FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

State educational institution higher vocational education

CHELYABINSK STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Industries and Markets IECOBiA

“Analysis of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Seagull"

Performed:

student gr. 22

Petrova I.V.

Chelyabinsk

Introduction

1. Brief summary of the work

2. Interpretation of the play “The Seagull”

2.1 “The Seagull” R.K. Shchedrin

2.2 “The Seagull” by B. Akunin

3. Effective psychological analysis of “The Seagull” as the basis of literary interpretation

3.1 Subtext or "undercurrent" of the play

3.2 Director's analysis of the play

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a Russian writer, author of short stories, novels and plays, recognized as one of the greatest writers in world literature. Chekhov created four works that became classics of world drama, and his best stories highly appreciated by writers and critics.

In 1895–1896, the play “The Seagull” was written and first published in the 12th issue of the 1896 magazine “Russian Thought”. The premiere of the ballet “The Seagull” took place on October 17, 1896 on the stage of the St. Petersburg Alexandrinsky Theater. However, this premiere was not a success.

In 1896, after the failure of The Seagull, Chekhov, who had already written several plays by that time, renounced the theater. However, in 1898, the production of “The Seagull” by the Moscow Art Theater, founded by Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, was a huge success with the public and critics, which prompted Anton Chekhov to create three more masterpieces - the plays “Uncle Vanya”, “Three Sisters” and " The Cherry Orchard».

At first, Chekhov wrote stories only to earn money, but as his creative ambitions grew, he created new moves in literature, greatly influencing the development of modern short story. Its originality creative method consists of the use of a technique called "stream of consciousness", later adopted by James Joyce and other modernists, and the absence of a final moral, so necessary to the structure of the classic story of the time. Chekhov did not seek to provide answers to the reading public, but believed that the role of the author was to ask questions, not to answer them.

Perhaps none of Chekhov's plays has caused so much controversy both among the writer's contemporaries and among later researchers of his work. This is not accidental, since it is with “The Seagull” that the formation of Chekhov as a playwright and his innovation in this field of literature are associated.

The diversity of approaches to Chekhov's work inevitably leads to the emergence of views that are sometimes directly opposite. One of these disagreements deserves special attention, since it has existed for many decades, is a dispute between theater scholars and philologists: “Often theater scholars, under the guise of research, propose and try to perform their performance on paper. The temptation to write about “my Chekhov” or “Chekhov in a changing world” is great, but let directors, writers, critics and artists do the essays and interpretations. What’s more interesting is “Chekhov’s Chekhov”... the view is not from the outside, from the audience, from our time, but from the inside – from the text, ideally – “from the author’s consciousness”.

The reasons for such distrust of philologists towards theater scholars and especially directors are clear: the latter’s quest is determined by the laws of the theater, which is sensitive to the needs of the time, and, therefore, is associated with the introduction into the work of subjective “non-Chekhovian” elements that are not acceptable in literary criticism. But if you look at the literary interpretations of The Seagull, it is easy to see that some productions still had a fairly strong influence on them. The first to highlight here is the Moscow Art Theater production of 1898, which is considered the most “Chekhovian”, despite all the author’s disagreements with Art Theater, and the score by K.S. Stanislavsky for this performance. Komissarzhevskaya’s performance on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater in 1896 and especially her assessment by Chekhov himself for a long time tilted the sympathies of many researchers in favor of Zarechnaya. The productions of A. Efros (1966) and O. Efremov (1970) focused attention on the disunity of the heroes, their withdrawal into themselves, and although the performances were perceived as modernized Chekhov, the interest of philologists in this feature increased.

Speaking about the reasons for the gap between literary and stage interpretations, Z.S. Paperny expresses the idea that “the play turned out to be unattainable for full theatrical realization.” Each production of “The Seagull” reflected only its individual aspects, but as a whole the play “is wider than the capabilities of one theater.”

Shakh-Azizova, analyzing the trends of Chekhov's theater of the 60-70s, concludes that “epic thoroughness and tender lyricism are leaving the performances... the dramatic nature of Chekhov’s plays is exposed...” She sees the reason for this in a new solution to the issue of the role events that the theater not only highlighted emotionally, but also often brought to the stage what Chekhov himself tried to hide: “... the behavior of the heroes often became increasingly nervous and the audience was not so much hinted at, but directly indicated, what was in the heroes’ souls. .."

Shah-Azizova sees the one-sidedness of the search in the fact that “the theater seeks to explore Chekhov’s theatricality in its pure form. For this purpose, it is isolated, extracted from the complex unity of drama, epic and lyric...” But literary studies also suffer from a similar deficiency, where drama completely falls out of sight.

To give holistic analysis, based on the correct relationship between the three principles (dramatic, epic and lyrical), it is necessary to overcome this gap. The difficulty here is that the performance is a new work of art, not amenable to unambiguous interpretation: the “Chekhovian” in it is inseparable from the “director’s”, from the individual characteristics of the actors and modern layers. Therefore, the way to bridge the gap is seen not in the analysis of productions and related materials, but in the application of some methods and techniques of literary text analysis used by directors for the purposes of literary interpretation.

But effective analysis, the problems of which this work is devoted to, cannot be associated exclusively with theatrical practice, where text analysis is inseparable from other tasks. Moreover, although directors who strive to follow human nature often turn to psychology and physiology to confirm their intuitive findings, practical work they try not to use precise scientific terminology, developing their own language that is understandable to the actors and helps awaken their creative imagination. Therefore, in this work, along with the use of practical experience of directors, a purely theoretical justification for effective analysis will be given, based on psychological theory activities.

When correlating action-psychological analysis with literary analysis, a completely fair question arises: what new are we introducing? After all, the essence of effective analysis is to restore the action in the broadest sense of the word: the actions of the characters, their motives, the events of the play - ultimately, the sequence of events or the plot. But when it comes to a work like “The Seagull,” this task turns out to be one of the most difficult. It is no coincidence that the question of the role of events in Chekhov’s dramaturgy causes so much controversy, and doubt often arises not only about what is an event and what is not, but whether they exist at all. Effective psychological analysis helps to obtain information about events, and is especially necessary in cases where such information is not expressed verbally.

The applied method of analysis allows us to objectify the picture of what is happening in “The Seagull”, paints something like a “panorama of the heroes’ lives”, restoring in time sequence all the events about which there is direct or indirect information in the play. In the context of this “panorama”, many previously noted features of the play will appear in a new way: lyricism, narrative, symbolism. The results of the analysis will allow us to reconsider the traditionally accepted position in literary criticism that in Chekhov’s drama there is no conflict based on the collision of different goals of the characters and that there is no trace of a “single stream of volitional aspiration” of the characters in Chekhov’s dramas.” This, in turn, makes it possible to talk about a new relationship between traditional and innovative elements in Chekhov’s dramaturgy.

The results of an effective analysis are not an interpretation and are themselves subject to further interpretation along with other elements of the form. The method used does not protect against subjective assessments and conclusions, and it cannot be said that the work provides the only correct answers to all the questions posed, but something else is obvious - these questions should not remain outside the field of view of literary scholars.

