Eastern Illinois University

The Keep
Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications

1981

Chekhov, the Doctor as Dramatist: A Study of the

Four Major Plays
Gloria Rhoads
Eastern Illinois University
This research is a product of the graduate program in English at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more
about the program.

Recommended Citation
Rhoads, Gloria, "Chekhov, the Doctor as Dramatist: A Study of the Four Major Plays" (1981). Masters Theses. 3006.
https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/3006

This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses
by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact tabruns@eiu.edu.
'I' 111;:sts REPRODUCTION CERTIFICATE

TO: Graduate Degree Candidates who have written formal theses.

SUBJECT: Permission to reproduce theses.

The University Library is rece1vrng a number of requests from other

institutions asking permission to reproduce dissertations for inclusion
in their library holdings. Although no copyright laws are involved, we
feel that professional courtesy demands that permission be obtalned
from the author before we allow theses to be copied.

Please sign one of the following statements:

Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University has my permission to lend

my thesis to a reputable college or university for the purpose of copying
it for inclusion in that institution's library or research holdings.

Date

I respectfully request Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University not

allow my thesis be reproduced because ������ ·������-

Date Author

m
 CHEKHOV, THE DOCTOR AS DRAMATIST:
-

A STUDY OF THE FOUR MAJOR PLAYS

(TITLE)

BY

Gloria Rhoads
�

THESIS

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

Master of Arts in English

IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

CHARLESTON, ILLINOIS

1981
YEAR

I HEREBY RECOMMEND THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING

THIS PART OF THE GRADUATE DEGREE CITED ABOVE

? /:z,.,b1
I DATE
 CHEKHOV, THE DOCTOR AS DRAMATIST:

A STUDY OF THE FOUR MAJOR PLAYS

BY

GLORIA HHOADS

B . A . IN FlIBNCH

EASTERN ILLINOIS UNlVElllilTY

197 3

ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submi tted in partial f u l f i l lmen t of the req uircmenLs

for t h e d egree of Master of Arts in English
at Lhe Graduate S chool of
Bas tern I llino.is Uni vc:rH i t.1

CIIARLES 'l'ON , I.LL TN OlS

4l0j.QQ
 StudyinG the relationship of Che�ho v ' s being a doctor

to his being a dramatis t reveals one reason for the s c ientifjc

objec tivity in his writing . Moreo ver , extensive reading of

his l e t ters and n o tes as well as careful �eadings of his µJays

l eaves l i t t l e d o u b t that he hims e l f cons idered that his career·

as a d o c tor had a great impact on the pl�ys he crea ted.

Chekhov fel t that a writer mus t n o t beautify reality o�·

gloss o v er i t b u t carefully presen t it as i t is . He wrote

that the writer mus t ren o u n c e subjec tivity and repor t tl1c

grime of life along wi t h the good; he sugg�sted thut, n o mat­

ter h6w unpleasan t the task migh t b e , the writer mus t realize

that dungheaps are n o l ess a n e c essary part in a lands cap�

than the scenic beauty. Briefl y , he was c o n vinced tha t the

dramatist s ho u l d dispassionately witness life, record it

hones t l y , and n o t j udge any part of i t .

Chekhov s e t himself t o give an accurate pic ture of all

of Rus sian life by delving to its very core. N o iota of

Russian life escaped his disc�rn ing vision as he s tudied the

.

relations hip b e tween wil l and en vironmen t , freedom an d neces­

s i t y , and man's chara c t er and his fa t e . As he purs u ed thiu

theme through ordinary , pedes trian c haracters , Chekhov

revealed his judgemen t agains t cruelty , sreed, hypo crisy ,

agains t whatever d egrades man and preven ts him from achieving

full s tature .

Chekhov was mos t illum�hating when he wrote about d o c­

tors, whom h e consid ered moral people , for they d o useful work.

Being a d o c tor h i mself, he was able to draw insightful por­

traits of them--exploiting their shortcomings as w e l l as

 2

their v i rtues . His doctors are fallible human beings first

and d octors only seco n d .

Chekhov's doctors were helpless to cure their patients ,

for most s uffered from s o u l s ickness rather than actual phys­

ical ailments . To him , soul s i ckness was largely a matter of

self-indulgence and the essenti al resu lt of i n d i v i dual and

soci etal bumbli n g . It i s only through suffering that h is

characters can become of service to society .

Chekhov believed that the pain of existence c o u l d not be

overcome although it m ight be eased. He carefully presented

h i s characters in a state natural to themselves and, i n s o

do�ng, revealed some of hls own adm i rable personality traits,

s uch as his strong belief in conservat i o n .

The key to Chekhov's ob j ectivity is his sensibility to

the fact that one's own fate, p l us his m i s takes , bound with

the threads of one's e nv i ronment, education, hered ity , and

thousands of ci rcumstantial happenings determ ine the l i fe of

a man. The consciousness that man is created for great thint:s

forced Chekhov to deal w i th everyday pettiness i n order to

s how how incompatible man ' s daily existence i s w i th h i s in­

herent possi b i l ities.

Chekhov's not ueing a typical, traditional turn-of-the­

century playwright accounts for much of h i s success today .

He d i d not write to please the critics or the masses, but to

satisfy that within himself w h i c h s a i d he must portray life

as i t really i s .
 TABLE OF CON TENTS

Introduction • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Elements of Concern a n d Detachment i n Chekhov's Drama 4

Doc to-rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Treatment of Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo

Curing Moral Malaise • . . . . . . . . . J9

Objective but Sympathet i c View of Mankin d 25

Conclusion . . . . . . . 27

Footnotes . • . . . . . . 29

Bibliography . . . . . .
 1

I NTRO.DU CTI ON

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the influ­

ence Chekhov's being a d octor had on the style and content of

his plays. Such influences include a d e tached attitud e , a

keen perception of de tail , an understand ing of a d o c tor's lot ,

some concern with the treatment of disease s , especially that

of moral malaise , and an objective b u t sympathetic view of

mankind .

N o t only did Chekhov reveal these characteris tics in hls

literature b u t also in his many l e tters so much so that almost

n o work abo u t A n ton Chekhov can b e considered complete without

recourse to o n e or more of h i s letters. Since h e was a volu-

minous l e tter w ri t e r w h o frequently revealed man y things about

himself and his works in this. mod e , it seems only appropriate

to b e gin with the words which Chekhov himself wrote about the

realism and objectivity that characterize his artistic con-

cerns:

The w r i ter i s n o t a pastry co o k , a

beautician , or an en tertain er. How­
ever unpl easant i t may b e to h i m ,
he must conquer his squeamishness,
must soil his imagination with the
grime of l if e . He is the same as
an ordinary reporter. For chemists
there is n o thing unclean on the
earth. The writer also must be
objective, like the chemist; he
must renounce everyday subjectivity
and know that dungheaps in a land­
scape play a very respectable role
and evil passions are just as much
part of life as good ones. l
 2

Chekhov was n o t content merely to observe surfaces; 2 h i s

special talent was the abil ity to p e netrate to the core around

which the outer l i f e is shaped. 3 At the sam e time, he sought

to achieve the utmost brevity by e l i m i nating anything super-

fluous without necessitating an emphasis on advising, instruct-

ing, or explaining to establish the clarity and fore� of h i u

main topic: the unhappiness of Russian l if e . Rather, h i s

technique i n rendering this unhappiness both con v i n c i nr, and

striking was to util ize humdrum everyday trifles to evoke

"that state o f p e rvasive inner toxicity in which man l ives

from day to day . "4

In examining everyday lif e , medicine was a precious tool

for Chekho v , writer and doctor, for ob tain ing knowledge of

man and his society and as a sclentific �upport for his arLis-

material.J
c::
tic observation and analysis of The benefits of

his medical train ing and practice unquestionably influeuced

his artistic car e e r ; they "brought hornc to Chekhov with rC'­

markable f u ll n ·e ss the horror o f l if e , the crtiel ty of nattirc,

6
and the impotence o f man . " H e wrote the following con cernin1,

the i n f luence of med i cine on h i s w r i t i n g :

It enlarged considerably my circle of

observation, enriched my k n owledge,
the valu e of wh i c h for me as a writer
only a doctor can understand; . . .
and i t kept me from making many mis­
takes. Acquaintance w i th natural s c i ­
ence, w i th the scientific method al­
ways kept me on my guard, and I tried�
wherever possi b l e , to keep to sci en­
tific facts, and where that was im­
possible--preferred n ot to write at
all . . . . To those men of le tters
who do n o t l ike scien c e , I don ' t
b e l o n g ; and to those who reach all
con clusions by their own w its,--I
should not want to b elon g . 7
 3

Helying on his scien tific objecti vi ty , Chekhov expressed

the credo of a physician: "My holy of h o l i e s is the human body,

heal th , intelligence , talen t , insp i ration , l ove and absolute

freedom--freedom from force and fal sehood, no matter how the

8
last two manifest themselves. 1 1 As a docto r , Chekhov k n e w

that medicine begins w i th the problem of diagnosis and ends

w i th the problem of treatment; as a wri t e r , h e diagnosed the·

problem , but said that an artist should not solve the probl em.

