Download chapter one introduction

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
An overview of the growth of Russian drama is essential to comprehend Anton
Chekhov as a dramatist. In its early stages, Russian drama had to depend heavily on
external influences as native literature was yet to develop. The great masters of Russian
drama- Pushkin, Griboyedov, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev. Ostrovsky and Alexei
Tolstoy-were influenced by the literary currents that were guiding the course of
European art. In the West Russian schools, dramas based on religious subjects were
enacted, and by the middle of the seventeenth century they became popular and stable.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries strolling groups of students performed
miracle plays and gained popularity and admiration. In Russian drama, one cannot fail
to notice the original Russian spirit. According to M. Valency, "The art of the theatre
in Russia is of no great antiquity. In Chekhov's day, Russian drama was barely three
centuries old, and by no means rich in masterpieces. But there were some; enough, at
least, to establish a tradition" (5). Scholars who are interested in the history of Russian
drama are unable to find any significance in the Russian Theatre before 1750. In the
seventeenth century, the Tsars faithfully followed the monastic practices to control their
vast dominions. At that time plays as well as songs were forbidden. In 1672, Tsar Alexei
Mikhailovich was advised by his minister, Anamon Matreyev, to t o m a group of
amateur players to perform before His Majesty. The Tsar's second empress was an ardent admirer of England, its people and plays. Dr-Gregori was entrusted with the respon-
sibility of producing plays for the amusement of the court. From the repertory of the
German strolling players, many plays were selected and translated by the scribes of the
foreign office. In the words of D.S.Mirsky, "The translations resulted in stilted and
unidiomatic church Slavonic prose, and a theatre was instituted at the Royal Place" (50).
The time of Peter the Great witnessed the predominance of secular prose plays translated from German. Peter the Great took pains to form a theatrical company at his court
to add glamour to his reign. He insisted that the plays should celebrate his victories.
He built a magnificent theatre in the Red Square in Moscow, but the theatre could not
develop in his lifetime. In 1700, the court was moved to Petersburg, and the court
theatre went with it. This theatre developed gradually, first under German influences,
then under Italian; finally it became firmly French. Theatre in Russia was under the
direct control of the State. Peter the Great considered the theatre as " a cultural arm of
the autocracy" (M. Valency, 6). Later on, the Russian theatre was supported as a con-
venient means for the dissemination of official propaganda and ari instrument for the
control of public opinion. Russian theatre had to face many difficulties from the officials, the secret police and the ecclesia~ticalauthorities. It was always under pressure
and the quality of its productions was affected.
In 1773, Empress Catherine built the Bolshoi, the Grand Theatre in Petersburg.
Some years later, a dramatic school was established by Her Majesty to supply the State
with good and trained actors. Civil servants acted on the imperial stage, and though
their jobs were secure, they had to depend absolutely on bureaucracy. Many private
theatres came into existence patronized by rich nobles. The serfs of wealthy nobles were
actors in these private companies , and they were always at the mercy of their owners.
In the reign of Nicholas I (1825 -1855
),
there were three State theatres in
Petersburg and two in Moscow. The Bolshoi in Petersburg was the home of the opera
and the ballet companies. The Alexandrinsky, built in 1832, offered a varied repertory
of drama to the elite capital. The Mikhailovsky theatre was established in 1833 and its
first preference was for the Russian classics. Maly, the Little theatre, became the centre
of attraction to the lovers of drama. Mochalov, a former serf, dominated the Maly with
his explosive action
Shchepkin, the great comedian , succeeded Mochalov. As
M.Valency points out, "It was Shchepkin's thoughtful method which developed into the
production techniques of the Moscow Art Theatre, and the style of acting which we
associate with Chekhov's plays" (8). A.A.Brenko and F.A.Korsh wanted to compete
with the Maly and opened theatres in Moscow. Suvorin attempted to compete with
Alexandrinsky by opening a theatre in Petersburg. All these ambitious attempts resulted
only in commercial enterprises, and until the 1890's dramatic activity was confined to
the imperial theatres which alone maintained a serious approach to the drama as art.
On the Russian stage, realism developed slowly but steadily despite stubborn opposition
from the censor. In the early part of the 19th century, the govemnlent viewed romanticism as a hindrance to Russian culture, and tried its best to continue the classical
tradition from the 18th century. But popular taste swung towards Romanticism in the
theatre. Realism in the Russian theatre had its birth in Gogol's plays, and developed in
Ostrovsky's drama. It attained perfection in Turgenev's and Chekhov's plays.
After a study of the growth of Russian drama, a brief study of Chekhov's
predecessors is essential to understand Chekhov's career as a dramatist. His illustrious
predecessors- Griboyedov, Pushkin, Gogol, Ostrovsky, Turgenev and Alexei K. Tolstoy
- gave utmost importance to characterization. T h e y excelled in the art of creating un-
forgettable men and women. Chekhov followed their footsteps.
