Читаем Complete Works of Anton Chekhov полностью

You cannot imagine how your letter rejoiced me. I saw from the front only the two first acts of my play. Afterwards I sat behind the scenes and felt the whole time that “The Seagull” was a failure. After the performance that night and next day, I was assured that I had hatched out nothing but idiots, that my play was clumsy from the stage point of view, that it was not clever, that it was unintelligible, even senseless, and so on and so on. You can imagine my position — it was a collapse such as I had never dreamed of! I felt ashamed and vexed, and I went away from Petersburg full of doubts of all sorts. I thought that if I had written and put on the stage a play so obviously brimming over with monstrous defects, I had lost all instinct and that, therefore, my machinery must have gone wrong for good. After I had reached home, they wrote to me from Petersburg that the second and third performances were a success; several letters, some signed, some anonymous, came praising the play and abusing the critics. I read them with pleasure, but still I felt vexed and ashamed, and the idea forced itself upon me that if kind-hearted people thought it was necessary to comfort me, it meant that I was in a bad way. But your letter has acted upon me in a most definite way. I have known you a long time, I have a deep respect for you, and I believe in you more than in all the critics taken together — you felt that when you wrote your letter, and that is why it is so excellent and convincing. My mind is at rest now, and I can think of the play and the performance without loathing. Kommissarzhevskaia is a wonderful actress. At one of the rehearsals many people were moved to tears as they looked at her, and said that she was the first actress in Russia to-day; but at the first performance she was affected by the general attitude of hostility to my “Seagull,” and was, as it were, intimidated by it and lost her voice. Our press takes a cold tone to her that doesn’t do justice to her merits, and I am sorry for her. Allow me to thank you with all my heart for your letter. Believe me, I value the feelings that prompted you to write it far more than I can express in words, and the sympathy you call “unnecessary” at the end of your letter I shall never never forget, whatever happens.




TO V. I. NEMIROVITCH-DANTCHENKO.

MELIHOVO,

November 26, 1896.

DEAR FRIEND,

I am answering the chief substance of your letter — the question why we so rarely talk of serious subjects. When people are silent, it is because they have nothing to talk about or because they are ill at ease. What is there to talk about? We have no politics, we have neither public life nor club life, nor even a life of the streets; our civic existence is poor, monotonous, burdensome, and uninteresting — and to talk is as boring as corresponding with L. You say that we are literary men, and that of itself makes our life a rich one. Is that so? We are stuck in our profession up to our ears, it has gradually isolated us from the external world, and the upshot of it is that we have little free time, little money, few books, we read little and reluctantly, we hear little, we rarely go anywhere. Should we talk about literature? … But we have talked about it already. Every year it’s the same thing again and again, and all we usually say about literature may be reduced to discussing who write better, and who write worse. Conversations upon wider and more general topics never catch on, because when you have tundras and Esquimaux all round you, general ideas, being so inappropriate to the reality, quickly lose shape and slip away like thoughts of eternal bliss. Should we talk of personal life? Yes, that may sometimes be interesting and we might perhaps talk about it; but there again we are constrained, we are reserved and insincere: we are restrained by an instinct of self-preservation and we are afraid. We are afraid of being overheard by some uncultured Esquimaux who does not like us, and whom we don’t like either. I personally am afraid that my acquaintance, N., whose cleverness attracts us, will hold forth with raised finger, in every railway carriage and every house about me, settling the question why I became so intimate with X. while I was beloved by Z. I am afraid of our morals, I am afraid of our ladies…. In short, for our silence, for the frivolity and dulness of our conversations, don’t blame yourself or me, blame what the critics call “the age,” blame the climate, the vast distances, what you will, and let circumstances go on their own fateful, relentless course, hoping for a better future.




TO A. S. SUVORIN.

MELIHOVO,

January 11, 1897.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Бесы (Иллюстрации М.А. Гавричкова)
Бесы (Иллюстрации М.А. Гавричкова)

«Бесы» — шестой роман Фёдора Михайловича Достоевского, изданный в 1871—1872 годах. «Бесы» — один из значительнейших романов Достоевского, роман-предсказание, роман-предупреждение. Один из наиболее политизированных романов Достоевского был написан им под впечатлением от возникновения ростков террористического и радикального движений в среде русских интеллигентов, разночинцев и пр. Непосредственным прообразом сюжета романа стало вызвавшее большой резонанс в обществе дело об убийстве студента Ивана Иванова, задуманное С. Г. Нечаевым с целью укрепления своей власти в революционном террористическом кружке.«Бесы» входит в ряд русских антинигилистических романов, в книге критически разбираются идеи левого толка, в том числе и атеистические, занимавшие умы молодежи того времени. Четыре основных протагониста политического толка в книге: Верховенский, Шатов, Ставрогин и Кириллов.**

Федор Михайлович Достоевский

Русская классическая проза