He should state the problem correctly , transcend the contra­

dictions between social and p e rsonal , large and small . 9

Chekhov could be n e i th e r just a doctor n o r just a wri ter;

for h i m , bo th careers had vi tal roles in hi s l i fe as h e

explain ed t o a f r i en d in a l e tt e r :

Medicine i s my lawful wif e , and l i t­

erature ls my m i stress. When I g e t
tired o f on e , I s l e e p w i th t h e other.
I t may be d
f orderly, but it is n o t
monotonous. 5

Whi l e recogn izing Chekhov's tal en t as a w r i ter, N.K.

Mikhail ovsky , a promin e n t wriler an d th i n k e r of the t i m e , was

dis tressed over Chekho v ' s cold-blooded (sci e n t i fic) approach

to rea l i ty . 1 1 But wh i l e i t is true that Chekhov's method

occas i o n ed a certain a l o ofn ess , a principled o b j ecti v i ty ,

Chekhov saw this as a n e cessary stance : "the artist must not

be a judge of his charac ters , but only a dispassionate w i t­

n ess . 11 12
 4

ELEMENTS OF CONCERN AND DETACHMENT

IN CHEKHOV' S DRAMA

"Man will become better when you show him what he is

like.1113 Believing this, Chekhov set himself to give a pie-

ture of all of Russian life; there is no profession, no class,

no iota of Russian life into which he did not delve.14 Chekhov

revealed, in delving to the core of Russian life, his funda-

mental philosophical interest in the relationship, usually

tragic, between will and environment, freedom and necessity,

and man's character and his fate. He explored this theme

through "minor, pedestrian personalities" who have failed to

rea1ize
. .
themse 1 ves ratl1er than unusua1 or h eroic . divi
in . . d ua 1 s. l 5

As he explored these ordinary people, his judgement against

cruelty, greed, hypocrisy, stupidity, snobbery, sloth, against

whatever degrades man and prevents him from achieving his fuJ l

stature became implicit in his writings.

This judgement leads to his point of view which resides

in an interaction between the realist Chekhov disclosing man's

tragic actuality and the positive, voluntaristic Chekhov main­

taining faith in human potentiai.16 Blemcnts of Chekho vian

style which reveal this view are: the "flitting past" of

reality (Masha, Irina, and Olga); the unexpected, unmotiv�led,

and mutually contradictory experiences which rapidly repla�e

themselves Crreplev); and the sudden disappearance ')f eco.11 ty

 )
'

w h i c h i n d u c es sensat ions and, just an s uddenly , the dying

17
away of those s ensat ions (Vany a ) .

Another important elem en t of Chekhovian s tyle i s · the

l imi t ing and redu c t i on of his remarks to mere s c enic d i rec-

t ions . The t h em e and s i tua tion are reveal e d by the charac­

t e rs , not the au thor; i t i s as i f . Chekhov had s tepped aside

and allowed h i s characters to say and do j u s t what they con�

18
s1. d ere d n ec essary. He b e l i e v e d that the reader ( viewer)

could g e t closer to t h e charac ters and comprehend them better

when they were freed from the author's interferen c e . In fac t ,

he claimed : "It i s b es t of all to avoid d e s c r ib_img the spir-

i tual s ta t e of one's heroes, one must enable the reader to

unders tand what i s happening from t h e course of t he s tory ,

from the characters' conversations, from their actions. . . . 1119

I ron i cally, W . Som e rs e t Maugham recognized th e success

of Chekhov's method of i l luminat ing characters when h e wro t�:

They are not l i t by hard l i e h t of

common day b u t suffused .in a mys­
terious grayness . They rnove in this
as though they were d isembod i ed
sp i r i ts . I t is t h e i r souls that
you s e em to s e e . The s u b conscious
s e ems to come to the surface and
they comm u n i c a t e with one another
d ir e c tly , w i thou t t h e impedimen t
of s p e e c h . S trange , futile crea­
tures, w i th d e s c r i p tions o f L he i r
outward s eeming tacked on them
l i k e a card on an exhibit in a
museum , they move as mys teriou s l y
as the tortured souls who crowded
al.Jout Dan te when he walked jn Hell.
You have t he feeling of a vas t ,
gray , los t throng wandering 2� m­
l ess in some d im underworld .

Maugham in tended this cri t i c ism mos t unkin dly , b u L, o vc ral.L,

it is a fair, ad equate description o.r Chekhovian �haractcr

portraya l .

I n presenting his characters thus, Chekhov revealed in

h i s art his traits of sincer ity , simpl iciLy , and a sense of

the obvi ous . Real ity--which includes these--must never b�

sacrifi ced , he main Laln ed :

In life, peop l e don ' t spend all the i r

time shooting each other , hanging
themsel ves or d eclaring their l o ve for
someon e. N or ls e very minute spent in
say ing c l e ver things. Mostly they
just eat , drink , flirt and talk non­
s en s e--and this is what should b e
shown on the stag e . A play should
be written in which people come, go ,
eat t h e i r d inner , chat about the
weather and play cards, not b ecause
that i s how the author wants i t , but
b eca�se th �! is how i t happens in
real l i f e .

H e wrote to h i s brother Alexander admonishing him not t o invent

sufferings he had not experienced , "for a lie in a s t o ry j_s a

"22
hundred times more boring than in a con versa t.i on . . . .

Chekhov had an extraordi_ n ary ability to detect the

slightest insincerity in the relationships between peop l e; he

could see throueh sham sentiments with which people cov e r up,

and h e hated lies. He n ever accepted anyon e o r anything at

face balue; instead he was capable of digging b e l ow t h e surface

of l i fe , of exposing the h i d d en motives of the actions of hi s

characters and of reveal in& the influence of soc i e ty's forces

upon them . 2 3

Bruford notes Chekhov's detached approach when he de­

scribes Chekhov's drama as ideal, paychological naturaliu1n (o

term which Chekhov would have d e tes t e d ) w h i c h he defines as

 ' (

"a drama which should b e con L�nL Lo make the t; pee La tor fully

aware of the com p l i cated states of m i nd in a group of lnve11 Led

characters w i thout asking whether the resul t fitted .in wlth

any accepted notions about comedy or tragedy, so long as Jt

i n terpreted convincingly the general sense of l i f e as wc know

't 1124
l. • And, as Chekhov noted and s t rove to show, in llfe a�

we know it, "People eat thelr dinner, jusL cat their dinn er,

and at that moment their happiness is bein& rna de or their

2
l ives are beinr, ru.ined .11 5

Chekhov's desire to show his characters ln the round

w i th all their faults and absurd i ties in plain v i e w resulted

26
in a comic yet disastrous effec t . Accord ing to Ei chenbaum ,

Chekhov's e ntire system was based on the lyrical elemenl--on

27
laughter and sadness. The playwright fuoect comedy and tr"�-

edy i n order to more nearly approximate life, to express the

28
en t i re range of human emo tions. Thus his seeming l i ghtnens

was not due to lack of abj l i ty or writer's levity , b u t to hJ �­

d i scovery of a whole realm previously unexploited by l i tera­

ture, a realm of everyday trifles and occu rences which are

. 20
really quite typical and worthy of his concentrated focus. - -

Praising this element of Chekhov's crea tjviLy , Gorky wrote,

"Chekhov has some thinp; more than a world v.iew • . . Ile illu-

m inates i ts ( l ife's) tedlurn, jts alrnurdity, i ts n tr.i vi nr:�3,

all of its chaos from a hjgher point of view . . 1130

 8

DOCTORS

Chekhov's "more than a world v i ew" is the result of his

exp l oi ting e v e ryday si tuations affec ting e v e ryday p eop l e . He

is p erhaps most successful a t illuminating doctors w hom h e

defines as m e n who:

have the most awful days and hours .

