|
.
|
On the threshold of the 20th century Anton Chekhov recounted
to Pyotr Gnedich his conversation with Lev Tolstoy:
«Once he told me, "You know, I can not stand
Shakespeare, but your plays are even worse. Shakespeare, at
least, grabs the reader for the collar and leads him to a
certain destination without letting him turn aside. But
where do your heroes leads to? From the couch, where they
lie, to the cellar and
back?"»
(*1).
Having put aside for a while discussion about the motives
for such Tolstoy's estimations, let us note that in this
judgement the name of Chekhov was placed beside the name of
Shakespeare, perhaps, for the first time. Later, these two
names were mentioned, one next to another, many times, and
such vicinity cannot surprise specialists.
Anton Chekhov was living and working in the time of fin
de siècle, when the deep interest in Shakespeare
had already more than century-long history in
Russia.
(*2)
To a certain
extent, he inherited this interest from his predecessors in
Russian literature, whose critical judgements on Shakespeare
- as, for instance, Ivan Turgenev's essay "Hamlet and Don
Quixote", - impressed him very much at the dawn of his
literary career. Chekhov was reading Shakespeare
closely. In the memorial fund of Chekhov's
museum in Yalta an interesting book from the writer's
personal library has been kept: that is "Hamlet. Prince
of Denmark, translated into Russian by Nikolaj Polevoy",
with Chekhov's marks made by many-coloured (sic!)
pencils.
(*3)
He also bought and
subscribed several other editions of Shakespeare in Russian,
and some Russian books on Shakespeare. However, his reading
is not the most important point. Even against the common
background of the 19th-century Russian literature with its
heightened interest in Shakespeare, Chekhov stands out by
his use of Shakespearean motifs and themes in numerous
works, since the earlier feuilletons till the last play.
The tradition of reception of Shakespeare in the
19th-century literature, since Pushkin and Belinsky till
Turgenev and Dostoevsky, was not a single factor of the
British dramatist's impact on Chekhov's fiction and drama.
There were also two others. One of them was linked with the
art of theatre and Chekhov's deep interest in theatre.
Another one was determined by some peculiarities of Russian
reality in the middle and the 2d half of the 19th century,
with such its phenomenon as the so-called Russian
hamletism.
As is generally known, the concept of
hamletism took its shape in German romantic
literature. Ludwig Börne even called Hamletian
situation "a typically German one", and Ferdinand
Freiligrath exclaimed, "Germany is Hamlet!"
(*4).
Hamlet's hesitations, his certain indecision in deeds, his
inclination to reflexion were meant here first of all. Not
without German influence in the middle of the 19th century
the Russian author exposed the type of Russian hamlet
(lower case letter) - a "small man", who was living vainly
and pointlessly, suffering from his nonentity but being
incapable to change his life essentially. Ivan Turgenev's
short story "Hamlet of Schigrovsky District" is a very
typical but not a single example of an artistic work on
Russian hamletism, which was also explored by Russian
historical and philosophical thought.
In the early fiction of Chekhov, beginning with his
humoristic feuilletons published under the pen-name "Antosha
Chekhonté", the name of Shakespeare appears mainly as
a ground for joke and irony. One of the well-known ironic
phrases of young Chekhov was later included by him in the
"Note-books and Diaries": "Professor's opinion: of most
importance is not Shakespeare but comments to Shakespeare".
An early short story "About Drama" is subtitled as
sketch, since it is mostly a dialogue between two
characters, the judge of peace and the colonel, who are
drinking, eating, and discussing the humane role of art.
Their dialogue is interrupted only once, when the judge
straps severely his negligent nephew, and the short story
ends with the pointed remark: "The friends had a drink and
began to talk on Shakespeare".
In another early short story "Baron" the provincial
performance of Hamlet is described through the eyes
of the old prompter, who adores theatre and is irritated by
the starring ungifted red-haired actor. "If Hamlet had such
a stupid face, Shakespeare would hardly have written his
tragedy", thinks the outraged prompter, expressing his
indignation sometimes in iambic pentameter: "Let Hamlet be
though bald, but never red…"
(*5)
After all, the prompter cannot bear bad acting and begins to
recite the text from the prompt box loudly, breaking up the
performance. We can find many examples of similar use of
Shakespearean name or texts in Chekhov's fiction. In these
cases the most significant is not Shakespeare, but
understanding and interpretation of Shakespeare by those
characters, which are of special interest to the
humorist.