- ( 1824), translated into
Alexander Griboyedov's (1795- 1829 ) Gore ot Uma
English as Woe from Wit, was his only important contribution to Russian drama. It is
a comedy in verse fonn and its language deserves admiration. Many of the lines of this
play have proverbial significance. The design of the play is purely conventional, and it
is a marvellous exhibition of fine and lovable characters. Aristotle gave prime importance to the plot in the play. Griboyedov disagreed with Aristotle and concentrated on
characterization. Commenting on this M.Valency observes,
A consequence was that in the future development of Russian
comedy the
emphasis was commonly placed on portraiture rather than plot, so that the comedic tradition that leads from Gri boyedov to Chekhov exhi bits a picture-gallery,
but no great narrative ingenuity.( 17)
The title of the play Woe from Wit gives a clue to its contents, for it deals with
the struggle of a young man with progressive ideals against the stupidity and trickery
of a corrupt society in Moscow. He is derided by self-seekers, reactionaries and petty-
minded officials. He is labelled mad , and even his fiancee turns against him. He is
driven away from a society which has nothing to offer him. Woe from Wit was the
first dramatic protest against the rotten structure of Tsarist society, against corruption,
bribery, ignorance and cupidity in high places. Human and dramatic, classic in form
yet realistic and satiric in content , written with sparkling wit and truthful insight, Woe
from Wit is one of the great plays of the Russian dramaturgy.
Alexander Pushkin's (1799- 1837) Boris Godunov was completed in the year
1825. He followed European romanticism and gave Russian drama a new direction. His
work was entirely different from that of Griboyedov. Griboyedov, the classicist, was
horrified by the dark side of human nature. Pushkin was fascinated by it. He attached
great importance to characterization in his plays, and it was left to the other dramatists
to follow his footsteps. Two of the greatest influences on Pushkin were Byron and
Shakespeare. He valued the former for his progressive romanticism and his poetry of
the rebel-hero, the latter for his superb characterization and the profundity of his
philosophy. It was under the influence of Shakespeare that Pushkin started work on his
great drama, Boris Godunov. Pushkin wanted to create a truly national drama. He knew
that Russian drama was only an imitation of the neo-classic French school. He returned
to Russian folk-lore. He made the Russian language a literary instrument fit to rank
with the French and German languages.
Pushkin's Boris Godunov is notable in being the first Russian tragedy on a
political theme- the relationship between a tyrant and his people - which was actually
a burning contemporary problem. It does not rely on a love-intrigue. In other aspects,
too, it was revolutionary. It was divided into scenes and episodes, it mingled poetry
with prose, and made use of colloquial Russian speech. Pushkin is not primarily remem-
bered as a dramatist because his fine poems must take pride of place. Also he had no
direct contact with the stage. The Russian theatre owes him a great debt, since it was
he who first made Russian a literary language and so ushered in the work of the late
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Mi khail Lermontov ( 1814-1841) gave full expression to Russian romanticism in
his work. He was thirteen when he began reading and writing verse, and developed the
cult of the Byronic hero. His play The Masquerade in verse form is considered to be
his masterpiece. His earlier play, The Spaniards, reveals his development as a dramatist,
his poetic temper and his wide reading at a very young age-These two autobiographical
plays, though romantic, indicate the trend toward realism in Russia in the 1830's.
Lermontov's description is both accurate and impressive. His characters foreshadow
more or less clearly the neurotic hero of modern times. His aim was different from that
of Griboyedov. He preferred a tragedy of jealousy to a social comedy. In his work
realism and romanticism fuse.
Lermontov had no sympathy with the rules of French classical tragedy. His
models were Schiller and Shakespeare whom he called 'that immeasurable genius'. His
masterpiece, The Masquerade, deals with the problem of good and evil, which Lermontov had begun to realize is no longer the problem of an individual only, but of the
forces ranged for or against that individual. The climax of the play in which a man
poisons his dear wife is not the result of intrigue, but of the psychological state of the
husband, driven to crime by the corrupt society in which he lives. This masterpiece of
sophisticated sarcasm has found its way into the repertory of most Soviet theatres.
Melodramas were successful in France and they were cleverly adapted for the
Russian stage. The plots, bombastic language and faqcinating gestures of the dramas
appealed to the audience. They immensely helped the Russian tragic actors to exhibit
their skill. Polevoy translated Hamlet and it laid a strong foundation for Shakespeare
on the Russian stage. The overwhelming triumph of Hamlet assisted the aim of Pushkin
and Lermontov. Romantic writers took the lead and the course of Russian drama
changed significantly. Shakespeare and Schiller shaped the norms of Russian taste.
'The social comedy reached its zenith with Gogol (1 800-1852), the great imaginative dramatist. He is well-known for his captivating individuality and unique
curiosity. The theme of his masterpiece, The Revizor or The Government Inspector, is
not of great significance and Gogol makes fun of the administration of a provincial
town. The play does not have sympathetic characters, but the development is extremely
original, and the caricature is effective. Gogol'y characters arc taken from life, and they
can be seen as types as wcll as marvellous individuals. His style is noted for its verbal
expressiveness. His prose is alive and superb, and it stresses the importance of actual
speech.