Heaven forbid anybody going through
the experience they do. I t i s true
that i t is poss i b l e to find coarse
and ignorant brutes among them ,
but then so do you among w r i t e rs ,
engineers and the public in een­
eral . Y e t only doctors suffer t h e
frio-htful
0 · days and hours which. I
m en tioned, .
31
. . ·

I t i s this defi n i t ion which usually classifies doctors among

his moral characters, for they do useful work; the i r prac tical

act�vi ty makes them good. Dorn (The S eagull) and Astrov

( Uncle Vanya) ·are such examples whi l e Chebutykin ( The Three

Sis t e rs) hon e s tl y recogn i z es his shortcom ings.

Being a doctor himself, Chekhov was abl e to draw insight-

ful portraits of them in his plays--and, in the case o f As t r o v ,

a strongly autobiographical one . (His similari ty to Dorn and

Chebutykin is much less di rec t . ) Yet, as the following com­

m e n ts w i l l show , they are fallible human beings first and doc-

tors only second .

As trov i s an exam p l e of th� introverted doctor who i s

a go-b e tween in the struggle of the strong and the weak and
 �,.,
who embodies mun' s struggl c to find meaning in the cosmos. Jt.

He sees life as a precise and unalterable round of birth, copu­

33
lation, and death. It is because of this belief that Dorn,

a similar character, refuses medication to Sorin; he believes

that the old man is reaching the incvj Ln.hle completion of rLis

life's cycle a nd should do notllinr, Lo delay it, so he proclaim[;,

"but when it comes to taking cures at sixty and regretting that

.
you didn't get enough pleasure out of life . . .--all that,
34
forgive me, is just a waste of time. 11

Dorn is called a "raisonneur" l>y Valency; and while the

doctor's comments are frequently inconsequential and irrele-

vant, Dorn is the character who interprets the action of the

play most clearly, and Chekhov may be said to have used an

extremely effective ploy in putting the truth of the p l ay ln

35
the least expressive character. For whlle Dorn may not al-

ways speak articulately, he is always understandable.

It is noteworthy that Dorn is most articulate when he

speaks to Treplev. As a critic of art, Dorn is the only person

who recognizes the possible scope of Treplev's talent and,

according to Magarshack, the fact that the young artist was

capable of being a much better writer than the already famous

36
Trigorin. (While Chekhov's own practice as a writer contains

elements of both Treplev's and Trigorin's styles, he is more

consistent with that of Trigorin. However, I believe his

heart went out to the struggling innovations attempted by

Treplev. ) Dorn, reacting to the play within the play, ex­

plains to the troubled Treplev what a writer should be:

 10

Dorn: Kostya, I like your play very

muc h . . . . �·Ihat I m ean to
say is this: You're dealing
with abstract ideas, and that's
good and as it should b e ,
b ecause a work of art must
express some grea t idea or i t
will fail . Only the sublime,
those things conceived with
grea t seriousness, can l�ver
be truly b eautiful . . . .
Bu t y o u mus t only write about
thines that are significant
and permanent . . . . Just one
more thing. There must be a
clear and definite iJea in a
work of art--you must know
why you ' re writing--if n o t,
if you walk alone lhis en­
chanted highway without any
definite aim, you will lose
your way and your tal e n t will
ruin you.
( SG, 138-9)
But while he is able to express himself freely and ar­

ticulately to Treplev, Dorn cannot do so w i th rolina. (lt

might be assumed that the hesitan cy of his doclors to m�rry

or confront any emotional involvements stems from Chekhov's

reluctanc� to marry or become _emotionally involved with another

individual. ) Indications are that they have had an affair and

that, possibly, Masha is their child , and y e t h e either i g­

nores Polina or responds irrelevantly to her question s . Fo r

example , when Polina nags him about his health and his in t er-

est in women , he hums lin es from songs which, on t h e surface ,

have absolutely n o relevance to wha t she has said. He ignores

her, by talking to N ina, when she begs to be allowed to live

with him ; in fact , he ignores her comp l e tely from that point

on .

Astrov reacts similarly to Sonya on c e h e learns how

 11

deeply she cares for him. While he does not completely evad�

her, he feels awkward in her presence and sees as Jittle of

her as possible; in fact, when Yelena tells him of Sonya's

love, he responds, "If you had spoken a month or two ago, per-

haps I might have been able to consider it, but now. Of

course, if she is sufferjng. . . " (UV, 206).

It i s during this conversation concernin8 Sonya that

Astrov realizes that Yelena is interested in him: "A sly one!

Suppose Sonya is unhappy. . . , but what is the real meaning of

your interrogation?" (UV, 207). He says that she (Yelena)

knows why he is there every day and that she is very pleased

about it. He offers himself in submission and tries to arrange

a rendez-vous. Because Astrov is so overwhelmed and possessed

by Yelena's beauty, he succumbs willinRlY to a physi cal attach­

ment although he shuns any emotional involvement with Sony\J.

(Chekhov himself was highly susceptible to feinule beauty and

was quite a flirt, but he, like his doctors, shunned any per­

sonal in�olvement.) Even though he submits to her beauty, he

indicates that he realizes the unhco.l tbinesc of his .interest:

"Here I've been doing nothing for a whole month, l' ve dropped

everything, I seek you greedily, . . . T' m conquered" (UV,

207).
His spiritual weakness is shown by his ignorinr; hi:.; work

in order to see Yelena; he knowi:; that work is tht! human lot

and happiness is but an unattainaule mirage,37 and he iB

overwhelmingly aware of the wasted lives on the Screbryakov

estate, even those of the peasants, when he says to Vanya,

 l"
.c

I t may be that our posteri ty , despisine

us for o u r b l i nd and stupid l i ves , will
find s ome road Lo happiness , b u t we-­
y o u and I--have b u t one hope , t he hope
that perhaps pleasan t dreams w i l l haunt
us in ·o u r graves . y'es , my friend , in
this en t i re community Lht�re were only
two decen t and i n tell igen t men, you
an d I. Ten years or so of this life o f
ours, this wretched l i fe of the com­
monplace and the trivial, have sucked
us under and poisoned us with their
destructive vapors , and we have be­
come as contemptibl e , as petty , and
a.s despicable as the o t hers . . . .
(UV, 217)

Astrov said tha t this emotional dullness and cruel t.v

were caused by meaningless routi n e . Bu t almost as s trong as

his feel i n g that h i s efforts were hopeless wao h i s dedica t i on

38
t o his voca t ion , f o r he wan a vigorous worker. He claimed ,

"I like l ife as life, but I hate and despise i t when i t means

fri t tering i t away in a l i t tl e Hussian village. As far as my

personal existence i s concerned . . . God! • • • i t is absol ute-

ly beyond redemption! . . . I work , as y o u know, perhaps harder

than anyore else around here " . ( UV , 196). (An opinion Chekhov

shared ) . Ye t he denied the i dea of work being meaninful only

in i tsel f ; as a res ul t , we hear his lengthy speeches on con-

servation and i ts pos i tive results�

You can burn peat in y o u r s toves and

b u i ld y o u r barns of s tone. Oh , I
don't objec t , o f c o u rs e , to c u t t ing
wood when y o u have to , but why destroy
the fores ts'? . . . '11 h e homes of wild
animals and the birds have been laid
desolate; the ri vers a1:e s hrinkln�,
and many beau tiful landscapes are
gone £orever. And why? Because men
are too lazy and s tupid to bend over
and pick u p their fuel from the
ground He has n o t created ,
he has only des troyed
. • . .

But . . . .

when I cross these peasan t fores tB

 15

which I h av e saved from the axe, • . .

