. ] Natur e, glorious Natur e,
glowing with ev erlasting radiance, so beautiful, so cold — y ou, w hom m en call
mother , in w hom the living and the dead ar e joined to gether , you w ho giv e life
and tak e it a way —
VARYA. [Implor ing him. ] Uncle dear!
ANYA. Uncle, y ou’re off a gain.
TROFIMO V. You’d f ar better pot the r ed in the mid dle.
GAYEV. I am silent. Silent.
[Everyone sits deep in thought. It is very quiet. All that can be heard is FIRS’ low
mutter ing. Suddenl y a distant sound is heard. It seems to come from the sky and is
the sound of a breaking str ing. It dies a way sadl y.]95
The sun has indeed set on all of the character s’ hopes and illusions . The sunshine
of the opening of Act II has been r eplaced b y dar kness .
In a ‘disguised soliloquy’, w hich su perficiall y appear s to be a trivial piece of
rhetoric, Ga yev recognises the truth that Natur e is ‘cold’ or , as F rayn translates
it, ‘indiff erent’. Ther e is no divine plan underpinning ‘glorious Natur e’. Left to
Natur e alone, the impecunious character s may be sa ved, as Pishchik is b y pur e
luck, or ruined as ar e Gayev and Liuba. Ther e is no plan in Natur e’s interaction
with man. This clearl y means that humans m ust activ ely do som ething to contr ol
their liv es. Gayev’s ‘vision’, though a bsurdly expressed, is not a stu pid one,
and it is too painful f or the other character s to f ace. Consequentl y the y silence
him. It is in that silence that w e hear the sound of the br eaking string .
This discor dant note r eflects the disharmon y felt by the character s. Chekho v,
who lo ved to observ e that ‘Y ou m ust nev er put a loaded rifle on the sta ge if no
one is g oing to fir e it’,96 has used Yepikhodo v as his ‘loaded rifle’ in this scene.
The cler k’s tra versal of the sta ge appear s, at fir st, to m erely be a piece of
255The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

incidental r ealism. Ho wever, Yepikhodo v serv es a m uch deeper purpose her e.
On the r ealistic lev el, the sound is , as I ha ve noted earlier , that of poor
Yepikhodo v’s guitar string br eaking . The accident-pr one ‘Simple Simon’ has
once a gain been una ble to contr ol the objectiv e world. If Yepikhodo v is
Chekho v’s ‘loaded rifle’, then the br eaking string is the pla ywright firing it.97
All of the character s provide a diff erent e xplanation f or the sound and pr oject
onto it their o wn particular concerns . For the practical Lopakhin it is the sound
of a ca ble br eaking in one of the mines; f or Ga yev it is one of Natur e’s cr eatur es,
a her on (a lar ge wading bir d); for the eternal student it is a wise old o wl. All
agree that the sound is unpleasant. This sound crystallises the mom ent of
recognition that the estate is lost. In a quite brilliant piece of dramatic writing ,
Chekho v reintr oduces this sam e sound to wards the end of the pla y. In doing so ,
he ensur es that the mom ent of sad r ecognition, associated b y the audience with
the br eaking string hear d in Act II, is r ecalled. This is mor e likely to be eff ectiv e
if the dir ector heeds Chekho v’s ad vice to Stanisla vski and k eeps su perfluous
sound eff ects out of the pr oduction.
The second a ppearance of this sound is link ed with another sound that mak es
concr ete the g eneral sense of impending loss associated with the br eaking
string .98 The sound is , of cour se, that of the ax es striking into the cherry tr ees.
The a bandoned Fir s in the pla y’s final disguised soliloquy rambles on a bout ho w
life has som ehow passed him b y. His comm ents, and the sounds that end the
play, sum u p Chekho v’s depiction of a social g roup who ha ve, thr ough their
inability to adjust to chang e, wasted their liv es. The audience sees that the w ay
of lif e of the older g eneration of Ga yev and Liuba is no w over, but the hope
remains that the y oung er generation of An ya and Trofimo v will not r epeat the
cycle of w asted potential:
FIRS. … [ Mutters something whic h cannot be understood. ] Life’s slipped b y as if
I’d nev er liv ed at all. [ Lies down. ] I’ll lie do wn a bit. You’ve got no str ength left,
got nothing left, nothing at all. You’re just a — nincompoop . [Lies motionless .]
[A distant sound is heard. It seems to come from the sky and is the sound of a
breaking str ing. It dies a way sadl y. Silence f ollows , broken onl y by the thud of an
axe str iking a tree f ar away in the orc hard. ]
CURTAIN.99
The Cherry Orc hard is not m erely w hat F rancis Fer gusson called ‘a
theatr e-poem of suff ering and chang e’,100 for this sugg ests a too f atalistic and
passiv e vie w. It fails to tak e into account the implied criticism of the character s
who suff er the eff ects of chang e without doing an ything to adjust to it. Nor will
David Ma garshack’s interpr etation of the pla y as being the depiction of ‘the
destruction of beauty b y those w ho ar e utterl y blind to it’101 do as an adequate
description of the pla y’s action. In the fir st place, this interpr etation la ys the
256Interpreting Chekhov

blam e for the destruction of the cherry or chard on Lopakhin, w hom Chekho v
was at g reat pains to sa y was not som e philistine peasant bent on the destruction
of all that w as beautiful. Lopakhin, a man with the hands of an artist, e xpresses
this combined aesthetic and economic r esponse to his poppies w hen off ering to
lend mone y to Trofimo v. Both the cherry blossom and the poppies ar e ‘beautiful’,
but onl y the latter has an y economic v alue. The point is that w hen Lopakhin
looks out at a field of poppies he sees both their beauty and their financial v alue:
LOPAKHIN . I put nearl y thr ee thousand acr es do wn to popp y in the spring and
made a clear f orty thousand r oubles . And w hen m y poppies w ere in flo wer,
that w as a sight to see.102
Magarshack’s interpr etation privileg es Liuba and Ga yev, the def ender s of
‘beauty’ but Chekho v, while being equall y aware of their g ood qualities ,
implicitl y criticises them f or their totall y impractical a pproach to their financial
problems .
Any balanced interpr etation of Chekho v’s last f our pla ys needs to a void
taking an ‘either/or’ stance. In or der to portra y the duality of Chekho v’s vision
of reality , any sense of despair m ust be balanced b y a sense of hope. Equall y,
any production that wishes to cr eate the duality of the Chekho vian f orm m ust
balance the tra gic with the comic.
Chekho v’s achiev ement of ha ving written a pla y in w hich he did not ha ve
to use the o vertly theatrical con ventions of m elodrama and the w ell-made pla y
is trul y remar kable. The Cherry Orc hard is, on the surf ace, a pla y about r eal
people living their ev eryda y liv es, yet this pla y, when pr operl y perf ormed, is
far from being dra b or or dinary . The interpla y betw een their priv ate y earnings
and their public beha viour transf orms these seemingl y banal character s into
truly extraor dinary people and cr eates a drama that is full of emotional intensity .
ENDNOTES
1 Stroyeva, M., ‘Ev eryone Has His Own Chekho v’, Soviet Literature , No. 2, February 1980, p . 138.
2 Gassner , J., ‘The Duality of Chekho v’, in Bristo w, E. K., Anton Chekhov’s Pla ys, W. W. Norton, Ne w
York, 1977, p . 410.
3 Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Lilina, 15 September 1903, in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters of Anton Chekhov ,
The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 454.
4 Stanisla vski, C ., Letter to A. Chekho v, in Benedetti, J ., The Moscow Art Theatre Letters , Routled ge,
New York, 1991, p . 162.
5 Gilman, R., Chekhov’s Pla ys: An Opening into Eternity , Yale Univ ersity Pr ess, New Ha ven, 1995, p .
203.
6 Mora vcevich, N ., ‘The Dar k Side of the Chekho vian Smile’, Drama Survey , Vol. 5, No . 3, Winter
1996–7, p . 237.
7 Ibid.
8 Tynan, K., Curtains , Longmans , London, 1961, pp . 433–4.
9 Griffiths , T., ‘Intr oduction’, in Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, new English v ersion b y Griffiths ,
T., from Ra paport, H., trans ., Pluto Pr ess, London, 1981, p . v.
10 Ibid.
257The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

11 Mora vcevich, N ., op. cit., pp . 237–8.
12 Senelick, L., The Chekhov Theatre , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1997, p . 298.
13 Ibid.
14 Landesman, R., ‘Comrade Serban in The Cherry Orc hard’, Yale Theatre , Vol. 8, Nos 2 & 3, Spring
1977, pp . 139–40.
15 Senelick, L., op . cit., p . 336.
16 Leblanc, R., ‘Liberating Chekho v or Destr oying Him? J oel Ger shmann’s Far cical Pr oduction of The
Cherry Orc hard’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture ,
Peter Lang , New York, 1997, p . 59.
17 Ibid., pp . 59–60.
18 Frayn, M., ‘Intr oduction’, in F rayn, M., trans ., Chekhov Pla ys, Methuen, London, 1988, p . lxvi.
19 Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Brec ht, Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1976, p . 117.
20 Müller , H., The Spir it of T raged y, Alfr ed A. Knopf, Ne w York, 1956, p . 288.
21 Styan, J . L., ‘The Delicate Balance: A udience Ambiv alence in the Com edy of Shak espear e and
Chekho v’, Costerus , Vol. 2, 1972, p . 181.
22 Guthk e, K. S ., Modern T ragi-Comed y, Random House, Ne w York, 1996, p . 84.
23 Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit., p . 107.
24 Holland, P ., ‘The Dir ector and the Pla ywright: Contr ol over the Means of Pr oduction’, New Theatre
Quarterl y, Vol. 3, No . 11, A ugust 1987, p . 210.
25 Corrig an, R., ‘Stanisla vski and the Pla ywright’, in Corrig an, R., ed., Theatre in the Twentieth Century ,
Grove Press, New York, 1965, pp . 190–1.
26 Skaftymo v, A., quoted in Sender ovich, S ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: Cecho v’s Last Testam ent’, Russian
Literature , Vol. 35, 1994, p . 239.
27 Pitcher , H., The Chekhov Pla y: A New Interpretation , Chatto and Windus , London, 1973, p . 4.
28 Valenc y, M., The Breaking Str ing, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1966, p . 268.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid., p . 269.
31 Michael F rayn notes that, in England, Trofimo v has som etimes been portra yed ‘as an inadequate
and immatur e per sonality w ho is afraid to em erge from univ ersity and f ace the r eal w orld’. (F rayn, M.,
loc. cit.) F rayn ar gues that Trofimo v is ‘perpetuall y being thr own out of the univ ersity … Exiled, of
course, for his political activities …’ (Ibid.) Trofimo v’s ‘story’ is onl y glanced at obliquel y in the pla y,
but it m ust be subte xtuall y implied in perf ormance if Trofimo v is not to be r educed to som e sill y
pretentious f ailure whose opinions ar e not to be tak en seriousl y.
32 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, Oxf ord Univ ersity
Press, London, 1964, p . 145.
33 Magarshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 169.
34 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 145.
35 Lopakhin’s pr oblem is that he has chang ed his objectiv e situation b y becoming rich but, unlik e his
creator , has f ailed to ‘squeeze the sla ve out of himself’, and so r emains , subjectiv ely, a peasant.
36 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 146.
37 Ibid.
38 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 284.
39 Bergson, H., ‘Laughter’, in Sypher , W., ed., Comed y, Doubleda y Anchor , New York, 1956, p . 73.
40 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p.146.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid., pp . 146–7.
45 Ibid., p . 147.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., p . 149.
258Interpreting Chekhov

49 Ibid., pp . 149–50.
50 Ibid., p . 150. Chekho v again teases his audience with the pr ospect of this clichéd solution to the
family’s financial pr oblems w hen, later in Act I, Ga yev echoes Varya’s ‘dr eam’. In a list of highl y
impractical w ays that the estate might be sa ved, Ga yev indulg es in his f antasies: ‘GA YEV. … I ha ve
plenty of r emedies , any amount of them, and that m eans that I ha ven’t r eally got one. It w ould be a
good thing if som eone left us som e mone y. It w ould be a g ood thing to marry An ya to a v ery rich man
…’ (Ibid., p . 159.) P ossibl y the aristocratic Ga yev cannot conceiv e of the v ery r eal possibility of their
estate being sa ved thr ough Varya marrying Lopakhin. In Ga yev’s e yes, Lopakhin is still an ignorant
peasant. Being such a complete elitist, Ga yev becom es ludicr ous w hen he claims to ha ve a close ra pport
with the peasants . ‘GA YEV. … I’m a man of the eighties … I’v e suff ered quite a lot f or my con victions ,
I can tell y ou. Do y ou w onder the peasants lik e me so m uch? You ha ve to kno w your peasant of cour se.
You ha ve to kno w ho w to …’ (Ibid., p . 161.)
51 Ibid., p . 156.
52 Ibid., p . 159.
53 Ibid., pp . 167–8.
54 Ibid., p . 172.
55 Ibid., p . 175.
56 Ibid., p . 178.
57 Ibid., pp . 184–5. In pr oduction it is quite common, and, I w ould ar gue, quite a ppropriate, f or
Lopakhin to cring e in terr or when the stick bear s down on him. This is , after all, the man w ho, though
he has just bought the cherry or chard, subjectiv ely is still a peasant w ho w as commonl y beaten b y his
father w hen he w as young . It is a conditioned r eflex that his beha viour r everts to that of his peasant
youth, origin and e xperience.
58 Ibid., pp . 185–6.
59 Ibid., p . 186.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., p . 187.
63 Ibid., p . 194.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid., p . 195.
66 Ibid.
67 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 278.
68 I am not sugg esting that the subte xt is as fix ed as the te xt, but something like the subte xt I sugg est
here is implied b y Chekho v in his pla ytext. Diff erent pr oductions will, of cour se, highlight diff erent
aspects of the implied subte xt.
69 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, pp. 197–8.
70 Corrig an, R., ‘The Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Corrig an, R. and Rosenber g, J. L., eds , The Context and Craft
of Drama , Chandler Publishing Compan y, Scranton, 1964, p . 155.
71 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 169.
72 Ibid., p . 170.
73 Williams , R., op . cit., p . 116.
74 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 170. Chekho v’s e xperiences as a doctor tr eating the peasants
during epidemics and his r esear ch w ork on Sakhalin led him to ha ve first-hand kno wled ge of suff ering .
For all that he in no w ay lives up to his ideals , Trofimo v’s description of the a ppalling conditions , the
hardships endur ed by the peasants and the lack of concerted action b y the intellig entsia has the ring
of authenticity a bout it.
75 Chekho v, A., Letter to I. I. Orlo v, 22 February 1899, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on the Short Story ,
the Drama, and Other Literary T opics by Anton Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, pp . 286–7.
76 Greene, G ., Spectator , 5 September 1941.
77 Williams , R., loc. cit. Chekho v’s ambiv alent attitude to wards the Russian intellig entsia is ca ptured
well by Vladimir Na bokov. He writes: ‘Chekho v’s intellectual w as a man w ho combined the deepest
human decenc y of w hich man is ca pable with an almost ridiculous ina bility to put his ideals and
principles into action; a man dev oted to moral beauty , the w elfare of his people, the w elfare of the
259The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

