Letters of Anton Chekhov to His Family and Friends
is. Tatyana, too, is a finished figure, only (a) she ought really
to be a schoolmistress, ought to be teaching children, ought to come
home from school, ought to be taken up with her pupils and exercise-books,
and (b) it ought to be mentioned in the first or second act that
she has attempted to poison herself; then, after that hint, the poisoning
in the third act will not seem so startling and will be more in place.
Telerev talks too much: such characters ought to be shown bit by bit
between others, for in any case such people are everywhere merely
incidental--both in life and on the stage. Make Elena dine with all the
rest in the first act, let her sit and make jokes, or else there is very
little of her, and she is not clear. Her avowal to Pyotr is too abrupt,
on the stage it would come out in too high relief. Make her a passionate
woman, if not loving at least apt to fall in love....
July 29, 1902.
I have read your play. [Footnote: “In the Depths.”] It is new and
unmistakably fine. The second act is very good, it is the best, the
strongest, and when I was reading it, especially the end, I almost danced
with joy. The tone is gloomy, oppressive; the audience unaccustomed to such
subjects will walk out of the theatre, and you may well say good-bye to
your reputation as an optimist in any case. My wife will play Vassilisa,
the immoral and spiteful woman; Vishnevsky walks about the house and
imagines himself the Tatar--he is convinced that it is the part for him.
Luka, alas! you must not give to Artyom. He will repeat himself in that
part and be exhausted; but he would do the policeman wonderfully, it is his
part. The part of the actor, in which you have been very successful (it is
a magnificent part), should be given to an experienced actor, Stanislavsky
perhaps. Katchalev will play the baron.
You have left out of the fourth act all the most interesting characters
(except the actor), and you must mind now that there is no ill effect from
it. The act may seem boring and unnecessary, especially if, with the exit
of the strongest and most interesting actors, there are left only the
mediocrities. The death of the actor is awful; it is as though you gave the
spectator a sudden box on the ear apropos of nothing without preparing him
in any way. How the baron got into the doss-house and why he is a baron is
also not sufficiently clear.
* * * * *
Andreyev’s “Thought” is something pretentious, difficult to understand, and
apparently no good, but it is worked out with talent. Andreyev has no
simplicity, and his talent reminds me of an artificial nightingale.
Skitalets now is a sparrow, but he is a real living sparrow....
TO S. P. DYAGILEV.
YALTA,
December 30, 1902.
... You write that we talked of a serious religious movement in Russia. We
talked of a movement not in Russia but in the intellectual class. I won’t
say anything about Russia; the intellectuals so far are only playing at
religion, and for the most part from having nothing to do. One may say of
the cultured part of our public that it has moved away from religion, and
is moving further and further away from it, whatever people may say and
however many philosophical and religious societies may be formed. Whether
it is a good or a bad thing I cannot undertake to decide; I will only say
that the religious movement of which you write is one thing, and the whole
trend of modern culture is another, and one cannot place the second in any
causal connection with the first. Modern culture is only the first
beginning of work for a great future, work which will perhaps go on for
tens of thousands of years, in order that man may if only in the remote
future come to know the truth of the real God--that is not, I conjecture,
by seeking in Dostoevsky, but by clear knowledge, as one knows twice two
are four. Modern culture is the first beginning of the work, while the
religious movement of which we talked is a survival, almost the end of what
has ceased, or is ceasing to exist. But it is a long story, one can’t put
it all into a letter....
TO A. S. SUVORIN.
MOSCOW,
June 29, 1903.
... One feels a warm sympathy, of course, for Gorky’s letter about the
Kishinev pogrom, as one does for everything he writes; the letter is not
written though, but put together, there is neither youthfulness in it nor
confidence, like Tolstoy’s.
* * * * *
July 1, 1903.
You are reading belles-lettres now, so read Veresaev’s stories. Begin with
a little story in the second volume called “Lizar.” I think you will be
very much pleased with it. Veresaev is a doctor; I have got to know him
lately. He makes a very good impression....
TO S. P. DYAGILEV.
YALTA,
July 12, 1903.
... I have been thinking over your letter for a long time, and alluring as
your suggestion or offer is, yet in the end I must answer it as neither you
nor I would wish.
I cannot be the editor of _The World of Art_, as I cannot live in
Petersburg, ... that’s the first point. And the second is that just as a
picture must be painted by one artist and a speech delivered by one orator,
so a magazine must be edited by one man. Of course I am not a critic, and I
dare say I shouldn’t make a very good job of the reviews; but on the other
hand, how could I get on in the same boat with Merezhkovsky, who definitely
believes, didactically believes, while I lost my faith years ago and can
only look with perplexity at any “intellectual” who does believe? I respect
Merezhkovsky, and think highly of him both as a man and as a writer, but we
should be pulling in opposite directions....
Don’t be cross with me, dear Sergey Pavlovitch: it seems to me that if you
go on editing the magazine for another five years you will come to agree
with me. A magazine, like a picture or a poem, must bear the stamp of one
personality and one will must be felt in it. This has been hitherto the
case in the _World of Art_, and it was a good thing. And it must be
kept up....
TO K. S. STANISLAVSKY.
YALTA,
July 28, 1903.