I fee l as if I had had some small

share in improving the climate, and
that if mankind is happy a thousand
years from n o w I shall have been
partly re s pon si b le. . .
(_111, 186)

According to Magarshack, Astrov pla nL u the trees because of

his faith in man, not because of h.i.s love of natu re . Yl ( 1'1;c

conservation and faith in the future of mankind vJel'e also im-

portant to Chekhov, but the love of natural beauty aJso in­

fluenced many of his ga rd e ni ng ent0rpriseu.)

Chebutykin, on the other hand, was useless as a doctor·

or a man because he believed in noLhing; both hio mind and

his soul were empty. Magarshack states that ChebuLykin, having

been stripped of the finer attributes of a man, is "not a

human being at all. 1140 He had been human once because .of hi.r;

devoted love for a woman, but now life nu long�r exists for

4J
him; he is completely divorced from life and liv.i.ng people.

We see the final degradation of Chcl.Jutykin in Act III after

he broke the block which had been treasured by the woman h e

"
had loved. So he said, . We don't really exist, no Lhini:

does, we only think so. . . And anyway, what difference does

it m ake?" (1rs, 278). To hlm, e v e r y thin g or everyone is non-

sense and does not make any difference.

This ignorance is first revealed Ln his reading news-

papers so voraciously; the first clue to his absurdity is his

notetaking of "important facts" and prescriptions from the

popular ne wspapers. He has forgotten all of the medicine he

had ever learned. The absurdity of Chebutykin's habit is

amplified when one knows how Chekhov scorned the popular

 14

newspapers; after the failure of The Seagull and the scathjng

criticism it received, Chekhov reportedly commented to Pota­

penko about a newsvendor, "What a goodnatured face he has, and

42
yet his hands are full of poison. 11

Not only did Chekhov reveal his scorn for such newspa pers.

but he also mentioned frequently the neceasity of a doctor's

keeping up with medicine and not laggine behind, for he felt·

that he himself was unable to keep up sufficiently with the

latest medical knowledge because of the other demands on his

time. Chebutykin, however, had forgotten all his medical

knowledge because he did not care to remember and was reduced

to copying interesting prescriptions from newspapers. When

Andrey asked him what he should do about hi s shortness of

breath, he repljed, "Don't ask me. l can' L rem�mber, 111y boy--

I rea 11 y don 't know" ( •.rs , 2 '.J7 ) . Chebu Ly k in d i d no t e v en k n o \·:

how to help, and he did not care to help.

He was so preoccupied with l1irnself that he did not care

'
about anyone else' s problems or illnesses, and he never really

listened to anyone else who was talking. He was a 60-year-old

man still playing the rol e of the broken-hearted lo ver· ; to him,

I rina was indispensau.le and, one might co nc l ud e, had taken her·

mother's place in his affections. Chebutykin cuuld easily

have stopped tile duel between Tu senlHlCll v nd S o1yony, but he

did not want to because he wanted lrino Lo s Lay with him in-

stead of getting ma rr i ed . He did nut even stop to th ink tlow

she mieht react to her finnc � 's being murdered in a duel.

After he returned fro m the site of the duel, he calmly announ aed

�,usenbach' s death and then sat down, luokcd at a newnpaµer,

 15

and sang to himself. He had been ruduced to an idiot, an ir1-

dividual to whom nothing mattered; that is how he kept his

relatively good humor regardless of what was going on around

him.
 '.l' REA 'l'M EN 'P 0 l<' lJ 1 S EA� ES

While we see Chekhov's doctors doine very little actual

healing on the stage, several diseases and prescriptions are

mentioned. It is interesting to note that a contemporary do�-

tor states that, in reading Chekhov, "no medical man could

fail to learn both about himself and his patients, particu1:-tr·­

'1 3
ly those in the 1 onel iness of grave i llnens. "

Not only can a doctor learn about himself, but anyone

who sees or reads Chekhov can do the same. He maintained a

positivist outlook as a physician and "man of the people" to

whom " soul-sickness" sc.::>emed larcely a matter of self-i.ndul-

gence and who saw suffcrine as the essenLia1 result of indi­

44
vidual and societal bumbling. His characters are'1ike sick

people, s_tricken with an ailment and dreaming of health, but

45
powerless themselves to cope with the sickness.11

What few physical ailments Chekhov did mention (the

Professor's gout, Andrey's shortness of breath) are aggravated

by the emotions. For example, it was because of Serebryakov's

gout that Astrov had been summoned to the estate, but, since

the Professor refused to fol.low doctor's orders, Astrov could

not treat him effectively. Not only was asLrov unabJ.e to

treat the Professor's gout, but he was also helpless aGain:.>L

the soul sickness he observed in the members of the estate

and even in himself. As he told the old Nurse in Act 11,

 1 '(

All our friends are smuJl ln their

ideas and small in their feelings.
They see no farther than their own
noses; or perhaps, more bluntly,
they are dull and stupid. The ones
who have brains and intelligence
are hysterical, morbidly absorbed
and consumed in introspection and
analysis. They whine, they hate,
they find fault everywhere. . . .
Simple, natural, and genuine re­
l at ions between man and man or
between man and nature have no
existence in their eyes. . . .
(UV, 196-7)

Not only is the preceding statement an accuru tc d ing-

nosis of the people housed on the Serebryakov estate, but it

also accurately describes Solyony. Nothing rnattered to him

but his own opinion; no matter what he said he believed it

was r igh t . His ridiculous argument with Chebutykin in Act II

over the proper meanings of the word�.; "chehartma" and "cher-

eshma," his preoccupation with being a li e nn on t o v , and his con-

stant challenging of others to duels are examples of his ig-

norant egotism .
.

Self-concern was also very important t o Sorin in The

Seagull, for nothing mattered to him except retardinc his

aging and stalling his approaching death. He refused to ac-

cept the reality that h e was an oltl man whDse death was inev­

itable. He regretted the life he had llved (or wactcd ) becauHe

he had wanted only two things--to �et mnrried and to be a

writer, but he had done nothing to ·achieve either goal. Now

that his death was surely approaching, Sorin explained, "l've

worked in the Department of Justice for twenty-eight years,

but I haven't really lived, I h a v en't really experienced any­

thing, I want to go on livi ng " ( TS, 143).

 18

Although the three sisters are much younger than the

60-year-old Sorin, they, to o , have no t l i ved, but y e t d e s ire

t o do s o . They pay lip s ervi ce to t h e i r dream of re turning

to Moscow where l i fe i s importan t , but they never make any

plans to leave nor take any a c t ion which w i l l insure their

arrival in the place of t h e i r b i rt h .

I t i s t h i s s p i r i tual or s oul s i ckness--rather than ac tu­

al phys i cal illness--that dooms m o s t o f Chekhov'n characters ,

f o r , though they dream o f a b e t t e r l i fe , they are hopeless and

helpless i n d o ing any thing to achieve the i r goal. His chara c-

ters were, i n a word , powerless b e cause of the uncontrollable

c ircumstances life presented and b e cause of their ins i gnificance

in an impersonal world .

Chekhov, according to Lavri n , equates bewild erment wi th

surplus sens i ti v i ty , not weaknes s : "According to hi.m , a liiehly

s en s i tive person , confronted by the rough and ruthl e s s compc-

titian in .modern life, is almost doomed to fai l u r e , whi c h ,

morally speaking, d o es h i m cred i t . On the other hand , success

is a preroga t i v e o f the uns crupulous , th e cvars e and the vul­

4
gar. 11 6 In Chekhov's w o rl d , livine; means s uffering, and thoBr.'

who suffer l east arc the l east vi tal . H i s favori te characters

are those in whom a sudden d e s i r e reveals a trag i c lack of

energy.47 I t i s through s uffering Lhat hls charac ters become

of s ervi c e to s o ciety (Irina, As tro v , Vanya , Sonya) . Yet this

same suffering i s due to a s i ckness of the s oul for w h i c h h i s

d oc tors offer n o effe c t i v e cure-- only valarian drops t o n�omen-

tarily ease the pain of cxistance .

 l .