universe, but una ble in his priv ate lif e to do an y thing useful; frittering a way his pr ovincial e xistence
in a haze of utopian dr eams; kno wing e xactl y what is g ood, w hat is w orthw hile living f or, but at the
same tim e sinking lo wer and lo wer in the m ud of a humdrum e xistence, unha ppy in lo ve, hopelessl y
inefficient in ev erything — a g ood man w ho cannot mak e good’. (Na bokov, V., Lectures on Russian
Literature , Picador , London, 1981, p . 253.) Trofimo v is a perf ect example of such an ‘intellectual’.
78 Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 9 October 1903, quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov ,
Vol. 3, p . 320.
79 Charlotte co vers her w orries b y constantl y perf orming sta ge tricks . In Act IV , when the cherry
orchard has been sold and her futur e is insecur e, the anguish of her inner lif e bur sts forth into the te xt
breaking thr ough her o vertly comic beha viour:
GAYEV. Charlotte’s ha ppy, she’s singing .
CHARLO TTE. [ Picking up a bundle whic h looks like a swaddled baby .] Rock-a-b ye baby. [A
baby’s cry is heard. ] Hush, m y darling , my dear little bo y. [The cry is heard again. ] You poor
little thing! [ Throws the bundle down. ] And please will y ou find m e another job? I can’t g o on
like this . (Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 193.)
80 Ibid., p . 162.
81 Bergson, H., Laughter: An Essa y on the Meaning of the Comic , Macmillan and Co ., London, 1935, pp .
50–1.
82 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, pp. 162–3.
83 Ibid., p . 163.
84 Chekho v, A., quoted in Le wis, A., The Contemporary Theatre , Crown Publisher s, New York, 1971,
p. 65.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 For Chekho v, the central pr oblem of his dramatur gical a pproach w as ho w to a void the demand made
by almost ev ery critic ‘that the her o and her oine be dramaticall y eff ectiv e’ (Chekho v, A., quoted in
Lewis, A., loc. cit.), w hile at the sam e tim e avoiding theatrical clichés . Chekho v’s elation at ha ving
avoided chea p theatrics is evident in the e xcited tone of the letter he wr ote to his wif e about the pla y
in September 1903: ‘Ho wever boring m y pla y ma y be, I think ther e’s som ething ne w about it.
Incidentall y, ther e’s not a single pistol shot in the w hole pla y’. (Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper ,
quoted in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, p . 320.)
88 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 163.
89 Ibid., pp . 163–4.
90 Ibid., p . 153.
91 Ibid., p . 166.
92 Ibid., pp . 168–9.
93 Ibid., p . 170.
94 Ibid., pp . 170–1.
95 Ibid., p . 171.
96 Chekho v, A., quoted in Ma garshack, D ., op. cit., p . 45.
97 One can easil y see w hy Chekho v objected to Stanisla vski intr oducing e xtra sound eff ects. While
they ma y have made the pla y seem mor e realistic, the y were like having a w hole series of unloaded
rifles on sta ge. Ev ery sound that Chekho v specifies has both a surf ace r ealistic r eference and a deeper
significance w hich, being ‘loaded’, ad ds m eaning to the action of the pla y.
98 The use of these tw o sound eff ects illustrates Chekho v’s ca pacity to emplo y the tw o forms of
symbolism outlined b y Wimsatt that I noted in Cha pter 2. The sound of the ax e is both r eal [used to
chop do wn the tr ees] and symbolic [an ev ocation of the end of an era]. The sound of the br eaking string
which, on its fir st use w as both r eal [Y epikhodo v’s guitar string] and symbolic [an ev ocation of the end
of an era] is her e used onl y in its pur ely symbolic sense.
99 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 198. Ther e is further evidence that Chekho v wished to sugg est
to his audience that the main character s had also ‘let lif e slip b y’. In an earlier draft of the ending of
Act II, Chekho v had Charlotte help Fir s look f or the items that Liuba had dr opped. While looking , she
had comm ented: ‘Mr s. Ranevsk y’s forever losing things . She’s thr own a way her lif e as w ell’. (Ibid., p .
324.)
100 Fergusson, F ., The Idea of a Theater , Doubleda y Anchor , New York, 1953, p . 175.
260Interpreting Chekhov

101 Magarshack, D ., op. cit., p . 274.
102 Chekho v, A., The Cherry Orc hard, p. 190.
261The Cherry Orchard: Complete Synthesis of Vision and Form

Conclusion
The Theatre is the world compressed, and with meaning . (Jean-P aul Sartr e)1
Question: Can one interpret something one doesn’t understand? (Jean Vilar)2
Chekho v was fortunate to ha ve had his pla ys perf ormed by the actor s of the
Mosco w Art Theatr e. Whatev er the a gony he suff ered seeing his pla ys pr esented
in an uncong enial manner; w hatev er the limitations Stanisla vski had as a dir ector
of his pla ys, Chekho v could not ha ve found a g roup of actor s mor e appropriatel y
trained to perf orm his w orks. It w as the system of acting devised b y Stanisla vski
and taught to his students that made it possible f or actor s to e xplor e the inner
lives of their character s and to cr eate the necessary subte xt in perf ormance.
Without this acting system, ther e would ha ve been no w ay for actor s to
comm unicate the conflict betw een their character s’ public and priv ate liv es and
thus pr esent Chekho v’s implied criticism of their f ailure to liv e up to their
aspirations . Without actor s capable of cr eating an inner lif e for their character s,
audiences w ould ha ve been a ble to per ceive onl y the dra b reality of ‘lif e as it
is’ and w ould ha ve been una ware of an y implied vision of ‘lif e as it should be’.
Today, most English actor s and dir ector s have a w orking kno wled ge of
Stanisla vski’s acting system. Ho wever, the diff erence betw een English and
Russian sensibilities cr eates a cultural divide that is difficult to brid ge. English
director s, for instance, seem to find it difficult to giv e due v alue to the positiv e
ideas e xpressed b y Chekho v’s ‘philosopher s’. The difficulty stems fr om the f act
that these character s tend to e xpress their ideas in length y tirades . Such effusions
are not easil y accepted b y English theatr e practitioner s and audiences br ought
up to v alue under statem ent or w ho feel that ‘politics’ or ‘r eligion’ ar e not pr oper
subjects f or polite con versation. What Gottlieb per ceptiv ely claims to be a
peculiarl y English phenom enon is , I w ould ar gue, equall y evident in all
English-speaking countries:
The question of ‘positiv e affirmations’ is , perha ps a mor e contentious one: ther e
is a peculiarl y English embarrassm ent at people or character s who ‘spout’
positiv ely about lif e or w ho talk idealisticall y or hopefull y about the futur e …
hence, perha ps, the difficulty English actor s, director s and audiences ha ve with
character s lik e Vershinin or Tuzenbach or Trofimo v … Debate, w hich sits
uneasil y on the English sta ge, is tr eated as som ething w hich emanates fr om
Chekho v’s charming idiosyncratic character s, not fr om the w hole social f abric
of the pla ys.3
Trevor Griffiths , who wr ote a ne w English v ersion of The Cherry Orc hard in
1977, w as acutel y aware of this Anglo-Saxon f ear of public e xpression of emotion
which he f elt w as especiall y evident in the English langua ge itself. In one
263

intervie w he comm ented: 'Ther e is som ething v ery contained a bout English,
and w hen it does e xpress deep emotion, it does so in simple rather than purple
ways; in oblique and under stated rather than rhetorical langua ge.'4
Griffiths’ solution to this cultural diff erence betw een Russian and English
sensibilities w as to anglicise the langua ge of his v ersion of The Cherry Orc hard.
It is w orth noting that, w hereas the critic, K enneth Tynan, objected to the w ays
in w hich the English had transf ormed Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard into an
English pla y that is ‘in our ima ge’, Griffiths deliberatel y emphasised the f act
that he had written an ‘English’ v ersion. When intervie wed about his v ersion
by David Allen in 1987, Griffiths comm ented:
My translation is specificall y called a ne w English version. To say that the pla y
will be in the English langua ge does impl y — to m e, at least — that it will be
anglicised to a certain e xtent; that adjustm ents will be made to tak e account of
the diff erent history and a diff erent national, cultural structur e of f eeling .5
Another contemporary English dir ector , Mik e Alfr eds, tak es an opposite
approach to Griffith. Alfr eds specificall y avoids pr oducing ‘English’ Chekho v.
As Da vid Allen has noted: ‘In perf orming Chekho v, Alfr eds ar gues that it is
important to try to r eplace our Anglo-Saxon mode of emotional e xpression b y
a mor e extrovert, Sla vic one.’6
Griffith is sur ely corr ect, ho wever, to sugg est that the o vert emotionalism
expressed in the long idealistic speeches of character s like Vershinin, Tuzenbach
and Trofimo v appear s excessiv e to lo vers of English r eticence. It is perha ps
because English dir ector s feel embarrassed b y this e xtrovert expression of f eeling
that the y avoid asking their actor s and audiences to tak e such character s
seriousl y. In the English-speaking w orld, it is easier to pr esent such passionate
character s as eccentric ‘g asbags’ and to comicall y deflate their heartf elt faith in
the futur e. The r esult is that, instead of embod ying w hat Gottlieb calls the
leitmotif of Chekho v’s dramas , ‘tak zhit nelzna — one cannot and m ust not liv e
like that’, British, and English-speaking Chekho v in g eneral, ‘has enf orced the
idea that Chekho v’s pla ys deal nostalgicall y with “the tra gedy of dispossession”’.7
As w e have seen, Chekho v’s pla ys ar e not simpl y mood pieces stuff ed full of
inter esting ‘character s’ fatalisticall y doom ed to f ailure. His pla ys ar e social
comedies w hich deal with issues that ar e of dir ect relevance to the liv es of the
audience. They provide a comic critique of the beha viour of his character s who
have abdicated their r esponsibility to act accor ding to their kno wled ge and
ideals . Gottlieb is corr ect w hen she points out that the nev er-ending critical
discussion of w hether Chekho v’s pla ys ar e tragedies or com edies ‘g oes deeper
than questions of content and f orm, and becom es a philosophical and political
debate’.8 The decision to interpr et Chekho v’s pla ys as either tra gedies or
comedies has f ar-reaching ramifications . It is not simpl y the style of perf ormance
264Interpreting Chekhov

that is aff ected, but, mor e significantl y, the m eaning of the pla ys that is radicall y
altered as a r esult of this decision:
To put it perha ps crudel y: the tra gic vie w of human impotence in the f ace of
seemingl y inevita ble f orces implies an acceptance of the w orld or der as it
manif ests itself and w orks out its design in the character s on sta ge. The
assumption of human impotence, the acceptance of ‘that w hich is’, the belief
in ung overnable e xternal f orces, and the insistence on ‘a bsolutes’, all becom e
part of a r etrograde w orld vie w. This philosoph y, I would sugg est, w as complete
anathema to Chekho v, whose concern as a scientist and as a writer w as with
the exposur e of contradictions , and not an ann ulment or denial of contradictions .
His aim w as to e xpose, and not to tranquillise, w hat Colerid ge called, ‘the
lethar gy of custom’.9
Chekho v’s aim has not al ways gone unnoticed, but critics lik e Gottlieb ,
Karlinsk y and Ma garshack, w ho emphasise the central r ole that such an aim
plays in Chekho v’s w ork, ha ve always been in a minority . In ad dition, the y
have almost al ways written in r eaction a gainst the pr evailing ‘Absur dist’ r eading
of the pla ywright. As earl y as 1927, w e find one such critic e xpressing his
dissatisf action with critics of the ‘nothing to be done’ school of Chekho v:
He wr ote v ery often, not in variably, about the w eak and unsuccessful … When
Chekho v presents such character s, he is not trying to r ouse us into a state of
false indignation a gainst lif e and f ate; he did not intend to put the blam e for
anything that is wr ong with the w orld of m en upon those v ague and con venient
scapegoats; he w anted us to put the blam e where it belongs: on our selves.10
I shar e the assumption e xpressed in a r ecent te xt on pla y dir ecting that ‘all
plays, no matter ho w poor , have inher ent m eanings . Pinpointing them is often
the pr oblem’.11 That pr oblem has em erged particularl y in those cases w here
director s have portra yed Chekho v as a pr oto-Absur dist and consequentl y have
misinterpr eted the m eanings implied in his pla ytexts. The dir ector’s fir st function
is to corr ectly interpr et the m eaning of a giv en pla yscript bef ore embar king on
the second function of finding the theatrical m eans to comm unicate that m eaning
to an audience. It is the fir st function of interpr etation that I ha ve focused on
in this book.
It is an inter esting f act of theatrical history that the tw o functions of the
modern dir ector w ere formerly carried out b y separate people. As w e have seen,
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o saw his r ole in the pr oduction pr ocess as interpr eter of
the pla ytext, w hile Stanisla vski undertook to find the theatrical m eans of r ealising
that interpr etation. Incr easingl y, Stanisla vski took o ver both the interpr etive
and cr eativ e functions , and toda y most dir ector s regard it as normal practice to
carry out these dual functions . In som e ways, this has placed an undue bur den
on dir ector s. Not onl y are the y expected to ha ve a complete kno wled ge of the
265Conclusion

theatr e arts , they are also e xpected to be e xperts in literary interpr etation. That
this is perha ps asking too m uch of most dir ector s is, I believ e, ackno wled ged
by the f act that som e of the mor e important and w ell-resour ced companies emplo y
dramatur gs to tak e on som e of the functions f ormerly carried out b y literary
interpr eters such as Nemir ovich-Danchenk o.
It is not the business of critics such as m yself to legislate ho w a dir ector
should r ealise a pla ywright’s pla y. What I believ e a critic can do is help dir ector s
to arriv e at an interpr etation that lies within the ‘param eters’ and ‘tolerances’
of the pla yscript. P ossibl y the most useful pr eparation a potential dir ector of a
Chekho v pla y can mak e is to r ead Chekho v’s other pla ys and short stories . The
plays embod y an e xceptionall y unified vision of r eality and sho w a pr ogressiv e
mastery of f orm and consequentl y the y are the perf ect pr eface to help a dir ector
under stand the natur e of Chekho v’s dramatur gy.
I have demonstrated ho w and w hy misinterpr etations of Chekho v’s pla ys
have tak en place in the past and contin ue in the pr esent. This book will, of
course, not stop such misinterpr etations fr om contin uing to occur . My hope is
that pr ospectiv e dir ector s of Chekho v will be con vinced b y my argument and
use their theatrical skills and cr eativity to mount pr oductions that do not distort
the pla ywright’s vision of r eality , and successfull y comm unicate the richness
of Chekho v’s pla ys.
ENDNOTES
1 Sartr e, J-P ., Film of The Condemned of Altona , quoted in Hod ge, F., Play Directing: Anal ysis,
Communication and Style , Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1994, p . 47.
2 Vilar, J., ‘Mur der of the Dir ector’, in Corrig an, R., ed., Theatre in the Twentieth Century , Grove Press,
New York, 1965, p . 146.
3 Gottlieb , V., ’Chekho v in Limbo: British Pr oductions of the Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Scolnico v, H. and
Holland, P ., eds , The Pla y Out of Context: T ransf erring Pla ys from Culture to Culture , Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1989, pp . 166–7.
4 Griffiths , T., quoted in Allen, D ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: A Ne w English Version b y Trevor Griffiths’,
in Miles , P., ed., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1993, p . 163.
5 loc. cit.
6 Allen, D ., ‘Exploring the Limitless Depths: Mik e Alfr eds Dir ects Chekho v’, New Theatre Quarterl y,
Vol. 2, No . 8, No vember 1986, p . 321.
7 Gottlieb , V., ‘The P olitics of British Chekho v’, in Miles , P., op. cit., pp . 148–9.
8 Ibid., p . 153.
9 Ibid. Chekho v was quite a ware of the importance of pr oviding audiences and r eader s with a jolt in
order to w ake them fr om ‘the lethar gy of custom’. In a letter in w hich he sugg ested w ays that Suv orin
might incr ease the eff ect of his writing on his r eading public, Chekho v stated: ‘And w hy should y ou
explain to the public? One m ust shock it, rather , and then it will think mor e’. (Chekho v, A., Letter to
A. S. Suv orin, 17 December 1891, in F riedland, L. S ., Letters on the Short Story , the Drama, and Other
Literary T opics by Anton Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 102.)
10 Robinson, M., ‘M. Robinson Replies to the Notion that Chekho v’s Character s “Ar e For ever Conquer ed
by Lif e”’, Adelphi , Ma y 1927, in Em eljano w, V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage , Routled ge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1981, p . 319.
11 Hod ge, F., op. cit., p . 48.
266Interpreting Chekhov