Gogol's The Government Inspector had a curious history, since it was actually
produced at the coun theatre in the presence of the Tsar in 1836. The authorities were
disposed to be lenient to it, since it amused the Tsar. It deals with official corruption
in a small town, where an impostor is mistaken for the government official and treated
accordingly. This play proved too biting in production and was viciously attacked.
Gogol had to leave Russia,not to return till 1848. This play , in its unsparing realism,
has been translated and produced in Europe and America. Gogol's novel, Dead Souls
was dramatized in 1932 and presented by Stanislavsky at the Moscow An Theatre.
There are three distinguished dramatists between Gogol and Chekhov-Ostrovsky, Turgenev and Alexei K.Tolstov.
., Alexander Ostrovsky 's ( 1 823- 1886) father
was a lawyer with many clients among business men. Ostrovsky was able to study the
merchant class and gathered the material for his plays, realistic studies of corruption
and sharp practice, which have earned him the title of 'the Balzac of the Muscovite
merchant'. After his play The Bankrupt, Ostrovsky wrote a number of historical plays,
a fairy-play which served as the basis for the libretto of Rimsky-Koraskov's opera
'Snow-Maiden', and finally the series of realistic contemporary satires by which he is
best known. Most of his plays were produced at the Maly theatre in Moscow. Ostrovsky
was a prolific writer and was devoted to the theatre. The Poor Bride (1853)
was his
first play. His masterpiece The Storm is widely known outside Russia. He observed the
middle and lower classes with keen interest. Russian realism attained its perfection in
the plays of Ostrovsky. He was not tired of exploring new ways and methods, and in
his later play, The Dowerless Girl, he tried the psychological method to draw his char-
acters. He showed Chekhov the way to approach drama with a true and faithful description, of life.
The best known play of Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883), Russian novelist and
dramatist, is A Month in the Country. The great Russian critic Belinsky had an important influence on his development. Turgenev's play, Penniless or Scenes from the Life
of a Young Nobleman, is a satirical comedy in the style of Gogol's Inspector General.
He wrote another play for Shchepkin, a delicate and touching comedy entitled The
Bachelor. In 1850, Turgenev wrote his masterpiece for the theatre, A Month in the
Country. It is important as the first psychological drama in the Russian theatre. In it
Turgenev proves himself to be the forerunner of Chekhov in that he shifted the dramatic
action from external to internal conflict. Though he intended his plays mainly for read-
ing, his insight and inner realism could not fail to make them effective in performance
when they were staged. Turgenev's career as a dramatist was very short. His two plays,
The Bachelor (1840) and A Month in the Country (1850), clearly reveal his genius as
a dramatist. Turgenev was a master in the creation of women characters. His heroes
appear very insignificant in comparison with his heroines.
Alexei K. Tolstoy (1817-1875) was the author of a number of poems, and of a
fine historical trilogy of plays, containing excellent crowd scenes and written with much
semi-oriental imagery, in which he idealized the old feudal Russia. They are The Death
of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Feodor Ivanovich and Tsar Boris. Alexei K.Tolstoy's reputa-
tion as a dramatist rests mainly on his three historical plays. He had a genius for characterization, and his portrayal of Tsar Theodore is one of the most fascinating in Russian
literature.
The development of realism on the Russian stage can be summed up in a few
representative names. Its three phases are dominated by Shchepkin ( I 830- 1850),
Ostrovsky(l850-1 875) and Stanislavsky (1 875- 1910). Constantine Sergeevich Alexeyev
who called himself Stanislavsky belonged to a wealthy family. He organized a group
of amateurs and called it the Society of Lovers of Art . Stanislavsky met NemirovichDanchenko, a brilliant teacher of dramatics in the Philharmonic Society, and was encouraged to find that Danchenko also welcomed reformation i n the theatre.
Stanislavsky's actors and Danchenko's brilliant students joined to form 'The People's
Theatre'. Very soon it came to be known as the 'Moscow Art Theatre'. Its aim was to
produce works of art of excellence quite free of official restriction or the pressures of
popular taste. For Stanislavsky every play was a unique work of art. He removed
theatricality and was mainly responsible for the improvement of good taste. He was
strongly influenced by the new tendencies, and his aim was to make the audience grasp
the inner realities of a play. He opposed artificial gestures and believed in the simplicity
of art. The endeavours of Stanislavsky and Danchenko resulted in the achievement of
perfect ensemble. To make the audience understand and appreciate the new conception
of drama, Stanislavsky and Danchenko staged the symbolic plays of Maeterlinck and
Hauptmann.
Chekhov's plays offered Stanislavsky wonderful opportunities to practice the
theories of the Art Theatre. Danchenko was an ardent admirer of Chekhov, and he
sought Chekhov's permission to stage his play The Seagull. Chekhov was present when
his play was rehearsed with great care, but he was not completely satisfied with it. It
was a crucial test for the new company, and the survival of the Moscow Art Theatre
depended on the success of the play. As Chekhov could not appreciate Stanislavsky's
excessive use of realistic effects, so Stanislavsky could not comprehend Chekhov's aim
in his plays. In fact, Chekhov complained that Stanislavsky consistently
misinterpreted his plays. Their mutual misunderstanding and mistrust did not stand in
the way of the wonderfbl productions of the Moscow Art Theatre.