CURING MORAL MALAISI�

The p ain of existance was n ever eased for Chekhov during

his l ifetime; perhaps the pain of his unhappy childhood is

what prompted him t o write the following in a letter t o his

U n c l e Mitrofan : " P eop le must n ever be hurniliated--that is the

8
main thin g . 114 He maintained th.is p remis e as he wrote, n e v er

all owing any of h i s characters to be humiliated . He was alf30

careful to present h is characters i n a s ta te natural to them

and n o t one suppos e d l y trumped u p to please an aud i en c e or a

theatre cri t i c . But in this presen ta tion of his charac ters ,

Chekhov occasiona l l y revealed some of hi s own admirable char­

acter traits and personal beliefs--which provide a kind of

cure for the moral mal a i s e s o m any of h i s charac ters suffer

from.

For examp l e , he believed that it was immoral to thwart

nature and w o rs e than immoral to do so under the g u i s e of

49
moral obligation . It is for this reason that the theme of

c o n s e r va t i on appears so frequen tl y in h is writing. Not only

did Chekhov c o n s i d e r the des tru c t ion of the environmen t as

e v i l , but he also cons i d ered human suffe ring as wastage of

50
res ourc e s .

As tro v , a c o n s c ientious and overworked c ountry doctor

as was Chekho v , prom o te d the same values as Chekhov in .:.>akha.l in

Island; he proposed a d o c t o r's going b e yond mere m e d i ca l treat­

men t t o a scientifically ordered impro vement of the climate,

 �o

peasant e conomy , and . general e n v i ronment by planting trees,

51
etc. H e was Chekhov's most ard en t sup porter of forestry

conserva t i on ; Astrov, l ik e Chekho v , not only spoke against

the destru c t ion o f the e n v ironm ent , bu t ac tually planted trees

and d i d whate v er he c ou l d to rebu i ld what o ther m en had d e-

strayed .

One s c e n e o f wanton destru c ti on w h i c h haun ted Chekhov

throughou t h is l i f e t im e was the hunting i n c ident in w h i c h

L e vitan wounded a woodcock, b u t he ( Chekho v ) had to pu t i t o u l

of its m isery . Tha t idea o f care less wa ste apparen tly wan

carried over to Th e S eagul l and, hence, transferred to N i11a.

Although t h e au thor was referring to the wounded woodcock w i th

these w o rds, " There was o n e beau t i fu l creature o f l o ve l es s

i n t h e world, and two fools w e n t home, and sat down to d i n n e r

2
. , 11 5 t h e m essage aJ.so ap p l i' es t o bo ·t h t h e d e ad scaeu 1 1
_

and N in a . One b ea u t i f ul creature had b e en d e stroyed , b u t tha �

d id n o t prevent any o � e from carrying on his hab i tual existen c e

w i t h o u t another thought of the crushed soul .

I t i s this same theme o f careless abandon and destru c tion

w h i c h al l ows Yelena to briefly speak for Chekhov in U n c l e

Vanya as she says, " You are all poss es s ed by a d e v i l o f d e ­

struc t iven ess; y o u have n o f e e l i n g, n o , n o t even pity, for

e i ther the woods o r the b i rds o r women, o r for on e ano t h c �'

( U V , 187) . Even though s h e h ersel .f was n o t an a c t iv e con-

servat i o n i st, the words are those e xpressing Chekhov's o p i nion

o f t h e uncaring, insensi t i v e peopl e who d e s t roy without a

thought of restora t i o n .
 (_ j

Interlaced w i t h Chekhov' s fai Lh in conservation i s h i s

b e l i e f that all people pres en tly l i v ing mus t pay the b i l l f o r

the hap p i ness of future . generat ions . His characters must re-

a l i z e some meaning to t he i r 1 i ves w h i c h , j n t u rn , gi ves some

hope for them and generati ons to com e . Characters who s p eak

o u t for Chekhov o n t h i s idea are As tro v , V e rs h i n i n , and Tro f i -

mov.

V e rs hi n i n , i n parti c ular, demonstrates a profound under­

s tanding of Chekho v ' s v i ew of the des tiny of man. 5 3 He Ex plains,

i n Act 11, that w h i l e we will all be forgo tten, for that l s our

fat e , and there i s n o t h i ng we can do about i t , y e t we are not

w i th o u t o ur ind i vidual importanc e . He explains t o Masha j u s t

how v i tal her " us e l e s s " knowledge really i s :

• • I t seems to me that t he re ' s no

•

place on earth, no matter h o w du ll

and depres s ing i t may be , where in­
te lligent and educated people aren' t
needed. Let ' s s u ppose that among the
hundred thous and p e o p l e l i v ing here ,
there are· jus t three people l i ke
. you--all the rest be ing uneducated
and unc u l tured. Ob�ious ly , you
can' t ho pe to win out o ver the
ignorance of masses around you ; i n
the co urs e of y o u r l i f e , you' l J
have t o g i v e in l i t tl e b y l i tt l e
u n t i l v o u are l o s t Life will
s wallow you u p , but no t cornp l e t.c l,y ,
• . . .

for y o u' 11 have made s o1nc li.1pre ss i on .

After you' ve gon e , there ' ll b e s ix
more peopl e l i k e you , then twel v e ,
� hy , in two o r three huncl rC'd years
.

•
l i fe on this earth w i l l be wonder­
ful l y beau tiful. Man l onga for a
l i fe l i k e that , and i f h e doesn' t
have l t right n o w , he must imagine
i t , wa i t for i t , dream abou L i t ,
pre pare for l t .
'2 3G -7 )
. .

1 ·rs ,
, _
 22

A l s o a s pokesman f o r Chekhov on the s ta t e o f t h e con-

t inually advan c ing mankind , Trofimov a c ts add i t i onal l y as the

author' s mouthp i e c e on the i d i o cy of pride and i d l e indul-

gen c e :

Why b e proud when you real i z e that

Man , as a s p e c i es , is poorly con­
s tru c t ed p hy a i o l og i cally , and is
usually coar� e , s tu p i d , and pro­
foundly unhap py , too? We ought to
jus t go to work.
( co , 313)
B u t s o m e t imes t h e Chekh o v i an chara c te r s inks in to the i l l n es s

ins tead of a c t i v e l y seeking a way ou t , a cure.

Whi l e work was a v ery n e c essary part of l i f e t o Cheklluv

( th e only way in which o n e can b e u s eful and healthy ) , there

i s n o doubt that he cons i dered both o f his chosen profess i ons

as very d i s advantageous at t i m es . There is also l i ttl e doubt

that i t i s Trigorin who v o i c e s t h e author' s thoughts concern-

ing the d isadvantages of a wri t in g care e r . He tri ed to ex-

plain the painful real i ty of h i s supposedly " beau t i ·ful l i fe"

to N in a :

Wha t ' s beautiful abo u t i t ? . . . Do

you know what i t ' s l i k e to have a
compul s i o n ? . . . I ' m o b s e s s ed by
one though t : I must w r i t e , I m u s t
wri t e , l m u s t . . . I w r i t e w i t ho u t
s to pp i n g . Now , what ' s s o bright and
beaut iful about that? . . . I take
e v e ry word , e v ery sen tence I speak ,
and e v e ry word y o u say , t o o , and
q u i ckly l o ck t hem up i n my l i terary
warehous e - - i n case they migh t come
i n handy some t i m e . . . . I have no
rest from mys e l f . I f e e l as though
I ' m d e v ouring my own l i f e , and tha t
for t h e sake of t h e honey I g i v e t o
everybody e l s e I s tr i p m y bes t
fl owers of t h e i r p o l l en , tearing
them u p , and trainp l i n g on the i r ro o ts .
( SG , 148)
_
 Also l i k e Chekhov, Trigorin complalned b i t terly of h i s

soul ' s emptiness , saying that he was forced t o nouri s h h is art

at all costs and ruefully regretted the sacrifice forced upon

h i m . 54 He even u s ed N in a , his one pos s i ble road to freedom ,

as material f o r an all- too true s tory : "A young girl , l i k e

you , has l i ve d i n a hous e on the s hore o f a lake . . . , s he

loves the lake like a sea gu l l , and s h e ' s as f r e e and happ y

as a s ea gull . Th�n a man comes a l o n g , s e cs her, and having

n o th i ng b e t te r to do , des troys h er" ( :1 G , 1 50- 1 ) . I t is i n t e r-

es ting that TriBorin , l i k e Ch ek hov , uses h is n o t e book for rnore

than jus t n o t e taking; the n o tebook is a tool by w h i c h he can

remain d e tached and escape emot ional s i tuat i ons 5 5 . By bus i ly

occupying himself w i th j o t t ing down impo r t an t id eas , Trigorin ,

o r Chekhov, can avoid any s c ene in which h e does 11 o t w i s h to

partak e , for no one would dare d i s turb h i s creat i v e f l o w .