In the course of the writer's evolution, the functions of
Shakespearean reminiscences and allusions were becoming in
his fiction more diverse. In his mature problem tales and
short stories quotations from Shakespeare or paraphrases of
his lines could be a means of explication of Chekhov's
ironic view, but could also be quite serious ones. For
instance, the tale "My Life" (1896) contains an interesting
affinity with the dialogue of Hamlet and Polonius about
shapes of the cloud from the 2d scene of the 3d act. In the
tale "The Sad Story" there are reminiscences from
Hamlet and Othello and besides them, the name
of Shakespeare is mentioned; all these phrases are
absolutely earnest and do not pretend to provoke
laughter.
The problem of hamletism in its Russian variant, as a
modification of the problem of superfluous
man, is touched by Chekhov in a number of his mature
works, for instance, in the tale "The Duel" (1892). One of
its heroes, a half-educated person Laevsky declares, "I am
hesitant like Hamlet… How exactly Shakespeare observed!
Oh, how exactly!.." (*6)
The ironic mode of
representing the character's rhetoric is underlined by the
similar remarks about other writers (e.g., "…Oh, how
right was Tolstoy! How mercilessly
right!"
(*7)
), or by his
odd discourses about the love of Romeo and Juliet. The
figure of Laevsky illustrates, to great extent, Russian
philosopher Lev Shestov's judgement: "The only real hero of
Chekhov is a hopeless
person…"
(*8)
A "hopeless
person" is a peculiar modification of Russian
hamlet.
Those evidences of Shakespeare's impact on Chekhov, which
were linked with the art of drama and theatre, are the most
significant, of course. Among the strongest theatrical
impressions of Chekhov, who was quite a fastidious spectator
and critic, there were two Shakespearean productions -
Othello at Moscow Maly Theatre starring Alexander
Lensky, and Eleanora Duse as Cleopatra during her guest
performances in Sankt-Petersburg. The strictness of Chekhov
as a theatrical critic was already evident in his review of
the Moscow Pushkin Theatre's production of Hamlet.
The review, written by the 22-year medical student was
called "Hamlet on Pushkin's Stage" and published in the
magazine "Moskva" under the pen-name "Man without a Spleen".
Having criticised the production quite severely, Chekhov
ended his sarcastic review with the important deduction:
"Badly played Shakespeare is better than a dull
nothing…" (*9)
The reviewer
wrote also that the Russian scene of his time "had to be
cured by Shakespeare". Not by good dramaturgy at all, but by
Shakespeare proper! Why so? Because "such a giant's
breath could blow all the mould out of theatrical
wings".
(*10)
Ten years later Chekhov together with A.Lazarev-Gruzinsky
began to write vaudeville Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,
describing the life of Russian provincial actors performing
the great tragedy. Like in Chekhov's early fiction, here
Shakespeare had to serve as a ground for irony and material
for comical paraphrases. Several expressions of the kind
remained in the manuscript for instance: "drunk as forty
thousand brothers", "stupid as forty thousand brothers", and
so on. However, the collaboration of Chekhov and
Lazarev-Gruzinsky broke up and the vaudeville was not
completed.
Chekhov put many Shakespearean words, phrases and images in
his early dramatic sketches; it was more often done for the
sake of comical effect. In the sketch The Endless
Story the old landlady and her tenant quote irrelevantly
Hamlet's words:
|
.
|
…Confound the ignorant, and amaze, indeed,
The very faculties of eyes and
ears…
(*11)
|
In 1887 the writer remade his earlier short story "Calchas"
into the sketch The Swan Song, which is full of
Shakespearean quotations and allusions. They were in the
story, too, but the dramatic form catalysed and intensified
the author's inclination to Shakespeare. The sketch
represents the old comedian Svetlovidov with the old
prompter Nikita, and their dialogue takes place on the stage
of the theatre at night. The prompter appears in a white
dressing gown, resembling the Ghost in their theatre's
production of Hamlet. The comedian's speech is
overfilled with quotations, including Shakespearean lines.
For example, he recites King Lear's monologue "Blow,
winds…" and makes the prompter give the Fool's remarks.
Later he tries to recite Hamlet's tirade about recorders,
Othello's monologue, and so on. In Chekhov's dramaturgy, as
well as in his fiction, the function of Shakespearean
quotations and motifs was evolving from pure humouristic to
the more serious and significant one.
In his early full-length play The Wood-Goblin
(Leshij) there is only one phrase from Shakespeare.
One of the personages, Dyadin, quotes Hamlet's words: "There
are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio / Than are
dreamt of in your
philosophy…"
(*12)
In the play
Platonov (Without a Title), the themes of the Danish
tragedy occupy more place. The motif of Russian
hamletism is embodied in the main character,
who is characterized by one of the personages, Grekova: "It
seems to all of you, that he is alike Hamlet… So admire
him!"
(*13)
Platonov was an approach to the more mature play
Ivanov, where the same theme was being developed. As
Zinovij Paperny observes, "in Ivanov use of
Shakespearean theme is more serious and distinctive. The
hero, like Hamlet, is higher than his environment and as
though falls out of it…" (*14)
It may be said that the purposefulness of using
Shakespearean themes is reflected in their quantity in
Ivanov. So count Shabel'sky just irrelevantly
recollects Ophelia. Ivanov himself in a moment of reflexion
says, "I die from the shame, thinking that a healthy, strong
man as I am, has turned either into Hamlet, or into Manfred,
or into a superfluous man…" . Such a list of literary
comparisons needs a short comment. Here Manfred is not only
a hero of Byron, a poet, who was maybe more popular and
respected in Russia than in his fatherland, but
Manfred through Russian eyes, a tragic figure
of a demonic lone person. Superfluous man is a
category, introduced by Russian literature and explained by
Russian critics, who described so a number of heroes,
beginning with Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin and
later legalized by Turgenev in his The Diary of a
Superfluous Man.
(*15)
In this list
Hamlet is also received not only as a Shakespearean
character, but as a Russian hamlet - an educated and
fine person, who is incapable to overcome his hesitations
and pass from words to deeds.
Ivanov's conversation with doctor L'vov in the third act has
something in common with the dialogue of Hamlet with
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz about recorders: the
protagonist explains to the rigorous doctor that he does not
understand the complexity of human nature. As a supposed
subject, the motif of madness appears in several scenes.
"No, I am not a madman", made such an accent Ivanov. "I was
representing Hamlet", declares he shortly in other moment,
just before the tragic denouement. As Naum Berkovsky
observed, Ivanov "does not pose, in his speech it sounds
like an epigram on himself"(*16).
Russian hamlet's drama includes self-irony, self-criticism,
self-exposure, and quite naturally ends with the hero's
suicide. Ivanov is the first of Chekhov's works where
Hamletian theme receives more or less complete
interpretation. Hence started a way to The
Seagull.
The Seagull is the most Shakespearean play by
Chekhov. The names of three writers are mentioned in this
drama - of Shakespeare, Turgenev and Maupassant;
Shakespeare's name and lines are most frequently recalled
and Shakespearean quotations in "The Seagull" are quite
significant. In the second act Treplev, pointing Trigorin
out to Nina, says ironically, "There comes real genius; he
is striding like Hamlet, and with a book, too. (Mockingly)
Words, words, words…"
(*17).
More accentuated are the quotations from Hamlet in
the first act, during the performance of Konstantin
Treplev's play. At first, Arkadina addresses Treplev in
Gertrude's manner: "My sweet son…", and later she
quotes the Queen's speech from the 4th scene of the 3d
act:
|
.
|
"O Hamlet, speak no more:
Thou turns't mine eyes into the very soul,
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct…"
|
There Treplev replies with Hamlet's words:
|
.
|
"Stew'd in corruption honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty,.."(*18)
|
One of Chekhovian scholars wrote that this Shakespearean
dialogue sounds as an "overture" before Treplev's
performance (*19),
which is inserted into the first act of the play as a
play-within-a-play (*20)
. Like the scene
of mousetrap in Hamlet interrupted by the crowned
persons' leaving, Treplev's performance is stopped by the
author-director, who is irritated and offended by
Arkadina-Gertrude's loud remarks. Some contemporary critic
even noticed a parallel between two lines: Arkadina -
Trigorin - Treplev - Nina Zarechnaya and Gertrude - Claudius
- Hamlet - Ophelia. (*21)
True, the role
of a plot and plot's development in Chekhov's plays is not
so important in comparison with Shakespeare's dramas. The
core of The Seagull is rather difficult to catch; the
action develops just "from nothing", as Lev Shestov wrote
(*22).
But that does not mean, that the play lacks action; here
dynamics is being reached in other way: the characters clash
and express themselves in dialogues, often rather
independently from the plot's events in the traditional
sense of this notion. In this connection, of great
importance is a figure of Treplev, the most Shakespearean
personage of Chekhov's "comedy" (so the author himself
defined genre of his sad play). Treplev bears in himself the
main theme of Shakespearean prince, the theme of discrepancy
between ideals and reality, which is emphasized with
Shakespearean quotations and reminiscences.
There was a period in the history of the interpretation of
The Seagull by Russian theatre, when the "realist"
Trigorin was being presented as a bearer of the author's
positive credo but the "modernist" Treplev looked
like a wretched and ridiculous person. However, this
"ridiculous" hero ends tragically, and his suicide is placed
into a very significant point - the final point of the play.
That is a peculiar pointe which converts the genre
definition "comedy" into the irrevocably ironical one and
makes us to look at Treplev's literary activity not through
the eyes of Arkadina and Trigorin, but at least through the
eyes of wise and kind doctor Dorn.
"Certainly, Treplev is a Russian Hamlet of the end of the
19th and beginning of the 20th
centuries…"(*23)
. He belongs in the best way possible to the above-mentioned
category, which was formulated by Lev Shestov: "the only
real hero of Chekhov is a hopeless
man"(*24).
Later Viktor Shklovsky wrote, "…And the man of future,
the hero of The Seagull perishes…"
(*25)
So, who is Treplev anyway - the "hopeless man", or "the man
of the future"? (This question can be related to
Shakespeare's Hamlet as well). Who was right - Shestov or
Shklovsky? Methinks, both were.
In The Seagull the connection with the only one
Shakespeare's tragedy, Hamlet, is obvious. It is more
difficult to notice Shakespearean tradition in the following
three famous plays by Chekhov: sometimes it exists latently,
sometimes appears mosaically, but it has undoubtedly played
its part. In those cases we can speak of not exclusively
Hamletian, but wider - of Shakespearean
motifs. In each of the plays it is not a leitmotif, but one
of the several ones.
Hamletian theme sounds indistinctly in Uncle Vanya,
too. The title hero, Vojnitsky, also embodies some features
of Russian hamletism but not in such concentration as
Treplev. That is not a superfluous man and sponger
like Ivanov, but his life is painted tragic colour as well.
Being a gifted person, he works hard for his ungrateful
relative and what is of the most importance - he realizes
the tragedy of his situation. Sometimes his speech becomes
sarcastic in Hamletian manner: e.g., "That is a fine weather
to hang oneself…"(*26)
. In other episode
he characterizes his own situation as Hamletian one: "So
they consider that I am a madman… It is I who is mad,
but not those who hide their lack of talent under the mask
of a professor, a scholarly magician…"
(*27).
At last in the hardest minute he comprehends the sizes of
his personal tragedy: "My life has been a failure. I am
talented, clever and brave… If I had lived a normal
life, I might have become another Schopenhauer or
Dostoevsky…"(*28)
.
It is rather interesting that the well-known scholar,
professor Nikolaj Il'ich Storozhenko, a founder of Russian
academic Shakespeare scholarship and vice-president of
London New Shakespeare Society, is considered to be the most
probable prototype of a character of Vojnitsky's antipode,
professor Serebryakov. This fact makes us recollect the
above-quoted Chekhov's joke: "Professor's opinion: of most
importance is not Shakespeare, but comments to Shakespeare"
- which was put down in the "Note-books" at the same time
when Uncle Vanya was completed. Besides, that
prototype was chosen evidently for psychological or
biographical reasons, but not because of Chekhov's neglect
of Storozhenko as a Shakespeare scholar. Just the opposite,
the author of Uncle Vanya knew some works of the
well-known professor, read them even in the journals and
subscribed a lithographic edition of Storozhenko's lectures
on Macbeth (*29),
which has been reserved in the funds of the writer's
personal library.
Among Chekhov's best plays Three Sisters is the only
one, whose genre is defined by the common term "drama";
neither "comedy", nor "scenes", but "drama". It is
noteworthy that one of the reviewers of the first production
of the play called it "a drama of a railway ticket"
(*30).
This definition can be easily interpreted: the sisters are
crazy about Moscow; they long for Moscow and want to go "to
Moscow! To Moscow!", while the whole problem, to the
critic's view, could be solved by buying of train tickets to
Moscow. This judgement has an association with the famous
denunciation of Othello by Thomas Rymer in his "Short
View of Tragedy" as "a tragedy of a handkerchief". These two
definitions have something in common, and that common is the
critics' misunderstanding of the tragic conflicts in the
plays. The sisters' dream about Moscow is nothing more than
their illusion and this circumstance only strengthens the
tragic sounding of the finale.
It seems that there is no Shakespearean motifs and
reminiscences in this play, and the single remark, which can
be traced back to Shakespeare is an exclamation of colonel
Vershinin: "Half my life for a glass of tea!". In the
original, this phrase ("Polzhizni za stakan chaju!") is an
ironic paraphrase of Russian translation of Richard III's
well-known exclamation "Poltsarstva za konya!" ("A horse! A
horse! My kingdom for a horse!"). One can also mention the
old medical officer Chebutykin's bitter confession:
«…Two days ago there was a conversation in the
club. They said, "Shakespeare, Voltaire…" I'd never
read, never read at all, but put on expression as if I had
read. And so did the
others…»
(*31)
.
The theme of hamlets seems to escape from the play.
Yes, it is not present in the plot, but its echo can be
heard, for instance, in the fate of Andrey Prozorov, a
capable but degrading man. Vershinin says once that such a
fate is rather typical for Russian intelligentsia. "…If
you listen to a member of local intelligentsia, whether to
civilian or military, he will tell you that he is sick of
his wife, sick of his house… The high way of thinking
is peculiar to a Russian man, but tell me, why in his
everyday life he flies so low?"
(*32)
This is not a
mockery or malevolence, but the ascertaining of the great
national tragedy.
One can decide that Chekhov's last play The Cherry
Orchard has no more in common with Shakespearean
tradition than Three Sisters. Nevertheless, several
penetrating critics and readers noticed this tradition
there. For instance, Lion Feuchtwanger wrote in his essay on
this play: «The German poet Ferdinand Freiligrath
thought once that Germany is Hamlet and created a poem about
it. The Russian poet (sic! - M.S.) Anton Chekhov felt that
Russia was, is and will be Hamlet, and embodied his idea
into a sweet, deep, melancholic dramatic poem which is
entitled The Cherry Orchard …»
(*33)
. As far as the
direct links are concerned, this drama contains only two
slightly changed Shakespearean quotations. Lopakhin
addresses Varya and quotes Hamlet perverting the name
of Shakespearean personage:
|
.
|
"Ohmelia, get thee to a nunnery…"
|
(my italics - M.S.; "hmel" is a Russian equivalent
of "a state of drunkenness"), and once more:
|
.
|
"The fair Ohmelia. - Nymph, in thy orizons
Be all my sins remember'd…"
(*34)
|
There is no other direct association with Shakespeare in
the play, but the mediated relationship with Hamlet
can be noticed. For example, clerk Epikhodov, nicknamed
"twenty two misfortunes", is perceived as a travesty of a
Russian hamlet. The famous Hamlet's dilemma "To be,
or not to be…" - is transformed into a comic, even
pitiful remark: "…I can not understand the direction I
myself want to go - properly speaking, do I want to live, or
to shoot myself…" (*35)
. One of the critics found an "anti-hamletian" motif in the
character of Petya Trofimov: «…As though Petya
revolts against the hamletism, "We only
philosophize…"»
(*36)
. I'd add that if Petya revolts indeed, he opposes not the
Hamletism at all, but its Russian variant. It is not less
important that he does not revolt, but as though
revolts: Petya declares the necessity to work, but he is
uncapable of acting, being a reasoner, an eternal student,
who cannot even graduate from the university.