Chekhov's The Seagull was presented to the public on December 16, 1898. The
play was beyond all expectations a tremendous success. The Moscow Art Theatre was
saved from condemnation and Moscow came under the spell of The Seagull. Also this
grand reception of The Seagull encouraged and inspired Chekhov to concentrate on his
dramatic work. N.A.Toumanova observes, " Stanislavsky and his colleagues therefore
began to call their theatre "The Chekhov Theatre", definitely accepting him as their
playwright and The Seagull - their mutual success as their emblem"(168). Chekhov's
Uncle Vanya was staged on October 26,1899 and it was not a success, while Three
Sisters (performed on January 31, 1901) proved to be a grand success. Savva Morosov,
a well-known rich man of Moscow, helped in the construction of a new theatre for his
favourite directors, Stanislavsky and Danchenko. The new building in the Kamergersky
Alley was equipped with all the technical improvements, subdued lights and seagulls
beautifully outlined on the gray, separating curtains. This was introduced to the public
as 'The Chekhov Theatre' and officially opened on October 28, 1902.
Another aspect of our study is Chekhov's knowledge of the European dramatic
tradition, and a study of this background proves to be absorbing and enlightening.
Shakespeare's plays were translated into Russian and they created a new enthusiasm
and a new awareness among the Russians. Chekhov was quick to recognize and appreciate the dramatic genius of Shakespeare. Chekhov's deep respect for and interest in
Shakespeare's plays are amply revealed in his short stories and plays.
On a performance of Hamlet
-Chekhov observed: "An actor must also havt:
a
great fund of knowledge. To play Hamlet one must take pains to be educated" (E.J.
Simmons, 49). Shakespeare's Hamlet created a deep impression on Chekhov and its
profound influence can be seen in his play The Seagull. The "Hamlet Complex" forms
the main theme of The Seagull. Chekhov makes use of the technique of using a play
within a play in The Seagull. As in Hamlet, Treplev in The Seagull stages a play to
plead for new forms in drama. His obsession is to impress his mother with his new
ideas and literary talent and dethrone her lover Trigorin from her heart. The theme of
"mother fixation" forms the main theme of both Hamlet and The Seagull.
Shakespeare used soliloquies and observations made by other characters to draw
his major characters. Chekhov being an innovator utilised new techniques like pauses,
music and stage directions to portray his characters. The last plays of Shakespean and
of Chekhov reveal the dramatists' shift to symbolic representation. Prospero in The
-
Tempest is a symbolic representation of the dramatist, and one of the techniques used
by Chekhov in the The Cherry Orchard
- is undoubtedlv svmholism. Chekhov and
r)
J
Shakespeare had the gift of intelligent and penetrating eye, and so, nothing could escape
them. Their keen observation admirably aided them to create life-like characters.
The French naturalists Zola, Balzac, Flaubert and Maupassant exercised a great
influence on Chekhov. The influence of Zola (1840-1902) on Chekhov was significant.
Zola was the leader of the naturalistic school. He disliked the optimistic plays of Scribe
and his followers. According to him, a play should be a "slice of life", thrown on the
stage without embellishment or artifice. His play Therese Raquin (1873) demonstrates
this theory of drama in great detail. In the words of J.L. Styan, "In all his dramatic
criticism, &la emphasized the importance of characterization as the best measure of a
play's truthfulness" (Modem Drama in Theory and Practice, Vol.1, 9). Chekhov, like
Zola believed in the truthful presentation of characters in all his plays.
Analysis of character formed the basis for the new naturalistic drama. Ordinary
people in their natural setting found place in it. As J.L.Styan points out, "Zola's stated
philosophy, both of the novel and drama, was one of absolute objectivity, with setting
9
characterization and dialogue rendered so close to actual life that an audience would
be convinced by the illusion of its reality" (8). Zola vehemently opposed the romantic
drama, melodrama and historical drama. He particularly distrusted the historical drama
because of its open invitation to spectacle and swagger. He firmly believed that the
theatre should not utter lies. According to him, the "experimental approach" of the
naturalists could strongly inform the creative imagination and provide a vital new impulse for art.
Chekhov's favourite European dramatist was Henrik Ibsen. He never missed the
opportunity of witnessing a play by Ibsen. His plays deal with the themes of conscience
and integrity. As A.Nicol1 aptly points out.
He (Ibsen) was responsible for breaking the ancient five-act division, for suggesting the potential value of the retention of the unity of place, and for pointing out how much a realistic dramatist may convey to actor and reader through
carefully worded stage directions (World Drama, 458).
Chekhov followed the new dramatic art of Ibsen, and his plays are divided into four
Acts and his stage directions are meticulous. Ibsen devoted his precious time and energy
to the development of the realistic stage. He evolved a powerful technique for the
modem stage. He discarded the older methods of exposition and allowed his characters
to evolve gradually as the action proceeded. His strict economy of form was followed
by Chekhov and other wiiters.
Ibsen's methods exerted a great influence on Chekhov. According to M.Valency,
"Ibsen feared the sentimental and theatrical even more than Chekhov. He defended
against melodrama by means of caricature, against sentimentality by means of ridicule,
against oratory by emphasizing the absurd. These were precisely Chekhov's methods"
(144). Ibsen's A Doll's House, though a successful play, did not break with tradition.
Contemporary theatre dates from 1881 with the staging of Ghosts. Like Chekhov later,
Ibsen exhibited his mastery of prose in his later plays. Raymond Williams observes:
"So it was assumed that his plays had become valuable only when he discarded verse
for prose and legend for observation" (Drama from Ibsen to Brecht, 26). Ibsen and
Chekhov proved that prose and economy of realism could successfully create theatrical
conventions. There is little physical action in Ibsen's social plays and the dramatist
stresses the importance of psychological contest of minds. lbsen displays assured theatrical strength, penetrating vision and determined purpose. In the words of G. Steiner,
"They (those who came after Ibsen and Chekhov) discerned in the two masters skillful
artisans of realism, not the great creators of myth and symbolic form which in fact they
were ... The realism of Ibsen and Chekhov is a discipline of unfolding insight whose
authority leads from the real of the letter to the more real of the spirit" (305).
At the turn of the twentieth century, Ibsen, Chekhov, Strindberg, Hauptmann and
Maeterlinck were alive and active.
Strindberg's (1 849- 1912) plays contain basic truths relating to sexual relationships, the psychological conflicts of wills and the bearing of the past on the present.
In the words of J.L.Styan, "But long before the impact of Freud, Strindberg believed
that as a naturalist he should make what he called the "soulcomplex" of a character
rich with the effects on the mind of past and present events" (41). Like Ibsen, Strindberg
drew the attention of the Scandinavian public with his two plays of uncompromising
realism, The Father (1887)and Miss Julie (1888). Strindberg was tireless in his quest
for a suitable form for his themes. He created numerous dramatic modes and techniques which profoundly influenced the westem theatre of the twentieth century.
Chekhov was very fond of Hauptmann's masterpiece The Weavers. With The
Weavers, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in 1912, Hauptmann opened up
vast possibilities. The theatre of the realists had been documentary and concerned with
bourgeois problems. The Weavers is unique both in concept and technique. Hauptmann
was the first playwright to give importance to the proletariat. The theme of his master-
piece is revolutionary. In The Weavers, he sets a whole crowd upon the stage and besides makes the crowd the hero of the play. As J.L. Styan points out,
Hauptmann spoke of himself as a biologist: His object, he said, was to report
the truth accurately, and to prompt compassion for the suffering of an actual
social group. In this The Weavers anticipated Gorky's The Lower Depths and
provided a model for O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh. (5 1)
Hauptmann inherited the tradition of bourgeois tragedy from Hebbel. Like Chekhov, he
learnt from naturalistic authors the "concept of objective depiction of life". From writers
like Ibsen and Strindberg he gained the concept of the social problem drama and the
idea of the vaster philosophic theatre and started "exploring the deeper roots of our
being".
After a brief study of Chekhov's predecessors, one may turn to study Chekhov
as a dramatist in order to comprehend his technique. It is one's own life that shapes a
writer's attitude. Anton Chekhov's (1 860- 1904) early life was very miserable. He
worked in his father's grocery store at Taganrog, and it was there that he developed
his keenness of observation. In the words of E.J. Simmons,
Memories of those endless hours of servitude in his father's grocery store always remained with Chekhov. They not only imaginatively informed the unhappy lives of the children of his tales, but they also helped to inspire his
pathetic judgement of those years. (8)
He learnt the art of story-telling from his mother, Evgenia Yakalevna Morosova, and
from his nurse, Agatha Kumskaya. It helped him to cultivate his style as a dramatist.
The long prayers he uttered as a child probably helped him to learn a large vocabulary
and that love for the Russian language which remained with him throughout his life.
He considered fiction as his legitimate wife and the theatre as a troublesome mistress.
Chekhov's study of medicine guided him in his life and helped him to cultivate
scientific observation. As R. Corrigan points out,
Chekhov was a great observer, and the plays are filled with the details of his
observation. As a man Chekhov cared deeply for all his fellow human beings;
as an artist he always maintained complete objectivity. It is the fusion of these
two characteristics that makes his plays great and, more important, makes them
work as plays. (85)
He read the Russian classics again and again to improve his form and style. He avoided
social problems, politics and metaphysics, but the human psyche fascinated him. Like
all the major dramatists of his days, he came under the inevitable spell of symbolism.
Chekhov is an innovator in the genre of shon story. As A.Yermolinsky points
out: "A master of short fiction, an innovator in that genre as in drama, he regarded
himself, like the rest of his generation, as a dwarfish descendent of giant predecessors"
('Introduction', Letters of Anton Chekhov, xii). His short stories published during his
student days, caused something of a stir. Through these stories he became acquainted
with the literary figures of his time, notably Tolstoy and Gorky. In his stones he has
portrayed a n~thlesslytruthful picture of all that was shameful and pitiable in the chaos
of middleclass life. His themes are based on everyday life and was made possible by
his keen observation of people around him. His stories have a well-knit plot and their
open-ending allows the reader to arrive at his own conclusion. He has cleverly used
his characters to express his views, but the characterization is so perfect that they remain
as individuals. Simplicity, brevity, humour and self-restraint form the essence of
Chekhov's style. Chekhov's short stories have the indispensable elements of drama,
compactness of structure and movement. According to D. Magarshack, "The dialogue
in Chekhov's short stories is essentially dramatic dialogue and it is what chiefly distin-
guishes them from the short stories of other fiction writers" (Chekhov the Dramatist,
20).
Chekhov took up short-story writing because he had to earn money quickly to
support a large family. The state of the Russian stage in the eighties and nineties of
the last century did not allow even serious playwrights to have their plays performed.
Even Alexander Ostrovsky, the established dramatist, found it extremely difficult to
stage his plays and earn a decent living.
Chekhov could write vaudevilles at will. He went on searching tirelessly for new
themes. An appreciation of Chekhov's one-act plays is helpful for an understanding of
his full-length plays. According to Chekhov's brother Michael, Chekhov loved these
farces and he never considered it beneath his dignity to write them. The Anniversary
(1 89 1) describes vividly how the plans of a banker for a shareholders' celebration are
thwarted by an altercation with an ignorant peasant woman. In The Wedding, written
in 1889, the bridegroom insists on the presence of a general at the time of wedding to
grace the solemn occasion. The bride's family obliges and the General present at the
wedding is a retired naval captain of the second rank. He bores the hapless guests with
nautical verbiage. The Proposal (1889-1890) which succeeded The Wedding is full of
farcical amusement. A landowner visits his neighbour in order to propose to his
daughter. The landowner and the woman engage in a violent quarrel over a small piece
of land. The suitor forgets his mission and runs for his life. When the woman comes
to know the purpose of his visit, she hastily sends for him. He arrives, but again, they
quarrel. The landowner swoons and he is revived. He is betrothed and even after that
the quarrel is resumed. Chekhov implies that people like the landowner and the woman
will go on quarrelling endlessly as they lack understanding. The Bear- or The Boor
(1888) is a delightful vaudeville. It describes a boorish creditor who takes pleasure in
bullying a woman vowed to perpetual widowhood. The woman's spirit in consenting
to fight a duel with him moves him. The boor is drawn to the widow and he proposes
to her. The woman conveniently forgets her vow and accepts him. On the High Road
(1885) is powerful and moving. Bortsov, the landowner and Merik, the tramp, are
betrayed by women. They try in vain to forget their miseries by consuming alcohol. As
J.Gassner points out, "Nowhere in his plays did Chekhov reveal the beast and the man-
ners of the common people as fully as in this" (Masters of the Drama, 51 1).
Chekhov had first-hand knowledge of the theatre. He first visited the theatre at
the age of thirteen. Being fascinated by theatre, he went regularly and enjoyed seeing
Gogol's The Inspecter General, Griboyedov's Woe from Wit and a dramatization of
Uncle Tom's Cabin. As a boy, he appeared on both the amateur and the professional
stage and eatned general recognition as a talented actor. His professional attitude
towards drama could be understood from the fact that he did not consider a play of his
completed before it had been thoroughly revised by him at rehearsals. Chekhov took
great care to make his heroes speak and think "in character". From the beginning of
his literary career, he had been a thoughtful student of the stage and a merciless critic
of bad acting. He admired the acting of the French actress Sarah Bernhardt, and advised
the Russian actors and actresses to emulate her. Chekhov demanded from his actors
natural, acting, and he complained to his friend Suvorin in a letter that Russian actors
never observed ordinary people. According to him, an actor should have immense
knowledge and comprehend a character in his own way without letting down the author.
Chekhov hated lies, violence and stupidity of any kind. As H. Muller points
out, Chekhov summed up his living faith in a letter: "My holy of holies is a human
body, health, intelligence, talent, inspiration, love and absolute freedom - freedom from
violence and falsehood, no matter how the last two manifest themselves" (289). TO
Chekhov, literature is a creative art which reveals to people "life as it is". The sole
purpose of literature should be absolute and honest truth. A writer, according to Chekhov, should be decent and fulfil certain duties. Though Chekhov did not claim immor-
tality for his plays, he firmly believed that any immortal work of art should have the
power to influence people to create a new and better life for themselves.
Chekhov was well-versed in the European tradition in writing plays. He tried
very hard to perform his first play Platonov (1 88 1) on the Moscow Imperial Stage, but
his attempts proved futile. His second play, The Wood Demon (1 889- 1890) was passed
by the censors, but was rejected by the Petersburg branch of the Dramatic and Literary
Committee. The Committee described it as " a dramatized short story". Chekhov's first
three plays Platonov, The Wood Demon and Ivanov contain direct-action. These early
plays had one feature in common: their artistic purpose, their contents were serious-perhaps over-serious.
Chekhov's mature plays The Seagull, Three Sisters and Uncle Vanya are fine
examples of indirect-action. As D. Magarshack observes,
There were two valid reasons which prompted Chekhov to give up the play of
direct-action; its highly dramatic situations and its "theatrical" characters of-
fended his sense of truth, and his wish t~ observe life in a detached way,
without taking sides, tended to make his drama a drama of frustration (Chekhov
the Dramatist, 121).
-
Ivanov was first performed at the Alexandrinsky theatre on January 31, 1889
and it was a great success. After Ivanov, Chekhov was beginning to feel that a work
of an should also have an aim besides holding a mirror upto nature. He came under
the influence of Tolstoy and The Wood Demon is essentially a morality play on
Tolstoyan lines. In this play virtue does not triumph over vice, but vice is transformed
to virtue.
The plays of Chekhov follow a definite pattern of development which can be
discerned through all its various stages. It is Chekhov's firm belief that objectivity is
the hallmark of a great writer. He points out that the combination of objectivity and
consciousness of a high moral purpose is characteristic of realism. His later plays differ
from the early plays not only in technique but also in final aim. The moral purpose
that is absent in his early plays forms an essential part of his later ones. His later plays
are meant to inspire the spectators to see not only life as it is but also as it should be.
Chekhov's idea of structure of a full-length play can be understood from his
definition in 1889 in a letter to Alexander: the first Act can go on as long as an hour.
Second and third Acts must be shorter and the climax must occur in the third Act. The
climax should not be too big for it may suppress the fourth Act.
Chekhov's technique as a dramatist desertes carei~iattention. According to him,
a play must be compact and dialogue must have an inner connection. His dialogue
evokes the right mood in the audience. The number of characters in each scene must
increase according to a well-defined progression. The curtains must be judiciously
planned to contribute to the organic unity of the play. According to Chekhov, a dramatist
should have in abundance a sense of stage-planning. He wrote the rough draft of his
plays and went on re-shaping them. Chekhov never wanted the reader of his plays to
relax, and he advised the budding dramatists to keep the reader in a state of suspense.
Many eminent scholars like N.A.Toumanova, M.Valency, D.Magarshack,
J.L.Styan, R.Hingley, John Gassner and R.Corrigan have analysed Chekhov's plays from
different angles. The scholars who are interested in doing research on Chekhov are in
a fortunate position to understand Chekhov's technique, his style, his power of observation, his characterization, his development as a dramatist and his unique qualities as
a man. His mastery in characterization and technique demand greater attention and exploration.
A brief survey of the criticism on Chekhov from William Gerhardi to J.L. Styan
reveals that the Russian genius was not properly understood for nearly five decades.
Earlier critics like N.A. Tournanova, D.S.Mirsky, Nabokov and A. Nicoll were mainly
responsible for the view that Chekhov's plays are dull, pessimistic and full of despair.
Though Stanislavsky made Chekhov popular in America, he contributed a great deal to
this view by presenting Chekhov's plays as full of disillusionment, pessimism and
despair. Virginia Woolf, Galsworthy, Maugham and G.B.Shaw contributed enlightening
articles on Chekhov. Fifty years after Chekhov's death scholars all over the world made
sincere efforts to understand Chekhov properly.
Today Chekhov is an integral part of the spiritual world of the elite in England
and America. According to D.Magarshack, there is a "Chekhovian cult" in these two
countries. J.B. Priestley's brilliant essay, Anton Chekhov (1970) is an example of astute
study of Chekhov. He briefly analyses Chekhov's last plays, and he considers Three
Sisters a difficult play to stage. According to him, Chekhov is a rare genius and his
last play, The Cherry Orchard is his masterpiece. The renowned English scholars on
Chekhov are D.Magarshack, R.Hingley, J.L.Styan, D.Rayfield, Raymond Williams and
Harvey Pitcher. Their works appeared in the seventies and helped people to understand
Chekhov's plays in the proper perspective. J.L.Styan, in his book, Chekhov in Performance ( 1971) writes: "Like all great theatre, Chekhov will remain alive and self-renew-
ing with each performance. We shall always see something new in Chekhov, just as we
do in Shakespeare" (as quoted by Vladimir Katayev in "Understanding Chekhov's
World" in Soviet Literature. Vol. I, 178). D. Magarshack's Chekhov the Dramatist was
published in 1958 and in it the author deals with Chekhov's greatness as a dramatist
and his mastery in characterization. His The Real Chekhov appeared in 1972. In it, he
speaks about the distortion of the real Chekhov in the British productions of Chekhov's
plays. According to him, translators are responsible for the distortion, and in Britain the
Chekhovian "sadness-cum-despair syndrome" is regarded as the most important feature
of Chekhov's plays. D. Rayfield's book entitled Chekhov, The Evolution of his Art
(1973) contains the biography of Chekhov and the plots of his stories and plays. Harvey
Pitcher in his book The Chekhov Play (1973) writes: "In our insensitive, action-centred
world we seem to be continually losing touch with the spirit that informs these beautiful
and remarkable plays. The time has come to rescue Chekhov from his admirers" (as
quoted by Vladimir Katayev, 179). According to him, Chekhov will be regarded as the
detached and ironical observer of man's triviality and futility. Virginia Llewellyn Smith,
the author of Anton Chekhov and the Lady with the Dog (1973) is one of the outstanding admirers of Chekhov. She takes her starting point the assumption that "the main
themes of Chekhov's mature work are provided by the subject of relationships between
the sexes" (as quoted by Vladimir Katayev, 180).