This s ke p t i c i s m and avoidance o f all unpleasan tri e s i s

echoed b y Lyubov and Chebutykin al thou g h in very d i ff e ren t

s i tuation s . Lyubov poin ts o u t the borin g real i ty of l i f e , b u t

s h e , l i k e Chekho v , beli eves in , o r a t l eas t hopes f o r , the

future. S h e repl i e s to Lopahin s ram bl ings , " I ns tead of go i n1�

'

to plays , you s ho u l d tak e a good l o o k at yours e l f . ,J us t th i n k

h o w dul l your l i fe is , and h o w much nonsense you Lalk ! " t CO,

31 1 ) .
Everything i s nonsense to the old s k e p t i c Chebu tyk i 11 ; he

b e l i eves i n n o t hi n g and n o o n e an d e x p e c ts n o th i ng from any-

on e . Chebutykin has three s tandard moans o f commun i ca t i on :

e i th e r (1) th ings don ' t m a t t e r , o r ( 2 ) they ' re n ons ens e , or

 2 tt

( 3 ) he hums o r s ings nonsensi cal refrains and i gnores th e

s i tu a t i on a t hand.

I t i s the dual nature o f Chekhov-- the sk ep tic doub ter

and the e ternal o p timis t--whlch we s e e in so many of h i s roos t

prominent charac ters . They exh i b i t h i s good-natured con tem p L ,

w h i ch i s tempered by hi s warm-hearLed sympathy , f o r a p e rs o n

s truggl ing agains t the forces of an unkind un i v ers e .

 ') t
L ")

OBJECTIVE BUT S YMPA'rHET I C VI EW OF MAN K I N D

Chekh ov ' s s en s ib i l it y to the fact that it is on e ' s own

fat e , plus his mistakes, bound with t h e thr eads of o n e ' s en-

vironmen t , education , heredit y , and literal l y thousands of

circumstan t ial happenings which determine the l ife of a man ,

56
is the k e y to his o b j e ctivity. Hi s concern for o b j ec livity

is expressed in a l etter to a friend :

• . •to divide men into s u c cessful

and u n s u c c es sful is t o l o o k at human
nature from a narrow, pre c o n c e ived
point o f view . Are you a s uc c e s s or
n ot ? Am I? . • . What is the criter­
i on ? One m u s t be a god to be able
to t e l l s uc c e s s es fro� fail ure w i t h­
out making a mis take . ? 7

His attitude of s ym pathy mixed with pity and humor and of con­

tempt tempered with k indness allows for his b e in g able to s e e

.

an individual · in his to tality' and ac c e pt an y shortcomings he

m ight hav e .
The cons cious n e s s that man is crNl Led f o r great tilinv,s

forced Chekhov to deal w ith ev eryday pc L Ll n e s s in ord e r Lo

show how inc ompatible man ' s daily exis tence is w i th his i-:1-
58
herent possib i l i tics . Ile is d istressed u e cause h is hon e n L_y

compels him to obs erve that people l J ve i n a motionl ess w o r l d

where t h e y can onl y gaze at and l o n � for, b u t n ever move to­

59
w ard , their destination . By their own passivity and irres-

olu tio n , his characters often destroy o n e another; tlrns e w ho

are otherw i s e k in d and a t tentive l o s e in tcrest in o n e an o th e r

 ?E

b e c a u s e t h ey a r e ab::; or.bed uy t he ir own em o t ions and probl e m s . ()O

He complements t h i s w it h h i s pr e s en t at ion o f t h e c om ple x ity

and im po s s ib il it y of mutu al understand ing, and w i t h h i s . per­

c ept ion of man ' s d if f i culty in ex prcs s in e all that h e t h inks

61
an d f eels.

F o c u s in G his a tt en t i on on t h e j m p o � rn Lb il l ty t h at m an will

62
ever cross the chasm lying between himself an d ot hers, Chekhov

r e al i ze s t h at t h e b ittern e s s o f l ife l i es n ot in any on e par-

t i cu l arly sad event, but pr e c i s el y in t he d r awn - o ut, drab,

m on otonous du lln e s s o f ev eryday l if e . 63 lt is t h i:; l i fe th:tt

Chekhov s hows u s ; J a c k s on expl ains it t hu s : " Man ' s tragedy,

. l ie s pr imar ily not in any ab s ol u t e helpl e s sne s s before

his fat e, but in the f a ct t hat he is cont in ually aff irm ing

64
f ate ' s aut on omy t h rough ab d i cat i on of his o wn r e s p on s ib i l i ty . 11

An o t h er r eason t hat the Chekhov ian c h ar a ct er cann ot cross

t he chasm b e t w e en himse l f and others is that he, l ik e mos t

pe o ple, ten d s t o h i de h i s tru e self from others ; one can ob ­

serve t hi s in his c haracters ohly i f he o b s erves v e ry car efull y

b e c au se :

T c he k h ov ' s characters n ev er, o f t he i j

own a c c ord, t ake off t he i r masks f o r
the bene f i t of t he aud i en ce, but t h ey
r et a in them in e xa ctly the same degr e e
a s p e o pl e ret a in t hem in r eal l i fe ;
t hat i s t o s ay, w e s omet im es gu ess by
a w ord, a phrase, a gest u re, t h e hum­
m in g o f a tune, or the s me ll in g of a
f l o w er, w hat is go ing on behind t he
m ask . . . He s h o w s u s t he d eli c ate
65
w eb s t h at r ea c h from s oul to s ou l. . .

Chekhov demon strates ob je c t ively t h �ough hi s char a cter anal y s i s

t h at, w hile n o one character seeks activ ely t o destr oy an ot her,

it is a self i s h interest an d lack of conc ern for one an o th � r

t h at d e epens an othe r's d epr e s s i on, com poun ds h i u g �ief.

 CONCLU S I ON

Chekhov ' s n o t being a typ i cal , trad i t i onal playwri6ht

o f the turn-of- the- cen tury accoun ts for much of h i s G u c c c s s

today. He d i d n o t w r ite to please the cri t i c s or the masses·,

b u t t o s a t i s fy that w i thin himself w hi c h sai d h e mus t po rtray

l if e as i t really i s .

A large part of this des ire came frorn h i s d e tached , n c i ­

e n t i f ic trainine as a d o c t o r . F i rs t , h e observed a pat ien t

( charac ter ) an d t h en reported meti cu l ously what he had s een .

He was abl e to remain as ob jective abou t h i s l i terary charac­

ters as he was ab o u t the real - l i fe pa L i. en t s he Ilea.l e d .

The major difference b e Lween Chekhov the d o c tor and

Chekhov the wri ter is that he could c u re h i s pati en ts au a

doctor. As a w r i t e r , he f e l t h e mu s t d i agn ose the problern

f i rs t , then s tate i t precis ely , and finally l eave the s ol u t i.011

up to the i n d i vidual read er. As a phy s i cian , Chekhov was n o t

a very good s urgeon , probably due to the fac t tha t he had had

very l i t tle ac tual experi ence , b u t he be came q u i L c s k i l l ed al

soul s urgery in his 1 i tera tu r e . Che k h o v exposed fo1· us ,

layer by lay e r , the problems or s i c kn e s s e s of his churactel'G

u n t il w e could s e e right to the core of the in d i vidual . Ilu L ,

again , Chekh o v d i d n o t remove the prol>J ern ; he m e rely exposed

i t to us in i ts en tire ty .
 2H

In exposing the d e p t h s o f an i n d i v id u al ' s soul s l c k n cs s ,

he s h o w e d us th e e n t i re personal i ty of the chara c ter-- the bad

as w e l l as the g o o d - - a n d why that i n d i v i d ual ac ted as he did.

Chekhov n e v e r c r i t i c i z ed o r a c c u s e d anyone for h i s ac t i o n s

b e c a u s e h e unders tood b o th the virtues and t h e s h o r t c o m i n r, s .