Select Bibliography
Editions of Chekhov’s plays and short stories consulted or cited
Bentle y, E., ed. and trans ., The Brute and Other Farces by Anton Chekhov , Grove
Press, New York, 1958.
Bristo w, E. K., trans . and ed., Anton Chekhov’s Pla ys, W. W. Norton and Com-
pany, New York, 1977.
Chekho v, A. (unkno wn translator), The Pla ys of Anton Chekhov , J. J. Little and
Ives Compan y, New York, 1935.
Chekho v, A. (unkno wn translator), The Cherry Orc hard, Dover Publications ,
New York, 1991.
Dunnig an, A., Chekhov: The Major Pla ys, The Ne w Am erica Library , New York,
1964.
Fell, M. and West, J ., trans ., Tchekof f: Six Famous Pla ys, Gerald Duckw orth and
Co., London, 1949.
Fen, E., ed., Chekhov Pla ys, Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1954.
Frayn, M., trans ., Wild Honey , Methuen, London, 1984.
Frayn, M., trans ., Chekhov Pla ys, Methuen Drama, London, 1988.
Frayn, M., trans ., The Seagull , Allen & Unwin, London, 1989.
Gems , P., Uncle Vanya: A New V ersion, Eyre Methuen, London, 1980.
Griffiths , T., ed., The Cherry Orc hard, new English v ersion, fr om Ra paport, H.,
trans ., Pluto Pr ess, London, 1981.
Guthrie, T. and Kipnis , L., trans ., The Cherry Orc hard, Univ ersity of Minnesota
Press, Minnea polis , 1965.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 1, Short Pla ys, Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1968.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, Platonov , Ivanov , The Seagull, Oxford
Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1967.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, Unc le Vanya, Three Sisters , The Cherry
Orchard, The W ood Demon, Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1964.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 4, Stor ies 1888–1889, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1980.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 5, Stor ies 1889–1891, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1970.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 6, Stor ies 1892–1893, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1971.
267

Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 7, Stor ies 1893–1895, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1978.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 8, Stor ies 1895–1897, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1965.
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 9, Stor ies 1898–1904, Oxford Univ ersity
Press, London, 1975.
Magarshack, D ., trans ., Platonov , Faber and Fa ber, London, 1964.
Magarshack, D ., trans ., Chekhov: Four Pla ys, Unwin Books , London, 1969.
Makar off, D ., trans ., Platonov , Methuen, London, 1961.
Mam et, D., Uncle Vanya (an ada ptation), Gr ove Press, New York, 1989.
Pavis-Zahradnik ová, E. and P avis, P., Anton Tc hékhov: ‘La Cer isaie’ , Le Livr e de
Poche, P aris, n.d.
Ross, P. P., trans ., Anton Chekhov: Stor ies of W omen, Prometheus Books , New
York, 1994.
Szogyi, A., Ten Earl y Pla ys by Chekhov , Bantam Books , New York, 1965.
Van Itallie, J-C ., ed., The Seagull: A New V ersion , Harper & Ro w, New York,
1977.
Yarmolinsk y, A., trans ., The Cherry Orc hard, The A von Theatr e Library , New
York, 1965.
Young , S., trans ., Best Pla ys by Chekhov , The Modern Library , New York, 1956.
Chekhov correspondence cited
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Bibilin, 14 February 1886, quoted in Ma garshack, D .,
Chekhov the Dramatist , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980, p . 151.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v betw een 10 and 12 October 1887, quoted in
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, pp . 284–5.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Ale xander Chekho v, 23 October 1887, quoted in Valenc y,
M., The Breaking Str ing, Oxf ord Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1966, p . 83.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Ale xander Chekho v, 24 October 1887, quoted in Hingle y,
R., The Oxf ordChekhov , Vol. 2, p . 285.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 20 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 286.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 24 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 287.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Chekho v, 8 Ma y 1889, in McV ay, G., Chekhov’s ‘Three
Sisters’, Bristol Classical Pr ess, 1995, p . ix.
268Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 10 Ma y 1886 in Yarmolinsk y, A., Letters
of Anton Chekhov , The Viking Pr ess, New York, 1973, p . 37.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 8 Ma y 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 117.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. P . Chekho v, 11 A pril 1889, in Karlinsk y, S. and Heim,
M. H., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess,
Berkeley, 1975, p . 142.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Chekho v, 15 October 1896, in F riedland, L. S .,
Letters on the Short Story , the Drama, and Other Literary T opics by Anton
Chekhov , Dover Publications , New York, 1966, p . 147.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Chekho v, 18 October 1896, in Hellman, L., The
Selected Letters of Chekhov , Hamish Hamilton, London, 1955, pp . 193–4.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Chekho v, 3 December 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 289.
Chekho v, A., Letter to E. N . Chirik ov, 7 October 1903, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 202.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Da vydo v, 1 December 1887 in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord
Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 288.
Chekho v, A., Letter to S . P. Diaghilev , 30 December 1902, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., p . 438.
Chekho v, A., Letter to S . P. Diaghilev , 12 J uly 1903, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 453.
Chekho v, A., Letter to F . A. Fy odorov-Yurkowsky, 8 January 1889, in Hingle y,
R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 296.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 3 December 1898, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 320.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 3 January 1899, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 323.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 9 Ma y 1899, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p . 357.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. Gor ky, 16 October 1900, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit.,
p. 156.
Chekho v, A., Letter to D . V. Grig orovich, 9 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., p . 84.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. V. Kiselev a, 14 J anuary 1887, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 41.
Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 30 September 1889, quoted in Hingle y,
R., op . cit., pp . 301–2.
269

Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 2 January 1900, quoted in Tulloch, J .,
Chekhov: A Structuralist Study, Macmillan Pr ess, London, 1980, p . 107.
Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 15 September 1900, quoted in Valenc y,
M., op . cit., p . 208.
Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 9 October 1903, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, p . 320.
Chekho v, A., Letter to O . L. Knipper , 10 A pril 1904, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 466.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Kommissarzhevska ya, 13 No vember 1900, in Yarmol-
insky, A., op . cit., p . 383.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Kommissarzhevska ya, 13 No vember 1900, in McV ay,
G., op. cit., p . xvi.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. K oni, 11 No vember 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit., p .
197.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Vukol La vrov, 10 A pril 1890 in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
pp. 165–7.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 7 No vember 1888, in F riedland,
L. S., op. cit., p . 169.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 31 December 1888, in Hingle y,
R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 295.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 22 Mar ch 1890, in Karlinsk y,
S., op. cit., pp . 162–4.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 9 Mar ch 1892, in Yarmolinsk y,
A., op . cit., p . 202.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 24 October 1892 in Yarmolinsk y,
A., op . cit., p . 225.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. L. Leonty ev-Shcheglo v, 20 J anuary 1899, in Yarmolin-
sky, A., op . cit., p . 329.
Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 7 A pril 1887 in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 46.
Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 4 No vember 1887, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 285.
Chekho v, A., Letter to N . A. Le ykin, 15 No vember 1887 in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., pp . 70–1.
Chekho v, A., Letter to M. P . Lilina, 15 September 1903, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 454.
270Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v, A., Letter to A. F . Mar ks, 1 October 1902, quoted in Hingle y, R., The
Oxford Chekhov , Vol. 1, p . 189.
Chekho v, A., Letter to O . P. Menshik ov, 16 A pril 1897, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 286.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Meyerhold, earl y October 1889 in Benedetti, J ., The
Moscow Art Theatre Letters , Routled ge, Ne w York, 1991, pp . 56–7.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Meyerhold, October 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 368.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Mir olubo v, 17 December 1901, in Hellman, L., op .
cit., p . 296.
Chekho v, A., Letter to L. S . Mizono va, 13 A ugust 1893, in Yarmolinsk y, A, op .
cit., p . 237.
Chekho v, A., Letter to V. Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, 2 September 1903, in F ried-
land, L. S ., op. cit., p . 201.
Chekho v, A., Letter to I. I. Orlo v, 22 February 1899, in F riedland, L. S ., op. cit.,
pp. 286–7.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 4 October 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., p . 81.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 9 October 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., p . 112.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 13 No vember 1888, in Yarmolinsk y,
A., op . cit., p . 92.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 2 January 1889, in Hingle y, R., The
Oxford Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 295.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 9 A pril 1889, in J osephson, M., ed.,
The Personal Papers of Anton Chekhov , Lear , New York, 1948, p . 150.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. N . Pleshche yev, 15 February 1890, in Yarmolinsk y,
A., op . cit., p . 125.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Yakov Polonsk y, 22 February 1888, quoted in Ma garshack,
D., Chekhov: A Lif e, Westport, Gr eenw ood Pr ess, 1970, p . 144.
Chekho v, A., Letter to G . I. Rossolimo , 11 October 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., pp . 352–3.
Chekho v, A., Letter to C . Stanisla vski, 2 J anuary 1901, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 391.
Chekho v, A., Letter to Ye. M. Sha vrova, 16 September 1891, in F riedland, L. S .,
op. cit., p . 17.
271

Chekho v, A., Letter to Ye. M. Sha vrova, 28 February 1895, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., pp . 256–7.
Chekho v, A., Letter to E. Sha vrova, 1 No vember 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit.,
pp. 195–6.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 Ma y 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 71.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 September 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., p . 107.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin betw een 4 and 6 October 1888, quoted in
Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 289.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 October 1888 in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 88.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 October 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 117.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 No vember 1888, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 91.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 No vember 1888, quoted in Ma garshack,
D., Chekhov the Dramatist , pp. 31–2.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 19 December 1888 quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 290.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 30 December 1888, in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., p . 79.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 84.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 142.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 J anuary 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 107.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 6 February 1889, in Hingle y, R., The Oxf ord
Chekhov , Vol. 2, p . 297.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 14 February 1889, quoted in Ma garshack,
D., Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 23.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 Mar ch 1889 in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 111.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 7 Ma y 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p .
143.
272Interpreting Chekhov

Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 15 Ma y 1889, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., pp .
143–4.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 28 October 1889, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 122.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1889, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 193.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 Mar ch 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 129.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 Mar ch 1890, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 159.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A pril 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 133.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 11 September 1890, in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., p . 171.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 December 1890, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 170.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 9 December 1890, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 174.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 17 December 1891, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 102.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 8 A pril 1892, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit., p .
221.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 28 Ma y 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op . cit.,
p. 212.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 1 A ugust 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., pp . 218–19.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 10 October 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 223.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 18 October 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 223.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A.,
op. cit., p . 227.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 25 No vember 1892, in Karlinsk y, S., op.
cit., p . 243.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 3 December 1892, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 227.
273

Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 2 J anuary 1894, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 243.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 27 Mar ch 1894, in Karlinsk y, S., op. cit.,
p. 261.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 21 October 1895, in Hellman, L., op . cit.,
p. 189.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 2 No vember 1895, quoted in Van Itallie,
J-C., The Seagull: A New V ersion , Harper & Ro w, New York, 1977, p .
90.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 21 No vember 1895, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 146.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 20 J une 1896, quoted in Ma garshack, D .,
Chekhov the Dramatist , p. 20.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 18 October 1896, in F riedland, L. S ., op.
cit., p . 788.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 22 October 1896, in Hellman, L., op . cit.,
pp. 194–5.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 12 J uly 1897, quoted in F riedland, L. S .,
op. cit., p . 265.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. S . Suv orin, 13 Mar ch 1898, in Yarmolinsk y, A., op .
cit., p . 308.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. Tikhono v, 1902, quoted in Ma garshack, D ., Chekhov
the Dramatist , p. 14.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. L. Vishnevsk y, 3 No vember 1889, in Yarmolinsk y,
A., op . cit., p . 355.
Chekho v, A., Letter to A. L. Vishnevsk y, 7 No vember 1903, quoted in
Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Chekho v and Naturalism: F rom Affinity to Div er-
gence’, Comparative Drama , Vol. 4, No . 4, Winter 1970–71, p . 239.
Chekho v, A., Letter to N . M. Yezhov, 27 October 1887, quoted in Simmons , E.
J., Chekhov: A Biography , Jonathan Ca pe, London, 1963, p . 163.
Chekho v, A., Letter to N . M. Yezhov, 21 No vember 1898, quoted in Hollosi, C .,
‘Chekho v’s Reaction to Two Interpr etations of Nina’, Theatre Survey ,
Vol. 24, Nos 1 & 2, 1883, p . 122.
Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 27 October 1889, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit.,
p. 63.
Knipper , O., Letter to A. Chekho v, 26 September 1889, quoted in Hingle y, R.,
The Oxf ord Chekhov , Vol. 3, p . 301.
274Interpreting Chekhov

Knipper , O., Letter to A. Chekho v, 27–29 October 1889, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit.,
p. 65.
Kommissarzhevska ya, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 21 October 1896, in Karlinsk y,
S., op. cit., p . 283.
Meyerhold, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 29 September 1889, in Benedetti, J ., op.
cit., p . 55.
Meyerhold, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 23 October 1899, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit.,
pp. 58–9.
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to C . Stanisla vski, 26 October 1889, in Bene-
detti, J ., op. cit., p . 59.
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 21 A ugust 1898, in Benedetti,
J., op. cit., p . 31.
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 18–21 December 1898, in
Benedetti, J ., op. cit., p . 44.
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., Letter to A. Chekho v, 22 J anuary 1901, in Benedetti,
J., op. cit., p . 99.
Stanisla vski, C ., Letter to Bar on Drizen, 3 No vember 1909, quoted in Senelick,
L., The Chekhov Theatre , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1997,
pp. 59–60.
Stanisla vski, C ., Letter to A. Chekho v, in Benedetti, J ., op. cit., p . 162.
Yezhov, N. M., Letter to A. Chekho v, n.d., quoted in Hollosi, C ., op. cit., p . 122.
Books consulted or cited
Abrams , M. H., A Glossary of Literary T erms, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston, Ne w York, 1971.
Allen, D ., Performing Chekhov , Routled ge, London, 2000.
Avilova, L., Chekhov in My Lif e, Methuen Drama, London, 1989.
Balukhaty , S. D., ed., The Seagull Produced by Stanislavsky , Dennis Dobson,
London, 1952.
Baring , M., Landmarks in Russian Literature , Methuen, London, 1960 (Cha pter
7, ‘The Pla ys of Anton Tcekho v’, pp . 163–85).
Barnet, S ., Berman, M. and Burto , W., Types of Drama: Pla ys and Essa ys, Little,
Brown and Compan y, Boston, 1981.
Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Uni-
versity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Benedetti, J ., Stanislavski: A Biography , Methuen, London, 1988.
275