In America, Maurice Valency 's book The Breaking String appeared in 1966. His
analysis of Chekhov's plays reveals the dramatist as a master of characterization and
robust optimism. Two collections of Chekhov's letters appeared in America in the
1970's and they called forth this comment from Harold Clurman: "Chekhov is not only
a writer or a person we can admire, he is one we can adore" (as quoted by Vladimir
Katayev, 172). R.L. Jackson, Professor at Yale University, brought out a collection of
critical essays on Chekhov. He regards "Chekhov, the artist and thinker, as an equal
to Sophocles, Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky". Another American, J. C.Oates in an ar-
ticle entitled, "Chekhov and the Theatre of the Absurd" shows that many of the "discoveries of the playwrights of this century are only an imitation of the discoveries
contained in Chekhov's plays" (as quoted by Vladimir Katayev, 172). R. Comgan, H.
Muller, John Gassner, G. Steiner and R. Sheldon contributed thought-provoking articles
and essays on Chekhov.
From 1930 to 1960, Soviet literary studies concentrated on the the great social
significance of Chekhov's work. Vladimir Ermilov demonstrated the important role
which Chekhov's work had played in developing the social awareness of the Russians
on the eve of the first Russian revolution. The studies of Alexander Skaftymov, Grigori
Byaly, Zinovi Paperny, Gennadi Pospelov, Naum Berkovsky and Georgi Berdikov constitute a higher stage in Chekhov research. They consider ideological and artistic quest
of the writer as an evolutionary process. The book entitled Chekhov's Poetics (1971)
by Alexander Chudukov has aroused heated debates.
The fine translations of Chekhov's plays by Constance &imett (1 9 10-1915) have
made Chekhov popular in the English-speaking world. ~or~stance
Garnett duplicated
earlier translations made by K.E.C.Long, hlarian Fell and S.Koteliansky. According to
D.Magarshack, "It was Constance G u - Iwho
I~~
for~a long time monopolised the presen-
tation of Chekhov's plays on the English stage, leaving a ghastly legacy of misconceptions and misrepresentations that made them synonymous in the mind of the English
spectator with sadness, gloom and despair" (The Real Chekhov, 13). A.E.Chamot's
translation appeared in the twenties and it was in this period that the Chekhovian influence was at its zenith. George Calderon was one of the early translators of Chekhov.
Chekhov's plays have been translated by Stark Young ( 1 956), Alex Szogyi . ( I 968),
Kathleen Cook (1973), and Ronald Hingley (1982). The scholar of this thesis has found
Ronald Hingley's translation of Chekhov's five major plays extremely useful as the
primary source and has quoted from it to support his arguments. R.Hingiey is a
renowned scholar on Chekhov. His translations in the volume, d
f
Anton Chekhov, are taken from The Oxford Chekhov, as published from 1964 onwards
by the Oxford University Press. This is also available in paperback edition published
by Bantam Classic. The diction of Hingley is clear, powerful and close to life. His
translations help the reader to understand Chekhov in the proper perspective as it excels
all other translations of Chekhov in accuracy and faithfulness to nuances. R. Hingley
in his introduction discusses Chekhov's life, examines each play in detail and gives an
overview of Chekhov's contribution to modem drama. R. Hingley is also the author of
A New Life of Chekhov (1976) and in it he gives extensive information on Chekhov's
evolution as a dramatist.
After a study of more than 30 abstracts of theses in the Dissertation Abstracts
International, the scholar of this thesis has chosen the present topic since no scholar
has done research exclusively on Chekhov's characterization and technique. Zola is right
when he says that a dramatist's greatness lies in his power of characterizaiton. Following the Russian tradition, Chekhov gave utmost importance to his characters.
His technique of characterization is varied, effective and innovative.
The present thesis focuses attention on Chekhov's characterization and technique
and it is divided into six chapters including the introductory chapter..The second chapter
deals with Chekhov's themes. The important themes of Chekhov are: love, industry,
illusion and reality, dependence of women on men for security, degeneration of the
aristocracy and the future happiness of mankind. All these themes help Chekhov in
drawing life-like and memorable characters. The third chapter is entitled 'Structure in
Chekhov's Plays'. Structural elements like plot, chorus, irony, music, realism and language are discussed in detail. The fourth chapter deals with Chekhov's men who are
classified into different groups to understand their essential nature. In the fifth chapter
Chekhov's Women are studied in different groups. Chekhov's men are unimpressive
because they lack courage, patience, will-power and industry. Almost all of Chekhov's
women have gigantic stature because they possess patience, courage, optimism and industry. The concluding chapter gives a brief summary of the preceding five chapters,
and assesses Chekhov as a dramatist. The thesis is based on Chekhov's last five major
plays, Ivanov ( 1 887- 1889), The Seagull (1 896), Uncle Vanya ( 1 897)' Three Sisters
( 1 900- 1901) and The Cherry Orchard (1 903- 1904).