H e was also concerned that t he i n d i v i dual ' s problems were

i n c r e a s e d by f a c i n g an uncaring u n i v e r s e and friend and fam­

i ly too i n v o l v e d w i th t h e i r own problems to n o t i c e an o th e r' s .

Chekhov viewed all this sympa Lhe t J cally s i n c e he be­

l i eved that i t was useless t o s t ruggJ.e aea in s t one ' s e n v i ron­

ment and that m o s t p e o p l e would rather s tay in their m i s erab l e ,

fam i l iar habitat than face the unknown. Hj s charac ters always

talk a b o u t making radical changes in t heir l i v es , but n e v e r

take a s i n g l e s t ep forward ; s uch is the lot o f mos t men .

I applaud Chekho v ' s keen obse1·vation of human nature

and his co urage to carefully por tray i t as he d e em e d n e c es s ary ,

e s p e c ially i n the face of h i s hand i c a p , t u b e r c u los i s . While,

i t s e ems to m e , s om e of h i s m e l an c h o l i a d o es appear i n h i s

writing, he did not doom mankind� Ins tead h e main ta i n e d higl1

hopes f o r future g e n e r a t i o n s and b e l i e v ed man k i n d c o u l d a t tain

them.
 ) t I
'- ·

FOO'rN O'.rES

1 Leon i d. Grossman , " The N a tural i sm of Chekh o v , " in Chekhov :

A C o l l e c t ion o f Cri t i cal Bssays , e d . Hob e r t L o u i s ,Jacks on
"(°Englewood C l iffs , N . J . : Pren t i c e - Hal l , I n c . , 1'}67 ) , p . 38.
2 John Gas s n e r , " The Duali t y of Chekho v , " i n Jackson ,
p . 178.
3Mau r i c e Val en c y , T h e Breakinp; S tr inr; ( N ew Y o rk : Oxford
U n i vers i ty rress , 1 9G 6 ) , p. 29 5 .
4 A . S kaf tymo v , " l'rin c i p l e s of S true tu re ln Chek l i o v ' c
Plays , " in Jacks o n , p . 7 7 .
5 Boris Eichenbaum , " Chekhov a t Large , " i n Jack s o n , p .

6 Grossman , p . 34.

7 Helen Muchn i c , A n l n troduct.i.on to Rus s i an L i t e r a tu1·c

( N ew York: E . P . D u t ton& C o . , .Lnc . , 19b4) , pp. 1()7-8.
8 A v rahm Yarmo l i ns ky , The Unknown Chekho v ( N ew York : F111J1·
& Wagnal ls , 1 9 68) , p . 1 6 .
9 Ei chenbaum , p . 2 6 .

lO n�n i e l - . G i l l e s , Observe � W i t h o u t Il l u s i o n ( New Yo r k :

Funk & Wagnal l s , 1968) , p . 16.
l l 1 1 In troduction , 1 1 i n Jackson , p . 3 .
1 2 Grossman , p. 4 4.
1 3 A v rahm Yarmol i n s ky , The R u s 3 i an Li terary Imagi na t i on
( N ew York: Funk & Wagnall s , 1969), pp. 9 5- G .
14 E i c henbau m , p. 23.
l5
Jackson , p. 2.
16
Ibid.
1 7 Dm i tr i C h i z h e v s ky , " Chekhov .in the Devel opment o f Hus­
s i an L i terature , " in Jacks on , p p . 5 9 - 6 0 .
1 8E i chenbaum , p . 2 8 .
 5U

l9
Ibid.
2 0 Edmund W i l s on , ! Window on Hussia ( N ew York : Farra r ,
S traus an d Girou� , 1972 ) , pp. 55-6 .
2 1M. H . S h o t ton , " Chekho v , " i n N i n c teen th-Ccn tury Russ ian
L i teratur e , e d . John F en n e l l ( Berke l e y : Univers i ty of California
Pres s , 197 3 ) , pp. 3 40-1 .
2 2 Magars hac k , p .
1 32 .
2 3 David Magars chac k , Chekho v : A Life ( N ew Y o rk : Gro v e
Press , 1 9 52 ) , p . 5 4 .
2 4 w . H . Brufor d , Anton Chekhov ( London : Bowes & Bowes ,
1 9 57 ) ' p . 4 3 .
2 5s h o t ton , p . 4 1 .
3
2 6 Valency , p . 2 7 9 .
2 7 E i chenbaum, p . 2 9 .

2 8James
H . Brandon , " Towards a M i d d l e - V iew o f Chek hov , "
Educational Theatre Journal 12 ( 1960) , 2 7 3 .
29
Eichen baum , p. 2 2 .

30 I b i d . , p . 2 5 .
3 1 John Tullo c h , Chekho v : A S tructural i s t S tudy ( N ew York :
Harper & Row Pub l i shers , I n c . , 1980), p p . 5 5 - 6 .
3 2 Don.ald Rayfield , Chek hov : :£he Evo l u t i on o f His Ar t ( N P\·:
York : Harper & Row Pub l i s h e rs , In c . , 1975) , p . 8.
33A l v i n B . Kernan , " Tru th and Drama t i c Mod e l n the Modern
Thea tre : Chekho v , Pi rand ell o , and W i l l iams , " Modern Drama 1
( 195 8 ) , 104 .
3 4 Robert W . Corr i.8an , T he S ea (; u l l .Ln !J ixtlYys of Ch12k ho v
( N ew Yo rk: Hol t , Rinehart and W ins ton , l n c . , 19 2 , A c t II,
p. 1 4 3 . S ub s e q u e n t q u o ta t ions from the plays w i l l be c i t c d j n
t h e t e x t.

3 5 valency , p. 1 4 6 .
3 6 Magars hack , Real Chek h o v , p . 6 7 .

3 7 valen c y , p . 200 .

38c1ayton A . Hubbs , " Repe ti t i on in th e Plays of C.:hekho v , "

Modern Drama 2 2 ( 19 79 ) , 1 2 1 .

39 Magarshac k , Heal Chekhov , p . 1 1 8 .

 31

4 0 l b i d . , the Dra ma t i s L , p. 243.

41Ibi d .

42 Ibid. , p. 295 .

4 3Alexander Macdon�l d , " A n ton C h e kh o v : The Phy 3 i <.: i a11 and

Ma j o r Wri ter," A m e r i can M e d i cal A s s o c i a t i on .Journal 2 2 9 ( 1 97 4 ) ,
1 204 .

4 4 Gassner, p . 1 7 7 .

4 5Jackson , p. 25. r
4 6 Janko Lavrin , From Puskin to M ayak o v s ky ( L o n d o n : Syl van
Pres s L td . , 1 9 4 8 ) , p . 180

4 7 valen cy , p. 187.

4 8 N o rman S i l v e rs t e i n , " Ch e k h o v ' s C o r n i e S p i r i L and. The

Cherry Orcharc\" Modern Drama 1 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 92.

4 9 valen c y , p . 188.

5 0 Rayfield , p. 6.

51Tulloch , p. 5.

5 2 valen cy , pp . 1 39 - 4 0 .

5 3 Magars hac k , Real Ch e k h o v , p. 136.

5 4 va l e n c y , p . 1 3 9 .
.
5 5 Kernan , p. 1 04 .

5 6 Jackson , p. 10.

5 7 Ri chard Gilman , The Mak i ng o f M o d e r n Drama ( N ew Y o rk :

Farrar, S traus , & Giro ux;-1 9 7 4) , p-
.-14 1 .

5 8E i c henbaum , p. 24 .

5 9 Muchn i c , p. 225 .

60Geor8 i i To v s t on o go v , " Ch e k h o v ' s ' 'l'hrce � i s t e rG ' a t the

Gorky Theatre:' Tulane Dram a H e v i c w 1 3 , i i \ 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 4 9.

6 1 I b id . , p. 148.

6 2 Bernard Beck erman , " The A r t i f i c e o.f ' Real i ty ' i n Chek­
hov and P i n te�' M od e rn Drama 2 1 \ 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 59 - 60 .
6 3 s kaft y m o v , p . 77.
 -z_ ')
)•.

64Jack s o n , p. 12 .

65 Mau r i c e Bar i n c , Landmarks i n .H.ussian L i t era tu re ( N e w

York: Barnes & Nobl e , 1960) , p p . lb9- 70 .
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baring , Mauri c e . Landmarks in Rus s i an Literature. New

York : Barnes & Nobl e , 1965.