Brief summary of the work

The action takes place in the estate of Pyotr Nikolaevich Sorin. His sister, Irina Nikolaevna Arkadina, is an actress, visiting his estate with her son, Konstantin Gavrilovich Treplev, and Boris Alekseevich Trigorin, a fiction writer. Konstantin Treplev himself is also trying to write. Those gathered at the estate are preparing to watch a play staged by Treplev amid natural scenery. The only role in it should be played by Nina Mikhailovna Zarechnaya, a young girl, the daughter of wealthy landowners, with whom Konstantin is in love. Nina's parents are categorically against her passion for theater, and therefore she must come to the estate secretly. Among those awaiting the performance are also Ilya Afanasyevich Shamraev, a retired lieutenant and Sorin’s manager; his wife – Polina Andreevna and his daughter Masha; Evgeniy Sergeevich Dorn, doctor; Semyon Semenovich Medvedenko, teacher. Medvedenko is unrequitedly in love with Masha, but she does not reciprocate his feelings because she loves Konstantin Treplev. Finally Zarechnaya arrives. Nina Zarechnaya, all in white, sitting on a large stone, reads a text in the spirit of decadent literature, which Arkadina immediately notes. During the entire reading, the audience constantly talks over each other, despite Treplev’s comments. Soon he gets tired of this, and he, having lost his temper, stops the performance and leaves. Masha hurries after him to find him and calm him down.

(During the work, materials from the magazine “Goods and Services”, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and others were used dramatic works A.P. Chekhov)

Characters.

Sorin is an elderly man.
Treplev is a young man.
Portrait of Chekhov.

PART 1

Room. In the room there is a roughly hewn table, with a chair with a backrest pushed up against it. On the table there is a glass jar with wildflowers, a decanter of water and a glass, a saucer with a pie. There is an empty hanger in the corner of the room. On the front wall hangs a Portrait of Chekhov with a mobile lower jaw. A gun hangs nearby, pointed towards the portrait. There is also a poster there. "A. P. Chekhov “The Seagull” (Comedy).” Closer to the hall, in front of the table there is a chair covered with a blanket; there is a book on the chair. Sorin and Treplev enter from the right (Treplev's head is wrapped in a white bandage).
Behind the stage you can hear the sound of a hammer on fresh wood and an annoying tubercular cough.

SORIN (leaning on a cane). It’s somehow not right for me, brother, in the village, and, of course, I’ll never get used to it here. Yesterday I went to bed at ten and this morning I woke up at nine with a feeling as if from a long sleep, my brain was stuck to my skull and all that. (Laughs.) And after lunch I accidentally fell asleep again, and now I’m all broken, I’m having a nightmare, after all...
TREPLEV. True, you need to live in the city.
SORIN. Fabulous!
TREPLEV. It is as difficult for her to escape from home as it is from prison. (Adjusts Sorin’s tie.) Your head and beard are disheveled. I should get a haircut or something...

The knocking and coughing gradually subside.

SORIN (touching his beard). I don't have a beard! Where did you get the idea?.. The tragedy of my life. When I was young, I looked like I had a beard. Women have never loved me. (Sits in a chair, puts a book on his lap.)
TREPLEV. New forms are needed. New forms are needed, and if they are not there, then nothing better is needed. (Looks at his watch.)
SORIN (laughs to Treplev). My eyes seem to be teary... Ge-ge! Not good!
TREPLEV. We are alone.
SORIN. Did he want to please you?

A fragment of a melancholy waltz (mix) is heard behind the stage.

TREPLEV. But I'll go anyway. I have to go.
SORIN. Stay!
TREPLEV. Tell her I left. And I ask you all, leave me alone! Leave it! Don't follow me!

The sound of a hammer can be heard behind the stage, but there is no coughing.

SORIN (laughs.) It's good for you to reason. You have lived your life, and I? You are well-fed and indifferent, and therefore have an inclination towards philosophy, but I want to live, and therefore I drink sherry at dinner, and smoke cigars, and that’s all. That's all.
TREPLEV. Soon I will kill myself in the same way.
SORIN. For what?
TREPLEV. Is your life wonderful?
SORIN. How to say to you? There were other reasons as well. It’s clear that the man is young, smart, lives in a village, in the middle of nowhere, without money. No position, no future.

There is silence behind the stage.

TREPLEV. It's good for you to laugh. You don't have a lot of money.
SORIN (with bitter annoyance, in a low voice). My eyes wouldn't see you!
TREPLEV (To Sorin). Change my bandage. You do it well.
SORIN. Well, philosophy begins. Oh, what a punishment! Where's the sister?
TREPLEV. What, sir?.. She must be healthy.
SORIN. She was a lovely girl, I say. Acting State Councilor Sorin was even in love with her for some time.

Behind the stage is a snippet of a melancholy waltz (mix).

TREPLEV (taking the book from Sorin). Thank you. You are very kind. (Sits down at the table.)
SORIN. She was a lovely girl.
TREPLEV. It’s not good if someone meets her in the garden and then tells her mother. This might upset mom...

Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer.

SORIN. You talk like a well-fed person. You are full and therefore indifferent to life, you don’t care. But you will be scared to die too.
TREPLEV. All nonsense. Hopeless love is only in novels.

There is silence behind the stage.

SORIN. What a stubborn guy. Understand, I want to live!
TREPLEV. Stay. I'll give you dinner... You've lost weight and your eyes have gotten bigger.
SORIN. What a stubborn guy!
TREPLEV. Why Genoa?
SORIN. So I want to give Kostya a plot for a story. It should be called that. “The Man Who Wanted.”

There is a cough behind the scenes.

TREPLEV. Why to Yelets?
SORIN. Exactly. And at night on my back.

There is silence behind the stage.

TREPLEV. However, when he was informed that I was going to challenge him to a duel, his nobility did not prevent him from playing a coward.
SORIN (Treplev). Ragged!

Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer.

TREPLEV (To Sorin). Miser!
SORIN. Decadent!
TREPLEV. Nonentity!

There is a cough behind the scenes.

SORIN. Married?

The coughing behind the stage becomes louder.

TREPLEV. I'm more talented than all of you, for that matter! (Tears off the bandage from his head.) You, routinists, have seized primacy in art and consider only what you yourself do to be legitimate and real, and you oppress and stifle the rest! I don't recognize you! I don't recognize you (To Sorin), neither him! (Looks at the portrait of Chekhov.)

There is silence behind the stage.

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. You want to put the evil eye on me again, you boring man!
SORIN (Treplev). Happy?
TREPLEV. For a long time.
SORIN. And you, Kostya?
TREPLEV. Do not rush.
SORIN. But there are other horses... (Waves his hand.)
TREPLEV. No, I’m thinking about going to Moscow tomorrow. Necessary.
SORIN. The bet is a dime. Place it for me, doctor.
TREPLEV. After all, it’s only six miles... Goodbye... ( Kisses Sora's hand.) I wouldn't bother anyone, but the baby... ( Bows.) Goodbye...
SORIN. Why are you all sick? Not good! How long will it take to stay with us?
TREPLEV. Sorry, I don’t feel like it... I’ll take a walk. ( Takes the book and leaves.)

SORIN (following the departing). Here comes true talent; he walks like Hamlet, and also with a book. Tara...ra...bumbia...I'm sitting on the cabinet...

The gun that hangs on the wall shoots. Sorin shudders.