One of Chekhov's contemporaries even found in The Cherry
Orchard the "extra-scenic characters", which, like the
old Hamlet, are important for the action; those are
Lopakhin's father, Ranevskaya's lover, her drowned son
Grisha… (*37)
All of them do
not appear on the stage but several times are mentioned by
the characters of the play and thus help to create the
pre-history of the fabula. Continuing this list we can also
recollect the old servant Firs, who divides all his long
life into two parts: before the "misfortune" and after it
(by "misfortune" he means the abolition of serfdom in
Russian empire in 1861); this subdivision may be compared
with the juxtaposition of the epoch of old Hamlet and the
time of Claudius. Can theatrical directors use and emphasize
these accents? "It is possible, but it is not necessary", as
Chekhov himself replied once to the director of Moscow Art
Theatre (MHT) Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko. Shakespearean
impact appeared in the play more subtly and needs the
adequate analysis.
There is no Russian hamlet in the play, but there
sounds the theme, which was producing associations with the
Danish tragedy of Shakespeare during the whole century.
Discussing The Cherry Orchard , a French stage
director Jean-Louis Barrault called Chekhov "an exemplary
artist", because "all his characters, like Shakespearean
ones, are in the state of conflict with themselves…"
(*38).
Obviously Chekhov's artistic precision in describing of this
interior conflicts leads many authors to comparison between
Russian playwright and Shakespeare; it allows to see in the
author of The Cherry Orchard a successor of some
Shakespearean traditions. "…In our era, we have
Shakespeare in modes Chekhovian, Pirandellian, Shavian,
Odetsian, Brechtian, Becketian and so forth", writes Harry
Keyshian
(*39)
. I am not sure that all the names in this list are equally
appropriate, but probably, the name of Chekhov occupies here
the first position not accidentally.
The judgements, made by men of theatre, are especially
valuable, and J.-L. Barrault's observation is not the single
example. Many years before him Konstantin Stanislavsky, who
created the first successful productions of Chekhov's plays,
noted, that the playwright had carried on the Shakespearean
tradition (*40)
. Half a century
later an American playwright Arthur Miller said that Chekhov
is closer to Shakespeare, than any other dramatist else
(*41).
Certainly, the Russian writer was a man of his time and as
an artist, he reflected some trends of his epoch. His
interest in Shakespeare was not an ordinary one and became
apparent in his works, in fiction as well as in dramaturgy.
But it is quite possible to find not less subtle
connoisseurs of Shakespeare among Chekhov's predecessors and
contemporaries in Russian literature. Even in the works of
such Shakespeare lovers as Turgenev or Leskov, the British
dramatist's influence is apparent in using the names of the
well-known characters (Hamlet, Lady Macbeth) and finding
their "projections" in the contemporary Russian life. Such
the influence touched Chekhov, too, but in his works there
are evidences of another, deeper penetration into the
Shakespearean universe. This new quality can be read in
Chekhov's understanding of an inwardly conflicting human
nature, which made the Russian author appeal to
Shakespearean themes and motifs, and first of all allows to
associate his works with Shakespeare's ones. The
rightfulness of such associations were exactly expressed by
the young Vsevolod Meyerhold, who expounded his director's
credo in the letter to Chekhov:
"To play Chekhov's
characters is just so important and interesting as to play
Shakespearean Hamlet…"(*42)
Footnotes:
1) See Shekspir i russkaya kul'tura /
Pod red. akad. M.P.Alekseeva.- Moskva - Leningrad: Nauka,
1965.- P. 748. (back
to text)
2) For details see Yu. D. Levin. Shekspir i
russkaya literatura XIX veka.- Leningrad: Nauka, 1988.
(back
to text)
3) See A. G. Golovachova. Klassicheskie
sblizhenija: Chekhov - Pushkin - Shekspir // Russkaya
Literatura, 1998, Ð 4.- P. 6. (back
to text)
4) L. Börne. Gesammelte Schriften.
Bd. 1.- Stuttgart, 1840.- S. 394; F. Freiligrath.
Gesammelte Dichtungen. Bd. 3. - Stuttgart, 1877.- S.
93. (back
to text)
5) A. P. Chekhov. Polnoe sobranie
sochinenij i pisem v 30 tomakh. T. 1.- Moskva: Nauka,
1974. - P. 456. (back
to text)
6) A. P. Chekhov. Izbrannye sochinenija
v 2 tomakh. T. 1.- Moskva: Khudozhestvennaya
literatura, 1979.- P. 462. (back
to text)
7) Ibid., p.453. (back
to text)
8) Lev Shestov. Nachala i kontsy. Sb.
statej. - Sankt-Peterburg: tip. M.Stasyulevicha, 1908.-
P. 39. (back
to text)
9) See Chekhov i teatr. Pis'ma.
Felyetony. Sovremenniki o Chekhove-dramaturge. -
Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1961. - P. 175. (back
to text)
10) Ibid. (back
to text)
11) A. P. Chekhov. Polnoe sobranie
sochinenij i pisem, t. 1. - 1974. - P. 456.
(back
to text)
12) Ibid., t. 12.- 1978. - P. 195.
(back
to text)
13) Ibid., p. 255. (back
to text)
14) Z. Papernyj. "Vopreki vsem pravilam...".
Pyesy i vodevili Chekhova. - Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1982.
- P. 50-51. (back
to text)
15) A. P. Chekhov. Izbrannye
sochinenija v 2-h tomakh, t. 2, p. 414. (back
to text)
16) N. Ya. Berkovskij. Literatura i
teatr. - Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1969. - P. 130.
(back
to text)
17) A.P.Chekhov. Izbrannye sochinenija
v 2 tomakh, t. 2, p. 490- (back
to text)
18) Ibid., p. 478. (back
to text)
19) Z.Papernyj. Op. cit., p. 158.
(back
to text)
20) For details see T.Winner. Chekhov's
"Seagull" and Shakespeare's "Hamlet": A Study of a Dramatic
Device // The American Slavic and East European
Review, 1956, February. - P. 103-111; N. Kirillova.
Pyesa Konstantina Trepleva v poeticheskoj strukture
"Chajki"// Chekhov I teatral'noe iskusstvo.-
Leninghad: LGITMIK, 1985.- P. 97-117; M. G. Sokolyans'kyj.
"Stsena na stseni" jak pryntsyp pobudovy dramatychnogo
tvoru // Poetyka. - Kyiv: Naukova dumka, p.
190-199. (back
to text)
21) See A. Roskin. A. P. Chekhov. Stat'i i
ocherki. - Moskva: GIKhL, 1958. - P. 131.
(back
to text)
22) Lev Shestov. Op. cit., p. 1-68.
(back
to text)
23) B.Zingerman. Teatr Chekhova i ego
mirovoe znachenie. - Moskva: Nauka, 1986. - P. 59.
(back
to text)
24) Lev Shestov. Op. cit., p. 39.
(back
to text)
25) V. Shklovskij. Kak David pobedil
Goliafa // Shekspirovskie Chtenija. 1984. -
Moskva: Nauka, 1986. - P. 14 (back
to text)
26) A. P. Chekhov. Izbrannye
sochinenija v 2 tomakh, t. 2, p. 523.(back
to text)
27) Ibid., p. 551.(back
to text)
28) Ibid., p. 548.(back
to text)
29) See M. Smolkin. Shekspir v zhizni i
tvorchestve Chekhova // Shekspirovskij sbornik. -
Moskva: VTO, 1967. - P. 79.(back
to text)
30) See L. S. Vygotskiy. Psikhologija
iskusstva. 2e izd. - Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1968. - P.
299.(back
to text)
31) A. P. Chekhov. Izbrannye sochinenija
v 2-h t., t. 2, p. 593.(back
to text)
32) Ibid., p. 578.(back
to text)
33) Lion Feuchtwanger. Der Kirschgarten //
Über Chekhov / Hrsg. von Peter Urban. -
Zürich: Diogenes, 1988. - P. 253.(back
to text)
34) A. P. Chekhov. Izbrannye
sochinenija v 2-h t., t. 2, p. 639.(back
to text)
35) Ibid., p. 631.(back
to text)
36) B. Zingerman. Op. cit., p.
61.(back
to text)
37) A. Roskin. Op. cit., p.
113.(back
to text)
38) Über Chekhov, op. cit., p.
291.(back
to text)
39) Harry Keyshian. Shakespeare and movie
genre: the case of "Hamlet"// The Cambridge Companion to
Shakespeare on Film. - Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000. - P.
74. (back
to text)
40) See Shekspir i russkaya kul'tura,
op. cit., p. 672.
(back to text)
41) Literaturnoe nasledstvo. T. 68.
Chekhov. - Moskva: Izd. AN SSSR, 1960. - P. VI.
(back
to text)
42) V. E. Mejerhold. Stat'i. Pis'ma.
Rechi. Besedy. Vol. 1. - Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1968. - P.
81. (end)
|