Beckerman , Bernard . " 'fhe Artifice of ' Real i ty ' in Chekhov

and Pinter. " Modern Drama 2 1 ( 1978 ) , 1 5 3-61 .

Bermel , Albert. Contrad i c to·ry Charac ters . N ew York :

E . P . Dutton & C o . , Inc . , 1 9 7 3 .

B l o ck , Anita. The Changing World in Plays and Theatre.

New York : De Capo Press , 1971 .

Brandon , James R. " Toward a Middl e- V i e w of Chekho v . 11

Educational Theatre Journal 1 2 ( 19 60 ) , 270-2 7 5 .

Bruford , W . H . Anton Chekhov . London: Bowes & Bowe s , 1957 .

Chekhov and His Rus s ia.

• N ew York: Oxford Univer­
��-
s-
i_y Press , 194-r:--
t_ �-

Brus tein , Robert. " F oreword , " Chekho v : The Major Plays ,
trans . Ann Dunnigan. N ew York : 11'he N ew American
Library , 1964 .

Corrigan , Robert w . S i x Plays of Chekho v : N ew Engl ish Ver­

s i ons . New York : Hol t , Rinehart and Wins ton , Inc . ,
1962.
Dav i e , Donal d , e d . �us s i an Li terature and Modern Engl ish
F i c tion. Chi cago : The Univers i ty of Chicago Pres s ,
1 965 .

Fennel l , John . N i ne teenth-Cen tury Russian Li terature.

Berkeley : U n i vers i ty of California Press , 1 9 7 3 .

Freedman , Morris . " Chekho v ' s Morality of Work. 11 Modern

Drama 5 ( 1962 ) , 8 3 - 9 3 .

Friedland , Louis s . , ed. Anton Chekho v : Let ters .2E. the

*
S hort S tor , the Drama , and Other Li terar Topi c s . �
New York : o b l e Offs e t Prin ters , In c . , 19 4 .

Gerhard i e , W i l l iam. Anton Chekhov. N ew York : S t . Martin ' s

Press , 1974.

Gill � s , Dan i el . Observer Wi thout Illus i o n , tran s . Charles

Lam Markmann . New York : Funk & Wagnall s , 1968 .
Gilman, Richard. The Making of Modern Drama. N ew York :
Farra r , S traus:-& G i ro u x , 19'1 4 .

Gorohak o v , Nikolai A. The Theatre i n S ov i e t Rus s i a . New

York : Columbia University Press-,-19 5 7 .

Hahn , Beverly. Chekhov. Cambridge : Cambridge U n ivers ity

Press , 1 9 7 7 .

Ringley, Ronal d . A N e w Life of Anton Chekhov. New York :

Alfred A . Knopf, 1976.

Russ ian Wri ters and S o c i e ty , 182 5 - 1 90 4 . N ew

York ; McGraw-Hill Book Company , 1 9 6 7 .

The Russian Mind. New York : S cribner, 1 9 7 7 .

Hubbs , Clayton A . " The Function of He -p eti t ion in the Plays

of Chekhov . " Modern Drama 2 2 ( 1979 ) , 115- 2 4 .

Jacks on , Robert Louis , e d . Chekho v : A Col l e ction of Criti­

�
cal Essa s . Engl ewood Cl i ffs , N . J . : Pren t i c e-Hal l ,
Inc . , 19 7.

Karl insky, S imon and Michael Henry Heim. Letters of Anton _ _

Chekhov . New York : Harper & Row , Publ ish e rs , 1 9 7 3 .

Kendle , Burton. " The Elus i v e Horses i n -

The S ea Gull . "
Modern Drama 1 3 ( 1 970 ) , 63- 6 6 .
- --

Kernan, Alvin B. " Tru th and Dramat i c Mode in the Modern

Theatre : Chekho v , P irand el l o , and W i l l i ams . " Modern
Drama 1 ( 1 9 58 ) , 101-114 .

Kotel i ansky , " S . S . and Leonard W o o l f , trans . Notebook o f

Anton Chekhov . New York : B . W . Huebsch, Inc . , 1921- .-

Lahr, John. " P in te r and Chekho v : The Bond of Natural ism. "
Tulane Drama Review 1 3 , i i ( 1 968) , 137-1 4 5 .

Lamm , Martin. Modern Drama. N ew York : Folcroft L i bra�y

Editions , 1 9 7 1 .

Lavrin , Janko . From Puskin to Mayakovsk.y . London : Syl van

Press Ltd . , 1 9 4 8 .

Lu cas , F . L . The Drama o f Chekho v , Synge , Y ea ts and P i ran­

dello. London : Cas s el l & Company , Ltd . , 1 9 6 5 .

Macdonald , Alexand e r . "Anton Chekho v : The Phys i c ian and

Major Writer . " Ameri can Medical Ass oc i ation Journal 2 2 9
( 1974 ) , 1203-04 .

Macleod , Joseph. The N ew S o v i e t Theatre. London : George

-
Allen & Unw i n , rtd-
.-,-19 4 3 .
Magarshack , David . Chekhov: A Lif e . New York : Grov.e Pres s ,
1952 .

. Chekhov the Dramatis t. N ew York : Hill and Wang,

__ 1_
9_
6-
0.

The Real Chekhov.

• London : George A l l en & Unwin,
___
L_
t_
d-
. , 1972 .

Martin , Bernard. " Creations from N o thing : On Anton Chekho v , "

A S hes tov Anthology. Athens , Ohio : Ohio University
Press , 1970.

Mirsky , Prince D . S . Modern Rus s ian L i terature. London :

Oxford University Pres s , 1 92 5 .

Muchn i c , Helen. An Introduction to Russian Li terature .

.-Dutto n & Co. , Til e . , 1964.
New York : E .P-

Nemirovi tch-Dantchenko , Vladimir. k!.Y Life in the Rus s i an

Theatre. New York : Theater Arts Books , -Y9b'B:°

Pau l , Barbara. " Chekho v ' s ' Five S is ters .' " Modern Drama 1 4
( 1 9 72 ) , 4 36-40.

P i tcher, Harvey. The Chekhov Play . New York : Harp er & Row
Publishers , Inc. , 197 3 .

Rayf i eld , Donald . Chekhov: The Evol u t ion of His Art . New
York : Harper & Row Publ ishers , Inc . , 19'/ 5-
.� �-

Sagar, K e i th . " Chekhov' s Magic .Lak e : A Reading of The S ea­

gul l . " Modern Drama 1 5 ( 19 7 3 ) , 4 4 1 - 4 7 .

S co t t , V·irginia. "Life i n Art : A Readin g of The S eagul l . "

Educational Theatre Journal 30 ( 1978 ) , 357- 6 7 .

S il v e rs tein , N o rman. " Chekhov ' s Comic S p irit and The Cherry
Orchard . " Modern Drama l ( 19 58 ) , 91-100.

S l o n i m , Marc . Russian Theatre. Cleveland : World P u b . Co. ,

1961 .

S tow ell , H . Peter. Literary Impress ionis m , James and

Chekhov . Athens : The Univers i ty o f Georgia Press , 1980.

S tyan , J . L . Chekhov in Performan c e . N ew York : Cambridge

University Pres s , 1971 .

Tovstonogo v , Georgi i . " Chekhov' s ' Three S i s ters' a t the

Gorky Theatre . " Tulane Drama Review 1 3 , i i ( 1968 ) ,
146- 5 5 .

Tull och, John. Chekho v : A S tructural i s t S tudy . N e w York :

Harper & Row Publishers , Inc . , 1980 .
Valency, Mauri c e . The Breaking S t ring . New York : Oxford
University Press , 1 966.

Varneke, B . V. His to ry of the Rus s i an Theatre. New York :

The Macm i l l an Company,--r§°51 .

W i l s o n , Edmund . A Window on Rus s ia . New York : Farrar,

S trau s , and Giroux, 1972.

Yarmol insky , Avrahm. " Chekhov-- Humane to the Tips of His

Fingers , " The Russian L i terary Imae;ination. New York :
Funk & Wagnal l s , 1 969 .

The Unknown Chekho v . New York : Funk & Wagnal l s ,

1968: