In fact, he is a fisherman not only in life, but also in literature. Immersed in contemplation on the shores of life. That's the only thing he likes. And I really do not want to be distracted from the quiet excitement and encouraged to do what, of course, needs to be done, but to which his soul resolutely does not lie.

He seems to be more of a fisherman than a writer. Fishing is pure pleasure: "It's such bliss to catch a ruff or perch!" While literature is such a troublesome business! And meanwhile - there is no will, the soul has become "sluggish and loose." He hardly pretends when he says: “If I lived in such a manor, by the lake, would I write? I would have overcome this passion in myself and would have done nothing but fish. "

Konstantin Treplev

This is where the real tragedy unfolds. He is a complex, broken person. Since childhood, he developed an inferiority complex, because there was a brilliant mother nearby, in comparison with whom he felt that he was "nothing", that in her company he was tolerated only because he was her son. Wounded pride gives him true torment: "... when it happened in her living room all these artists and writers paid their merciful attention to me, it seemed to me that with their glances they were measuring my insignificance, - I guessed their thoughts and suffered from humiliation" ...

And he, apparently, did not greatly exaggerate, because the mother is busy all her life only with herself, with her successes and the theater. Meanwhile, Treplev is smart. He sees what Arkadina and her surroundings do not notice.

He speaks passionately of contemporary theater as routine and prejudice. "When the curtain rises and in the evening light in a room with three walls, these great talents, priestesses of holy art, depict how people eat, drink, love, walk, wear their jackets; when they try to extract morality from vulgar pictures and phrases - little morality, understandable, useful in everyday life; when in a thousand variations they bring me the same, the same, then I run and run like Maupassant ran from the Eiffel Tower, which was crushing his brain with its vulgarity. "

Treplev, nevertheless, loves his mother, although since childhood he suffers from his neglect. He leads the life of a "ragged", lives as a freeloader with his uncle, and when he meets his mother, he invariably becomes convinced of his uselessness and loneliness. He is alone not only in everyday life, but also in the world outlook sense. Arkadina, and indeed the majority, do not share his views on art. Meanwhile, Treplev is convinced that changes, a search, an experiment are needed. “We need new forms,” otherwise, instead of theater, there will be a frozen routine, which is tantamount to the death of art. And he writes plays and stories, seeking to bring his principles to life.

The play, which he staged on a wooden stage, where the decoration was a real moon and its reflection in the water, is highly unusual. He decided to show, not how to eat and wear a jacket, but what will happen on Earth in two hundred thousand years. The performance is a monologue of the Common World Soul, which united the souls of everyone who once lived on Earth: Alexander the Great and Caesar, Shakespeare and Napoleon, the last leech.

The performance is filled with solemn, sad recitation and is accompanied by unusual lighting effects and the smell of sulfur - when a powerful enemy of the world soul - the devil - appears.

“This is something decadent,” notes Arkadina. And in fact, in the work of decadents - adherents of the philosophy of historical pessimism - the thought about the powerlessness and loneliness of man, the aimlessness and meaninglessness of his existence came to the fore. Treplev's play is also influenced by modernism and symbolism.

Modernism declared an escape from the "prose of life" to the "ivory tower", that is, the artist's immersion in the spheres of philosophical abstractions, mysticism and dreams. That, in fact, we see in Treplev's play.

The atmosphere of fear and horror in symbolic theater (for example, in Meyerhold's plays) was needed so that all attention was focused on the relationship between Rock and man. And here external action is not needed at all, it interferes with focusing on the main idea, which, by the way, is also intended to emphasize the symbolism of smells. The symbolic play is not so much played as read and recited.

As you can see, the experienced Arkadina was not mistaken, the play is, in fact, decadent.

Nina Zarechnaya also felt this intuitively: “There is little action in your play, only reading”. And one more thing: “It's hard to play in your play. There are no living faces in it. "

Treplev's drama consists in the fact that in his protest against traditional forms, he rushed to fundamentally formless abstractions; not perceiving the image of everyday life on stage as the goal of art, he, together with it, rejected all the usual forms of life, which, as you know, are carriers of not only ordinary consciousness, but also the spirit.

In a letter to Suvorin dated November 25, 1892, developing his views on literature and speaking about great artists “who will get us drunk,” Chekhov writes: “The best of them are real and write life as it is, but because every line is saturated like juice, with a sense of purpose, you, besides life as it is, still feel that life as it should be, and this captivates you. "

Even judging by the "home" audience, the "great artist" from Treplev, alas, did not work out. And it's not even about the sharp reaction of Arkadina, who has a long-standing war with her son ("Decadent delirium", "demonstration"; wanted to "teach us how to write and what to play"; "claims to new forms, to a new era in art " etc.). In fact, everyone except Dorn did not understand and did not accept her. The original doctor praises her for what others scold her for: "She's kind of strange ..."; “Fresh, naive” ... In one word: “I don’t know, maybe I don’t understand anything or I’ve lost my mind, but I liked the play. There is something in her. " And this despite the fact that he did not hear the end of the play at all.

It is Dorn who expresses one important idea, which, in fact, predicted Treplev's creative collapse. Having embarked on a difficult path, where “the soil and fate are breathing”, striving to embody big, serious thoughts, the artist must remember that “a work must have a clear, definite thought. You must know why you are writing, otherwise, if you go along this picturesque road without a specific goal, you will get lost and your talent will ruin you. "

However, the thinker, this Dorn! And how would he know about what nourishes and what, on the contrary, destroys real talents? One way or another, this warning was not heard by Treplev. It seems that he is invariably interested in only one thing: "Where is Zarechnaya?"

It seems that he began to write in many ways, prompted by his love for Nina. In any case, when he realized that he had lost her forever, that “he was alone and would not be warmed by anyone's affection,” everything, including creativity, lost all meaning for him. In the scene of the last meeting with Nina, he directly speaks about this: “Since I lost you and how I began to publish, life has been unbearable for me - I suffer ...” “I am cold, like in a dungeon, and no matter what I write, all this is dry, callous, gloomy. "

He begs Zarechnaya more than for love, he begs her for life: "Stay here, Nina, \u003c…\u003e or let me leave with you!" But Nina does not hear, does not listen to him. She is absorbed in her own: a profession, an unhappy love for Trigorin, which not only has not dried up, but has become even stronger ...

Quoting Treplev's play by heart: "People, lions, eagles and partridges ..." - Zarechnaya completely forgets about the relationship that she once had with her author. Characterized by mental deafness and isolation only on their own problems. When Treplev confesses to her his love, which alone reconciles him with an orphan, painful existence: “I call you, whole land on which you walked; wherever I look, everywhere I see your face, this gentle smile that shone on me in the best years of my life ... "- Nina mutters in confusion:" Why does he say that, why does he say that? " So, replacing the lively, passionate Treplev with an impersonal "he" - in a private conversation! - Nina completely fenced off both from his love and from himself.

The Seagull (based on the play by A. Chekhov).
Alexandrinsky Theater. Stage adaptation and scenography by Christian Lupa

Kristian Lupa's play is built according to a specific law: in it, the meanings of individual episodes and scenes are intertwined, but they do not necessarily complement each other. Moreover, the director, apparently, is generally not inclined to express these meanings unambiguously, he often leaves the viewer the opportunity to think out the content of what is happening. As a result, the sacramental question "what is the play about?" in the case of the new Alexandrinsky Seagull, only the most general answer can be obtained - any attempt to clarify it will either contradict the parts of the action, or turn out to be the writer's fantasy. And yet the answer is possible.

The play is not a stage embodiment of a classic piece. This is a performance "based on". The director freely handles Chekhov's text, reshaping, shortening and even supplementing it (having discouraged Zarechnaya herself, Sonya's final monologue from Uncle Vanya will break out of it). The composition turns out to be demonstratively not Chekhov's (note that this fact removes the performance from the series of Alexandrinsky's "The Seagulls", begun by the famous failure of 1896 - Lyupa does not stage Chekhov's play, and any talk about another rehabilitation of "our exemplary stage" will only be speculations of historically informed critics ).

Yuri Marchenko (Nina).
Photo by V. Krasikov

The current "Seagull" is played with one intermission. Before him - the minimally changed first Chekhov's action, after - the free treatment of the remaining three. Compositionally, the performance is undoubtedly original: it reaches its climax incredibly quickly. The central event is Treplev's production. Lupa does everything possible to make the theatrical experiment of a novice writer acquire the features of realized new forms. Zarechnaya, of course, is right: in this play it is “difficult to play”, but it is possible to stage it, especially if the master takes over. The theater is embodied in a complex metal structure installed almost at the very backdrop. Its frontal part has a more or less regular square shape. But the main thing is a translucent bath filled with water, raised much higher than human height. Between the spectators of the Treplev's "joke" and the theater, sitting in the foreground, there is an abyss of an empty Alexandrinsky stage.