... My play “The Cherry Orchard” is not yet finished; it makes slow
progress, which I put down to laziness, fine weather, and the difficulty of
the subject....
I think your part [Translator’s Note: Stanislavsky acted Lopahin.] is all
right, though I can’t undertake to decide, as I can judge very little of a
play by reading it....
TO MADAME STANISLAVSKY.
YALTA,
September 15, 1903.
... Don’t believe anybody--no living soul has read my play yet; I have
written for you not the part of a “canting hypocrite,” but of a very nice
girl, with which you will, I hope, be satisfied. I have almost finished the
play, but eight or ten days ago I was taken ill, with coughing and
weakness--in fact, last year’s business over again. Now--that is
to-day--it is warmer and I feel better, but still I cannot write, as my
head is aching. Olga will not bring the play; I will send the four acts
together as soon as it is possible for me to set to work for a whole day.
It has turned out not a drama, but a comedy, in parts a farce, indeed, and
I am afraid I shall catch it from Vladimir Ivanitch [Footnote: Nemirovitch
Dantchenko.]....
I can’t come for the opening of your season, I must stay in Yalta till
November. Olga, who has grown fatter and stronger in the summer, will
probably come to Moscow on Sunday. I shall remain alone, and of course
shall take advantage of that. As a writer it is essential for me to observe
women, to study them, and so, I regret to say, I cannot be a faithful
husband. As I observe women chiefly for the sake of my plays, in my opinion
the Art Theatre ought to increase my wife’s salary or give her a pension!
...
TO K. S. STANISLAVSKY.
YALTA,
October 30, 1903.
... Many thanks for your letter and telegram. Letters are very precious to
me now--in the first place, because I am utterly alone here; and in the
second, because I sent the play three weeks ago and only got your letter
yesterday, and if it were not for my wife, I should know nothing at all and
might imagine any mortal thing. When I was writing Lopahin, I thought of it
as a part for you. If for any reason you don’t care for it, take the part
of Gaev. Lopahin is a merchant, of course, but he is a very decent person
in every sense. He must behave with perfect decorum, like an educated man,
with no petty ways or tricks of any sort, and it seemed to me this part,
the central one of the play, would come out brilliantly in your hands....
In choosing an actor for the part you must remember that Varya, a serious
and religious girl, is in love with Lopahin; she wouldn’t be in love with a
mere money-grubber....
TO V. I. NEMIROVITCH DANTCHENKO.
YALTA,
November 2, 1903.
... About the play.
1. Anya can be played by anyone you like, even by a quite unknown actress,
so long as she is young and looks like a girl, and speaks in a youthful
singing voice. It is not an important part.
(2) Varya is a more serious part.... She is a character in a black dress,
something of a nun, foolish, tearful, etc.
... Gorky is younger than you or I, he has his life before him.... As for
the Nizhni theatre, that’s a mere episode; Gorky will try it, “sniff it and
reject it.” And while we are on this subject, the whole idea of a
“people’s” theatre and “people’s” literature is foolishness and lollipops
for the people. We mustn’t bring Gogol down to the people but raise the
people up to Gogol....
TO A. L. VISHNEVSKY.
YALTA,
November 7, 1903.
... As I am soon coming to Moscow, please keep a ticket for me for “The
Pillars of Society”; I want to see the marvellous Norwegian acting, and I
will even pay for my seat. You know Ibsen is my favourite writer....
TO K. S. STANISLAVSKY.
YALTA,
November 10, 1903.
DEAR KONSTANTIN SERGEYITCH,
Of course the scenery for III. and IV. can be the same, the hall and the
staircase. Please do just as you like about the scenery, I leave it
entirely to you; I am amazed and generally sit with my mouth wide open at
your theatre. There can be no question about it, whatever you do will be
excellent, a hundred times better than anything I could invent....
TO F. D. BATYUSHKOV.
MOSCOW,
January 19, 1904.
... At the first performance of “The Cherry Orchard” on the 17th of
January, they gave me an ovation, so lavish, warm, and really so
unexpected, that I can’t get over it even now....
TO MADAME AVILOV.
MOSCOW,
February 14, 1904.
... All good wishes. Above all, be cheerful; don’t look at life so much as
a problem--it is, most likely, far simpler. And whether it--life, of which
we know nothing--is worth all the agonizing reflections which wear out our
Russian wits, is a question.
TO FATHER SERGEY SHTCHUKIN.
MOSCOW,
May 27, 1904.
DEAR FATHER SERGEY,
Yesterday I talked to a very well-known lawyer about the case in which you
are interested, and I will tell you his opinion. Let Mr. N. immediately put
together _all_ the necessary documents, let his fiancee do the same, and go
off to another province, such as Kherson, and there get married. When they
are married let them come home and live quietly, saying nothing about it.
It is not a crime (there is no consanguinity), but only a breach of a long
established tradition. If in another two or three years someone informs
against them, or finds out and interferes, and the case is brought into
court, anyway the children would be legitimate. And when there is a lawsuit
(a trivial one anyway), then they can send in a petition to the Sovereign.
The Sovereign does not sanction what is forbidden by law (so it is no use
to petition for permission for the marriage), but the Sovereign enjoys the