SORIN. How dark! I don't understand why I feel so anxious.

There is a cough behind the scenes.

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Thirty four!
SORIN (To the portrait). You are as mysterious as the Iron Mask.

There is silence behind the stage.

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. You want to put the evil eye on me again, you boring man!
SORIN (goes to the table, sits on a chair. To the portrait). Why do you say that you kissed the ground I walked on? I need to be killed. (Leans towards the table.) I'm so tired! I wish I could rest... rest! (Raises his head.) I am a seagull... Not that. I'm an actress. Well, yes! (Listens, then runs to the left door and looks through the keyhole.) And he's here... (Comes back.) Well, yes... Nothing... Yes... He didn’t believe in the theater, he kept laughing at my dreams in the combination of a dark walnut top and original details, and little by little I also stopped believing and lost heart... And then cares of love, jealousy, constant fear for the variety of elements, magnolia color combined with warm walnut, delivery from a warehouse in Khabarovsk in three days... (Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer and coughing.) While shaping the kitchen interior, I became petty, insignificant, played senselessly... I didn’t know what to do with my hands, I didn’t know how to stand on stage, I didn’t have control of my voice. In relatively old models from five to eight years ago, this problem was solved by producing bases and cabinets of different heights. You don’t understand this state when they can make for you the corner or basic cabinet, table, or shelf necessary for your layout. I am a seagull. No, that's not it... (Rubs his forehead.) What am I talking about?.. I'm talking about the stage. Now I’m not like that... I’m already a real actress, I play with pleasure, creating the kitchen interior with delight, (Behind the stage - a snippet of a waltz (mix).) I most often try to overcome the disadvantages of the layout, get drunk on stage and feel beautiful. And now, while I live here, I keep walking, I keep walking and I think, I think and I feel how my questions about the selection and placement of equipment are growing every day... (Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer.) I now know, I understand, Kostya, that in our business it doesn’t matter where I get the clamps, the main thing is that everything will end with this old woman Pyotr Nikolaevich and his sister asking him for an apology. You'll see!.. (In a lower tone, in an undertone, to the portrait.) Take Irina Nikolaevna away from here somewhere. The fact is that Konstantin Gavrilovich shot himself... (Rises.) I will go. Farewell. When I become a big actress, come and see me. Do you promise? And now... I can barely stand on my feet... (Off stage - cough.) I'm exhausted, I'm hungry... Although all these problems will disappear if you simply choose kitchen furniture wisely with the help of a designer. Salon Kitchen-2000 is waiting for you at Pervostroiteley Avenue, 21, in the premises of the Exhibition Hall of the Union of Artists, tel. 3-33-40.

Sorin goes to the exit. Treplev comes out to meet him; in his hand is the corpse of a bird. There is silence behind the stage.

TREPLEV (to the stunned Sorin). A quiet angel flew by.
SORIN (Treplev). Place red wine and beer for Boris Alekseevich here on the table. We'll play and drink. Let's sit down, gentlemen.
TREPLEV (in a low voice, to Sorin.) Take Irina Nikolaevna away from here somewhere. The fact is that Konstantin Gavrilovich shot himself... Are you alone here?
SORIN. One.

Treplev places a seagull at his feet.

SORIN. What does it mean?
TREPLEV. I had the meanness to kill this seagull today. I lay it at your feet.

Behind the stage are the sounds of samisen.

SORIN. I don't recognize you.
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Wonderful world! How I envy you, if only you knew!
TREPLEV ( takes a pie from the table and feeds it to the portrait of Chekhov. Talks to him).. You just said that you are too simple to understand me. Your cooling is scary, incredible, as if I had woken up.

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV (having bitten off half a pie). Your life is wonderful!
TREPLEV. Am I Agamemnon? (Both smiled.)
SORIN (in a low voice). Take Irina Nikolaevna away from here somewhere. The fact is that Konstantin Gavrilovich shot himself...
TREPLEV (To Sorin). My horses are standing at the gate. Don't see me off, I'll get there myself... (Through tears.) Give me some water...
SORIN (pours water into a glass and lets him drink). Where are you going now?
TREPLEV. In town. (Pause. There is silence behind the stage.) Is Irina Nikolaevna here?
SORIN. Yes... On Thursday my uncle was not feeling well, we telegraphed her to come.
TREPLEV. Take Irina Nikolaevna away from here somewhere. The fact is that Konstantin Gavrilovich shot himself...
SORIN. And so be it.

Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer.

TREPLEV. Here you and I are almost quarreling over him, and now he is somewhere in the living room or in the garden laughing at us... developing the love of a provincial girl.
SORIN. Two ballerinas then lived in the same house where we... They went to your place for coffee...
TREPLEV. This is envy. People who are not talented, but have pretensions, have no choice but to go abroad, or something... It’s not expensive, isn’t it?..

There's a cough behind the scenes.

SORIN. You all conspired to torture me today!
TREPLEV. Are you crazy!
SORIN. This is envy.

There is silence behind the stage.

TREPLEV (raises the corpse of the bird. To Sorina). Your order.
SORIN (looking at the seagull). I do not remember! (Thinking.) I do not remember!
TREPLEV. I'll take a walk. ( About to leave.)

SORIN (following the departing one). And we, Boris Nikolaevich, still have your thing.
TREPLEV (leaving). What to do!

Treplev leaves.

SORIN (To the portrait). It's a pleasure for you to tell me troubles. I respect this man and ask you not to speak ill of him in front of me.
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. How nervous everyone is! How nervous everyone is! And how much love... Oh, magical lake! (Gently.) But what can I do, my child? What? What?
SORIN. I am fifty five years old. And the salary is only twenty-three rubles. After all, do you need to eat and drink? Do you need tea and sugar? Do you need tobacco? Just turn around here.

Behind the stage there is a snippet of a waltz (mix).

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Don't torment me, Boris... I'm scared...

Treplev enters with a seagull in his hand.

TREPLEV. Are you alone here?
SORIN. What does it mean?
TREPLEV. To find out how a famous talented writer feels, I had the meanness to kill this seagull today.
SORIN. And I would like to be in your place.
TREPLEV. For what?
SORIN. You've overworked yourself, and you don't have the time or desire to realize your importance. You may be dissatisfied with yourself, but for others you are great and beautiful!

Behind the stage there is a snippet of a waltz (mix).

TREPLEV. Sorry, I don't have time... (Laughs.) I'll take a walk . (Leaves.)
SORIN (To the portrait.). Catching a ruff or perch is such bliss!
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Twenty eight!

Behind the stage there is a snippet of a waltz (mix). Treplev enters with a seagull in his hand.

TREPLEV (To Sorin). Hello, Pyotr Nikolaevich! Why are you all sick?
SORIN (Treplev). Are you alone?
TREPLEV. For what?
SORIN. What's wrong with you?
TREPLEV. I had the meanness to kill Konstantin Gavrilovich today. I lay it at your feet. (Throws a seagull at Sorin’s feet. To the seagull.) Farewell, Konstantin Gavrilych. No one thought or guessed that you, Kostya, would become a real writer.
SORIN (to the seagull). And he became beautiful. Dear, Kostya, good, be more kind to my Mashenka!..
TREPLEV (To Sorin). Kostya is playing.
SORIN. I know.
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. He’ll go and have two drinks before breakfast.

Behind the stage there is a snippet of a waltz (mix).

SORIN. I'll take a walk.

Sorin leaves.

TREPLEV (listening). Shh... I'll go. Farewell.

Treplev is about to leave. Sorin comes out to meet him. There is a cough behind the scenes.

TREPLEV. Strange. The door doesn't seem to be locked... (To Sorin.) What does it mean?
SORIN. Remember when you shot the seagull?
TREPLEV. Soon I will kill myself in the same way.

The sound of a hammer can be heard behind the stage.

SORIN. Excuse me, but don’t inspiration and the very process of creativity give you high, happy moments?
TREPLEV. When you praise, it’s nice, but when you scold, then you feel out of sorts for two days. Why do you always wear black?
SORIN. I am a seagull.
TREPLEV (confused.). Why does he say that, why does he say that?
SORIN. Your order.
TREPLEV. Oh, how terrible this is!..
SORIN (To the portrait, pointing to Treplev). He misses the person... (Treplev). Why are you angry?

Behind the stage - the sound of a hammer, a cough, snatches of a waltz (mix).

TREPLEV. Enough! A curtain! Bring on the curtain! (Stamping his foot.) A curtain! Guilty! I lost sight of the fact that only lions, eagles and partridges can write plays and act on stage. Cold, cold, cold. Empty, empty, empty. Scary, scary, scary. (Pause.)

There is silence behind the stage.

SORIN. Isn't it a strange play?
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Something must have burst in my travel first aid kit. Take Irina Nikolaevna away from here somewhere.

Behind the stage are the sounds of samisen.

TREPLEV ( sitting down at the table, covers his face with his hands.). Even my eyes got dark...

A curtain.

PART 2

The same room. Sorin is sitting in a chair, playing cards in his hands. The portrait of Chekhov also holds playing cards. Treplev sits at a table with nothing on it but wooden lotto barrels. A shot is heard behind the stage.

TREPLEV (listening). What's happened?
SORIN (looking at the cards). Eleven!
TREPLEV (pleadingly). Uncle! Uncle, you again!
SORIN. Someone is coming.

A shot is heard behind the stage.

SORIN. Thirty four!
TREPLEV (sobs loudly). Throw me away, throw me away, I can't take it anymore!
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Twenty six!
SORIN (To the portrait). None of your business.

Two shots in a row are heard behind the stage.

TREPLEV. What does it mean?
SORIN. Maybe some kind of bird... like a heron. Or an owl...
TREPLEV (To Sorin). I don't recognize you.
SORIN. Okay, let's write it down like that.
TREPLEV. Eva! It's already passed for me.
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. You need to get married, my friend.
SORIN. Let's write it down like that.

Behind the scene there are two shots in a row.

TREPLEV. What's this?
SORIN (To the portrait). Exactly fifty?
PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV. Seventy seven!
SORIN (shouting). Hop-hop!
TREPLEV. What kind of joke?

A curtain.

PART 3

Same room. There is no one and nothing except the Portrait of Chekhov. Behind the scene, as a background, is the sound of the sea and the cries of seagulls.

PORTRAIT OF CHEKHOV (slightly sped up tape recording). Humanity moves forward, improving its strength. Anything that is now out of his reach is punishable by restriction of freedom for up to ten years with deprivation of the right to help with all his might those who are seeking to steal items of special value. Here, in Russia, very few people work yet. The vast majority of the intelligentsia that I know are not yet capable of working for the purpose of using the organs or tissues of the victim. They call themselves pregnant women, and say “you” to the servants, they treat men for selfish reasons or for hire, they don’t read anything serious, they only talk about science, they are punished by imprisonment for up to five years. Workers use violence that is dangerous to life or health, eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, there are bedbugs everywhere, stench, dampness, moral uncleanness... We have a deliberately false report about an act of terrorism only to avert the eyes of ourselves and others. Tell me where we have the nursery, which is talked about so much and often, where are the reading rooms? Illegal placement in a psychiatric hospital - there is only dirt, vulgarity, Asian... I am afraid and do not like very serious faces, I am afraid of serious conversations in relation to a obviously minor or two or more persons. You know, I get up at five o’clock in the morning, I work on a large scale, well, I constantly traffic in potent or toxic substances for sales purposes. You just need to start doing something to understand how little is punishable by a fine in the amount of fifty to one hundred times the minimum wage. Trafficking in minors is sometimes, when one cannot sleep, punishable by imprisonment of decent people by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, I think. Lord, you gave us the Criminal Code, vast fields from January 1, 1997, the deepest crimes against sexual integrity and sexual freedom of the individual, and, living here, we ourselves should do the acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, work, help everyone strength to those who seek the truth. The vast majority of the intelligentsia that I know doesn’t look for anything, doesn’t do anything, and they say “you” to the servants. I am afraid and do not like strict persons with fraudulent use of documents or means of customs identification or associated with non-declaration or false declaration. Moving across the customs border Russian Federation serious faces provided for by these articles, as well as articles 209, 221, 226 and 229 of this Code - they are only written about in novels, but in reality they are not there at all. Let's keep quiet!

A curtain.

PART 4

Same room. Treplev on stage. A melancholic waltz can be heard from behind the scenes. Treplev, without a single sound - only with the help of facial expressions (as in a silent cinema; by the way, the manner of his acting, makeup, are taken precisely from silent films) expressing the complexity of this process - with a revolver in his hand, rushes back and forth, trying to shoot himself. He tries all possible ways to shoot a crossbow - the muzzle to the mouth, to the temple, to the heart - he suffers, but still does not dare. The lighting makes the scene, the setting black and white, cinematic. The curtain falls “mid-sentence” of all this.

A curtain.

PART 5

The same room. The “CHAIKA” poster and Chekhov’s portrait are missing from the front wall. In place of the portrait is a poster with a cross-section of a seagull (visually shown digestive system poultry, cardiovascular, etc.) with caption: BODY OF A SEAGULL IN SECTION.

Sorin and Treplev are sitting at the table. Treplev every now and then approaches the poster on the wall with a ruler and compass and measures the body of the painted seagull. Then he goes to the table, sits down, notes something in the notebook, takes a printed sheet and writes on it: SEAGULL No. 22. Then he passes this printed sheet to Sorin, who, sitting in black glasses and gloves, first checking the notebook, with which Treplev records the measurements, uses scissors to cut out the silhouette of a seagull from this sheet, which he then throws on the floor, where twenty-one paper silhouettes already lie (Sorin collects the shapeless paper scraps separately so that they do not fall on the floor and do not mix with the silhouettes of seagulls, and throws them into the trash can).
From behind the scenes you can hear the plucking of the strings of a samisen and the cry of a Japanese flute. The characters work slowly, with concentration, like Zen Buddhists during meditation.

In the second third of the 18th century, a new “rhetorical agitation model” was formed for Russia: conditions arise under which the government communicates with society, assuming the presence of feedback.... This feedback became the performing arts. Sumarokov the playwright was one of the first to recognize himself as a professional theater figure who bears personal responsibility to art and the audience and is no longer just a conductor of the ideas of the “spectator on the throne.”

Bibliography

1. Basil the Great (Archbishop of Caesarea; 329-379). Conversations of our holy father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, on the Psalms: from Greek to Russian language translated. - M.: RSL, 2007.

2. Vendina T.I. Medieval man in the mirror of the Old Church Slavonic language. - M.: Indrik, 2002. - 336 p.

3. Dal V.I. Dictionary living Great Russian language: in 4 volumes - M.: Terra,

4. Kosman A. Comedies of Sumarokov // Academic. LSU notes. - 1939. - No. 33. Series Philology. - Vol. 2. - pp. 170-173.

5. Lebedeva O.B. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. - M., 2003. - P. 135136.

6. Odessky M.P. Poetics of Russian drama: second half of the 17th - first third of the 18th century. - M., 2004. - 343 p.

7. Old Church Slavonic Dictionary (based on manuscripts of the 10th - 11th centuries) / ed. R. M. Tseitlin, R. Vecherki and E. Blagovoy. 2nd ed. - M.: Rus. language, 1999. - 842 p.

8. Stennik Yu.V. The idea of ​​“ancient” and “new” Russia in literature and socio-historical thought XVIII - early XIX century. - St. Petersburg, 2004. - 266 p.

9. Sumarokov A.P. Likhoimets // Sumarokov A.P. Full collection all works - M., 1781. - Ch. V. - pp. 72-152.

10. Freidenberg O.M. Myth and literature of antiquity. - M., 1998. - 357 p.

11. Chernykh P. Ya. Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language: in 2 volumes - M.: Rus. lang.-Media, 2006.

Artemyeva L. S.

“Hamlet” microplot in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Seagull"

The article examines Shakespearean allusions and reminiscences that introduce “Hamlet” microplots into A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Seagull”. The “movement” of microplots actualizes certain genre dominants (tragedy, drama, comedy) and determines the development of the main conflict of the play.

Key words: Shakespeare, Chekhov, “The Seagull”, microplot, genre.

In domestic and foreign literary criticism, “The Seagull” is considered to be the most “Hamlet” play by Chekhov. Comparing “The Seagull” with “Hamlet”, researchers paid attention to the scenic originality of both plays, in which “the main event is continuously

is put down." “Sharp turns, interruptions in the state of the heroes” “The Seagulls”, which help reveal the main conflict of the play and convey its main tonality, according to scientists, also go back to the Shakespearean tradition. Tracing Shakespearean allusions and reminiscences in Chekhov’s play, B.I. Zingerman notes that all the heroes of “The Seagull” are “the heirs of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the first in world drama for whom the solution to the eternal damned questions about the meaning of life and the purpose of man has become more important than all other interests.” Noting this feature of Chekhov's play, the author of the idea emphasizes that this refers to such features of Shakespeare's hero as a tendency to rational thinking, reflection, and thoughtful slowness in decision-making. The same point of view is shared by J. G. Adler, considering the main - “Hamlet” - conflict of “The Seagull” in a social class manner. The researcher comes to the conclusion that Chekhov “retold Hamlet’s situation in realistic middle-class terms” (the translation hereinafter is ours. - L.A): Shakespeare’s tragedy “depicts a world in which the aristocratic tradition still works, in which the hero does not just die so his death means something, in which an aristocratic mistake can be corrected by an aristocratic act. "The Seagull" shows a world in which aristocratic traditions are dying,<...>shows the fatal impracticality of the aristocratic world, in which most people - and among them such non-aristocrats infected by aristocrats as Masha and Trigorin - have become small versions of Hamlet." Considering the “unheroic” nature of Chekhov’s characters in a more generalized manner, T.G. Winner sees Shakespearean references as a way of creating an ironic subtext that reflects the "tragedy of mediocrity".

Despite a significant amount of research into Chekhov's play, the question of its genre still remains open. Chekhov himself defined it as a comedy, but currently it is classified as a tragicomedy (“tragicomedy of heartfelt “inconsistencies”), a synthetic genre that combines elements of tragic and comic conflicts. The definition of the genre specificity of a play, from our point of view, can be given as a result of an analysis of its structural features, in particular, the structure of the plot. According to O.M. Freudenberg, “what the plot tells through its composition, what the hero of the plot tells about himself, is<...>worldview response to life." The character's worldview, which determines his role in the movement of the plot, is fixed, according to Freudenberg, in certain genre forms. Each microplot of “The Seagull” informs about the presence in the play of certain genre dominants, which in the course of the development of the action are developed or, conversely, suppressed. Z.S. drew attention to the important role of microplots in the play. Paperny, who pointed out that the entire plot of the play is made up of microplots in which the characters “not only express

they say, confess, argue, act - they offer each other different stories that express their understanding of life, their point of view, their “concept”. (Among the named microplots, a special role belongs to microplots in which “the heroes refer to the classics”). Shakespearean microplots of the play can be distinguished into a separate group, among which the most significant is “Hamlet’s”, associated with the image of Treplev.

Treplev is the most “Hamletian” figure in “The Seagull”: he “looks like Hamlet in his intelligence, his hyperactive imagination, which weighs him down, and his suicidal tendencies; he feels like a stranger in the space around him, suffers from the unfulfillment of his social status(Hamlet is the son of a king, Treplev is the son of a wealthy aristocrat), thirsts for revenge (Treplev challenges Trigorin to a duel).” The character traits of the characters listed by the researcher indicate the main similarities of the characters - their loneliness, alienation from the world around them; It is precisely this dominant motif in “The Seagull” that reveals the Hamletian subtext of Chekhov’s play. If Hamlet is initially given as a hero who knows the truth about the world, then Treplev is a hero seeking the truth; he contrasts himself with his mother and Trigorin, who in his mind are the embodiment of a world hostile to him: “She loves the theater, it seems to her that she serves humanity, sacred art, but in my opinion, modern theater is a routine, a prejudice.<...>New forms are needed. New forms are needed, and if they are not there, then nothing better is needed.” Thus, Treplev sees the possibility of realizing his ideal in the future, but not by restoring the lost harmony of the past, as the Danish prince says, but by criticizing the present, believing in the possibility of the triumph of new life principles. Art becomes a tool for transforming reality for the hero, since he is confident that it should “depict life not as it is, and not as it should be, but as it appears in dreams.”

The motif of contrasting the past and the future is developed in the following lines from scene 4 of Act III of Shakespeare’s tragedy, which can be considered as a kind of prologue to Treplev’s play:

Arkadina (reading from Hamlet): “My son! You turned your eyes inside my soul, and I saw it in such bloody, such deadly ulcers - there is no salvation!

Treplev (from Hamlet): “And why did you succumb to vice, looking for love in the abyss of crime?” .

As we remember, in Shakespeare, Hamlet invites his mother to look at the portrait of Claudius, a man who has become for the prince a symbol of the depravity of the present, and compare it with the portrait of the late king, personifying the era of nobility and triumph of civic duty (“Look here, upon this picture, and on this , / The counterfeit presentation of two brothers" III, 4 (“Look, here is a portrait, and here is another, / Skillful likenesses

two brothers" (translated by M. Lozinsky - L.A.)). Chekhov’s Arkadina seems to be declaring her readiness to listen to new forms of art, but in reality she is only playing another role, and remains indifferent to her son’s play: “He himself warned that it was a joke, and I treated his play as a joke.” . Researchers have more than once drawn attention to Hamlet’s character and the play-within-the-play itself: “Arkadina’s statement<...>that Treplev treats his play as a joke is reminiscent of The Murder of Gonzago, about which Hamlet<...>says: “No, no! They’re just joking, they’re being sarcastic for fun, nothing offensive.” In fact, both performances were given with serious intentions” (our translation - L.A.).

On the other hand, this unhappened dispute about art, which precedes the performance with a quote given in Polevoy’s translation, emphasizes the everyday plan of the play and turns out to be practically an accusation of the mother of betraying her husband’s memory and at the same time an assertion of Treplev’s superiority over Trigorin as a writer, as researchers have already written about. Apparently, one should agree with the statement that the image of Trigorin can be considered as a reminiscence of the image of Claudius, not only because the very situation of the “triangle” of Chekhov’s play goes back to Shakespeare’s tragedy, but also because Claudius “killed something, which Treplev idealized, like Hamlet idealized his father.” The “associations that arise in this scene: Treplev is Hamlet, Arkadina is the queen, Trigorin is the king who took the throne wrongly,” aggravate the motive of alienation in the image of Treplev, who, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, betrayed by Gertrude and Ophelia, turns out to be betrayed not only by his mother, but also Nina, who left him for Trigorin. Thanks to Hamlet’s motifs, introduced by reminiscences and quotes, Treplev’s opposition to the world around him receives psychological motivation: through external collisions the hero’s internal conflict is realized. The main problem driving the action of the play turns out to be the eternal conflict of generations, the struggle between “youth, forever daring in art,” which “Chekhov saw in the form of a Shakespearean, Hamletian situation: next to the young rebel from the very beginning in the plan there are his opponents - usurpers who captured places in art, “rutiners” - a mother-actress with her lover." However, from the very beginning, the impossibility of Treplev’s victory in this struggle is obvious, which is emphasized by reminiscences of Shakespeare’s tragedy: in contrast to the successful production of Hamlet, Treplev’s experimental play fails, which, according to Winner, symbolizes “Treplev’s obvious powerlessness,” “his inability to cope with life."

The conflict between Chekhov's hero and the world develops in a different sequence than in Shakespeare, and this is the fundamental innovation of The Seagull. The plot of Hamlet consistently introduces us to the hero

first in a situation of despair, leading him to thoughts of suicide (I, 2), then, having learned the truth from the Phantom (I, 4), he enters into an external confrontation with the world, playing out the “mousetrap” scene as part of the plan (III, 2) , having become convinced of terrible suspicions, denounces his mother (III, 4) and thus moves towards the inevitable fulfillment of his duty. Chekhov's Treplev first argues with his mother, then experiences the failure of his play, and only then makes an unsuccessful suicide attempt. From the possibility of success, Chekhov's hero moves to unequivocal failure: he begins with confidence in his rightness and comes to disappointment, abandoned by everyone.

At the same time, external development internal conflict The hero in Chekhov's play is repeated twice: the third act opens with a scene in which Arkadina changes her son's bandage and which, according to most researchers, resembles the scene in the queen's chambers from Shakespeare's tragedy (III, 4), a quote from which was preceded by Treplev's performance. Here Chekhov’s hero directly accuses his mother of having an affair with Trigorin, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, accusing his mother of succumbing to vice, and again Treplev’s dispute with Arkadina also turns out to be a dispute about art:

Treplev: I don’t respect you. You want me to also consider him a genius, but, forgive me, I don’t know how to lie, his works sicken me.

Arkadina: This is envy. People who are not talented, but have pretensions, have no choice but to condemn real talents. Nothing to say, consolation!

Treplev (ironically): Real talents! (Angrily.) I’m more talented than all of you, for that matter! (Tears off the bandage from his head.) You, routinists, have seized primacy in art and consider legitimate and real only what you do yourself, and you oppress and stifle the rest! I don't recognize you! I don’t recognize either you or him! .

But this dispute ends in nothing, just like the first one. If Hamlet’s words about the “ulcers of her soul” are heard by the mother, then Treplev’s judgments are not perceived by those to whom they are addressed. Both scenes - Shakespeare's and Chekhov's - end with an image of an illusory reconciliation of the characters, but the nature of this reconciliation is different. If Hamlet “can afford to be tender” with his mother, “like an adult, confident in the rightness of his action” and able to forgive a weak woman, then Treplev is an adult child who, in a moment of weakness, “sits down and quietly cries,” feeling pity for yourself and only then to your mother). This conversation with his mother is followed by Treplev’s new insight, the realization that “the point is not in old or new forms, but in the fact that a person writes without thinking about any forms, writes because it flows freely from his soul.” . However, he fails to put this understanding into practice. Addressing Nina, he says: “I’m lonely, not warmed by anyone’s affection, I’m cold, like in a dungeon, and no matter what I write, it’s all dry, callous, gloomy,” he

again finds himself abandoned by his mother and abandoned by Nina. The futility of all his aspirations, attempts to realize himself in art, to create something real ends - this time successfully - in suicide.

Both times, during the development of the internal conflict, Chekhov's character moves from a somewhat strong and active position to a weak one that psychologically destroys him. He is defeated in an argument with Arkadina (he interrupts the play the first time and cries the second), despite his passion and openness, he does not become a great writer (his play does not find a response in anyone, and having become more or less famous, he also is not satisfied with himself and sees his shortcomings), unable to survive defeat (in love and art), he passes away. Reminiscences of Hamlet constantly emphasize the hero's failure. The unconditional sincerity of the character’s beliefs is not realized; he is not able to embody them.

Reminiscences of Shakespeare's tragedy and a quotation from it introduce Hamlet's motives into the development of the action, each of which corresponds to a certain way of developing the conflict and, accordingly, a special type of behavior of the hero. However, in Chekhov's play they each time receive the opposite interpretation (despite the fact that their content - an argument with the mother, rejection of her lover, opposition to the world - remains the same), as if realized with the opposite sign. By repeating Hamlet's conflict twice in reverse order, Chekhov “forces” Treplev to experience an anti-tragedy, the only way out of which is death. Suicide at the end of the play turns out to be the only successful act of the hero, which actualizes the tragic mode, constantly recalled and at the same time constantly removed through Shakespearean references.

At the same time, Treplev’s “Hamlet” plot also includes other characters, each of whom implements the said microplot in his own way.

In the second act, commenting on Trigorin’s appearance in front of Nina, who is carried away by him, Treplev says: “Here comes true talent; he walks like Hamlet, and also with a book. (Teases.) “Words, words, words...”.” On the one hand, this remark is ironic, since the image of Claudius “shines through” in Treplev’s words. The irony is enhanced by a quotation from the tragedy: Prince Polonius’s answer to the question of what he is reading indicates both the meaninglessness of the question itself (and at the same time all the “cunning” questions of Polonius), and the unimportance of everything that can be written. In Trigorin’s works, Treplev also sees only empty words devoid of meaning. On the other hand, this irony also turns against Treplev himself, since Nina is passionate about the writer just as she once was passionate about him. In addition, the scene Treplev refers to in his sarcastic remark precedes the scene of Hamlet's meeting with Ophelia, set up by Polonius and Claudius. Thus,

Chekhov's hero turns out to be betrayed as if twice: Nina leaves him for someone similar to himself, but only successful in the literary field. Moreover, the Hamletian reference that appears in this episode, seems to correlate with the not entirely unambiguous character of Trigorin, despite the fact that, according to the son, the mother’s lover occupies the only possible position of “usurper” and “routineer” in art. Chekhov's Trigorin turns out to be capable of self-irony, and is not without a sober view of himself: “I never liked myself. I don't like myself as a writer. The worst thing is that I’m in a kind of daze and often don’t understand what I’m writing...<...>I talk about everything, I’m in a hurry, they push me from all sides, they get angry, I rush from side to side,<...>, I see that life and science are moving forward and forward, but I am falling behind and falling behind<...>and, in the end, I feel that I can only paint a landscape, and in everything else I am false and false to the core.” Trigorin, who cannot find his place, do what he really would like to do (spend his days on the shore of the lake and fish), does not create his own plot, but always turns out to be a character in the plot of “another,” as indicated by references to Shakespeare’s tragedy. Through the efforts of Arkadina, he is attached to her and, as a result, embodies the figure of Claudius in the eyes of Treplev, he is a hero like Hamlet in the eyes of Nina, who is in love with him, - while in fact, he, being a little this, a little that, turns out to be nothing, which is emphasized by that that he forgets all previous plots. To Shamraev’s remark that at his request a stuffed seagull was made, he replies: “I don’t remember”). Thus, Trigorin does not consciously commit a single action, but rather plays the role of a plot circumstance in the destinies of Nina, Treplev, and Arkadina. The change of tragic roles offered to him by other characters has the character of comic inconsistencies: Trigorin’s plot roles do not correspond to each other, they are replaced randomly and without the conscious participation of the hero himself.

Nina is also included in Treplev's Hamlet plot. Researchers point to a number of formal signs that establish similarities between Nina Zarechnaya and Ophelia: she “is also patronized beyond measure by her father<...>and also unsuccessfully"; “she falls in love with two men endowed with Hamlet-like traits”; “both girls are going crazy because of the actions of the men they love.” In relation to Treplev, Nina takes the position of Ophelia, who betrayed the prince by obeying her father’s advice; in relation to Trigorin, also associated with Hamlet within the Chekhov play, Ophelia, betrayed by the prince who refused her love (“Hamlet: I did love you once. Ophelia: Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so. Hamlet: You should not have believed me;<...>I loved you not. Ophelia: I was the more deceived" (III, 1) /"Hamlet: I loved you once. Ophelia: Yes, my prince, and I had the right to believe it. Hamlet: You believed me in vain;<...>I didn't love you. Ophelia: Tem

I was more deceived" (translated by M. Lozinsky - L.A.)). At the same time, the love conflict of the characters unexpectedly turns out to be motivated by the fact that Nina does not accept Treplev’s play, which destroys classical traditions: his drama lacks action, there is “only reading” in it, and “in the play,” according to the heroine, “there must certainly be love ... ". The theme of love is closely intertwined with the theme of art: it is the desire for traditional and successful art that draws her to Trigorin (“How I envy you, if only you knew!”). However, he does not live up to her hopes not only by the fact that he does not break off relations with Arkadina, but also - and this is more important for the heroine - by his attitude towards the theater: “He did not believe in the theater, he kept laughing at my dreams, and little by little I did too I stopped believing and lost heart..."

As researchers point out, there is a close connection between the reminiscence of Ophelia and the symbol of the seagull, forming the image of Nina. The symbol of the seagull includes the heroine in the plot of Trigorin’s unwritten story: “The plot for a short story: a young girl like you has lived on the shore of a lake since childhood; loves the lake like a seagull, and is happy and free like a seagull. But by chance a man came, saw it, and out of nothing to do, killed it, like this seagull.” It is noteworthy that the image of the destroyed seagull is taken from the story about himself proposed by Treplev: “I had the meanness to kill this seagull today.<...>Soon I will kill myself in the same way,” and was interpreted by his rival in a different way. All the “Hamlet” microplots we have examined indicate that not a single idea of ​​Treplev-“Hamlet”, not a single act of his is realized as intended. The plot of an accidentally ruined life from Treplev’s initially tragic plot is picked up by Trigorin and retells it as an ordinary story, which dramatically changes its pathos, giving the conflict an everyday character. It is noteworthy that Trigorin does not even remember him at the end of the play, because he creates unconsciously, on inspiration, which once again emphasizes the comical nature (precisely in the sense of non-conformity with a given model) of his figure.

The image of Nina unites all the plots that were not embodied by the other characters: Treplev, who strives for true art, and the naive Ophelia, and the murdered seagull (both in Treplev’s version and in Trigorin’s version), and her own (with an unsuccessful career, death of a child, feeling of guilt before Treplev). Therefore, the final clash of the heroine “with herself is dramatically contrasting”: it is as if all the possible conflicts of all the characters have merged in her. It is no coincidence that her last words are the beginning of the monologue of the world soul from Treplev’s play, which continued as follows: “. and I remember everything, everything, everything, and I relive every life in myself again.” Turning to Treplev’s play indicates a deep understanding

Nina’s understanding of everything that happened: she is the only character who realizes the unproductiveness and falsity of all the plots offered by the heroes to each other, and consciously strives to go beyond them (at the end of the play, in a conversation with Treplev, she constantly repeats: “I am a seagull... No, not that" ). However, she does not succeed: her speech is confused, remembering, she wanders between different subjects (Treplev, Trigorin, love, theater), unable to figure out which one is real. Nina's internal contradictions are never resolved, and her discrepancy with herself takes on a tragic sound.

Reminiscences and allusions to Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet” include each character in “The Seagull” in various variations of the Hamlet plot: however, while maintaining its meaningful side, they embody it not as a tragedy, but as an anti-tragedy (Treplev), drama (Nina), comedy (Trigorin ). As part of the main “Hamlet” conflict, each character embodies several different microplots, reflecting their own worldview or the one attributed to them by other characters. Overlapping, the microplots either reinforce each other (the confrontation between Treplev and Trigorin, the “madness” of unfortunate Nina), or refute each other (the confrontation between Treplev and Arkadina, Trigorin’s “Hamletism”). Either actualizing or suppressing the tragic dominants of the proposed conflicts, microplots ensure their movement and development within the framework of the main plot of the play: guided by their personal truth, each hero tries to navigate life, but as the Shakespearean references embodied in these microplots show, none of them can do this succeeds.

Bibliography

1. Zingerman B.I. Essays on the history of drama of the 20th century. Chekhov, Strindberg, Ibsen, Maeterlinck, Pirandello, Brecht, Hauptmann, Lorca, Anouilh. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - 392 p.

2. Kataev V.B. Literary connections Chekhov. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989. - 261 p.

3. Paperny Z.S. “The Seagull” by A.P. Chekhov. - M.: Artist. lit., 1980. - 160 p.

4. Smirensky V. Flight of the Seagull over the sea of ​​Hamlet. - [Email. resource]: http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/10/smirensky10.shtml

5. Freidenberg O.M. Poetics of plot and genre. - M.: Labyrinth, 1977. - 449 p.

6. Chekhov A.P. Full collection op. and letters: in 30 volumes - M.: Nauka, 1978. - 12 volumes - 400 pp.

7. Shakespeare W. Complete. collection cit.: in 8 vols. - M.: Nauka, 1960. - 686 p.

8. Adler J.H. Two “Hamlet” Plays: “The Wild Duck” and “The Sea Gull” // Journal of Modern Literature. - 1970-1971. - Vol. 1. - No. 2. - P. 226-248.

9. Rayfield D. Chekhov: The Evolution of His Art. - London, 1975. - 266 p.

I was very lucky that among the topics on Chekhov’s dramaturgy was the one included in the title of the essay. Not only because “The Seagull” is my favorite Chekhov play, but also because it is so precisely because of the comprehensive study of art and creativity that Chekhov carries out with brutal and surgical precision in his comedy. In fact, if I were asked what Chekhov’s other plays are about, I could, of course, highlight the theme of the moribund old life of the nobility and the vigorous but also cynical capitalism that is replacing it in The Cherry Orchard, leaden abominations Russian provincial life in "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters" and "Ivanov", while in each play one could fruitfully talk about the superbly developed love lines, and about the problems that come to a person with age, and about much more. But “The Seagull” has it all. That is, like all other “comedies”, “scenes” and dramas, “The Seagull” is about life, like any real literature, but also about what is most important for a creative person, writing, like Chekhov himself, writing for theater and created a new mask for ancient muse Melpomene Theater - about Art, about serving it and about how art is created - about creativity.
If they wrote about actors, their lives, their cursed and sacred craft back in ancient times, then the writers themselves started talking about the creator - the author of the text much later. The semi-mystical process of creativity began to be revealed to the reader only in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Gogol in “Portrait”, Oscar Wilde in “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, J. London in “Martin Eden”, Mikhail Bulgakov in “The Master and Margarita”, and in our time His Majesty the Author is becoming almost the most beloved hero of prose writers and playwrights.
Now it is difficult to understand whether Chekhov, with his “The Seagull,” gave impetus to this research boom, or whether just any writer at some point comes to the need to figure out how he writes, how his description and perception of reality relates to life itself, why he needs this himself and the people, what it brings to them, where he stands among other creators.
Almost all of these questions are posed and resolved in one way or another in the play "The Seagull". "The Seagull" is Chekhov's most theatrical play, because it stars writers Trigorin and Treplev and two actresses - Arkadina and Zarechnaya. In the best Shakespearean traditions, another scene is symbolically present on the stage; at the beginning of the play there is a beautiful, mysterious, promising scene with natural scenery, as if saying to both the audience and the participants in the big performance taking place in the estate: “It will still be. The play has just begun. Look!" and in the end - ominous, dilapidated, useless to anyone, which is too lazy to take apart or is simply scary. “Finita la comedia,” the participants in this “human comedy” could say, if according to Balzac. The curtain closes. Isn’t it the case in “Hamlet” that the traveling comedians reveal what people cannot say to each other openly and directly, but are forced to play life much more subtly than the actors do?

I would not be afraid to say that Art, Creativity and the attitude towards them are perhaps one of the most important characters in comedy, if not the main ones. characters. It is with the touch of art, as well as love, that Chekhov trusts and rules his heroes. And it turns out right - neither art nor love forgives lies, false pretense, self-deception, and momentariness. Moreover, as always in this world, and in the world of Chekhov’s characters, in particular, it is not the scoundrel who is rewarded, but the conscientious one who is rewarded for being wrong. Arkadina lies both in art and in love, she is a craftsman, which in itself is commendable, but a craft without the spark of God, without self-denial, without the “intoxication” on the stage, to which Zarechnaya comes, is nothing, it is day labor, it is a lie. However, Arkadina triumphs in everything - both in the possession of tinsel success in life, and in forced love, and in the worship of the crowd. She is well-fed, youthful, “in tune”, self-satisfied, as only very narrow-minded people who are always right in everything can be, and what does she care about the art that she, in fact, serves? For her, this is just a tool with the help of which she ensures a comfortable existence for herself, indulges her vanity, keeps with her someone who is not even loved, no, fashionable and interesting person. This is not a shrine. And Arkadina is not a priestess. Of course, we shouldn’t simplify her image; there are also interesting features in her that destroy the flat image, but we are talking about serving art, not about how she knows how to bandage wounds. If it were possible to expand Pushkin’s phrase about the incompatibility of genius and villainy, projecting it onto art and all its servants, among whom are geniuses, as Pushkin’s Mozart said - “you and me,” that is, not so many, and with the help of this criterion to check the servants of art depicted in the play, there would probably only be left Zarechnaya - pure, slightly exalted, strange, naive and so cruelly paid for all her sweet Turgenev qualities - paid with fate, faith, ideals, love, simple human life.
But the fact of the matter is that, apart from Arkadina, of the people associated with art in “The Seagull,” not a single one lives a simple human life, or can live. Art simply does not allow Chekhov’s heroes to do this, demanding sacrifices everywhere and continuously, in everything, everywhere and everywhere, contradicting Pushkin’s formulation “Until Apollo demands the poet to make a sacred sacrifice...”. Neither Treplev, nor Trigorin, nor Zarechnaya are able to live normally, because Apollo demands them to make a sacred sacrifice every second, for Trigorin this becomes almost a painful mania. He seems to confirm the old joke that the difference between writers and graphomaniacs is that the former get published, and the latter do not. Well, this difference between Trigorin and Treplev will disappear in just two years, between the third and fourth acts.
Well, who is the priest, restless, obsessed, tireless and merciless to himself, it is Trigorin. For him, according to the old Russian proverb, “hunting is worse than bondage”; if for Nina the most A big dream- creativity and fame, then for him - fishing and life on the shore of an enchanted lake, far from the mad crowd. From the small evidence that is scattered throughout the pages of the play, one can judge that Trigorin is indeed talented. This neck of a bottle glinting on the bridge, and the shadow of a wheel in the moonlight, this amazing phrase about life that you can “come and take” - all this is written not so much worse than those Greats with whom Trigorin is constantly compared, tormenting and forcing him to doubt both in your gift and in the need to engage in creativity. However, for him creativity is not just bread, fun and fans, as for Arkadina, for him it is both a painful illness and an obsession, but also synonymous with life. He ruins Nina not because he is a villain, he just doesn’t live. He only writes. He is unable to understand vitality an allegory with a seagull, which became not an entertaining plot for a story, but a providence of what would happen to a living person, and to a woman who loved him with all the sincerity and strength of which she was generally capable. I can’t bring myself to blame Trigorin. He's not a scoundrel. He is a priest. He is blind and deaf to everything except his notebooks, he sees only images. He is Salieri, unable to realize that he is tearing music apart like a corpse. Taking landscapes into talented, even ingenious miniatures, he turns them into still lifes, natur mort - dead nature. Even understanding the civic tasks of his work, the responsibility for the word to the reader, the “educational function of art,” he does not feel within himself the ability to do anything in this field - this is not the right talent. But a poet in Russia is more than a poet.

Naive Nina! From her point of view, “whoever has experienced the pleasure of creativity, for him all other pleasures no longer exist.”