2015年7月16日 星期四


Drama in the Modern World: Plays and Essays (pirate edition, 1990, p.87)
"...... To judge between good and bad, between successful and unsuccessful, would need eye of God." Anton Chekhov , 1860-1904

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov died in Badenweiler, German Empire on this day in 1904 (aged 44).
"Perhaps the feelings that we experience when we are in love represent a normal state. Being in love shows a person who he should be."
-- from "Seeing Chekhov: Life And Art" by Anton Chekhov

Unlike other major journalistic works from that period, “Sakhalin Island” has not aged.

Chekhov’s “Sakhalin Island,” his long investigation of prison conditions in Siberia, is the best work of journalism written in the nineteenth century.


In 1890, Chekhov undertook an arduous journey by train, horse-drawn carriage, and river steamer to the far east of Russia and thekatorga, or penal colony, on Sakhalin Island, north of Japan, where he spent three months interviewing thousands of convicts and settlers for a census. The letters Chekhov wrote during the two-and-a-half-month journey to Sakhalin are considered to be among his best.[56] His remarks to his sister about Tomsk were to become notorious.[57][58]
"Tomsk is a very dull town. To judge from the drunkards whose acquaintance I have made, and from the intellectual people who have come to the hotel to pay their respects to me, the inhabitants are very dull, too."[59]
The inhabitants of Tomsk later retaliated by erecting a mocking statue of Chekhov.
Chekhov witnessed much on Sakhalin that shocked and angered him, including floggings, embezzlement of supplies, and forced prostitution of women. He wrote, "There were times I felt that I saw before me the extreme limits of man's degradation."[60][61] He was particularly moved by the plight of the children living in the penal colony with their parents. For example:
"On the Amur steamer going to Sakhalin, there was a convict who had murdered his wife and wore fetters on his legs. His daughter, a little girl of six, was with him. I noticed wherever the convict moved the little girl scrambled after him, holding on to his fetters. At night the child slept with the convicts and soldiers all in a heap together."[62]
Chekhov later concluded that charity and subscription were not the answer, but that the government had a duty to finance humane treatment of the convicts. His findings were published in 1893 and 1894 as Ostrov Sakhalin (The Island of Sakhalin), a work of social science – not literature – worthy and informative rather than brilliant.[63][64] Chekhov found literary expression for the "Hell of Sakhalin" in his long short story The Murder,[65] the last section of which is set on Sakhalin, where the murderer Yakov loads coal in the night, longing for home. Chekhov's writing on Sakhalin is the subject of brief comment and analysis in Japanese writer Haruki Murakami'snovel 1Q84.[66] It is also the subject of a poem by the Nobel prize winner Seamus Heaney entitled Chekhov on Sakhalin collected in the volume Station Island.[67]

Theater Review | 'Neva'
Self-Absorbed, With Chekhov as a Backdrop
"Neva" is a Guillermo Calderón play set in 1905 Russia and centering on Chekhov's widow, Olga Knipper.

而且帶小 ​​狗的女士是最著名的一篇
巴金譯過Gorky Meaning #1 : Russian writer of plays and novels and short stories; noted for his depiction of social outcasts
Synonyms: Maksim Gorky , Gorki , Maxim Gorki , Aleksey Maksimovich Peshkov , Aleksey Maximovich Peshkov
所以先前講的Gogol 是錯誤......

Virginia Woolf

The Common Reader

The Russian Point of View

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/ w/woolf/virginia/w91c/ chapter16.html

A generalisation of this kind will, of course, even if it has some degree of truth when applied to the body of literature, be changed profoundly when a writer of genius sets to work on it. At once other questions arise. It is seen that an “attitude” is not simple; it is highly complex. Men reft of their coats and their manners, stunned by a railway accident, say hard things, harsh things, unpleasant things, difficult things, even if they say them with the abandonment and simplicity which catastrophe has bred in them. Our first impressions of Tchekov are not of simplicity but of bewilderment. What is the point of it, and why does he make a story out of this? we ask as we read story after story. A man falls in love with a married woman, and they part and meet, and in the end are left talking about their position and by what means they can be free from “this intolerable bondage”.