Benedetti, J ., The Moscow Art Theatre Letters , Routled ge, Ne w York, 1991.
Bentle y, E., The Pla ywright as Thinker , Meridian Books , New York, 1960.
Bergson, H., Laughter: An Essa y on the Meaning of the Comic , Macmillan and Co .,
London, 1935.
Bill, V. T., Chekhov: The Silent V oice of Freedom, Philosophical Library , New
York, 1987.
Bitsilli, P . M., Chekhov’s Art: A Stylistic Anal ysis, Ardis Publisher s, Ann Arbor ,
1983.
Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s,
Philadelphia, 1999.
Brahms , C., Reflections in a Lake: A Stud y of Chekhov’s Four Greatest Pla ys,
Weidenf eld and Nicolson, London, 1976.
Braun, E., ed., Meyerhold on Theatre , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1969.
Braun, E., The Director and the Stage , Methuen, London, 1983 (Cha pter 5,
‘Stanisla vsky and Chekho v’, pp . 59–76).
Brooks, C. and Heilman R. B ., Understanding Drama , Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1966.
Brownstein, O . L. and Daubert, D . M., eds , Anal ytical Sourcebook of Concepts in
Dramatic Theory , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1981.
Bruford, W. H., Chekhov and his Russia: A Sociological Stud y, Routled ge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1948.
Bruford, W. H., Chekhov , Bowes and Bo wes, London, 1957.
Brustein, R., The Theatre of Revolt, Little, Br own and Compan y, Boston 1964
(Chapter 4, ‘Anton Chekho v’, pp . 135–79).
Butova, I. S ., Reminiscences , quoted in Worrall, N ., File on Chekhov , Methuen,
London, 1986.
Callo w, P., Chekhov: The Hidden Ground, Ivan R. Dee, Chica go, 1998.
Chekho v, A., The Island: A J ourney to Sakhalin , Washington Squar e Press, New
York, 1967.
Chudak ov, A. P ., Chekhov’s Poetics , Ardis Publisher s, Ann Arbor , 1983.
Clayton, J . D., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture ,
Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Clyman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Constantine, P ., trans ., The Undiscovered Chekhov: Thirty-Eight New Stor ies,
Seven Stories Pr ess, New York, 1998.
276Interpreting Chekhov

Corrig an, R., Theatre in the Twentieth Century , Grove Press, New York, 1963.
Corrig an, R. W. and Rosenber g, J. L., The Context and Craft of Drama, Chandler
Publishing Compan y, Scranton, 1964 (Corrig an, ‘The Pla ys of Chekho v’,
pp. 139–67).
Debr eczen y, P. and Eekman, T., eds , Chekhov’s Art of Wr iting, Slavica Publisher s,
Columbus , 1977.
Delgado, M. M. and Herita ge, P., eds , In Contact with the Gods?: Directors T alk
Theatre , Manchester Univ ersity Pr ess, Manchester , 1996.
Donaldson, I., Transf ormations in Modern European Drama, Macmillan Pr ess,
London 1983.
Driver, T. F., Romantic Quest and Modern Query: A History of the Modern Theater ,
Delacorte Pr ess, New York, 1970 (Cha pter 10, ‘Anton Chekho v’, pp .
217–48).
Eekman, T., ed., Anton Cec hov 1860 – 1960: Some Essa ys, E. J. Brill, Leiden,
1960.
Ehre, M., trans ., Chekhov f or the Stage , Northw estern Univ ersity Pr ess, Evanston,
1992 (translation of the f our major pla ys).
Ehrenbur g, I., Chekhov , Stendhal and Other Essa ys, Macgib bon and K ee, London,
1962 (‘On Re-Reading Chekho v’, pp . 10–77).
Ellis-Fermor , U., The Frontiers of Drama , Methuen, London, 1964.
Elsom, J ., Post-war Br itish Theatre , Routled ge and K egan Paul, London, 1979.
Emeljano w, V., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage, Routled ge and K egan Paul, Lon-
don, 1981.
Esslin, M., The Field of Drama, Methuen, London, 1987.
Forsås-Scott, H., Notes on ‘The Cherry Orc hard’, Longman York Press, Harlo w,
1983.
Friedland, L. S ., ed., Anton Chekhov: Letters on the Short Story , the Drama, and
Other Literary T opics , Dover Publications , New York, 1966.
Furst, L. and Skrine, P ., Naturalism , Methuen, London, 1971.
Ganz, A., Realms of the Self: V ariations on a Theme in Modern Drama , New York
Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1980.
Gask ell, R., Drama and Reality: The European Theatre since Ibsen , Routled ge and
Kegan Paul, London, 1972.
Gassner , J., The Theatre in Our Times , Crown Publisher s, New York, 1963.
Gassner , J., Directions in Modern Theatre and Drama, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1967.
277

Gerhar die, W., Anton Chekhov: A Cr itical Stud y, St. Martin’s Pr ess, New York,
1974.
Gielgud, J ., Early Stages , The Falcon Pr ess, London, 1948.
Gillès , D., Chekhov: Observer without Illusion , Funk & Wagnalls , New York, 1968.
Gilman, R., Chekhov’s Pla ys: An Opening into Eternity ,Yale Univ ersity Pr ess,
New Ha ven, 1995.
Glicksber g, C. I., Modern Literary Perspectivism , Southern Methodist Univ ersity
Press, Dallas , 1970.
Gorky, M., Reminiscences of Tolstoy , Chekhov and Andreev , Hogarth Pr ess, Lon-
don, 1934.
Gorky, M., Fragments from My Diary , Penguin Books , Harmonds worth, 1940
(Chapter 19, ‘Tchek off’, pp . 170–7).
Gottlieb , V., Chekhov and the V audeville , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1982.
Gottlieb , V., Chekhov in Perf ormance in Russia and Soviet Russia, Chad-
wyck–Heale y, New Jersey, 1984.
Gottlieb , V. and Allain, P ., eds , The Cambr idge Companion to Chekhov , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 2000.
Grant, D ., Realism , Methuen, London, 1970.
Gross, R., Understanding Pla yscripts: Theory and Method , Bowling Gr een Univ er-
sity Pr ess, Bowling Gr een, 1974.
Guthk e, K. S ., Modern T ragi-Comed y, Random House, Ne w York, 1996.
Guthrie, T. and Kipnis , L., trans ., The Cherry Orc hard, Univ ersity of Minnesota
Press, Minnea polis , 1965.
Hahn, B ., Chekhov: A Stud y of the Major Stor ies and Pla ys, Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1979.
Hellman, L., ed., The Selected Letters of Anton Chekhov , Hamish Hamilton, London,
1955.
Hingle y, R., Chekhov , Unwin Books , London, 1966.
Hingle y, R., Russian Wr iters and Society ,Weidenf eld and Nicolson, London,
1967.
Hingle y, R., A New Lif e of Chekhov , Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, London 1976.
Hobg ood, B . M., ed., Master T eachers of Theatre: Observations on T eaching Theatre
by Nine Amer ican Masters , Southern Illinois Univ ersity Pr ess, Carbondale,
1988.
278Interpreting Chekhov

Hodge, F., Play Directing: Anal ysis, Communication, and Style , Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, 1994.
Hornb y, R., Script into Perf ormance: A Structuralist Approac h, Paragon House
Publisher s, New York, 1987.
Howard, J. E., Shakespeare’s Art of Orc hestration , Univ ersity of Illinois Pr ess,
Urbana, 1984.
Jackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w
Jersey, 1967.
Jackson, R. L., ed., Reading Chekhov’s T ext, Northw estern Univ ersity Pr ess,
Evanston, 1993.
Josephson, M., The Personal Papers of Anton Chekhov , Lear Publisher s, New
York, 1948.
Karlinsk y, S., ed., Anton Chekhov’s Lif e and Thought: Selected Letters and Com-
mentary , Univ ersity of Calif ornia Pr ess, Berkeley, 1975.
Kataev , V., If Onl y We Could Know!: An Interpretation of Chekhov , Ivan R. Dee,
Chica go, 2002.
Katzer , J., ed., 1860–1960 A. P . Chekhov , Foreign Langua ges Publishing House,
Mosco w, 1960.
Kirk, I., Anton Chekhov ,Twayne Publisher s, Boston, 1981.
Koteliansk y, S. S. and Woolf, L., trans ., The Notebook of Anton Tc hekhov , The
Hogarth Pr ess, London, 1967.
Krutch, J . W., ‘ Modernism’ in Modern Drama, Russell and Russell, Ne w York,
1962 (pp . 66–77).
Laffitte, S ., Chekhov , Angus and Robertson, London, 1974.
Levin, I. and I., Working on the Pla y and the Role: The Stanislavsky Method f or
Anal ysing the Characters in a Drama, Ivan R. Dee, Chica go, 1992.
Lewis, A., The Contemporary Theatre , Crown Publisher s, New York, 1971.
Magarshack, D ., Chekhov: A Lif e, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1970.
Magarshack, D ., The Real Chekhov , Allen and Unwin, London, 1972.
Magarshack, D ., Chekhov the Dramatist, Eyre Methuen, London, 1980.
Magarshack, D ., Stanislavsky: A Lif e, Faber and Fa ber, London, 1986.
Maugham, W. S., Points of View , Bantam Books , New York, 1961 (pp . 137–50).
McVay, G., Chekhov’s ‘Three Sisters’, Bristol Classical Pr ess, London, 1995.
Meister , C. W., Chekhov Bibliography , McFarland and Compan y, Jefferson, 1985.
Melching er, S., Anton Chekhov , Frederick Ung ar, New York, 1972.
279

Miles , P., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1993.
Miller , J., Subsequent Perf ormances , Faber and Fa ber, London, 1986.
Mirsky, D. S., A History of Russian Literature from its Beginnings to 1900, Vintage
Books , New York, 1961.
Müller , H., The Spir it of T raged y, Alfr ed A. Knopf, Ne w York, 1956.
Nabokov, V., Lectures on Russian Literature , Pan Books , London, 1983 (pp .
245–95).
Nemir ovich-Danchenk o, V., My Lif e in the Russian Theatre , Geoffr ey Bles , Lon-
don, 1968.
Nemir ovsky, I., A Lif e of Chekhov ,The Gr ey Walls Pr ess, London, 1950.
Paris, B., ed., Stella Adler on Ibsen, Str indberg and Chekhov ,Vintage Books , New
York, 1999.
Peace, R., Chekhov: A Stud y of the Four Major Pla ys,Yale Univ ersity Pr ess, New
Haven, 1983.
Pervukhina, N ., Anton Chekhov: The Sense and the Nonsense , Legas, New York,
1993.
Pitcher , H., The Chekhov Pla y: A New Interpretation, Chatto and Windus , London
1973.
Pitcher , H., Chekhov’s Leading Lad y, John Murra y, London, 1979.
Posell, E. Z., Russian Authors , Houghton Mifflin Compan y, Boston, 1970.
Priestle y, J. B., Anton Chekhov , International Textbook Compan y, London, 1970.
Pritchett, V. S., Chekhov: A Biography , Penguin Books , London, 1988.
Prokofiev a, R., trans ., Chekhov’s ‘Three Y ears’ , For eign Langua ges Publishing
House, Mosco w, n.d.
Racin, J ., Tatyana Repina: Two T ranslated T exts by Alexei Suvor in and Anton
Chekhov , McFarland and Compan y, Jefferson, 1999.
Rapaport, I., Acting: A Handbook of the Stanislavski Method , Crown Publisher s,
New York, 1955.
Rayfield, D ., Chekhov: The Evolution of his Art, Paul Elek, London, 1975.
Rayfield, D ., Chekhov’s ‘Unc le Vanya’ and ‘The W ood Demon’, Bristol Classical
Press, London, 1995.
Rayfield, D ., Anton Chekhov: A Lif e, Harper Collins , London, 1997.
Rayfield, D ., Understanding Chekhov , Univ ersity of Wisconsin Pr ess, Madison,
1999.
280Interpreting Chekhov

Redmond, J ., Drama and Symbolism: Themes in Drama 4 , Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1982.
Salmon, E., ed., Bernhardt and the Theatre of her Time , Greenw ood Pr ess, West-
port, 1984 (Senelick, L., Cha pter 7, ‘Chekho v’s Response to Bernhar dt’,
pp. 165–81).
Sander s, E., Chekhov , Black Sparr ow Pr ess, Santa Rosa, 1995.
Saunder s, B., Tchehov the Man, Centaur Pr ess, London, 1960.
Schuler , C. A., Women in Russian Theatre , Routled ge, London, 1996.
Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P ., eds , The Pla y Out of Context: T ransf erring Pla ys
from Culture to Culture , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1989.
Selden, R., A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory , The Harv ester
Press, Brighton, 1985.
Sender ovich, S . and Sendich, M., eds , Anton Chekhov Rediscovered: A Collection
of New Studies with a Comprehensive Bibliography , Russian Langua ge
Journal, East Lansing , 1987.
Senelick, L., ed., Russian Dramatic Theory from Pushkin to the Symbolists , Uni-
versity of Texas Pr ess, Austin, 1981.
Senelick, L., Anton Chekhov , Macmillan, 1985.
Senelick, L., The Chekhov Theatre , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1997.
Shesto v, L., Chekhov and Other Essa ys, Univ ersity of Michig an Pr ess, Ann Arbor ,
1966.
Simmons , E. J ., Chekhov: A Biography , Jonathan Ca pe, London, 1963.
Slonim, M., Russian Theater from the Empire to the Soviets , Methuen, London,
1963.
Smith, V. L., Anton Chekhov and the Lad y with the Dog , Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess,
London, 1973.
Stanisla vski, C ., My Lif e in Art , Eyr e Methuen, London, 1980.
States , B. O., Irony and Drama: A Poetics , Cornell Univ ersity Pr ess, Ithaca, 1971.
Steiner , G., The Death of T raged y, Faber & Fa ber, London, 1961.
Styan, J. L., The Dark Comed y, Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1968
(pp. 74–106).
Styan, J. L., Chekhov in Perf ormance , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1971.
Toumano va, N. A., Anton Chekhov: The V oice of Twilight Russia, Columbia Uni-
versity Pr ess, New York, 1937.
281

Troyat, H., Chekhov , Macmillan Pr ess, London, 1986.
Tulloch, J ., Chekhov: A Structuralist Stud y, Macmillan Pr ess, 1980.
Tulloch, J ., Shakespeare and Chekhov in Production and Reception, Univ ersity of
Iowa Press, Iowa City , 2005.
Turkov, A., Anton Chekhov and his Times , Univ ersity of Ar kansas Pr ess, Fay-
etteville, 1995.
Tynan, K., Curtains , Longmans , London, 1961.
Valenc y, M., The Breaking Str ing, Oxford Univ ersity Pr ess, London, 1966.
Wellek, R. and N . D., eds , Chekhov: New Perspectives ,Twentieth Century Views,
Prentice-Hall Inc., Ne w Jersey, 1984.
William es, L. J ., Anton Chekhov the Iconoc last, Univ ersity of Scranton Pr ess,
Scranton, 1989.
Williams , R., Drama from Ibsen to Eliot , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1953; 1964.
Williams , R., Drama in Perf ormance , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1968; 1972.
Winner , T., Chekhov and his Prose , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ne w York, 1966.
Worrall, N ., File on Chekhov , Methuen, London, 1986.
Yarmolinsk y, A., ed., Letters of Anton Chekhov ,The Viking Pr ess, New York,
1973.
Yermilo v, V., A. P. Chekhov , Foreign Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w,
n.d.
Young , S., The Theater , Doran, Ne w York, 1927.
Articles, theses and reviews consulted or cited
Allen, D ., ‘Exploring the Limitless Depths: Mik e Alfr eds Dir ects Chekho v’, New
Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 2, No . 8, No vember 1986.
Allen, D ., ‘Da vid J ones Dir ects Chekho v’s Ivanov ’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol.
4, No . 15, A ugust 1988.
Allen, D ., ‘Jonathan Miller Dir ects Chekho v’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 5, No .
17, February 1989.
Allen, D ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: A Ne w English Version b y Trevor Griffiths’, in
Miles , P., ed., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess,
Cambrid ge, 1993.
Allen, D . and Ghelar di, M., ‘Unfinished Pieces: F rom Platonov to Piano’, Modern
Drama, Vol. 42, No 4, 1999.
Ander son, G ., ‘The Music of The Cherry Orc hard: Repetitions in the Russian
Text’, Modern Drama , Vol. 34, 1991.
282Interpreting Chekhov

Anon., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, World, 29 J anuary 1924.
Aronson, A., ‘The Sceno graphy of Chekho v’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov:
Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Ashton, B ., Letter to New Statesman , 11 September 1970, quoted in Ma garshack,
D., The Real Chekhov , Geor ge Allen and Unwin, London, 1972.
Atkinson, B ., Revie w of The Cherry Orc hard, New Y ork Times , 11 Mar ch 1928,
quoted in Em eljano w, V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage , Routled ge
and K egan Paul, London, 1981.
Australian Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), April 1987.
Australian Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard) , May 1987.
Australian Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), No vember 1987.
Australian Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), December 1987.
Australian and New Zealand Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), April 1989.
Australian and New Zealand Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), August 1990.
Australian and New Zealand Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), Ma y 1991.
Australian and New Zealand Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), June 1991.
Azado vsky, K. and Vitale, S ., ‘Chekho v in Berlin and Badenw eiler’, Soviet Liter-
ature , Vol. 1, J anuary 1980.
Babula, W., ‘Three Sisters , Time, and the A udience’, Modern Drama, Vol. 18,
1975.
Balukhaty , S. D., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: A Formalist A pproach’, in J ackson, R.
L., ed., Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jer-
sey, 1967.
Barber , J., Revie w of The Seagull , Daily Telegraph , 29 A pril 1985.
Barricelli, J-P ., ‘Counterpoint of the Sna pping String: Chekho v’s The Cherry
Orchard’ , Calif ornia Slavic Studies , Vol. 10, 1997.
Barthes , R., ‘The Death of the A uthor’, in Rice, P . and Waugh, P ., eds , Modern
Literary Theory , Edward Arnold, London, 1990.
Beck erman, B ., ‘Dramatic Anal ysis and Literary Interpr etation: The Cherry
Orchard as Ex emplum’, New Literary History , Vol. 2, No . 3, Spring 1971.
Beck erman, B ., ‘The Artifice of “Reality” in Chekho v and Pinter’, Modern Drama ,
Vol. 21, 1978.
Belgion, M., ‘V erisimilitude in Tchekho v and Dostoievsk y’, The Cr iterion, Vol.
16, No . 62, October 1936.
283

Bentle y, E., ‘Chekho v as Pla ywright’, Kenyon Review , Vol. 11, No . 2, Spring
1949.
Bentle y, E., ‘Craftsmanship in Uncle Vanya’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds , Chek-
hov: New Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
New Jersey, 1984.
Berdnikov, G., ‘Ivanov : An Anal ysis’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov , Prentice-
Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Berdnikov, G., ‘Chekho v and Our Time’, Soviet Literature , January 1980.
Bergson, H., ‘Laughter’, in Sypher , W., ed., Comed y, Doubleda y Anchor , New
York, 1956.
Billington, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Guardian , 29 A pril 1985.
Billington, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Guardian , 5 A ugust 1985.
Billington, M., Revie w of Three Sisters , Guardian , 3 A pril 1986.
Billington, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Guardian , 9 July 1994.
Bloom, H., ‘“Simpler , Mor e Truthful, Mor e Himself”: Chekho v’, Theater , Vol.
24, No . 1, 1993.
Bloom, H., ‘Intr oduction’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views ,
Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Borden, R. C ., ‘The Comic Chekho v on the Russian Sta ge, 1993–94’, in Cla yton,
J. D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld
Culture , Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Bordinat, P ., ‘Dramatic Structur e in Ce xov’s Uncle Vanja’, Slavic and East
European J ournal, Fall 1958.
Bordinat, P ., ‘Chekho v’s Two Great Am erican Dir ector s’, The Mid west Quarterl y,
Vol. 16, Nos 1–4, October 1974–J uly 1975.
Born y, G. J., ‘The Subjectiv e and Objectiv e Lev els of Reality in Chekho v’s
Ivanov and The Cherry Orc hard: A Stud y in Dramatic Technique’, unpub-
lished honour s thesis , Univ ersity of Ne w South Wales, 1969.
Born y, G. J., ‘Appropriate Mis/A ppropriations: Translating Racine’s Les
Plaideurs’, in Dis/Or ientations Conf erence Proceedings , Australasian Drama
Studies Association, Centr e for Drama and Theatr e Studies , Monash
Univ ersity, Melbourne, 1997.
du Bos , C., ‘The Chekho vian Sense of Lif e’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov: A
Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Boyd, C ., ‘Chekho v’s Most Beguiling and Baffling’ ( Uncle Vanya), Melbourne
Times , 10 July 1991.
284Interpreting Chekhov

Brandon, J . R., ‘T oward a Mid dle-V iew of Chekho v’, Educational Theatre
Journal, Vol. 13, December 1960.
Braun, E., ‘F rom Platonov to Piano’ and ‘The Cherry Orc hard’, in Gottlieb , V. and
Allain, P ., eds , The Cambr idge Companion to Chekhov , Cambrid ge Univ er-
sity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 2000.
Bristo w, E. K., ‘Cir cles, Triads , and P arity in The Three Sisters’, in Barricelli, J-
P., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity
Press, New York, 1981.
Brustein, R., ‘Theatr e Chr onicle’, Hudson Review , Vol. 12, 1959.
Burgess, M. A. S ., ‘The Nineteenth- and Earl y Twentieth-Century Theatr e’, in
Auty, R. and Oblensk y, D., An Introduction to Russian Language and
Literature , Companion to Russian Studies Series , Vol. 2, Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1977.
Cameron, A., ‘ The Three Sisters’ (Gate Theatr e, Dublin), The Times , 6 April 1990.
Carnick e, S. M., ‘Stanisla vsky’s Pr oduction of The Cherry Orc hard in the US’, in
Clayton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in
World Culture , Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Chances , E., ‘Chekho v’s Seagull : Etherial Cr eatur e or Stuff ed Bir d?’, in
Debr eczen y, P. and Eekman, T., eds , Chekhov’s Art of Wr iting, Slavica
Publisher s, Columbus , 1977.
Chizhevsk y, D., ‘Chekho v in the Dev elopm ent of Russian Literatur e’, in J ackson,
R. L., ed., Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w
Jersey, 1967.
Chudak ov, A. P ., ‘The P oetics of Chekho v: The Spher e of Ideas’, New Literary
History , Vol. 9, Winter 1978.
Chudak ov, A. P ., ‘Dr Chekho v: A Bio graphical Essa y (29 J anuary 1860–15 J uly
1904)’, in Gottlieb , V. and Allain, P ., eds , The Cambr idge Companion to
Chekhov , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 2000.
Chuk ovsky, K., ‘Chekho v’, in Katzer , J., ed., 1860 – 1960 A. P . Chekhov , Foreign
Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w, 1960.
Clayton, J . D., ‘Ce xov’s Djadja V anja and Traditional Comic Structur e’, Russian
Language J ournal, Vol. 40, Nos 136–7, 1986.
Clayton, J . D., ‘Chekho v in Canada 1926–1980’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov
Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang ,
New York, 1997.
Clurman, H., ’Dir ector’s Notes f or Uncle Vanya’, in On Directing , Collier Macmil-
lan, Ne w York, 1974.
285

Clyman, T. W., ‘Chekho v: A Bio graphy’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Cole, D ., ‘Chekho v, The Seagull’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Conrad, J ., ‘Chekho v as Social Observ er: The Island of Sakhalin ’, in Cl yman, T.
W., ed., A Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Corrig an, R., ‘Som e Aspects of Chekho v’s Dramatur gy’, Educational Theatre
Journal, Vol. 7, Ma y 1955.
Corrig an, R., ‘The Pla ys of Chekho v’, in Corrig an, R. and Rosenber g, J.L., eds ,
The Context and Craft of Drama , Chandler Publishing Compan y,
Scranton, 1964.
Corrig an, R., ‘Stanisla vski and the Pla ywright’, in Corrig an, R., ed., Theatre in
the Twentieth Century , Grove Press, New York, 1965.
Coveney, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Financial Times , 5 A ugust 1985.
Coveney, M., Revie w of Three Sisters , Financial Times , 2 A pril 1986.
Coveney, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Observer , 10 J uly 1994.
Cross, A. G ., ‘The Br eaking Strings of Chekho v and Turgenev’, Slavonic and
East European Review (Univ ersity of London), Vol. 47, 1969.
Croyden, M., ‘P eople J ust Eat Their Dinner s: The Absur dity of Chekho v’s
Doktor s’, Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 11, 1968.
De Sherbinin, J . W., ‘Chekho v and Christianity , in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov
Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang ,
New York, 1997.
Durkin, A. R., ‘Chekho v’s Narrativ e Technique’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A
Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Edwards, C., ‘Balancing Acts’ ( Three Sisters ), The Spectator , 11 August 1990.
Edwards, C., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Spectator , 17 No vember 1990.
Edwards, C., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Spectator , 7 Mar ch 1992.
Eekman, T., ‘Cecho v and the Eur ope of His Da y’, in Eekman, T., ed., Anton
Cechov 1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill , Leiden, 1960.
Eekman, T., ‘Chekho v as Corr espondent’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Eichenbaum, B ., ‘Chekho v at Lar ge’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov: A Collection
of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Esslin, M., ‘Chekho v and the Modern Drama’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
286Interpreting Chekhov

Fergusson, F ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: A Theater -Poem of the Suff ering of Chang e’,
in Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New
York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Fischer -Lichte, E., ‘Inter cultural Aspects in P ost-Modern Theatr e: A J apanese
Version of Chekho v’s Three Sisters ’, in Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P .,
eds, The Pla y Out of Context, Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1989.
Fisher , R. T. Jr, ‘Chekho v’s Russia: A Historian’s View’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed.,
A Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Flath, C . A., ‘ The Seagull: The Sta ge Mother , the Missing Father , and the Origins
of Art’, Modern Drama, Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Foot, D ., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Guardian , 10 No vember 1990.
Fox, S., Revie w of Three Sisters , City Limits , 3 A pril 1986.
Freedman, J ., ‘Center Sta ge: Chekho v in Russia 100 Years On’, Modern Drama,
Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Freedman, M., ‘Chekho v’s Morality of Work’, Modern Drama , Vol. 5, No . 1,
1962.
French, P ., ‘Chekho v on Film’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Gassner , J., ‘Chekho v and the Sublimation of Realism’, in Masters of the Drama,
3rd ed., Do ver Publications , New York, 1954.
Gassner , J., ‘The Duality of Chekho v’, in Bristo w, E. K., Anton Chekhov’s Pla ys,
W. W. Norton, Ne w York, 1977.
Gauss , R., ‘L ydia Boriso vna Yavorskaya 1871–1921: A Bio graphy’, Theatre Per-
spectives International, October 1998.
Gerould, D ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard as Com edy’, Journal of General Education, Vol.
11, J anuary 1958.
Gerould, D ., ‘The Pitoëff’s Chekho v’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and
Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang , New York,
1997.
Gilman, R., ‘Br oadway Critics Meet Uncle Vanya’, Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 4, No .
13, February–A pril 1974.
Gilman, R., ‘Chekho v’, in The Making of Modern Drama, Da Ca po Pr ess, New
York, 1987.
Gilman, R., ‘ Ivanov: Prologue to a Rev olution’, Theater , Vol. 22, No . 2, 1991.
287

Goldber g, L., ‘Chekho v’s Com edy: The Cherry Orc hard’, Scripta Hierosol ymitana,
Vol. 19, 1967.
Golomb , H., ‘Comm unicating Relationships in Chekho v’s Three Sisters’, in Sen-
derovich, S . and Sendich, M., eds , Anton Chekhov Rediscovered: A Col-
lection of New Studies with a Comprehensive Bibliography , Russian Lan-
guage Journal, East Lansing , 1987.
Golomb , H., ‘V alue Structuration in Three Sisters with Special Ref erence to the
Roles of Time and Place’, Assaph: Studies in the Theatre (Tel-Aviv Uni-
versity), Vol. 4, 1988.
Golomb , H., ‘ B Mockby! (To Mosco w!): On Mosco w’s Role in Contr olling P erform-
ance and A udience Response in Chekho v’s The Seagull and Three Sisters’,
Theatre Perspectives International, 1994.
Golub , S., ‘Arriv al and Departur es (The Cherry Orc hard)’, in The Recurrence of
Fate: Theatre and Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia, Univ ersity of
Iowa Press, Iowa, 1994.
Goodliff e, J. D., ‘Tim e in Chekho v’s Pla ys’, New Zealand Slavonic J ournal, Winter
1971.
Gorky, M., ‘Anton Chekho v’, in Katzer , J., ed., 1860–1960 A. P . Chekhov , Foreign
Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w, 1960.
Gorky, M., ‘F ragment fr om Reminiscences’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov: A
Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Gorky, M., ‘Anton Chekho v’, in On Literature , Univ ersity of Washington Pr ess,
Seattle, 1973 .
Gottlieb , V., ‘Chekho v in Limbo: British Pr oductions of the Pla ys of Chekho v’,
in Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P ., eds , The Pla y Out of Context: T ransf er-
ring Pla ys from Culture to Culture , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cam-
bridge, 1989.
Gottlieb , V., ‘Wh y this Far ce?’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 7, No . 27, A ugust
1991.
Gottlieb , V., ‘The P olitics of British Chekho v’, in Miles , P., Chekhov on the Br itish
Stage , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr es, Cambrid ge, 1993.
Gottlieb , V., ‘Chekho v’s One-Act Pla ys and the Full-Length Pla ys’ and ‘Chekho v’s
Comedy’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea
House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Greene, G ., Revie w of The Cherry Orc hard, Spectator , 5 September 1941.
Grossman, L., ‘The Naturalism of Chekho v’, in J ackson, R. L., ed., Chekhov: A
Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
288Interpreting Chekhov

Gurev, P., ‘Summing Up Russian Symbolist P oetry’, in Ra binowitz, S ., The Noise
of Change: Russian Literature and the Cr itics (1891–1917) , Ardis, Ann
Arbor , 1986.
Guthrie, T., ‘A Dir ector’s View of The Cherry Orc hard’, in Guthrie, T. and Kipnis ,
L., trans ., The Cherry Orc hard, Univ ersity of Minnesota Pr ess, Minnea pol-
is, 1965.
Hagan, J., ‘Chekho v’s Fiction and the Ideal of “Objectivity”’, Proceedings of the
Modern Language Association , Vol. 81, October 1966.
Hahn, B ., ‘Chekho v: The Three Sisters’, The Cr itical Review (Melbourne), No . 15,
1972.
Hahn, B ., ‘Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard’, The Cr itical Review (Melbourne), No .
16, 1973.
Harrop, J., ‘Masking Chekho v and Rev ealing Action: A Rehear sal Pr ocess’, in
Redmond, J ., ed., Drama and the Actor: Themes in Drama 6 , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1984.
Heifetz, L., ‘Notes fr om a Dir ector: Uncle Vanya’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov:
Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Heim, M., ‘Chekho v and the Mosco w Art Theatr e’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed.,
Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess,
New York, 1981.
Hewison, R., ‘Chekho v with an Irish Lilt ( Three Sisters )’, Sunda y Times , 29 J uly
1990.
Hewison, R., Revie w of The Seagull , Sunda y Times , 17 J uly 1994.
Hinchliff e, A., ‘Chekho v As I See Him’, Soviet Literature , No. 1, J anuary 1980.
Holland, P ., ‘Chekho v and the Resistant Symbol’, in Redmond, J ., Drama and
Symbolism: Themes in Drama 4 , Cambrid ge Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge,
1982.
Holland, P ., ‘The Dir ector and the Pla ywright: Contr ol over the Means of Pr o-
duction’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 3, No . 11, A ugust 1987.
Hollosi, C ., ‘Chekho v’s Reaction to Two Interpr etations of Nina’, Theatre Survey ,
Vol. 24, Nos 1 & 2, 1983.
Hollosi, C ., ‘The Importance of Being Earnest (or Funn y) in Ada pting Chekho v:
The Case of Platonov’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The
Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Hristic, J ., ‘Tim e in Chekho v: The Ine xorable and the Ir onic’, New Theatre
Quarterl y, Vol. 1, No . 3, A ugust 1985.
289

Hristic, J ., ‘”Thinking with Chekho v”: The Evidence of Stanisla vsky’s Note-
books’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 11, No . 42, 1995.
Hubbs, C. A., ‘The Function of Repetition in the Pla ys of Chekho v’, Modern
Drama, Vol. 22, 1979.
Hubbs, C. A., ‘Chekho v and the Contemporary Theatr e’, Modern Drama, Vol.
24, No . 3, 1981.
Hurr en, K., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Mail on Sunda y, 1 Mar ch 1992.
Irvine, St J ., Revie w of The Seagull, Observer , 29 September 1929, quoted in
Miles , P., Chekhov on the Br itish Stage , Sam & Sam, England, 1987, p .
21.
Jackson, R. L., ‘Intr oduction: P erspectiv es on Chekho v’, in J ackson, R. L., ed.,
Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Jackson, R. L., ‘Chekho v’s Seagull: The Empty Well, the Dry Lak e, and the Cold
Cave’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y,
New York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Johnsen-Neshati, K., ‘A P ortrait of Ivanov and an Intervie w’, Theater , Vol. 22,
No. 2, 1991.
Jones, W. G., ‘Chekho v’s Under current of Time’, Modern Language Review , Vol.
64, 1969.
de Jongh, N ., ‘A F rigid Famil y Occasion ( Three Sisters )’, Guardian W eekly, 5
August 1990.
Karlinsk y, S., ‘Huntsm en, Bir ds, Forests, and Three Sister s’, in Barricelli, J-P .,
ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity
Press, New York, 1981.
Karlinsk y, S., ‘Russian Anti-Chekho vians’, Russian Literature , Vol. 15, 1984.
Karlinsk y, S., ‘Chekho v: The Gentle Sub versive’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds ,
Chekhov: New Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall
Inc., Ne w Jersey, 1984.
Katayev, V., ‘Under standing Chekho v’s World’, Soviet Literature , January 1980.
Katsell, J . H., ‘Chekho v’s The Seagull and Mau passant’s Sur l’eau’ , in Barricelli,
J-P., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ er-
sity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Kelson, J ., ‘Alleg ory and Myth in The Cherry Orc hard’, W estern Humanities Re-
view, Vol. 8, No . 13, 1959.
Kernan, A. B ., ‘Truth and the Dramatic Mode in the Modern Theater: Chekho v,
Pirandello , and Williams’, Modern Drama, Vol. 1, 1958.
290Interpreting Chekhov

Keyssar , H., ‘The Strateg y of Drama in Reco gnition Scenes’, Proceedings of the
Modern Language Association , Vol. 92, 1977.
Kilroy, T., ‘The Seagull: An Ada ptation’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern
Critical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
King , F., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Sunda y Telegraph , quoted in London Theatre
Record , 15 J uly–15 A ugust 1982.
King , F., Revie w of The Seagull , Sunda y Telegraph , 5 Ma y 1985.
King , F., Revie w of The Seagull , Sunda y Telegraph , 11 A ugust 1985.
Kingston, J ., Revie w of The Seagull , The Times , 12 J uly 1991.
Kitchin, L., ‘Chekho v Without Inhibitions: The Mosco w Art Theatr e in London’,
Encounter , Vol. 11, No . 2, A ugust 1958.
Kleber , P., ‘The Whole of Ital y is Our Or chard: Str ehler’s Cherry Orc hard’,
Modern Drama, Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Knipper -Chekho va, O., ‘The Last Years’, in Katzer , J., ed., 1860–1960 A. P .
Chekhov , Foreign Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w, 1960.
Kobatak e, M., ‘Soliloquy and Modern Drama’, Theatre Annual , Vol. 18, 1961.
Kovitz, S ., ‘A Fine Da y to Hang Oneself: On Chekho v’s Pla ys’, in Barricelli, J-P .,
ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity
Press, New York, 1981.
Kozhevnik ova, I., ‘The Artists of Chekho v’s Time’, Soviet Literature , January
1980.
Kram er, K. D ., ‘Chekho v at the End of the Eighties: The Question of Identity’ ,
Études Slaves et Est-Européennes , Vol. 2, 1966.
Kram er, K. D ., ‘Three Sisters or Taking a Chance on Lo ve’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed.,
Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess,
New York, 1981.
Kram er, K. D ., ‘”A Subject Worthy of A yvazovsky’s Brush”: Vanya’s Misdir ected
Fury’, Modern Drama, Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Krause, D ., ‘Freil’s Ball ybegg ared Version of Chekho v’, Modern Drama, Vol. 42,
No. 4, 1999.
Krutch, J . W., Nation , 31 October 1928, in Em eljano w, V., op. cit., pp . 338–9.
Kuprin, A., ‘Reminiscences of Anton Tchekho v’, in K oteliansk y, S. S., ed.,
Anton Tc hekhov: Literary and Theatr ical Reminiscences , Benjamin Blom,
New York, 1965; Hask ell House Publisher s, New York, 1974.
291

Kuzichev a, A., ‘”Br eaking the Rules”: Chekho v and His Contemporaries’, in
Clayton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in
World Culture , Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Lahr, J., ‘Pinter and Chekho v: The Bond of Naturalism’, Tulane Drama Review ,
Vol. 13, No . 2 (T 42), Winter 1968.
Landesman, R., ‘Comrade Serban in The Cherry Orc hard’, Yale Theatre , Vol. 8,
Nos 2 & 3, Spring 1977.
Lantz, K. A., ‘Chekho v’s Cast of Character s’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Latham, J . E. M., ‘ The Cherry Orc hard as Com edy’, Educational Theatre J ournal,
Vol. 10, Mar ch 1958.
Lawson, M., ‘The Mar k of F rayn’, Drama, Vol. 3, No . 169, 1988.
Leblanc, R., ‘Liberating Chekho v or Destr oying Him? J oel Ger shmann’s Far cical
Production of The Cherry Orc hard’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then
and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang , New
York, 1997.
Leighton, L. G ., ‘Chekho v in English’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Com-
panion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Levin, R., ‘P erformance Critics vs Close Reader s in the Stud y of Renaissance
Drama’, Modern Language Review , Vol. 81, J uly 1986.
Lieber son, J ., ‘Chopping u p The Cherry Orc hard’, The New Y ork Review of Books ,
Vol. 35, No . 3, 3 Mar ch 1988.
Lindheim, R., ‘Chekho v’s Major Them es’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Lindheim, R., ‘Intr oduction’ (special issue on Chekho v), Modern Drama, Vol.
42, No . 4, 1999.
Lomunov, K., ‘T olsto y–Chekho v–The Mosco w Art Theatr e’, Soviet Literature ,
No. 1, J anuary 1980.
London Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), 15 J uly–11 A ugust 1982.
London Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), 8–21 October 1983.
London Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), 1–14 J anuary 1986.
London Theatre Record (The Cherry Orc hard), 22 October–4 No vember 1989.
London Theatre Record (Ivanov ), 9–22 A pril 1989.
London Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), 26 Mar ch–8 A pril 1986.
London Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), 12–25 Mar ch 1987.
London Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), 21 Ma y–3 J une 1987.
292Interpreting Chekhov

London Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), 29 J uly–11 A ugust 1988.
London Theatre Record (Three Sisters ), 16–29 J uly 1989.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 6–19 Ma y 1982.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 15 J uly–11 A ugust 1982.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 10–23 September 1989.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 12–25 Mar ch 1990.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 5–18 No vember 1990.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 30 J uly–26 A ugust 1991.
London Theatre Record (Uncle Vanya), 12–15 February 1992.
London Theatre Record (Wild Honey ), 2–29 J uly 1984.
Long , R. E. C ., Fortnightl y Review , July–December 1902, quoted in Em eljano w,
V., op. cit., p . 67.
Magarshack, D ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds , Chekhov:
New Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall Inc., Ne w
Jersey, 1984.
Majdalan y, M., ‘Natasha Iv anovna, the Lonel y Bourgeoise’ , Modern Drama , Vol.
26, 1983.
Mann, T., ‘The Statur e of Anton Chekho v’, The New Republic , Vol. 132, Ma y
1955.
Mann, T., ‘Anton Chekho v’, Mainstream, Vol. 12, Mar ch 1959.
Marsh, C ., ‘The Sta ge Repr esentation of Chekho v’s Women’, in Bloom, H., Anton
Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia,
1999.
Martin, D ., ‘Philosoph y in Cecho v’s Major Pla ys’, Welt Der Slaven , Vol. 23, 1978.
Mathe wson, R. W. Jr, ‘Chekho v’s Leg acy: Iceber gs and Epiphanies’, in Bloom,
H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s,
Philadelphia, 1999.
May, C. E., ‘Chekho v and the Modern Short Story’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A
Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
McFarlane, J ., ‘Intimate Theatr e: Maeterlinck to Strindber g’, in Bradbury , M.
and McFarlane, J ., eds , Modernism , Penguin, Harmonds worth, 1981.
McKellen, I., ‘Acting Chekho v’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Meister , C. W., ‘Chekho v’s Reception in England and Am erica’, Amer ican Slavic
Review and East European Review , Vol. 12, February 1953.
293

Melnick, B ., ‘Theatr e and P erformance: The Cherry Orc hard and Henry V’, Tulane
Drama Review , Vol. 11, No . 4 (T 36), Summ er 1967.
Meyerhold, V., ‘Naturalistic Theater and the Theater of Mood’, in J ackson, R.
L., ed., Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jer-
sey, 1967.
Miller , J., ‘Dir ecting the Classics’, A BC br oadcast of Adelaide Festiv al Talk, n.d.
Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Chekho v and Naturalism: F rom Affinity to Div ergence’,
Comparative Drama , Vol. 4, No . 4, Winter 1970–71.
Mora vcevich, N ., ‘Scène-à-f aire and the Chekho vian Dramatic Structur e’, in
Debr eczen y, P. and Eekman, T., eds , Chekhov’s Art of Wr iting, Slavica
Publisher s, Columbus , 1977.
Mora vcevich, N ., ‘W omen in Chekho v’s Pla ys’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s
Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York,
1981.
Mora vcevich, N ., ‘The Dar k Side of the Chekho vian Smile’, Drama Survey , Vol.
5, No . 3, Winter 1996–7.
Morson, G . S., ‘Prosaic Chekho v: Metadrama, the Intellig entsia, and Uncle Vanya’,
Tri-Quarterl y, No. 80, Winter 1990–91.
Moss , H., ‘Thr ee Sister s’, The Hudson Review , Vol. 30, No . 4, 1977.
Mudrick, M., ‘Bo yish Charm er and Last Mad Genius’, The Hudson Review , Vol.
27, No . 1, 1974.
Nag, M., ‘On the Aspects of Time and Place in Anton Chekho v’s Dramatur gy’,
Scando-Slavica, Vol. 16, 1970.
Nathan, D ., Revie w of Three Sisters , Jewish Chronic le, 11 A pril 1986.
Neill, H., ‘Bleak Com edy of a Changing World’, The Times , 24 October 1989.
Nichols , J. R., ‘Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard: The Fallac y of the Bour geoisie
Hero’, Studies in the Twentieth Century , No. 9, Spring 1972.
Nilsson, N . A., ‘Intonation and Rh ythm in Cecho v’s Pla ys’, in Eekman, T., ed.,
Anton Cec hov, 1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill, Leiden, 1960.
Nilsson, N . A., ‘T wo Chekho vs: Ma yakovskiy on Chekho v’s “Futurism”’, in
Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New
York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Nordmann, A., ‘The Actor’s Brief: Experiences with Chekho v’, Theatre Researc h
International, Vol. 19, No . 2, 1994.
Nunn, T., ‘Notes fr om a Dir ector: Three Sisters’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov:
Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
294Interpreting Chekhov

O’Connor , F., ‘The Sla ve’s Son’, The K enyon Review , Vol. 25, No . 1, 1963.
Odesska ya, M., ‘Chekho v’s Tatyana Repina: From Melodrama to Mystery Pla y’,
Modern Drama, Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Orr, J., ‘The Ev eryda y and the Transient in Chekho v’s Tragedy’, in Tragic Drama
and Modern Society , The Macmillan Pr ess, London, 1981.
Osborne, C ., Revie w of The Seagull , Daily Telegraph , 25 A pril 1991.
Paperny, Z., ‘T ruth and Faith: Reading Chekho v’s Rough Drafts and Notebooks’,
Soviet Literature , January 1980.
Paul, B ., ‘Chekho v’s “Fiv e Sister s”’, Modern Drama, February 1972.
Pavis, P., ‘Ivanov: The In vention of a Neg ative Dramatur gy’, in Bloom, H.,
Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Phil-
adelphia, 1999.
Peace, R., ‘Chekho v’s “Modern Classicism”’, Slavonic and East European Review ,
Vol. 65, No . 1, J anuary 1987.
Pearson, A., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Independent on Sunda y, 18 A ugust 1991.
Pearson, A. G ., ‘The Ca baret Com es to Russia: “Theatr e of Small Forms” as Cul-
tural Catal yst’, Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 9, No . 36, Winter 1980.
Pedrotti, L., ‘Chekho v’s Major Pla ys: A Doctor in the House’, in Barricelli, J-P .,
ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity
Press, New York, 1981.
Pinter , H., ‘Writing f or the Theatr e’, in Pinter Pla ys, Vol. 1, Methuen, London,
1976.
Pitcher , H., ‘The Chekho v Pla y’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds , Chekhov: New
Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall Inc., Ne w Jersey,
1984.
Pitcher , H., ‘Chekho v’s Humour’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion ,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Poggioli, R., ‘Realism in Russia’, Comparative Literature , Vol. 3, 1951.
Polakie wicz, L., ‘Selected Biblio graphy’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Polotska ya, E., ‘Chekho v and His Russia’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern
Critical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Quinn, M. L., ‘Reading and Dir ecting the Pla y’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 3,
No. 11, A ugust 1987.
Rabkin, G ., ‘The Pla y of Misr eading: Text/Theatr e/Deconstruction’, Performing
Arts J ournal , Vol. 7, No . 1, 1983.
295