The steady light, unchanged from the beginning of Lupa's performance, goes out, giving way to Treplev's theater, snatched out of the darkness by several rays, unreal due to its own geometric meaninglessness. The light backdrop of the Alexandrinsky stage, so huge and empty, turns out to be a screen onto which constantly changing blurred forms are projected. It is not difficult to guess that the "atmosphere" is supported by a corresponding sound row - it cannot be called music, rather, pramusic: tonally and rhythmically organized stringy sounds. The director knows what he is doing. These expressive means have long been tested by time. They work on their own and don't need an actor. Therefore, Zarechnaya does not have to play anything. Her monologue begins to sound out of nowhere. Only after the words about the world soul does it become clear that the actress is hidden in the water. Well, then Treplev, as expected, breaks down, pulling the vision with a curtain.

The contrast between the everyday life of the inhabitants of the Sorin estate and the otherworldly magic of Treplev's performance is so striking, the opposition is so obvious that there is no doubt that Konstantin Gavrilovich is an incomprehensible talent. All subsequent events will be hidden and clearly accompanied by the reflection of the heroes about what happened on the stage in the park. The monologue about the world soul will appear in the play four (!) More times. And the central theme of thoughts and emotions will be the artist in his relationship with the world around him.

Lupa does not skimp on accents, clearly indicates his own sympathies and antipathies for the heroes. A young, agile Treplev - Oleg Eremin, bursting onto the stage in a loose blue sweater and jeans, visibly opposes the "man in a case" - Trigorin, dressed in a black leather jacket and black trousers. By his appearance, the venerable writer reminds of the director's uniform that existed a quarter of a century ago: a rare chief came to the theater without a leather or suede jacket. General of Art. Trigorin performed by Andrei Shimko is the antagonist of the play, the antipode of Treplev, militant mediocrity. Almost silent all the first action (given to the bright Treplev), in the second Trigorin appears as a man devoid of imagination, and even feelings. Writing them a "plot for a short story" is a habitual job, a hateful work, and the nascent relationship with Nina is not even entertainment, rather, the implementation of the formula "with nothing to do ruined her." By the way, Zarechnaya - Yulia Marchenko is not very suitable for the role of Treplev's muse. She, like most of the heroes of this performance, is extremely practical. Her goal is fame and glory, and Trigorin for her is the way to get them. In general, in connection with Trigorin, the theme of love does not arise in the play. Everyday practicality and routine are opposed to Treplev and in the person of Arkadina - Marina Ignatova. The "great actress" is down to earth to be a socialite. But, unlike Trigorin, whose writings are not in the play, her artistic talent, albeit a hint, is revealed. In the scene of an explanation with his lover about Nina, Arkadina rips off his dress with a chased gesture and spreads himself flat at Trigorin's feet. Without feelings, without exaltation, memorized words sound not about love - passages about Trigorin's talent. An unmistakable game on his pride. Worked out gestures and intonation. Indeed, routine. Arkadina, Trigorin and even Zarechnaya are devoid of creative and sensual impulses. One can only guess about their art, but the assumption that even a spark of talent glimmers in them is not left in the play. There are many mediocrities, but only one talent. This talent - Treplev - comes to the end in doubts and meditations. He is clearly not satisfied with his literary experiences. But "it's not about the old and new forms," \u200b\u200bbut about ... trousers. Treplev, published in the capital's magazines, changed his loose jeans for black trousers. The sweater is still the same, but the transformation into Trigorin has begun.

Yuri Marchenko (Nina).
Photo by V. Krasikov

The indicated ratios are the center of gravity of Lupa's composition. However ... Their implementation contains many contradictions, both semantic and aesthetic. In the reality of the performance, Treplev's art is opposed to the way of life of Arkadina and Trigorin. The simple fact that these are different ranks, apparently, does not confuse the director a little. And the more he convinces the audience of the worthlessness and pettiness of established artists, the more bewilderment is caused by the signs of the public's love for them. The mention of Arkadina's Kharkov triumph makes one think that one of two things: either she may not be such a terrible actress, as the viewer, together with the director, wanted to think throughout the entire performance, or, as is well known, the audience is a fool and success simply does not correlate with talent. The latter is more likely, but who then needs the "new forms"? And most importantly: how did Arkadina and Trigorin win their success and what Treplev does not possess?

The key problem of the performance is in time shifts. The director is not interested in developing the action in the realities of the late 19th century. And it's not so much about jeans as about the way the characters interact. Their existence on the stage - the manner of speaking, the absence of signs of class society (Yakov was turned into Treplev's confidante, a comrade in the revolution in art, and the shaven-headed Shamraev shouts and humiliates not only his wife, but also Arkadina), the psyche itself is as close as possible to modernity. Chekhov's motives are realized in the performance through today's man with his today's knowledge of life and art. Numerous passages through the auditorium illuminated during the first act work for this, direct appeals to him for support, the possibility of breaking into the performance of the momentary mood of the public (on the day of Zenit's memorable victory, Zarechnaya appeared on stage in a blue-white-blue scarf with the name of her beloved commands). Declaratively, this "Seagull" is modern and about modernity. But in these circumstances, Treplev's performance itself looks like a routine, all expressive means of which, including video and water in the bathroom, have been used by modern theater for decades. The new forms turned out to be old, and the amateur Treplev suddenly acquired the solid mastery of Christian Lupa.

Ya.Lakoba (Masha), A. Shimko (Trigorin).
Photo by V. Krasikov

In general, the performance of the Alexandrinsky Theater is formally "new": an arbitrary combination of times, video projections (the scene of Treplev's throwing, repeated on the backdrop, and the clouds (?) That appear in the same place, now in gray, now in blue skies), the involvement of the audience, amazing the wall in the entire mirror of the stage, lowered for a minute and fenced off Arkadina and Treplev from the emptiness behind them, playing with the existing interpretations of "The Seagull" (spectators of Treplev's performance repeat Stanislavsky's mise-en-scene of 1898 - they sit on chairs along the ramp line with their backs to the audience), finally, a demonstrative a change in Chekhov's plot, expressed not only in the re-arrangement of the text, but also in the change in the ending: the bottle burst, not "Konstantin Gavrilovich shot himself." Frankly speaking, all these techniques are not so “new”, but they create a specific semantic field of the performance: one can argue about their meaning, one can fantasize about them. This performance is fertile material for the critic who is carried away by his own conceptual thinking. Better to put conceptualism aside and turn to formal analysis. We have to admit that the form is not perfect. The play openly falls apart into two acts: after the intermission, the viewer unexpectedly discovers a lowered curtain, and from that moment on, no one else will remember the audience of the Alexandrinsky Theater, hidden in the darkness of the hall. The already crumpled wall of colossal dimensions at its first appearance leaves the impression that it was lowered only so that because of it, Trigorin would materialize from the void and that Treplev would disappear in the same void - a small trick with a huge props. Defiantly and provocatively felt to the limit the slow rhythm of the performance, the entire first half of the flirting with the audience and built on the intonation of everyday authenticity. "The Seagull" beckons the viewer and throws it, completely surrendering to "new forms". It is not surprising, therefore, that, agitated and lively at first, the audience turned sour towards the end. Treplev's "new forms" of Trigorin's "success" did not have.

ACTORS 'ASSOCIATIONS I 16+

MODE: Veniamin Filshtinsky

ACTORS 'ASSOCIATIONS

A new and unexpected version of Chekhov's "The Seagull" directed by the outstanding master, director and teacher Veniamin Filshtinsky.
The director reduces the number of characters. He brings to the fore the story of Kostya Treplev's life and love. Before us there is a living, reflective and vulnerable person, experiencing the loss of love and creative failure. Actors explore their characters, and at the same time themselves, writing the story, revealing secret motives, and make amazing discoveries.

PRODUCER: Veniamin Filshtinsky

PAINTER:ALEXANDER ORLOV

SOUND MANAGER: YURI LEYKIN

LIGHTING DESIGNER: VASILY KOVALEV

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: KSENIYA ZHURAVLEVA

CAST: on. Russia ANNA ALEKSAKHINA, N.A. Russia VALERY DYACHENKO, ANNA DONCHENKO, ALEXANDER KUDRENKO

SCENARIO WITH ACTORS 'ASSOCIATIONS I DURATION: 2 HOURS WITH ONE ANTHRACT I 16+

ART JOURNAL

PETERSBURG THEATER JOURNAL

DELOVOY PETERSBURG

"The play is constantly balancing between making people believe in invented people, and exposing the reception, showing what the sweet deception is made of. And it does it so masterly that we have to agree: it is really impossible without a theater of this level ..."

"To some extent, this is a performance - working with a role. Actors now and then leave the role, as if examining it from the side, sometimes even ironic about their character."

"The axiom that was voiced at the beginning about the necessity of performing arts, about its attractiveness has been proven again. And again it is successful. But another option is impossible."

ART MAGAZINE "OKOLO"

Director Veniamin Filshtinsky staged his own version of Chekhov's eternal play "The Seagull" at the Takoy Theater. The play is called "Kostya Treplev. Love and Death", and it is clear from the title that the play is not presented in full, but the emphasis is shifted to a specific character.

From Chekhov's play, the director left only four characters - Arkadina (Anna Aleksakhina), Nina (Anna Donchenko), Sorin (Valery Dyachenko) and Kostya Treplev (Alexander Kudrenko). The main character here is Kostya Treplev, and the performance is based on his story from the debut play to suicide.
Filshtinsky's formula "theater within a theater" has entered into a somewhat increased degree. Anna Aleksakhina plays an actress talking about her role as Arkadina, after which she plays Arkadina, who constantly plays snippets of her roles. All this is some kind of endless theater in which the roles are superimposed on each other, and it seems impossible to "get to the bottom" of life through endless play.

Continuous play and the absence of real life - that's what surrounds Treplev. He is constantly trying to understand what theater is, and does it save you from real life? And he just needs to be saved from life. The theater takes away his loved ones. The mother, whom he loved so dearly, disappeared on stage, even when he was ill and so needed her care. He fell in love with Nina Zarechnaya, but the theater took her too. She left for Moscow in the wake of Trigorin. There she broke her life, her dreams of a career, and at the same time Treplev's hopes. His "decadent" play, as Arkadina calls it, is a challenge to the theater that destroys his life.
Tormented, stuttering Kostya Treplev, at 25, looks like a small child looking up and not understanding what is happening around. He throws himself on the black bench in the center of the stage, runs around it - only this is his whole protest. It is as if he is shackled and cannot escape both beyond the limits of this bench, and beyond the limits of his despair.

The stories of Zarechnaya and Arkadina are just a background here. They are not so interesting to the director, because they have already made their choice and are following the chosen path. And Kostya is looking for himself in this life, looking for salvation from dislike. He is constantly guessing on daisies, repeating over and over the cherished "love - not love", but each time he stops at "does not love". He stops, lowers his head, stoops - he is tired of this "dislike". He is tired of waiting, asking, and with every cold indifference towards him, he lowers his head lower and lower and speaks more and more harshly.

A couple of scenes literally visualize what is happening in his head - vanity and oppressive noise. A black core with a built-in microphone, rolling on the floor, makes this eerie noise. And this core is set in motion by Arkadina and Zarechnaya, rolling it to each other from opposite sides of the stage. These two people, two women, two actresses engendered love in him, but did not give anything in return. They are constantly in his thoughts, but each time they enter the room without noticing him. They look at him and at his reflections as if from the outside.
To some extent, this is a performance - working with a role. Actors now and then leave the role, as if examining it from the side, sometimes even ironic about their character. “As you can see, he could not be in the room,” Kudrenko shrugs after the scene with the ball rolling, commenting on his character. Treplev's creative failures in the play fade into the background. Kudrenko, once again taking off his glasses and stepping out of the role, explains that the reason for the collapse is again in the absence of love. There is no love for Kostya, and there is no faith in him. And even after death, he remains alone. Arkadina manly reads a monologue in a tragic voice, and then leaves him alone on the stage, sitting down in the audience.

P E R E Y T I

"PETERSBURG THEATER JOURNAL"

I remember that in October the Experimental Stage under the direction of Anatoly Proudin presented the play "Uncle Vanya". The actor's work on the role "where the artists, according to M. Dmitrevskaya, acting out the play," composed biographies of roles, the life that was not written by Chekhov, but lived by his heroes. "
We see something similar in the new work of Veniamin Filshtinsky. Actors come to the edge of the stage, speak on their own behalf about the nature and necessity of theater, and then before our very eyes they become "different" - the performance begins. The same AP Chekhov, "The Seagull" was taken as a starting point. The classic text has undergone a serious revision, turning from a play into a "script based on a play with acting associations" (the author of the "associations" is Alexander Kudrenko). Instead of thirteen actors - four: Konstantin Treplev (Alexander Kudrenko), Nina Zarechnaya (Anna Donchenko), Irina Arkadina (Anna Aleksakhina), Petr Sorin (Valery Dyachenko). Their remarks are given without abbreviations, albeit with small inclusions of other texts, which are hinted at in the play. Irina Nikolaevna no, no, and she will drag out a monologue from "The Lady with the Camellias" in French or pretend to be Gertrude, and Kostya will suddenly whisper Parsnip's "The rumble has died down ...", apparently paying tribute to Vysotsky in the role of Hamlet, or he mother - from the Shakespearean original.

The rest of the Chekhovian array is either given in the retelling of the characters, or is silent. About Polina Andreevna, Dorn, servants - not a word, but Sorin long and in detail, delving into all the circumstances, tells about who Masha is and why she drinks; Arkadina always runs after Trigorin, always does not catch up with him, loses, gets angry; Nina also talks, talks, talks about the same Trigorin, but not with irritation or annoyance, but more with delight and tenderness. And only Kostya is focused on himself. On their own fears and complexes. Slightly stooped, in round black glasses, a short frock coat, tightly clutching a huge black briefcase in which his treasure is kept - that very cherished play - he very much resembles a schoolboy, an intellectual and an excellent student. And a loser. And a dreamer. And romance. And mama's son.
In the performance of Alexander Kudrenko, he is. Stuttering, indecisive, insecure. He does not dare to believe in his mother's need, checking her love by fortune telling on a daisy. Meanwhile, Irina Nikolaevna holds him tight. Her pressure is so great that Kostya is not free even in dreams: Arkadina appears to her son even in dreams and - strangles.
Konstantin Gavrilovich hates his mother. Konstantin Gavrilovich adores and adores his mother. Treplev lives with this feeling "either-or". This is his "pood", his personal Hamlet's dilemma. Dilemma number one. And dilemma number two is "either or": either mom or Nina. So he rushes about, not daring to join either one or this one, in dreams alternately embracing both. But then - dreams ...

Despite the sudden mood swings, the transitions from whispering to screaming, Treplev is an extremely tremulous soul. Delicate and vulnerable. He does not tolerate, does not tolerate quarrels. He would have a compromise. Compromise, of course, is impossible. Therefore - three shots: at the seagull, then at his own head - at first unsuccessfully, then fatally.
The play written for Nina and then performed in the garden was, in fact, made by Kostya for his mother. Not only to annoy her or prick her (as is usually interpreted), but rather to please her. But Irina Nikolaevna doesn't care about her son's feelings. Anna Aleksakhina, rustling with silks, exhaling cigarette mists, rattling bracelets, sparkling earrings, sparkling rings, sits down in the auditorium and, on behalf of Arkadina, begins to comment on what is happening on the stage, distracting the public's attention from the main action: she is here the Queen Mother, she is the prima, accepted with success in Kharkov - everyone should remember this.
And on the stage - all in clouds of smoke - noticeably pregnant Nina sits. In the background there is the hum of passing trains, someone's voices. Suddenly, everything freezes, and Zarechnaya, in a bewildered, plaintive voice, begins a familiar monologue: "People ..." She runs out of the hall, but finding no one, returns and, writhing in pain, pressing her hands to her stomach, continues the text about the "world soul", what is stored in its very depths. Nina's pregnancy is at the same time Filshtinsky's director's nod towards both the child Zarechnaya from Trigorin, who died closer to the end of Chekhov's play, and a failed career: Zarechnaya seems to be forever pregnant with this very first, given by Kostya, a role from which a new - acting - fate never came out ... This is Nina's “pood”: either Trigorin, or acting. And in the end - "a little story about a ruined life."
Arkadina's choice is either Trigorin or Treplev; either game or life; either acting or love. As a result, nothing too: Trigorin is never around, his son died, his career is on the decline. Last words Arkadina, which she utters at the bed of the dead Kostya, are Shakespearean: "My son! You turned my eyes inside my soul, and I saw her in such bloody, in such deadly ulcers - there is no salvation!" True suffering, mother's suffering, is possible only in a playful way, and the truth is there is no salvation. There is no solution to this problem.

Among the strange heroes, languishing with love, longing and anger, there is one Sorin - an eccentric man. Quiet, intelligent, calm. He slyly watches what is happening, does not particularly interfere with anything, because he knows: you cannot change anything. Because he just loves. From the bottom of my heart, in a Christian way, without asking for an answer. The brother understands the power-hungry sister and forgives her selfishness and pride; he pity the idiot Kostya and seeks to help in stage experiments; in a fatherly way, Sorin sympathizes with Nina and the mythical Masha. He has a huge heart, endless love - this is his cross, his "pood". Therefore, Pyotr Nikolaevich does not stand up to the finale: he struggles, gets sick, and gets very sick.

Throughout the performance, the actors talk about the theater, play in the theater, pronounce Chekhov's original text, insert their own - invented, learned and rehearsed - lines. And they do it, stumbling, lifting, rearranging huge black balls - such as is usually played in bowling. The metaphor of the burden that interferes with ourselves and kills, knocks down others standing nearby. But what is happening is as if for fun, as if not seriously, as if a game. "This is theater - not life," the artists return the audience to the given theme. And yet, when Treplev, already dead, lies, and his bare feet stick out from under the coverlet, when the light gradually leaves, and Arkadina, on behalf of Gertrude, starts talking about "fatal ulcers", you suddenly suddenly discover: and your eyes have long been looking "inside souls ", and there, too, not everything is in order ... And the axiom that sounded at the beginning about the need for theatrical art, about its attractiveness is again proven. And again it was successful. And another option is impossible.

P E R E Y T I

On April 9, on the stage of the F.M. Dostoevsky's troupe of such a theater presented its version of the immortal Chekhov's "The Seagull" to the audience. The creators of the play themselves define this project as "a script based on the play by A. Chekhov" The Seagull "with acting associations". The production was directed by V.M. Filshtinsky, a renowned theater teacher. The play involves actors Alexander Kudrenko (Treplev), Anna Donchenko (Zarechnaya), N.A. Russia Anna Aleksakhina (Arkadina), N.A. Russia Valery Dyachenko (Sorin). The specified four also tells the audience the story of the unlucky writer Konstantin Treplev, telling about his life, love and death. In this performance, all the director's attention is focused on this character, he is brought to the fore, which in a sense distinguishes Filshtinsky's version from the canonical production.

Before the start of the performance, the actors themselves, not yet in characters, begin to communicate with the public. "Is it possible to do without theater? What should a theater be like? Do you envy the artists?" - such questions are heard from actors. Finally, they themselves respond with a proper Chekhov quote: "If artists are loved in society, that's idealism."
And the play begins. The scenography is rather modest, if not ascetic. An inverted bench (throughout the entire performance it is the most important element of the action), a table in the corner, a couple of chairs and a ship's bell hanging in the background. The aspiring playwright Kostya Treplev (he is 25 years old, but to call him by his full name Konstantin somehow does not turn his tongue, he is so timid, indecisive and shy) complains about the dislike of his mother. Treplev is eager to present to the audience a play of his own authorship with the young actress Nina Zarechnaya in the title role. It is important for him to get maternal approval, in addition, he is in love with Nina and longs to win her favor. But Arkadina smashes his dramatic abilities to smithereens, and Nina Zarechnaya has already given her heart to the popular writer Trigorin.

In the second part of the play, we meet the characters two years later. Treplev's literary career unexpectedly goes uphill: he appears before the audience as a talented prose writer, author of popular stories. But in all his appearance, the features of the former loser Kostya slip. Arkadina is true to her habits and emotions. She is proud of Konstantin, but at the same time she has no time to read his stories. "I have absolutely no time for this! I belong to the theater, the audience!" - she declares with a smile. The unexpected appearance at the estate of Nina Zarechnaya confuses the hero. Nina went through a lot during this time: betrayal, lack of money, disappointment. But, despite all the troubles, she is confident in herself, in her future. "Carry your cross and believe," she says to Treplev. Indeed, faith lives in her soul and gives her strength. And Treplev does not know what he wants from life. In addition, Nina continues to love Trigorin, who has caused her so much pain and suffering. This completely unsettles the main character, and everything becomes empty, stupid and meaningless. The second attempt to shoot himself is successful for Kostya Treplev ...

It is difficult to say which of the heroes is right and positive, and which is the other way around. Either Treplev evokes pity for his bad luck, clumsiness and loneliness, then his mediocrity as an author becomes obvious. It is impossible to unambiguously assess the character of Arkadina. Who is she: a selfish artistic nature, accustomed to literally and figuratively working for the public, an unhappy woman who longs for love, a mother who loves her son with half-tyrannical blind love? It is not easy to understand what Nina Zarechnaya wants from life. Fame and recognition of the audience, love and banal happiness? A dead-end situation is created: no one individually is to blame for each other's troubles and misfortunes, but at the same time, everyone is to blame. Either Treplev does not have the courage to talk to Nina, then Arkadina cannot stop criticizing her son, then Nina is unable to break with Trigorin. Something elusive prevents the characters from being happy every time. Sorin, on the other hand, is an outside observer of all these dramas and twists and turns. He is an elderly man and is already far from such violent feelings and emotions; his life is slowly moving towards the end.

The acting work in this performance really deserves admiration. Alexander Kudrenko in the title role is amazingly reliable; you believe and empathize with Treplev. Anna Donchenko is organic and natural as Nina. Anna Aleksakhina, playing the role of Arkadina, is remarkably good. It seems that this heroine is simply made for an actress. It can be seen that she herself, like Arkadina, is pleased with the audience's love, she really serves the theater. Valery Dyachenko - Sorin also masterfully reveals the image of his character, in an actor's way accurately and organically fades into the background at one point or another.
The costumes of the heroes perfectly emphasize the character of the characters. Treplev wears a tight jacket, in the pockets of which he hides his hands every now and then. He looks funny and ridiculous in it. Glasses only complement this image of an unlucky idiot. His mother, Arkadina, is a lover of long dresses made of flowing fabrics, colorful scarves, gloves, bracelets and rings. She is a real socialite who wants to impress others. The outer side plays a primary role for her. Joyful and in love, young Nina wears a soft pink dress, and after all the tests we see her already in a shapeless black outfit. Sorin is dressed modestly and rather plainly: a suit, a worn hat. An ordinary suit of a man who has lived a boring life.

In a completely, it would seem, unexpected way, in this production the plot of "The Seagull" ideologically echoes the immortal Shakespearean tragedy. Treplev desperately resembles Hamlet in his sufferings and searches, his relationship with his mother also develops along the Hamlet-Gertrude line, his antipathy towards Trigorin is comparable to Hamlet's hatred towards Claudius. The director emphasizes the ideological relationship of the two great plays with the final scene. Upon learning of the death of her son, Arkadina dresses in mourning and reads lines from Gertrude's monologue. She is an actress, she is used to expressing her emotions that way.
Sorry for everyone in this play. Both young Nina, a hostage of her feelings, and a mature woman Arkadina, a slave to her craft, evoke compassion. Old man Sorin, who has wasted his life, deserves sincere sympathy. But most of all, of course, to tears, sorry for the young Konstantin, Kostya Treplev. He did not live long and not free, but, nevertheless, there was love in his life. And then death came. Everyone is to blame. And no one is to blame ...

The audience has seen the play by Anton Pavlovich several times on various theatrical stages. In his version, Veniamin Filshtinsky, as a sculptor working with a promising block of marble, cut off everything he considered superfluous from Chekhov's text, brought only four main characters onto the stage and added acting associations on the theme of theater and why it is impossible without him.
The question of the personality of Konstantin Treplev and his ideological reflections on theater and new forms has existed for a long time. Many artists of the theatrical stage discussed this topic, each has its own opinion on this matter, all this is supported by collections scientific works literary - and theater experts.

In the F.M.Dostoevsky Museum, viewers had the opportunity to see another Kostya Treplev and realize how hard it is to live when the main character is surrounded by total dislike.
The dislike of the mother, famous and narcissistic, but not without a share of kindheartedness and sympathy for others, the actress, the dislike of the tender Nina, the dislike of other people for his literary endeavors and revolutionary ideas in relation to theatrical forms. Kostya Treplev was desperately trying to find a reciprocal feeling and see a spark of understanding in the eyes of his loved ones. More and more often, running away in his thoughts into childhood, where he felt his mother's love, affection, tenderness of her hands and voice, Kostya realized the hard and unrequited reality of the present.
The play "Kostya Treplev. Love and Death", like an associative picture of the artist, tells the version of director Veniamin Filshtinsky about the life of the hero from the play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. Free work with the text of the great Russian classic and a combination of appropriate acting improvisations made the performance interesting for the audience and forcing them to empathize with the protagonist, and, most importantly, to understand why Kostya Treplev, on the second try, still put a bullet in his head.
Interesting directorial finds by Veniamin Filshtinsky drew the audience into what was happening from the very beginning of the performance. After the doors were closed, actors took the stage to talk to people in the hall about their heroes, whom they would begin to play in a few minutes, and by joint efforts to find the answer to the question: "You can't live without theater?"

Only four people on the stage were able to fill the hall with energy and convey the mood of Chekhov's play. The actors were interested in playing in the play also because they partly explored themselves when they talked about the heroes and passed them a certain professional judgment.
Another reason that convinces you to watch the play is the precisely selected cast. People's Artist of Russia Anna Aleksakhina convincingly plays Arkadina and conveys her features and character, and the audience saw her sibling, "the man who wanted," in the talented performance of People's Artist Valery Dyachenko. Alexander Kudrenko, who played the role of the protagonist Konstantin Treplev, and Anna Donchenko, in whose face the audience saw Nina, deserved long applause for their performance.
The play "Kostya Treplev. Love and Death" showed the audience a reflective and vulnerable person with creative inclinations, but who did not meet the true love and faith of other people in his abilities on his way. Throughout the performance, the actors explore their heroes, and at the same time themselves, proving to the audience that both on stage and in life - you cannot live without theater!
In July, Veniamin Mikhailovich will be 78, he has been staging and teaching him all his long life, and finally decided to deal with the theater. I chose the appropriate play: in it, as you know, the main character is an experienced actress, there is also a beginner actress, the heroine's son is trying to become a playwright, there is a writer - it is possible that he (like Chekhov himself, who gave this Trigorin some of his features and thoughts) composes not only prose, but also comedy dramas, and in general about theater and art - almost half of "The Seagull".
Treplev says the famous philippic about how disgusting he is when they eat, drink, love, walk, wear their jackets on stage, his uncle Sorin replies: "You can't live without theater." Actually, the play is a study by artistic means: is it really impossible without theater? Or maybe it’s better to do without this institution, imbued with vulgarity and falsehood? But the theater can also be a repository of high professionalism. Some people know how to "wear jackets", that is, to create the effect of complete life-likeness, with great skill, as, for example, Valery Dyachenko - Sorin.
Filshtinsky is an ardent adherent of Stanislavsky's system, one of the most important parts of which, the etude method, is demonstrated by his performance. The essence of the method is that the actors should not pretend to be characters, but penetrate their psychology, appropriate the text so that it seems to be being born at that moment, so that someone else's speech, plastic, costume, character become completely organic. Sketches are a nutritious soil from which an image grows.

So, here Chekhov's text is mixed with "associative texts" composed by Alexander Kudrenko, who plays Treplev. He tells what is happening in the soul of his hero and what happened to him between episodes, in non-stage life. And Anna Aleksakhina adds many of her own to Arkadina's remarks, directly addressing the audience and sitting right in the first row. The actress drew the essence from her many years of experience, knowledge about the theater: about how, over the years, acting has eaten not even into the skin, but into the genotype, this professional deformation of the soul leads to the fact that the most sincere life experiences are still played ...

The director consistently dissects theatrical illusions. The artist Alexander Orlov put a black bench with a high back in the small black hall of the museum, as in the waiting room at the station, hung a pair of black curtains that hide nothing - in particular, a fan and a smoke machine standing on the side of the floor are visible. Nina - Anna Donchenko, when she is supposed to become a World Soul from Treplev's play, puts a huge belly on herself - she is in demolition, and Treplev turns on the wind and smoke before our eyes: the World Soul is to be born on a bench to the station cacophony ...
The play balances all the time between making people believe in invented people, and exposing the reception, showing what a sweet deception is created from. And he does it so masterly that we have to agree: it is really impossible without a theater of this level.

Treplev Konstantin Gavrilovich in the play "The Seagull" by Chekhov - a young man of 25 years old, the son of Arkadina and a Kiev bourgeois, who was a famous actor in his youth; studied at the university, but did not graduate; does not serve anywhere; lives in the estate of his uncle Sorin at the expense of his mother, but because of her stinginess he has to walk in the same for three years. Nervous, impulsive, quick-tempered, painfully proud. According to Masha Shamraeva, who is in love with him, he has "a beautiful, sad voice and manner, like a poet."

From childhood, feeling his humiliated position in the mother's family, among the "celebrities", artists and writers who constantly surrounded her, who, as it seemed to him, tolerated him only because he was the son of a famous artist, Treplev in the play "The Seagull" passionately wants to become himself famous writerto prove to everyone around and especially to his mother, whose talent and fame he secretly envies, that he is not "nothing", that he also has a talent worthy of universal admiration. At the same time, realistic art, based on the principle of imitating life as it is, the hero denies as vulgarity, routine and prejudice and opposes it with a new type of art, depicting life as “it appears in dreams,” that is, the art of symbolism. His play about the "world soul" and the devil, "the father of eternal matter", in its figurative structure reminiscent of the plays of the Belgian playwright M. Maeterlinck, highly valued among the early Russian Symbolists, is staged by him on his uncle's estate especially so that, on the one hand, , to demonstrate to the mother and all those around him his talent as a playwright, and on the other - to "prick" the mother and her lover, the writer Trigorin, as adherents of the old art that has outlived its time.

However, rebelling against his mother, Treplev tenderly loves her in his soul, affectionately calls her “mother” in her eyes and behind her eyes and, as it were, waits all the time that someday she, casting aside her egocentrism, will endow him with that strong, non-judgmental, only on him one directed maternal love, the absence of which on her part he so keenly felt from childhood. The need to be loved is as strong in him as the desire to become a writer, but if, as a writer, he still manages to find some success in the end: he begins to be published in magazines, he even has his own circle of admirers among the Petersburg and Moscow intelligentsia, - then he is not destined to experience the happiness of mutual love. Nina Zarechnaya, the daughter of a neighbor's landowner, with whom he is passionately in love as a youth and who at first, as everyone thinks, reciprocates, is in fact cold to him just like his mother, and in a sense repeats her role in his destiny. Hating Trigorin not only as a writer of the previous generation, alien to the aesthetics of "new forms", but also as his mother's lover, for whom he is jealous of her, Treplev begins to hate him doubly when he is convinced that Nina's heart belongs to the same Trigorin. In despair, Treplev in the play "The Seagull" is now going to challenge Trigorin to a duel, then hinting that he will commit suicide (for example, having accidentally killed a seagull, he tells Nina that he will soon kill himself in the same way), and really makes such an attempt ... At first he pursues Nina, who left for Trigorin, but then, clearly realizing that he was rejected, he returns home and tries to forget her: he tears up all the photographs and letters.

After two years, when he is already becoming known as a writer, the feeling of envy towards Trigorin as a man who long ago found his style and writes better than he does not leave him. Rereading what he wrote the day before, Treplev is horrified at the mannerism of his language, which is replete with frank literary clichés ("A pale face framed by dark hair ...", etc.), and comes to a conclusion that can be interpreted as an attempt to make peace with Trigorin : "The point is not in old and not in new forms, but in what a person writes ... because it freely pours out of his soul." The unexpected arrival at the estate of Nina, who confesses to him that she still loves Trigorin, now that he has abandoned her even more than before, makes the hero again feel Trigorin as a happier rival, and himself as a loser in the fight against him and along with all those whom he wanted to defeat in this life. He clearly realizes that not only did not pass, but his love for Nina intensified. After her departure, he “for two minutes silently tears up all his manuscripts,” and after a while, Arkadina, Trigorin, Dorn, Masha, and others, who had just had dinner and are going to continue playing the loto, hear the sound of a shot, which Treplev ends his life with.

A.P. Chekhov - 150 years

According to the just remark of the researcher, Konstantin Treplev's play about the World Soul is the highest point, a kind of moral and philosophical peak, from which the actions, speeches and thoughts of all the characters of The Seagull are surveyed 1 /. A short monologue by Nina Zarechnaya turned out to be extremely capacious in terms of condensation of artistic and philosophical ideasdating back to the Book of Genesis, the reflections of Marcus Aurelius, to the writings of contemporary Chekhov thinkers - Vl.Soloviev, A. Schopenhauer, to current fiction (N. Minsky, D. Merezhkovsky) and other sources 2 /. It is also legitimate to pose a more particular question: why exactly does Konstantin Treplev show his dramatic abilities in the play? Are the sources of his inspiration exhausted by the listed literary publications? This question is partially answered by the observations of V. Zvinyatskovsky, who showed that a possible prototype of Treplev's image was the “Kiev bourgeoisie” Viktor Bibikov, one of the founders of the national literary decadence 3 /.
For a more complete answer, obviously, it will be necessary to carry out some mental experiment and present Treplev as an independent, sovereign personality, living and creating in the play at his own will, based on his own psychophysical qualities. It is clear that in traction young man a certain heredity manifested itself in creativity: the mother is a talented actress; father - a Kiev bourgeois - is also an actor. His uncle, Sorin, dreamed of becoming a writer in his youth and probably had some reason for this. He has an extensive library, he tells Konstantin stories ... About a man "who wanted", but - alas - never achieved anything ...
Another significant factor is the state of love experienced by Constantine. Lovely youth is characterized by romance, and in the case of Treplev it is aggravated by isolation from the outside world, forced lack of money and vegetation in the countryside. The absence of life impressions inevitably pushes creative imagination, fueled by love experiences, to abstractness, bookishness, to elevate one's own loneliness and one's own desire for rapprochement with Nina on a cosmic scale ... Among the spiritual desert one sees the coming "merging of souls" of lovers - not Is this what Medvedenko is talking about, is this not what the all-understanding Doctor Dorn feels?
Now it is only a matter of a specific plot on which one could "superimpose" the visions and dreams of Konstantin Treplev. The source of the plots - given the poverty of external impressions - could be primarily a bookcase in Sorin's office. The contents of the cabinet play an essential role in the unfolding events: the works of Maupassant and Trigorin are read, the names of Buckle, Spencer, Lombroso are mentioned ... Sorin, Treplev, teacher Medvedenko use the cabinet's services. The last one - due to the lack of money to purchase their own library. It is curious that in the play "The Cherry Orchard" the wardrobe, abstracted from its content, already plays an independent role.
If the key to the story of the World Soul is hidden in a bookcase, you should carefully listen to the characters' remarks before the performance. Treplev: "... let us dream about what will happen in two hundred thousand years!" Sorin: "In two hundred thousand years nothing will happen" (p. 13, 13). In the original version, Medvedenko's remark also sounded: "... before Europe reaches the results, humanity, as Flammarion writes, will perish due to the cooling of the earth's hemispheres" (pp. 13, 258). Chekhov removed the mention of Flammarion, obviously having good reasons for this. A similar text, however, is found in Ward No. 6. Ragin reflects on humanity: "... all this is destined to go into the soil and, in the end, cool down along with the earth's crust, and then for millions of years without meaning, and without purpose, to rush with the earth around the sun ..." (p.8 , 90). This indicates that the "Flammarion" theme of the death of all life on Earth was not uninteresting to Chekhov himself. Commentary on the Complete Works and Letters in 30 volumes and the entire extensive "Chekhoviana" but contain information about Flammarion and his writings.
According to information drawn from the Russian Encyclopedia, Camille Flam-Marion, an outstanding French astronomer, played a huge role in popularizing scientific astronomical knowledge: for the power of his imagination and extraordinary fertility as a writer, he was nicknamed “The Fire of Orion” 4 /. According to the catalog of the Russian State libraries, in the 60-90s of the 19th century in Russia more than 30 books of the astronomer were published - mainly in mass popular science series - in the "Children's Library" by A.S. Suvorin, in the publishing houses of Wolf, Pavlenkov, Sytin. works of Flammarion: "Inhabitants of the heavenly worlds", "The multitude of inhabited worlds", "Along the waves of infinity. Astronomical Fantasy "," End of the World. Astronomical novel "," End of the Light "," In the skies. Astronomical novel "and others. Only in the publishing house of A.S. Suvorin the popular books of Flammarion were published four times. In the period of interest to us - the beginning of the 1890s - the reading public was offered at least three astronomical fantasies about the impending doom of the world: "End of the world. Astronomical novel "(1893);" Along the waves of infinity. Astronomical Fantasy "(1894);" End of the Light. Astronomical novel "(1893).
Chekhov was undoubtedly familiar with the works of Flammarion from Suvorin's publications. In the "Chekhov's Library" S. Balukhaty at number 732 is listed one of these publications, transferred by the writer to Taganrog: Flammarion, Camill. Numerous inhabited worlds. Translated by K. Tolstoy. SPb., 1896. The publication was donated to Chekhov by the head of the Suvorin printing house A. Kolomnin.
Interest in astronomical problems could have been promoted by the acquaintance with Olga Kundasova, nicknamed "Astronomer", a friend of Maria Chekhova since the time of the Higher Courses for Women. Olga Petrovna was in correspondence with Anton Pavlovich (37 letters and 5 telegrams), helped him in learning French, constantly visited the Chekhov family in Melikhovo during the writer's work on The Seagull, as evidenced by Pavel Chekhov's Diary. Kundasova is called Rassudina as a prototype in the story "Three Years". Undoubtedly, "Astronomka" was aware of popular literature, since she was on the staff of Professor Bredikhin at the Moscow Observatory (P.5.635).
Comparison of the content of the monologue of the World Soul with the astronomical novels of Flammarion testifies that it was from there that Konstantin Treplev drew the symbolism and plots of the coming chaos. The novel "End of the Light" (St. Petersburg, 1894), translated by V. Rantsov, tells about the inevitable death of all life on Earth - either from a collision with a poisonous comet, or from the action of geological forces (in four million years the land will disappear under the influence of rivers, rains and winds), either from cosmic cold (a veil of steam will close access to sunlight), or from drought (the seas and oceans will evaporate), or from the explosion of the Sun ... In any case, the Earth will turn into an "icy cemetery ".
Flammarion paints a picture of death in a very figurative and emotional way: "No genius could return the elapsed time, - to resurrect those wondrous days when the earth, bathing in waves of intoxicating light, awakened in the morning sun along with the green<...> plains - with rivers, meandering like long snakes, through green meadows, groves, lively singing of birds ... The earth has forever lost the mountains, on the slopes of which springs and waterfalls were born. She lost her fat fields and gardens, dotted with flowers. Birdies nests and babies' cradles<...> it all disappeared<...> Where did the mornings and evenings, flowers and loving girls, shining rays of light and fragrance, joy and harmony, wondrous beauty and dreams go? All this died, disappeared, was replaced by the monotony of darkness and cold "5 /.
In the astronomical fantasy "Along the Waves of Infinity" (1894), it is said about how the Earth and other planets will disappear over time: "The Earth will crumble", and the brightest star Sirius will be a barely twinkling asterisk 6 /.
Flammarion traces the gradual transformation of humanity on the way to the end of the world: first, the kingdom of reason will reign, new feelings and abilities will develop (the seventh is the feeling of electricity, the eighth is the psychic: with their help, a person will receive the ability to attract objects like a magnet and communicate telepathically). The ability to sense ultraviolet radiation will develop. Hypnosis will replace the barbaric methods of medicine in surgery ... 7 /. It is curious to compare all this with the reflections of the heroes of the play "Three Sisters" about those feelings that do not die after a person's death: “After us, they will fly in balloons,<…> perhaps they will open the sixth sense and develop it ... ”(p. 13, 146). No less curious is the comparison with the current stream of publications on human extrasensory abilities.
Ultimately, physical humanity will die out, but spiritual substance will remain eternal. "Souls<...> who had already secured immortality, continued ... eternal life in different hierarchies of the invisible the spiritual world... The consciousness of all human beings who once lived on Earth has reached higher ideals ... Souls<...> they came to life again in God, free from the bonds of weighty substance, and continuously perfected, they continued to rush in the eternal light "8 /.
The book "Along the Waves of Infinity" speaks of the opposition of the spiritual and material worlds: for the former, "only the principles of justice, truth, goodness and beauty" matter; in the other, “there is neither good nor evil, there is no justice and untruth, beauty and ugliness. 9 / The opposition of spirit and inert matter (it constitutes the main collision of Nina Zarechnaya's monologue) will last until the material world dies and "matter and spirit will merge in beautiful harmony ..." (pp. 13, 14).
It is easy to see that the content of "astronomical fantasies" is, as it were, a synopsis of that part of Treplev's play about the World Soul, which had time to be performed from the stage of an improvised theater. Medvedenko's remark that spirit cannot be separated from matter, for "the spirit itself is an aggregate of material atoms" (p. 13, 15), goes back to the novel "End of the Light", where the atheists' thesis about the Universe as ¬destructible atoms "10 /. But a particularly striking impression is made by the comparison of pictures of dead nature in Flammarion and Treplev: they are structurally the same and represent a listing of various manifestations of life, ending with a counterpoint: "all this has died, disappeared, replaced by the monotony of darkness and cold" (Flammarion); "... all lives, having completed a sad circle, are extinguished< …> cold<…> empty<…> scary "(Chekhov, pp. 13, 13).
From the above observations, at least one conclusion follows: Konstantin Treplev's "Dream" about the World Soul is a non-independent, unoriginal, epigonic work, inspired partly by astronomical "fantasies" from popular, cheap, mass publications. Konstantin himself reveled in the "innovative" play, and no wonder: it is filled (filled) with innermost feelings, a dream of love, of a future "beautiful harmony". Nina's heart, however, did not wake up: for her, the monologue of the World Soul is just a reading, where there is no love ... A characteristic metamorphosis, however, occurs at the end of the play, when Zarechnaya confesses to Treplev: "I love him ... I love him. , I love passionately, I love to despair "(pp. 13, 59). And - lo and behold! - once cold and meaningless monologue sounds again - with passion and expressiveness, inspired by the memory of the first meeting with a loved one.
The above example shows why Chekhov in the final text of the play removed the direct mention of Flammarion: it would be an indication of epigony, it would be a sentence, it would flow more inappropriate in the mouth of such an unwise person as Medvedenko.
The plot of Flammarion had an unexpected continuation. In the Yalta years, A.P. Chekhov, by agreement with the editorial board of the journal "Russian Thought", edited the works of novice writers. In 1903, after Chekhov's revision, the magazine published the story of the provincial fiction writer A.K. Goldebaev (Semenov) "Quarrel" (originally - "What is the reason?"). Despite the fact that Chekhov threw away the beginning and remade the end, he was rather friendly about the work of the young author:<…> good, and in some places even very good ”(p. 18,311). Chekhov's lesson, however, did not go well: in subsequent works, Goldebaev turned out to be more archaic than his editor. He did not adapt to new trends and wrote endless novels that no one wanted to publish (pp. 18,314-15).
The heroes of the story - the locomotive driver Marov and his assistant Khlebopchuk - both are fascinated by the ideas of the infinity of worlds ... During long voyages, the "alien-schismatic" Sava Khlebopchuk enlightens Vasily Petrovich; he himself had read Flammarion and, “turning pale with mental pain and closing his eyes”, “with ardent reverence” told his partner that the people of the Earth are not alone in the universe, that the universe has no end, that “millions of miles away from us there are neighbors, our likeness , but better than us and, perhaps, sweeter for the Creator<…> He also spoke competently about the moon, Mars, Sirius ... ”.
Vasily Petrovich's heart "sank with horror and pleasure, as if looking into a bottomless abyss" (p. 18, 145). Looking into the future, Sava is convinced that over time everything will change, "people will become like angels, they will love each other very much, and avoid evil." And Marov worries that in this place, in other worlds, Christ endured for people, that “the end of the world, the second coming ...” is also coming (pp. 18, 147-48).
What did Chekhov think while reading these lines? The young writer Goldebaev, a Saratov philistine, a dropout (left the gymnasium in the third grade), like Chekhov's Konstantin Treplev, based his work on the cosmic fantasies of Flammarion ... The conflict of heroes built on them ... Is this not a confirmation of Treplev's typical image? Is this not a confirmation of the validity of Dorn's words, addressed, in essence, to generations of young people who, over the years, forget about the stellar worlds: “If you get married, you will change. Where did the atoms, substances go, Flammarion ... ”(p. 12,270).
In the final version, the doctor's phrase about Flammarion was also excluded ... So, thanks to default, Treplov's status was raised, and researchers are still arguing about the mysteriousness of the play about the World Soul ...
An "astronomical" trace of Konstantin Treplev's stage fantasy can also be traced in one of Chekhov's early works - in the parody "Unclean Tragedians and Leper Playwrights" ("Alarm Clock", 1884. Published under the pseudonym "My Brother's Brother"). The parody was caused by the performance in the theater of the Lentovsky performance based on the play by K.A. Tarnovsky "The Clean and the Lepers", replete with incredible scenes and tedious effects. The “creative process” of the dramodel Tarnovsky is drawn by Chekhov in a frankly grotesque style: “Tarnovsky is sitting at a writing table covered with blood<…> sulfur burns in the mouth; pop out of the nostrils<…> green devils. He dips his pen not into an inkwell, but into lava, which the witches interfere with. Fearfully<…> Alexey Sergeevich Suvorin's calendar<…> lies right there and with the dispassionateness of a bailiff predicts the collision of the Earth with the Sun, the destruction of the universe and the rise in prices for pharmaceutical goods. Chaos, horror, fear ... ". Suvorin's calendar for 1884 contained an astronomical section with forecasts of celestial phenomena (S. 2, 319-20, 539-40).
As you can see, the smells of sulfur, devilish fires and impending cosmic catastrophes, which make up the entourage of the play about the "World Soul", appear here in the complete set. They are accompanied, however, by the "rise in prices for pharmaceutical products" - this gives a tragicomic tint to the final generalization: "Chaos, horror, fear ...". Is it not here that one should look for the origins of Arkadina's mockingly derogatory reaction to the "decadent" play of Constantine? In her son's student opus, an experienced actress could, no doubt, see an epigone imitation of Tarnovsky's mediocre drama!
One of the mysteries of the play is the names of the characters. The semantics of some surnames invented by Chekhov lie on the surface, like, for example, the horse surname "Ovs" ... In "The Seagull" such transparency is present in the stage name of Konstantin's mother - instead of the dissonant surnames "Sorina" (maiden) or "Treplev" (married) she became known as "Arkadina". For the Hellenistic poets and Virgil, “Arcadia” is an idyllic country, where bucolic scenes unfold against the backdrop of luxurious nature. But why did the venerable writer get the surname "Trigorin"? Whether from "three mountains", or from "three sorrows"? There is room for imagination here. It seems that possible associations may be associated with Trigorin's relationship with women, and there is a historical and literary background here.
One of the running love stories world literature - the relationship of a venerable writer (artist, scientist, musician, etc.) with enthusiastic admirers. The plot was constantly fueled real stories of creative life luminaries. For example, in Chekhov's times they talked a lot about the relationship between Levitan and Kuvshinnikova ... This kind of plot was repeatedly used by Chekhov. In "Uncle Vanya" - this is the relationship of Professor Serebryakov with Elena Andreevna, in "Poprygunya" - the relationship of the artist Ryabovsky with the wife of the doctor Dymov. In The Seagull, of course, this is Trigorin's relationship, first with Arkadina, and then with Nina Zarechnaya.
In the second act, Trigorin and Nina talk about writing, about fame ... In the subtext - the birth of Nina's deep feeling, their coming closeness. Trigorin paints his professional pains: “I am writing continuously, as if on the chaise longues” ... “It smells like heliotrope. Rather, I am waving my mustache: a sugary smell, a widow's color, to mention when describing a summer evening ”(p. 13, 29).
As you know, the Chekhovs bred heliotropes in their Melikhovo estate. You can imagine how the heliotrope smelled on the flowerbed near the famous outhouse where Anton Pavlovich worked on The Seagull. In a purely lyrical context, heliotrope has already been encountered in the history of Russian literature. It was a novel by a famous poet and an enthusiastic admirer.
It took place in 1825 on the estate of Praskovya Alexandrovna Osipova-Wulf, which was called Trigorskoye. The poet's name was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and his admirer was Anna Petrovna Kern. She was the niece of the owner of the estate. Pushkin came to Trigorskoye with a large black book, on the margins of which legs and heads were inscribed, read the poem "Gypsies". “I was ecstatic<…> - Anna Petrovna recalled, - I was melting with pleasure ”11 / (my italics - G. Sh.).
On the night of July 18-19, 1825, the inhabitants of Trigorskoye together with Pushkin made a trip to Mikhailovskoye. Pushkin and Anna Petrovna walked for a long time in the old park. This is how this walk was described in Pushkin's French letter to AN Wolf, Anna Petrovna's sister: “Every night I walk in my garden and say to myself:“ Here she was<…> the stone she stumbled over lies on my table beside the withered heliotrope. Finally, I write a lot of poetry. All this<…> very much like love, but I swear to you that there is no mention of it. If I were in love, I would seem to have died on Sunday from furious jealousy ... ”12 /. A.P. Kern cites this excerpt from the letter in his memoirs with comments: “He definitely asked me for a branch of heliotrope” 13 /. Before Anna Petrovna's departure to Riga, where her husband was waiting for her, Pushkin brought her a printed copy of the chapter of Eugene Onegin with a sheet of paper enclosed between the pages containing the poem “I remember a wonderful moment” 14 /.
Trigorin, as we remember, did not write poetry, however, the meeting with Nina was postponed in his literary plans: "a plot for a short story" ... Of course, two such "talking" coincidences (novel famous writer with an enthusiastic admirer, the mention of "heliotrope") is not enough to firmly substantiate the version of the origin of the surname of the Chekhov fiction writer. But there is also no reason to deny the possibility that Trigorin was Pushkin of that happy time, when in neighboring Trigorskoye he was captivated by the "genius of pure beauty". The plot about the novel of the famous writer and an enthusiastic admirer was repeatedly seen in Chekhov's own biography. These fans were called "Antonovka". With one of them - actress Olga Knipper - Anton Pavlovich was tied, in the end, by marriage.
Nina Zarechnaya's monologue about the World Soul is undoubtedly largely inspired by the cosmic fantasies of Flammarion. However, one senses that there is something deeply personal in him, actually Chekhov's. Analyzing the structure of the monologue, A.G. Golovacheva drew attention to this: the text as a whole is built according to the laws of "non-Chekhov's drama", but also contains Chekhov's own voice 15 /. In our opinion, the depth and emotion of this voice are due to the personal impressions and memories of the writer.
Twice - in 1888 and 1889 - the Chekhov family spent the spring and summer months in Ukraine, in Sumy. The letters of that time contain lyrical descriptions of nature, painted in soft tones of Ukrainian humor. The spring sketch made in a letter to A.S. Suvorin dated May 4, 1889 stands apart. Here we find a generalized and at the same time saturated with living details image of the renewal of nature, spring boil, a riot of living matter in all its manifestations. "Billions of creatures are born every day. Nightingales, buggies, cuckoos and other feathered creatures scream incessantly day and night.<…> in the garden there is literally a roar from May beetles ... "The picture begins with an image of flowering gardens:" Everything sings, blooms, shines with beauty<…> The trunks of apple trees, pears, cherries and plums are painted<…> in white paint, all these trees are blooming white, which is why they are strikingly similar to brides during a wedding: white dresses, white flowers ... "(P. 3, 202-03). The presence of symbolic meaning is clearly felt here: the white bride is a symbol of renewal peace, continuation of life.
The picture of nature is supplemented by a strange, at first glance, philosophical passage about indifference, consonant with the reflections of a whole number of thinkers - from the biblical Ecclesiastes to Pushkin: "Nature is a very good sedative. It reconciles, that is, makes a person Only indifferent people are able to see things clearly, to be fair ... "(P.3.203). But the transition to pessimistic intonations, which most of all corresponds to the interpretation of being as "vanity of vanities", is not so arbitrary. In that blooming spring, before Chekhov's eyes, the "coughing artist" was extinguished - brother Nikolai, doomed to a quick death from consumption.
Was this experience of a complex landscape-philosophical construction left in vain? We will not find such a picture in the works of Chekhov. However, the apotheosis of life, which can be considered a description of the Ukrainian spring, is opposed by an equally impressive picture of total lifelessness, reproduced in the monologue of Nina Zarechnaya. Here we also find an enumeration of countless living beings, taken on a large scale (man is the king of nature, the lion is the king of beasts, the eagle is the king of birds), but as if with the opposite sign: the enumeration of the host of creatures only emphasizes the general lifelessness. It is characteristic that important signs of life are called "May beetles" in linden groves: like the cries of cranes in meadows, these are signs of the Ukrainian spring, the life that captured the writer and obviously personified the fullness of being. There is also a symbolic figure in white - the World soul, designed to play an important role in the renewal of the world on the basis of the fusion of spirit and matter.
Ecclesiastical motives also play an important role, in particular, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe circulation of life, the return of everything and everything "to its own circles" (Ecclesiastes, I: 6). This idea has been expanded to the image of a general "sad circle", which in two hundred thousand years will be completed by "all lives, all lives, all lives."
Specific overlaps between the picture of Ukrainian nature and the monologist Nina Zarechnaya give grounds to assert that one of the strong ideological and emotional impulses for creating a picture of nothingness in the play "The Seagull" was actually Chekhov's impressions of the boil of life in the memorable spring of 1889. The image was created by contrast - while maintaining and developing the philosophical ideas of Ecclesiastes.
Finally, in comprehending the meaning of the play, the symbolism with which the title of the play is filled - "The Seagull" is also important. Why is a seagull chosen, and not some other bird? For example, a white heron? Or a black jackdaw? We are used to associating the image of a wounded seagull with the collision of Nina Zarechnaya, the same white and pure girl who was casually killed by a visiting writer. But it is possible to project a killed bird onto Konstantin Treplev himself, who, having killed the bird, then killed himself. This collision acquired a curious twist in the Belgrade production of The Seagull, directed by Stevo igon, on the stage of the National Theater of Serbia. In Serbian, the seagull is called "galeb" - a masculine noun. In the last act, the director specially builds a high veranda with a steep staircase - it is there that Konstantin will have to shoot himself in order to then slide down the stairs, breaking his wings and arms. Like a shot galeb ...
But this is a specific Serbian version. On Russian soil, the gull remains a feminine creature and is strongly associated with the fate of Nina Zarechnaya. And, oddly enough, the symbolic projection of the name of the bird anticipates even such a detail in its biography as the loss of a child. In the "Encyclopedia of Symbols" E.Ya.Sheinina noted the meaning of a seagull as a yearning woman: "A symbol of a mother's cry for her children" 16 /. Anyone who has heard the clicks of small black-headed gulls, sometimes called pigalits, will not forget their crying, calling, longing intonation ...
The multi-layered structure of the play about the World Soul, the intertwining of the voices of the author and the hero in it, the connection with a wide range of religious, philosophical, fiction, popular science literature, the inclusion of personal everyday impressions take this text far beyond the "student opus" of Konstantin Treplev. AP Chudakov brought him closer to the genre of "eschatological meditation on the fate of the world" 17 /.
One should not lose sight of the fact that Treplev's play is a "dream" with the freedom inherent in a dream to combine fantasy and reality, with its peculiar symbolism. The dream is waiting for further decryption.

* * *
Footnotes:

1.Zingerman B. Chekhov's theater and its global significance. - M .: Nauka, 1988.S. 292.
2. For a review of the literature on the sources of "The Seagull" see: B. Zingerman, Chekhov's Theater and Its World Significance. - M. 1988, p. 293; Vilkin A. Why did Konstantin shoot himself? // Contemporary drama. 1988. No. 3. P.207-16; Sobennikov A.S. An artistic symbol in the drama of A.P. Chekhov. - Irkutsk. 1989. S. 116-117; Sheikina M.A. "A phenomenon worthy of the pen of Flammarion ..." // Chekhoviana. Melikhov's works and days. - M .: Science. 1995.S. 118-124.
3. Zvinyatskovsky V.Ya. On the polemic function of Treplev and Trigorin's images in A.P. Chekhov's The Seagull // Revue des etudes slaves. - Paris. 1991 S.587-605.
4. Russian encyclopedia. T. 19.P. 279-71.
5.Flammarion, Camille. End of light. Astronomical novel. - SPb .: Type. Panteleevs. 1893.S. 134.
6.Flammarion, Camille. On the waves of infinity Astronomical fantasy. - SPb., 1894.C.316.
7. Flammarion, Camille. End of light. S.92-93.
8. Flammarion, Camille. End of light. P.143.
9. Flammarion, Camille. On the waves of infinity P.307.
10.Flammarion, Camille. End of light. P. 135.
11. Kern A.P. Memories. Diaries. Correspondence. - M., 1989.S. 33.
12.Ibid. P.35.
13.Ibid. P.36.
14.Ibid. P.34.
15. Golovacheva A.G. Monologue about the "World Soul" ("The Seagull") in the works of Chekhov in the 1890s // Bulletin of Leningrad State University. - L., 1986.S. 51-56.
16. Sheinina E.Ya. Encyclopedia of symbols. - M., 2001.S. 130.
17. Chudakov A. The World of Chekhov. - M .: Soviet writer. 1986.S. 318.