“'How? How?' he asked, clutching his head. . . . And it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found and then a new and splendid life would begin.” That is the end. A postman drives a student to the station and all the way the student tries to make the postman talk, but he remains silent. Suddenly the postman says unexpectedly, “It's against the regulations to take any one with the post”. And he walks up and down the platform with a look of anger on his face. “With whom was he angry? Was it with people, with poverty, with the autumn nights?” Again, that story ends.
But is it the end, we ask? We have rather the feeling that we have overrun our signals; or it is as if a tune had stopped short without the expected chords to close it. These stories are inconclusive, we say, and proceed to frame a criticism based upon the assumption that stories ought to conclude in a way that we recognise. In so doing, we raise the question of our own fitness as readers. Where the tune is familiar and the end emphatic — lovers united, villains discomfited, intrigues exposed — as it is in most Victorian fiction, we can scarcely go wrong, but where the tune is unfamiliar and the end a note of interrogation or merely the information that they went on talking, as it is in Tchekov, we need a very daring and alert sense of literature to make us hear the tune, and in particular those last notes which complete the harmony. Probably we have to read a great many stories before we feel, and the feeling is essential to our satisfaction, that we hold the parts together, and that Tchekov was not merely rambling disconnectedly, but struck now this note, now that with intention, in order to complete his meaning.
We have to cast about in order to discover where the emphasis in these strange stories rightly comes. Tchekov's own words give us a lead in the right direction. “. . . such a conversation as this between us”, he says, “would have been unthinkable for our parents. At night they did not talk, but slept sound; we, our generation, sleep badly, are restless, but talk a great deal, and are always trying to settle whether we are right or not.” Our literature of social satire and psychological finesse both sprang from that restless sleep, that incessant talking; but after all, there is an enormous difference between Tchekov and Henry James, between Tchekov and Bernard Shaw. Obviously — but where does it arise? Tchekov, too, is aware of the evils and injustices of the social state; the condition of the peasants appals him, but the reformer's zeal is not his — that is not the signal for us to stop. The mind interests him enormously; he is a most subtle and delicate analyst of human relations. But again, no; the end is not there. Is it that he is primarily interested not in the soul's relation with other souls, but with the soul's relation to health — with the soul's relation to goodness? These stories are always showing us some affectation, pose, insincerity. Some woman has got into a false relation; some man has been perverted by the inhumanity of his circumstances. The soul is ill; the soul is cured; the soul is not cured. Those are the emphatic points in his stories.
Once the eye is used to these shades, half the “conclusions” of fiction fade into thin air; they show like transparences with a light behind them — gaudy, glaring, superficial. The general tidying up of the last chapter, the marriage, the death, the statement of values​​ so sonorously trumpeted forth, so heavily underlined, become of the most rudimentary kind. Nothing is solved, we feel; nothing is rightly held together. On the other hand, the method which at first seemed so casual, inconclusive , and occupied with trifles, now appears the result of an exquisitely original and fastidious taste, choosing boldly, arranging infallibly, and controlled by an honesty for which we can find no match save among the Russians themselves. There may be no answer to these questions , but at the same time let us never manipulate the evidence so as to produce something fitting, decorous, agreeable to our vanity. This may not be the way to catch the ear of the public; after all, they are used to louder music, fiercer measures; but as the tune sounded so he has written it. In consequence, as we read these little stories about nothing at all, the horizo​​n widens; the soul gains an astonishing sense of freedom.
In reading Tchekov we find ourselves repeating the word “ soul” again and again. It sprinkles his pages. Old drunkards use it freely; “. . . you are high up in the service, beyond all reach, but haven't real soul, my dear boy . . . there's no strength in it”. Indeed, it is the soul that is the chief character in Russian fiction. Delicate and subtle in Tchekov, subject to an infinite number of humours and distempers, it is of greater depth and volume in Dostoevsky; it is liable to violent diseases and raging fevers, but still the predominant concern. Perhaps that is why it needs so great an effort on the part of an English reader to read The Brothers Karamazov or The Possessed a second time. The “soul” is alien to him. It is even antipathetic. It has little sense of humour and no sense of comedy. It is formless. It has slight connection with the intellect. It is confused, diffuse, tumultuous, incapable, it seems, of submitting to the control of logic or the discipline of poetry. The novels of Dostoevsky are seething whirlpools, gyrating sandstorms, waterspouts which hiss and boil and suck us in. They are composed purely and wholly of the stuff of the soul. Against our wills we are drawn in, whirled round, blinded, suffocated, and at the same time filled with a giddy rapture. Out of Shakespeare there is no more exciting reading. We open the door and find ourselves in a room full of Russian generals, the tutors of Russian generals, their step-daughters and cousins, and crowds of miscellaneous people who are all talking at the tops of their voices about their most private affairs. But where are we? Surely it is the part of a novelist to inform us whether we are in an hotel, a flat, or hired lodging. Nobody thinks of explaining. We are souls, tortured, unhappy souls, whose only business it is to talk, to reveal, to confess, to draw up at whatever rending of flesh and nerve those crabbed sins which crawl on the sand at the bottom of us. But, as we listen, our confusion slowly settles. A rope is flung to us; we catch hold of a soliloquy; holding on by the skin of our teeth, we are rushed through the water; feverishly, wildly, we rush on and on, now submerged, now in a moment of vision understanding more than we have ever understood before, and receiving such revelations as we are wont to get only from the press of life at its fullest. As we fly we pick it all up — the names of the people, their relationships, that they are staying in an hotel at Roulettenburg, that Polina is involved in an intrigue with the Marquis de Grieux — but what unimportant matters these are compared with the soul! It is the soul that matters, its passion, its tumult, its astonishing medley of beauty and vileness. And if our voices suddenly rise into shrieks of laughter, or if we are shaken by the most violent sobbing, what more natural?— it hardly calls for remark. The pace at which we are living is so tremendous that sparks must rush off our wheels as we fly. Moreover, when the speed is thus increased and the elements of the soul are seen, not separately in scenes of humour or scenes of passion as our slower English minds conceive them, but streaked, involved, inextricably confused, a new panorama of the human mind is revealed. The old divisions melt into each other. Men are at the same time villains and saints ; their acts are at once beautiful and despicable. We love and we hate at the same time. There is none of that precise division between good and bad to which we are used. Often those for whom we feel most affection are the greatest criminals, and the most abject sinners move us to the strongest admiration as well as love.

辛格雷著(Ronald Hingley)《契訶夫傳》

淡淡的幽默 --契訶夫回憶---上海譯文1991 776頁

契訶夫文集 李輝譯北京中央編譯出版社2010



James March 從短篇小說選引1888年5月30日同一篇的信之另外部分
  1. ^ "This use of stream-of-consciousness would, in later years, become the basis of Chekhov's innovation in stagecraft; it is also his innovation in fiction." Wood, 81; "The artist must not be the judge of his characters and of their conversations, but merely an impartial witness." Letter to Suvorin, 30 May 1888; In reply to an objection that he wrote about horse-thieves ( The Horse-Stealers , retrieved 16 February 2007) without condemning them, Chekhov said readers should add for themselves the subjective elements lacking in the story. Letter to Suvorin, 1 April 1890. Letters of Anton Chekhov .
  2. ^ "You are right in demanding that an artist should take an intelligent attitude to his work, but you confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist." Letter to Suvorin , 27 October 1888. Letters of Anton Chekhov .


In many ways, the right-wing Suvorin, whom Lenin later called "The running dog of the Tzar " (Payne, XXXV), was Chekhov's opposite; "Chekhov had to function like Suvorin's kidney, extracting the businessman's poisons." Wood, 79 .

辛格雷著(Ronald Hingley),範文譯,《契訶夫傳》,台北:志文文化出版,1975。




1860年1月,安東•巴甫洛維奇•契訶夫出生於塔甘羅格的一個小商人家庭。1876 ​​年,契訶夫父親經營的雜貨舖破產,為了躲債,全家不得不遷往莫斯科。但契訶夫隻身留在塔甘羅格,靠擔任家庭教師來維持生計和繼續學業。在這段時間,少年契訶夫寫出了他的第一個劇本《沒有父親的人》
1879年契訶夫考入莫斯科大學醫學系,以“安東•契洪特”之名為雜誌供稿,起先發表的作品多為諷刺小品。在《花絮》雜誌 ​​主編列依金的影響下,契訶夫建立了自己“簡潔、精悍”的寫作風格。《一個文官之死》、《胖子和瘦子》、《變色龍》、《意見薄》等膾炙人口的短篇小說全是他這一時期的作品。




契訶夫一生才華橫溢,創造了一種風格獨特、言簡意賅、藝術精湛的抒情心理小說和深邃詩意的“非戲劇化”戲劇,在西方他被稱為“自然主義劇作家中最自然的劇作家” 。



1890年 4月至12月,體弱的契訶夫不辭長途跋涉,去沙皇政府安置苦役犯和流刑犯的庫頁島遊歷,對那裡的所有居民、“將近一萬個囚徒和移民”逐一進行調查。庫頁島之行提高了他的思想覺悟和創作意境。1891年他在一封信裡說:“……如果我是文學家,我就需要生活在人民中間……我至少需要一點點社會生活和政治生活,哪怕很少一點點也好。”他開始覺察到,為《新時報》撰稿所帶給他的只是“禍害”,終於在1893年同這家刊物斷絕關係。他對俄國的專制制度有了比較深刻的認識,寫出了《庫頁島》(1893~1894年)和《在流放中》(1892年)等作品,而最重要的則是震撼人心的《第六病室》(1892年)。這部中篇小說控訴監獄一般的沙皇俄國的陰森可怕,也批判了他自己不久前一度醉心的“勿以暴力抗惡”的托爾斯泰主義。列寧讀它後受到強烈的感染,說自己“覺得可怕極了”,以致“在房間裡待不住”,“覺得自己好像也被關在'第六病室'裡了”。











契訶夫後期轉向戲劇創作,主要作品有《伊凡諾夫》(1887)、《海鷗》(1896)、《萬尼亞舅舅》(1896)、《三姊妹》(1901)、櫻桃園》( 1903),都曲折反映了俄國1905年大革命前夕一部分小資產階級知識分子的苦悶和追求。其劇作含有濃郁的抒情味和豐富的潛台詞,令人回味無窮,劇本故事雖取材於日常生活,情節樸素,進展平穩,但卻富有深刻象徵意義。



第一階段,1880 ~1886年,用筆名“東沙•契洪特”發表了大量短篇詼諧幽默故事。其中多數尚屬膚淺之作,但也有一些針砭了時弊,給人以較深的印象,如《一個官員之死》和《英國女子》、《變色龍》、 《普里希別耶夫中士》等。80年代中期發表的《哀傷》 、《苦惱》和《萬卡》 等,用冷峻的筆觸描寫普通勞動者和窮人孩子難以訴說的苦難,表明作者的創作轉向直面人生。

第二階段,1886~1892年,1886年他首次署真名“安東•契訶夫”發表《好人》和《在途中》。小說體裁兼有中短篇,題材廣泛,主題多含嚴肅的社會性,從各個角度提出“這生活是怎樣反常”的問題。如《仇敵》 、《渴睡》、《草原》、《命名日》和《公爵夫人》、《哥薩克》和《燈光》、《沒有意思的故事》 、《在流放中》和《第六病房》等,都是他這個階段的代表作。其中最後一篇,曾使列寧深受感動。

第三階段為1892年以後。作品大多達到內容和形式的完美統一, 主題觸及重大而迫切的社會問題,思想豐富深刻,藝術上敘事和抒情有機結合,別具一格。代表作《帶閣樓的房子》和《我的一生》對當時流行的“小事論”漸進論和托爾斯泰的“平民化”'了否定性描寫,認為需要有“更強大、更勇敢、更迅速的鬥爭方式”;《套中人》揭示了令人窒息的社會環境中保守勢力的猖獗和虛弱, 反映出“不能再這樣生活下去”的新的社會情緒;《帶狗的女人》以愛情為題材,暴露庸俗、虛偽生活的無聊和可憎可惡;《醋栗》和《姚內奇》批判了蜷伏在個人幸福小天地裡的庸俗和無聊,指出生活的意義在於爭“更偉大更合理的東西”;《女人的王國》、《農民》、《出診》和《在峽谷裡》等篇,生動地展示出資本主義迅速發展條件下俄國社會兩極分化、極端不公、農民破產和富農的貪婪殘酷等可怕景象;《未婚妻》的主人公甚至提出要“把生活翻一個身”,表達出奔赴新生活的強烈願望。這個階段的作品,雖仍限於中短篇,但正如作家自己所說,他所寫的是“對生活進行觀察和研究的成果”,是“重要的或者典型的東西”,因此具有巨大的社會作用。高爾基說過,契訶夫的小說是“ 內容比文字要多得多的作品”以“篇幅不大的作品在做著一件意義巨大的事情:喚起人們對渾渾噩噩、半死不活的生活的厭惡”。


19世紀90年代和20世紀初期是契訶夫創作的全盛時期。當時俄國的解放運動進入無產階級革命的新階段。在革命階級的激昂情緒激盪下學生以及其他居民階層中間的民主精神漸趨活躍。契訶夫也漸漸克服了不問政治的傾向,積極投入社會活動,他的民主主義立場日益堅定,對社會生活的底奧的觀察更為深刻,對醞釀中的革命的預感也日益明朗,從漆黑的現實中漸漸看到隱約的“火光”。他的創作進入了一個新的階段。他強調藝術作品應該有明確的思想(劇本《海鷗》,1896年);他在一系列作品裡接觸到重大的社會問題。例如《農民》(1897年)以清醒的現實主義反映了農民的物質和精神生活的貧乏:赤貧、愚昧、落後和野蠻;《在峽谷裡》( 1900年 )並描繪了農村資產階級——富農瘋狂地掠奪財富和殘忍本性。這些小說對美化農村公社生活的民粹派是有力的反駁。揭露資本主義的主題也見於《女人的王國》(1894年)和《三年》(1895年)等作品;而《出診》(1898年)則表明資本主義“魔鬼”不僅壓榨工人,而且也折磨著工廠主後裔的良心,他們意識到生活沒有意義和不合理,因而深深感到抑鬱不安。劇本《萬尼亞舅舅》(1897)描寫沒有真正理想和嚴肅目標的知識分子的可悲命運,他們的正直無私的勞動終成無謂的犧牲。《帶狗的女人》(1899年)以愛情為題材,暴露庸俗和虛偽,喚起讀者“對渾渾噩噩的、半死不活的生活……的厭惡”。《帶閣樓的房子》(1896年)和《我的一生》(1896年)否定80至90年代流行的、用日常工作代替社會鬥爭的“小事”論,批判自由主義者的漸進論思想,認為需要一種“更強大、更勇敢、更迅速的鬥爭方式”,要走出日常活動的狹隘圈子,去影響廣大群眾。他的創作中逐漸響起了“不能再這樣生活下去!”的呼聲。在《套中人》(1898年)裡揭示80年代反動力量對社會的壓制及他們的保守和虛弱,並鞭撻當時存在的套中人習氣。在《醋栗》(1898年)和《姚內奇》(1898年)裡他刻畫自私自利、蜷伏於個人幸福小天地的庸人的心靈空虛和墮落,並指出“人所需要的不是三俄尺土地,也不是一座莊園,而是整個地球,整個大自然,在那廣大的天地中,人才能盡情發揮他的自由精神的所有品質和特點”。









契訶夫在世界文學中佔有自己的位置。他以短篇小說和莫泊桑齊名。歐美許多作家談到契訶夫的創作對20世紀文學的影響。在中國,在契訶夫逝世後不久, 《黑衣教士》和《第六病室》等小說就被譯介過來。他的劇本《海歐》、《萬尼亞舅舅》、《三姊妹》和《櫻桃園》也早在1921年和1925年先後由鄭振鐸和曹靖華等譯成中文。以後,魯迅藝術學院曾在延安演出《蠢貨》、《求婚》和《紀念日》。瞿秋白、魯迅、茅盾、郭沫若、巴金等對契訶夫都有過論述。他的小說和戲劇幾乎全部有中譯本。



二那是1895年 2月的一天,契訶夫收到了高爾采夫(《俄羅斯思想》雜誌 ​​主編)轉給他的一個精緻的小包裹。裡面是一個漂亮的小盒子,盒子裡裝著一個金質的錶鍊墜子,樣式很特別,也很有趣,既不是通常的圓形、菱形,或長方形,也不是那種俗氣的象徵愛情的心形,而是一本書的模型。書的一面刻著:《安•契訶夫小說集》,另一面刻著:“第267頁,第6行和第7行。”
“要是你什麼時候需要我的生命, 來,拿去就是。”
契訶夫仔細地把禮物珍臧起來,他一聲也不響,既不回信,也不去看望。這是明明白白的,他們相愛幾年了,已經達到心心相印,靈犀互通的程度, 愛得熱烈而又深沉,純潔而又高尚……但他們又都明白,結合在一起,那是絕對辦不到的——阿維諾娃不僅有一個熱愛自己的丈夫,而且已是三個孩子的母親了,如果她要交出自己的生命的話,那絕不是一個,不是,而是四個,連孩子們在內。
“我知道, 《海鷗》。”


俄羅斯本土,從上世紀初到80年代末,契訶夫在人們心目中,一直是一位偉大的經典的現實主義作家。這不僅因為他的作品客觀而真實地反映了19世紀末至20世紀初的俄羅斯社會歷史風貌和各階層民眾的生活,而且還由於契訶夫發表過許多有關文學創作要真實、不要虛假的言論,因此人們普遍認為契訶夫是最正統的現實主義作家,他的最優秀的作品都是用現實主義的美學觀念和方法創作出來的。在很長一段時間裡,前蘇聯學術界為了維護現實主義傳統的純潔性和權威性,往往拒絕承認俄國經典作家與西歐作家之間存在著精神上、思想上和創作方法上的聯繫。最典型的例子是,陀思妥耶夫斯基由於被西方現代派奉為精神領袖,而長期進不了正統的俄國文學史。事實上,俄羅斯的很多現實主義作家在創作思想和創作方法上都有非現實主義的一面,他們同西歐作家也存在著種種理不清、割不斷的聯繫。契訶夫就是這樣的作家。從上世紀90年代開始,俄羅斯的那種略帶封閉的研究格局有了明顯改觀。由高爾基世界文學研究所主編的一套“契訶夫學”系列叢書,正式由莫斯科科學出版社出版。其中有一本就是《契訶夫與法國》 1992 ,接著莫斯科大學出版社又出版了一本《契訶夫與德國》 1996 。這兩本書都是以俄國學者與法、德兩國學者合作的形式,探討契訶夫與兩國作家如莫泊桑、霍夫特曼、弗洛伊德等、兩國文學相互影響的淵源關係,從而打開了一條契訶夫與西方文學的通道,讓更多讀者看到契訶夫的創作不僅有現實主義的一面,而且還有非現實主義的一面。這是契訶夫研究史上至關重要的突破。
除了 ​​俄羅斯本土外,西方國家主要是西歐和美國對契訶夫的關注與研究由來已久,英、美、法、德等國都有許多造詣很深的契訶夫研究專家,如符拉基米爾•納博科夫、弗吉尼亞•伍爾夫、亨利•特洛亞、J.L.斯泰恩、J.C.奧茨等等。西方學者對契訶夫戲劇的評論多於小說評論,普遍認為契訶夫是歐美現代戲劇的一位傑出先驅。如美國作家、戲劇評論家奧茨曾說過:“在掌握題材時所根據的哲學觀點以及他所運用的許多戲劇技巧方面,契訶夫是當代荒誕戲劇的先聲。”西方“契訶夫學”的另一個主要觀點就是認為契訶夫是一位典型的自然主義作家。這裡有兩方面的原因。一方面是因為契訶夫發表過不少強調文學創作要客觀真實、反對主觀介入、盡量減少作品中主觀成分的見解。在西方學者看來,契訶夫的這些文學觀點非常接近於左拉的“只描寫事物,不對事物作出任何評判”的自然主義文學觀。另一方面,契訶夫作為一個醫生,在文學創作中十分強調科學精神和科學態度,他往往用自然科學的方法來解剖人物,描繪日常的社會生活,雖然不如福樓拜、左拉那樣精細入微,但作品中滲透的嚴格和嚴謹的科學性是顯而易見的,這也使西方學者看到了契訶夫與左拉自然主義的某種吻合之處。另外,在戲劇創作上,契訶夫主張把最平凡最瑣碎的生活搬上舞台,他說:“在生活里人們並不是每時每刻都在開槍自殺、懸樑自盡、談情說愛。他們也不是每時每刻都在說聰明話。他們做得更多的倒是吃、喝、勾引女人、說蠢話,必須把這些表現在舞台上才對。必須寫出這樣的劇本來,在那裡人們來來去去,吃飯,談天氣、打牌。”正因為契訶夫把最平凡的日常生活搬上了舞台,創立了“非戲劇化”的戲劇,西方某些評論家把契訶夫稱之為“自然主義劇作家中最自然的劇作家”。



—— 契訶夫




這本書印刷品質"惡劣" 。附文中抓一大堆人來充篇幅。


* 作者:