Rabkin, G ., ‘Is Ther e a Text on This Sta ge?: Theatr e/Author ship/ Interpr etation’,
Performing Arts J ournal , Vol. 9, Nos 2 & 3, 1985.
Radin, V., Revie w of The Seagull , New Statesman , 9 A ugust 1985.
Ratcliff e, M., Revie w of Three Sisters , Observer , 6 A pril 1986.
Ratcliff e, M., ‘Bring ers of Light ( Three Sisters )’, Observer , 16 July 1989.
Rayfield, D ., ‘Chekho v: The Ev olution of His Art’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds ,
Chekhov: New Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall
Inc., Ne w Jersey, 1984.
Rayfield, D ., ‘Chekho v and the Literary Tradition’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A
Chekhov Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Rayfield, D ., ‘Chekho v’s Stories and the Pla ys’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov:
Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Rayner, A., ‘Soul in the System: On Meaning and Mystique in Stanisla vski and
A. C. Bradle y’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 1, No . 4, No vember 1985.
Risso , R. D ., ‘Chekho v: A View of the Basic Ir onic Structur es’, in Barricelli, J-
P., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New York Univ ersity
Press, New York, 1981.
Robinson, M., ‘M. Robinson Replies to the Notion that Chekho v’s Character s
“Are For ever Conquer ed by Lif e”’, Adelphi , May 1927, in Em eljano w,
V., ed., Chekhov: The Cr itical Her itage , Routled ge and K egan Paul, Lon-
don, 1981.
Rogoff, G ., ‘The Carpet Or chard: Br ook’s The Cherry Orc hard in Br ooklyn’,
Theater , Vol. 19, No . 2, 1988.
Rose, H., Revie w of Three Sisters , Time Out , 9 A pril 1986.
Rutherf ord, M., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Financial Times , 27 February 1992.
Schmitt, N . C., ‘Stanisla vski, Cr eativity , and the Unconscious’, New Theatre
Quarterl y, Vol. 2, No . 8, No vember 1988.
Scolnico v, H., ‘Chekho v’s Reading of Hamlet ’, in Scolnico v, H. and Holland, P .,
eds, Reading Pla ys: Interpretation and Reception, Cambrid ge Univ ersity
Press, Cambrid ge, 1991.
Scott-Norman, F ., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, In Press , 3 July 1991.
Sender ovich, S ., ‘The Cherry Orc hard: Cecho v’s Last Testam ent’, Russian Literat-
ure, Vol. 35, 1994.
Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v’s Drama, Maeterlinck, and the Russian Symbolists’, in
Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical Antholog y, New
York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
296Interpreting Chekhov

Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v and the Irr esistible Symbol: A Response to P eter Holland’,
in Redmond, J ., Drama and Symbolism: Themes in Drama 4 , Cambrid ge
Univ ersity Pr ess, Cambrid ge, 1982.
Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v on Sta ge’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion ,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Senelick, L., ‘Stuff ed Sea gulls: P arody and the Reception of Chekho v’s Pla ys’,
Poetics T oday, Vol. 8, No . 2, 1987.
Senelick, L., ‘Off enbach and Chekho v; or, La Belle Yeliena’, Theatre J ournal,
Vol. 42, No . 4, December 1990.
Senelick, L., ‘The Departm ent of Missing Pla ys, Chekho v Division’, Theater ,
Vol. 22, No . 2, 1991.
Senelick, L., ‘Chekho v and the Bub ble Reputation’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov
Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang ,
New York, 1997.
Senelick, L., ‘Dir ector’s Chekho v’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Sevastyanov, V., ‘Tribute to Chekho v’, Soviet Literature , Vol. 1, J anuary 1980.
Seymour , A., ‘Summ er Sea gull, Winter Lo ve’, The London Magazine , May 1964.
Shakh-Azizo va, T., ‘A Russian Hamlet ’, Soviet Literature , Vol. 1, J anuary 1980.
Shakh-Azizo va, T., ‘Chekho v on the Russian Sta ge’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov:
Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Shesto v, L., ‘Anton Chekho v: (Cr eation fr om the Void)’, in Bloom, H., Anton
Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia,
1999.
Shorter , E., Revie w of Three Sisters , Daily Telegraph , 3 A pril 1986.
Shulman, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Standard , 27 A pril 1984.
Shulman, M., Revie w of The Seagull , Standard , 29 A pril 1985.
Shulman, M., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Evening Standard , 15 September 1989.
Silverstein, N ., ‘Chekho v’s Comic Spirit and The Cherry Orc hard’, Modern Drama,
Vol. 1, No . 3, September 1958.
Skaftymo v, A., ‘Principles of Structur e in Chekho v’s Pla ys’, in J ackson, R. L.,
ed., Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey,
1967.
Smeliansk y, A., ‘Chekho v at the Mosco w Art Theatr e’, in Bloom, H., Anton
Chekhov: Modern Cr itical Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia,
1999.
297

Smith, J . O., ‘Chekho v and the “Theatr e of the Absur d”’, Bucknell Review , Vol.
14, December 1966.
Sobolev , Y., ‘Tchekho v’s Cr eativ e Method’, in K oteliansk y, S. S., ed., Anton
Tchekhov: Literary and Theatr ical Reminiscences , Benjamin Blom, Ne w
York, 1965.
Speir s, L., ‘“I Shall Call the Pla y a Com edy”: The Cherry Orc hard’, The Oxf ord
Review , Vol. 5, 1967.
Spencer , C., Revie w of Uncle Vanya, Daily Telegraph , 27 February 1992.
Stanisla vski, C ., ‘Memories of Chekho v’, in Ha pgood, E. R., ed., Stanislavski’s
Legacy , Max Reinhar dt, London, 1958.
Stanisla vski, C ., ‘A. P . Chekho v at the Arts Theater’, in Turkov, A., ed., Anton
Chekhov and His Times , Univ ersity of Ar kansas Pr ess, Fayetteville, 1995.
States , B. O., ‘Chekho v’s Dramatic Strateg y’, Yale Review , Vol. 56, December
1966.
Stein, W., ‘Tragedy and the Absur d’, The Dublin Review , Vol. 233, Winter
1959–60.
Stowell, H. P ., ‘Chekho v and the nouveau roman : Subjectiv e Objectivism’, in
Debr eczen y, P. and Eekman, T., eds , Chekhov’s Art of Wr iting, Slavica
Publisher s, Columbus , 1977.
Stowell, H. P ., ‘Chekho v into Film’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov Companion ,
Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Strindber g, A., ‘A uthor’s For eword to Miss J ulie’, in Sprigg e, E., ed., Six Pla ys
of Str indberg , Doubleda y Anchor Books , New York, 1955.
Stroyeva, N. M., ‘ The Three Sisters at the M AT’, Tulane Drama Review , Vol. 9,
No. 1, 1964.
Stroyeva, N. M., ‘Ev eryone Has His Own Chekho v’, Soviet Literature , No. 2,
February 1980.
Styan, J. L., ‘The Delicate Balance: A udience Ambiv alence in the Com edy of
Shak espear e and Chekho v’, Costerus , Vol. 2, 1972.
Styan, J. L., ‘Chekho v’s Dramatic Technique’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A Chekhov
Companion , Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Swinnerton, F ., Nation , 17 J uly 1920, quoted in Miles , P., op. cit., p . 9.
Szewcow, M., ‘Anatolij Efr os Dir ects Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard and Go gol’s
The Marr iage’, Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 7, No . 26, 1977.
Szondi, P ., ‘The Drama in Crisis’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
298Interpreting Chekhov

Tait, P ., ‘The Pr oposal Reconsider ed: A Bio graphy of Lo ve’, in Cla yton, J . D.,
ed., Chekhov Then and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture ,
Peter Lang , New York, 1997.
Taylor, P., Revie w of The Seagull , Independent , 23 February 1990.
Taylor, P., Revie w of The Seagull , Independent , 8 No vember 1990.
Terras , V., ‘Chekho v at Hom e: Russian Criticism’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A
Chekhov Companion, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Timm er, C. B., ‘The Bizarr e Elem ents in Chekho v’s Art’, in Eekman, T., ed.,
Anton Cec hov 1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill , Leiden, 1960.
Tovstono gov, G., ‘Chekho v’s Three Sisters at the Gor ky Theatr e’, Tulane Drama
Review , Vol. 13, No . 2, 1968.
Tufts, C. F., ‘Prisoner s of Their Plots: Satiric Drama of Self-Consciousness in
Chekho v’s Three Sisters ’, Modern Drama, Vol. 32, 1989.
Tulloch, J ., ‘Chekho v Abr oad: Western Criticism’, in Cl yman, T. W., ed., A
Chekhov Companion, Greenw ood Pr ess, Westport, 1985.
Tulloch, J ., Burvill, T. and Hood, A., ‘Reinha biting The Cherry Orc hard: Class
and History in P erforming Chekho v’, New Theatre Quarterl y, Vol. 13,
No. 52, 1997.
Tulloch, J ., Burvill, T. and Hood, A., ‘T ransf ormations and Transcodifications:
The Cherry Orc hard on Television’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then
and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang , New
York, 1997.
Tulloch, J ., Burvill, T. and Hood, A., ‘Chekho v in Massachusetts: Competing
Modernisms at the Am erican Repertory Theatr e’, Modern Drama, Vol.
42, No . 4, 1999.
Turner , C. J. G., ‘Tim e in Chekho v’s Tri Sestry ’, Canadian Slavonic Papers , Vol.
28, No . 1, 1986.
Valenc y, M., ‘V ershinin’, in Barricelli, J-P ., ed., Chekhov’s Great Pla ys: A Cr itical
Antholog y, New York Univ ersity Pr ess, New York, 1981.
Various A uthor s, ‘The Chekho v Centenary’, World Theatre , Vol. 9, No . 2, Summ er
1960.
Various A uthor s, ‘Reminiscences’, Soviet Literature , January 1980.
Vilar, J., ‘Mur der of the Dir ector’, in Corrig an, R., Theatre in the Twentieth Cen-
tury, Grove Press, New York, 1963.
Vitins, I., ‘Uncle Vanja’s Pr edicam ent’, Slavic and East European J ournal, Vol.
22, No . 4, 1978.
299

W—, A. E., Revie w of Three Sisters , Star, 17 February 1926, quoted in Em el-
janow, V., op. cit., p . 300.
Walker, H., ‘Chasing Chekho v’, Drama, Vol. 3, No . 169, 1988.
Walton, M., ‘”If Onl y We Kne w”’, New Theatre Magazine , Vol. 8, No . 1, A utumn
1968.
Weightman, J ., ‘Chekho v and Chekho vian’, Encounter , Vol. 41, No . 2, A ugust
1973.
Wesker, A., ‘Interpr etation: To Impose or Explain’, Performing Arts J ournal ,
Vol. 11, No . 2, 1988.
Williams , R., ‘Anton Chekho v’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Wimsatt, W. K., ‘The Two Meanings of Symbolism’, Hateful Contrar ies, Kentuck y
Univ ersity Pr ess, Kentuck y, 1965.
Winner , T. G., ‘Cecho v and Scientism: Observ ations on the Sear ching Stories’,
in Eekman, T., ed., Anton Cec hov 1860–1960: Some Essa ys, E. J . Brill ,
Leiden, 1960.
Winner , T. G., ‘The Seagull and Hamlet ’, in Wellek, R. and N . D., eds , Chekhov:
New Perspectives , Twentieth Century Views, Prentice-Hall Inc., Ne w
Jersey, 1984.
Woolf, V., ‘The Cherry Orc hard’, in Bloom, H., Anton Chekhov: Modern Cr itical
Views , Chelsea House Publisher s, Philadelphia, 1999.
Worrall, N ., ‘Stanisla vsky’s Pr oduction of Three Sisters ’, in Russell, R. and Barratt,
A., eds , Russian Theatre in the Age of Modernism , Macmillan, London,
1990.
Worrall, N ., ‘Robert Sturua’s Interpr etation of Chekho v’s Three Sisters : An Ex-
perim ent in P ost-modern Theatr e’, in Cla yton, J . D., ed., Chekhov Then
and Now: The Reception of Chekhov in W orld Culture , Peter Lang , New
York, 1997.
Worrall, N ., ‘Stanisla vsky’s Pr oduction Scor e for Chekho v’s The Cherry Orc hard
(1904): A Synoptic Ov ervie w’, Modern Drama, Vol. 42, No . 4, 1999.
Yermilo v, V., ‘A Gr eat Artist and Inno vator’, in Katzer , J., ed., 1860–1960 A. P .
Chekhov , Foreign Langua ges Publishing House, Mosco w, 1960.
Yermilo v, V., ‘Uncle Vanya: The Pla y’s Mo vement’, in J ackson, R. L., ed.,
Chekhov: A Collection of Cr itical Essa ys, Prentice-Hall, Ne w Jersey, 1967.
Other literary works cited
Beck ett, S ., Waiting f or Godot , Faber and Fa ber, London, 1965.
300Interpreting Chekhov

Born y, G. J., Petty Sessions , a verse translation of Racine’s Les Plaideurs , Univ er-
sity of Ne w England Pr ess, Armidale, 1988.
Davison, D ., ed., Andrew Marvell: Selected Poetry and Prose , Harra p and Compan y,
London, 1952.
Robbins, H., The Dream Merc hants , New English Library , London, 1980.
Shak espear e, W., Hamlet .
Shak espear e, W., Julius Caesar .
301

Index
A Dreary Story , 39, 60, 78
A Lady with a Dog , 79
A Midsummer Night’s Dream , 13, 231
A Moscow Hamlet , 38, 110
A Nervous Breakdown , 60, 69
A Streetcar Named Desire , 203
A Thousand and One Passions , 62
A Tragic Role , 94
Absurdists, 26, 27, 38
Ackland, Rodney, 13, 14
acting style, 64
actor, privileging of, 231
Adrienne Lecouvreur , 63
Aeschylus, 71
Alexandrinsky Theatre, St Petersburgh,
128
Alfreds, Mike, 157, 196, 197, 264
alienation, 78, 189
An Anonymous Story , 21, 33, 44
‘anaesthesia of the heart’, 157, 159, 228
anagnorisis (recognition) scene, 254, 255
Anna Karenina , 73
Ariadne , 78
art as social corrective, 34
artist as ‘unbiased witness’, 68
Ashton, Basil, 3
aside, the, 127
audience’s decoding, 5
mediated by director/actors, 82
author’s intention, 1, 6
literary playtext, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15,
140
authorial interventions, 67, 68
A vilova, Lydia, 129
Bakhtin, 121 (see also ‘postmodernism’)
Balukhaty, S., 173
Bannen, Ian, 175
Barthes, 6
Beckerman, Bernard, 11
Beckett, Samuel, 27, 195, 200
Bentley, Eric, 184, 185
Berdnikov , G., 114–115
Bergson, 157, 227Bernhardt, Sarah, 63, 158, 161
Billington, Michael, 146, 150, 151, 159–
160, 197, 198
Bolvanov , 111
Bourget, 46
Brecht, 69
British Chekhov , 150, 226–227
Brook, Peter, 3, 13, 208
Brustein, Robert, 38, 207
Burge, Stuart, 187
Butova, I.S., 177–178
Caird, John, 150
casting, importance of, 113
characterisation
in short stories, 70
in major plays, 80
Chekhov , A.P .
artistic credo, 57, 68
cautious optimist, 135
attitude towards actors, 1,3, 7
towards directors, 1, 3
towards Stanislavski’s work, 3,
22–23, 121
change, 23
commitment to realism, 64
gardening, 23, 24
God, no belief in, 36, 41, 185
literary artist, 22
medical practitioner, 34
optimism, 46
playwright, 93
‘poetic-realist’, 86
progress through education, 23, 25, 29,
30, 34, 49, 191, 207, 214
progress though work, 23, 49, 182, 191,
254
proto-Absurdist, 42, 43, 195, 265
proto-Marxist, 43
psychiatry, 112
roles, multiplicity of, 22
‘sermonizing’, 36
short-story writer, 93
social improvement, commitment to, 29
socio-political goals, 35
symbolism, parodic use of, 157
303

Interpreting Chekhov
304 theory of drama, 66
Tolstoy and immortality, 36–37
tragic-comic technique, 177, 182
treatise on prison conditions, 25
understatement, 174
vision of reality, 4, 21–55 , 57, 73, 80,
122, 153, 178, 191, 198, 257
objective correlative of, 51, 66, 77,
93
Chekhov’s characters/characterisation
behaviourist approach to, 115
fallibility of, 212
happy martyrs, 204
(non-)judgement of, 74, 101, 205, 207
psychology, 116
refusal to act, 200
self-deception, 30–31
self-dramatising, 152, 187, 190
subjective/objective lives, 77, 98, 237,
246, 248
view of women, 139
Chekhov’s work
anti-theatricalist approach, 75
the bizarre in, 81
content/form distinction, 57
early plays, 93–126
form, the search for, 57–91
synthetic tragi-comedy, 98, 100, 141,
178, 230
Chekhov , Alexander, 70, 102, 105, 106, 115
Chekhov , Mikhail, 99, 131
Chekhov: A Structuralist Study , 25
Chitau-Karmina, M., 138, 139
cholera epidemic 1892, 43
chorus, 72
Clark, Anthony, 150
colonial exploitation, 44
comedy
distancing effect of, 190
social corrective, 23, 190, 201
comic irony, 144
commedia dell’arte, 96
communication chain, 5
Complete Collected Works , 95
Compte, 58conventions
clichéd, 103, 127
parodic use of, 161
of realism, 67, 68, 75, 101, 116,
119, 174, 255
theatrical, 72, 139
creativity, 9
Crocodile Tears , 62
Darwin, 58
Darwinian viewpoint, 42, 43, 212
Davydov , V .N., 102, 103, 105, 108, 113
de la Tour, Frances, 183
deconstruction, 4, 9
deconstructive theory, 7
Dench, Judi, 160
depression, 40, 41, 113
‘determinancy/indeterminancy’, 14
Devine, George, 120
Diaghilev , 43
didactic view of art, 74
Disciple , 46
Dishonourable Tragedians and Leprous
Dramatists , 62
director
‘as butler’, 3, 14
function of, vis-à-vis author, 4, 10, 14
as interpreter/translator, 4, 132
privileging of, 3, 10
‘director’s theatre’, 7
Dostoevesky, 36, 58
dramatic techniques, 93
Dreams , 69
dualism
‘both/and’, 48, 229
‘either/or’, 48, 257
externalised/internalised life, 97, 115,
141
long-term optimism/short-term
pessimism, 182
‘tragic/comic’, 18, 120, 121, 141, 150,
159, 246
passive/active, 209
progressive/nihilistic, 23
text/subtext, 18, 77, 78, 80, 97, 98, 117

Index
305 dislocation of, 81, 235
juxtaposing, 87
dualistic balance, 51, 150, 159, 203, 205,
220, 229, 257
dualistic lives, 78
ecology, 182
Ellis-Fermor, Una, 109
Eliot, T.S., 141
endurance, virtue of, 217
English farce, 160
English theatre practitioners, 263
entropy, 151
Elsom, John, 72, 73
Esslin, Martin, 5, 26
Eugene Onegin, 73
evolutionary gradualism, 41, 43, 212, 2155
extremism, 42
Eyre, Richard, 226
‘faith’, 31, 42, 43, 182, 186
in the future, 218
Fettes, Christopher, 182
Filmer, Esme, 146, 157
fin-de-siècle gloom and despair, 136, 197
fourth wall convention, 116, 122
Frayn, Michael, 128, 151, 204–205, 229
freedom
artistic, 149
personal, 50, 149
Furst and Skrine, 47, 48, 58
Gaskell, Ronald, 58
Gershmann, Joel, 228
Ghost Sonata , 207–208
Ghosts , 72
Gielgud, John, 157
Gillès, David, 130, 135, 203
Gilman, Richhard, 195–197
Goddard, Harold, 8, 9
Gogol, 62
Gooseberries , 118
Gorky, Maxim, 23, 24, 37, 174
Gottlieb, Vera, 98–99, 157, 160, 188, 189,
198, 200, 264Griffiths, Trevor, 226, 227, 250
on English sensibilities, 263–264
Gross, Roger, 11, 15
Guthrie, Tyrone, 15
Hamlet , 9, 11, 12, 241, 250
Hamlet, 70, 151, 157
Hands, Terry, 151
Happy Days , 195, 196
Hingley, Ronald, 21, 29, 30, 94, 249
Hollosi, Clara, 132, 139
Hong Kong, 44
Howard, Jean, 15
human activity, 38, 186
human condition, 142
human happiness, 38
human inactivity, 28
human possibility and actuality, gap
between, 28
human psychology, 47
humanist faith, 41
Ibsen, 69, 72, 81, 121
In the Hollow , 74
intelligentsia, 32, 191, 211, 249, 250
interpretation
act of, 3
anarchic view of, 6
by audience, 5, 82
by director, 4, 5
definition of, 7, 8
patterns of, 9
polarised, 48, 204, 219, 228
problems of, 83
theatrical, 8
Ivanov , 66, 70, 86, 93–126 , 127
Jones’ 1976 production, 108–109
wasted potential in, 110,
Jane Eyre , 118
Jones, David, 108
Julius Caesar , 80
Jullien, Jean, 70
Karlinsky, Simon, 25, 93, 110, 195, 201

Interpreting Chekhov
306Karpov , E.M., 62, 64, 122
King Lear , 208
King, Martin Luther, 205
Knipper, Olga, 16, 59, 60, 136, 173, 175,
201, 217, 250
Kiseleva, M.V ., 57
Kommissarzhevskaya, Vera, 130, 131, 132,
138, 139, 202, 219
Komisarjevsky, 146
Korsh, Fyodor, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106
Kosky, Barry, 3
Kotzebue, August, 62
Kuprin, Alexander, 29, 71, 76
Lady Audley’s Secret , 9
larmoyante , 226
laziness, 25
Leontyev-Shcheglov , I.L., 40, 44
Letters of A.P . Chekhov , 99
Levin, Richard, 9, 10
Levkeyeva, E.I., 128
Leykin, Nicolai, 106
‘life as it is’, 37, 46, 57, 63, 65, 67, 75, 77,
80, 87, 101, 127, 154, 191, 211, 217
‘life as it should be’, 38, 57, 77, 80, 154,
191, 211, 248
‘life as it should not be’, 38, 46, 87, 154
Lilina, Mariya Petrovna, 225
‘logic of the lie in the public world’, 77
Lonely Lives , 59
Long, R.E.C., 76
Luhrmann, Baz, 3
Maeterlinck, Maurice, 119, 148
Magarshack, David, 41, 83, 93, 94, 101,
135, 169, 197, 207, 228, 233, 246, 256
‘direct’/‘indirect action’, 119–120, 141,
159
Majdalany, Marina, 208–210
Malle, Louis, 187
Maly Theatre, Moscow, 99, 170
Marks, A.F., 95
Marvell, Andrew, 196
Mastantonio, Mary Elizabeth, 175
materialist vision, 58
Mathias, Sean, 173
Maupassant, 142Medical School of Moscow University, 47
Melikhovo, 40
melodrama, 99, 100, 111, 127, 143, 248
Chekhov’s parodic use of, 143, 144
nineteenth-century Russia, 62, 63, 86
Scribean, 118, 233
‘messenger element’, 83, 84, 85, 86, 236,
238, 240, 241
Meyerhold, 59, 133, 171, 173
military, the, 214
Miller, Hillis, 9
Miller, Jonathan, 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 208
Mire, 34
Mirolubov , Victor, 186
misinterpretations, 18, 266
as Absurdist, 26, 34, 204
as tragic fatalist, 26
Miss Julie , 105
Mizonova, L.S., 40
Modernism, 58
Molière, 34, 173, 201
‘mooing’ episode, 239
Morley, Robert, 121
Morson, Gary Saul, 186–187
Moscow Art Theatre, 16, 107, 121, 122,
130, 169, 172, 263
Mosher, Gregory, 175
‘museum theatre’, 12
My Life in Art , 137, 203
My Life in the Russian Theatre , 171–172,
199
mythical golden age, 2
‘naïve realism’, 65
Naturalism, 47–49, 57, 58, 59
Naturalists, 65
naturalistic objectivity, 112
nature/nurture debate, 215
nature, scientific explanation of, 42
Nemirovich-Danchenko, 15, 16, 107, 130,
133, 135, 137, 170, 174, 198, 199, 217,
265
‘new forms’ of drama, 129, 140
Nicholls, Phoebe, 146
Nilsson, Nils Ake, 83
Notebooks , 24, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45, 49, 185
‘nothing to be done’, 28, 195, 204, 216, 254

Index
307Old Times , 80
Ophelia’s madness, 11, 12
Orlov , I.I., 250
‘parameters’, 11, 12, 16, 23, 51
performance code, 4
performance text, 4, 5, 9, 15, 140
Physical Events, 12, 65
Pidgeon, Rebecca, 175
Pinter, Harold, 69, 70, 80, 140
Pitcher, Harvey, 82, 188, 202, 208, 209, 232
Pixérécourt, Guilbert de, 62
Platanov , 66, 86, 93–126
playwright
intention, 2
primacy of, 6
privileging of, 11
Plescheyev , A.N., 60, 101
polarities, 18
polemical writing, 74
Polonsky, Yakov , 120
postmodern theories, 1, 2, 4, 121
pre-Chekhovian drama, 118
‘priority’, 14
‘privileging’, 14, 15
Prowse, Philip, 145
Pryce, Jonathan, 159, 160
Przevalsky, N., 32
Psychic Events, 12, 14, 15, 65, 191
psychic phenomena, 47
purpose, 34, 40
Pushkin, 62
Rabkin, Gerald, 7, 8
Rapaport, I., 97
readings
absurdist, 17
gloomy/pessimistic, 17
plurality of 10, 11
positive/optimistic, 17, 18
reductionist, 18
realism, 72
literal, 87
Redgrave, Michael, 187
Redgrave, Vanessa, 159–160religion, 186
Reminiscences, 177
Reminiscences of Anton Tchekhov , 29
representational form, limitations of, 65,
107, 117
Robbins, Harold, 67, 68
Romanticism, 58
Rosanov , Vasili, 186
Roxonova, 132, 133, 135, 139
Russian critics, 17
Russian Revolution, 50, 197, 213
Russian sensibilities, 264
Sakhalin, 24, 25, 32, 33, 44
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 27, 152, 263
Sazonova, Sofya Ivanovna, 22
scientific materialism, 47
scientific method, 34, 46, 57
application to literature, 65, 178
Scott, Walter, 62
Scribe, 72 (see also ‘well-made play’ and
‘melodrama’)
secular faith, 46
Senelick, Laurence, 62, 148, 156
Serban, Andrei, 6
Sevastyanov , Vitali, 50–51
Shakespeare, 8
Shavrova, Yelena, 73, 74
Shawn, Wallace, 187
Shcheglov , Ivan, 61
Sher, Antony, 173–174
short-story techniques, 93
Shulman, Milton, 145, 147, 169
Simmons, Ernest, 96
Smoking Is Bad for You , 27, 95–99
Sobolev , Y ., 115
social responsibility, 22
soliloquies, 72, 80, 108, 115, 116, 127, 139
‘disguised’, 83, 84, 85, 86, 108, 187,
211, 236, 237, 238, 240, 250, 255
Solomon, 41
Sophocles, 72
sound effects, 82, 118, 136, 239, 256
Stalinist oppression, 218
Stanislavski, Konstantin, 1, 10, 15, 16, 59,
63, 118, 137, 175, 225

Interpreting Chekhov
308 system of acting, 64, 80, 83, 97, 117,
134, 263
Stanislavskian overkill, 133, 177
Stanislavskian tradition, 169
States, Bert O., 81
stereotypes, 70, 96, 110, 114
Strindberg, 99, 105, 207
Sturridge, Charles, 146
Sturua, Robert, 121
subtextual inner life, 80, 84, 231, 233, 263
suicide, 38, 39, 70, 114, 118
‘superfluous man’, 38, 110, 114
debunking of, 111
Suvorin, A.S., 7, 22, 24, 33, 35, 38, 61, 70,
73, 101, 107, 111, 131
symbolism, 85, 86, 87, 119
seagull as, 156–157
Treplev’s playlet 153
Yepihodov’s breaking string, 86, 255,
256
Symbolists, 148
symbolist aesthetic, 155
Taganrog, 28, 94, 210–211
‘tak zhit nelzna ’, 264
Terror , 21
text
valid/invalid interpretations of, 11, 16
‘texts on legs’, 2
‘Thaw’, the, 218, 219
theatre ‘as it is’, 61
theatre ‘as it should not be’, 61
theatre, educative function of, 61
theatre, late-nineteenth century, 61, 62
The Bear , 94
The Blind , 148
The Cherry Orchard , 3, 9, 10, 16, 44, 45, 81,
84, 85, 225–261 ,
Eyre’s 1977 production, 226
Fagan’s 1928 production, 80, 81,
Gershmann’s 1986 production, 228, 229
interpretive controversy, 225–230
Moscow Art Theatre 1958 production,
226
proposal scene, 240–248
Serban’s 1977 production, 227–228 Stanislavski’s production, 11
The Dream Merchants , 67
The Duel , 29–32, 44, 78, 114
“The Death of the Author”, 6
theatre-making, 3
theatricality, old-fashioned, 105
The Forest Tramp , 63
The Horse Stealers , 68
The Island: A Journey to Sakhalin , 33
The Merchant of Venice , 13
The Party , 60, 77
The Proposal , 94
The Seagull , 3, 15, 66, 84, 85, 127–168 , 248
Alfreds’ 1991 production, 157
Caird’s 1994 production, 150, 160
Clark’s 1990 production, 150–151
Filmer’s 1925 production, 157
Filmer’s 1929 production, 146
Hands’ 1990 production, 151
Karpov’s 1896 production, 64, 122, 130,
173
Prowse’s 1984 production, 145
Stanislavski’s 1898 production, 122,
132, 133, 144, 145, 170
Sturridge’s 1985 production, 146,
159–160
The Sneeze , 50
The Wood Demon , 66, 86, 93–126, 127
thesis play ( pièce à thèse ), 72, 73, 161
Thieves , 73, 74
Three Sisters , 45, 82, 84, 98, 195–224 , 248
Alfreds’ 1986 production, 197–198,
203–204
comedy/farce, 202
‘culture’ and ‘vulgarity’, 209
expressions of hope, 217
Komisarjevski’s 1926 production, 13, 14,
195
Miller’s 1976 production, 13, 14
Nemirovich-Danchenko’s 1940
production, 199–200, 219
Stanislavski’s 1901 production, 198,
200, 203
Sturua’s production, 121
Tolstoy’s view of, 75
Tovstonogov’s 1965 production,

Index
309218–220
wasted potential in, 206, 210, 256
Three Years , 74
Tikhonov , Alexander, 22, 145
‘tolerances’, 11, 16, 23, 51
Tolstoy, L.N., 37, 38, 58, 75,
objections to Chekhov’s plays, 76, 116
Tovstonogov , Georgii, 218–200
Tsar Nicholas II, 29
Tsarist Russia, 50
Tulloch, John, 25–26, 30
Tynan, Kenneth, 226, 264
Uncle Vanya , 6, 45, 81, 98, 99, 103, 169–
194,
Branagh/Egan’s 1991 production, 189
Burge’s 1963 TV production, 187
Fettes’ 1882 production, 183
Mathias’ 1992 production, 173
Mosher’s TV version, 175, 176, 185
Serban’s production of, 12, 13
Stanislavski’s 1899 production, 169,
171, 232
Unwin’s 1990 production, 188
Yefremov’s 1989 production, 169

Understanding Playscripts: Theory and
Method , 11
Valency, Maurice, 21, 22, 27, 28
Vanya on Forty-Second Street , 187
‘vaudevilles’, 94, 95, 202
‘vaunted 60s’, 44
virtuosity, 13, 14, 15
Vishnevsky, A.L., 170, 199
Waiting for Godot , 27, 195, 196
well-made play, the ( pièce bien faite ), 72,
73, 75, 83, 103, 104, 112, 120, 121, 147,
159, 253, 257
conventions of, 128, 161, 188
Wesker, Arnold, 6, 7
West, Timothy, 188
Western critics, 17
Williams, Raymond, 71, 119, 140, 249
Williams, Tennessee, 203“Writing for the Theatre”, 70
Yeats, W .B., 69
Yezhov , 102, 136
Young, Stark, 12, 13
Zola, 65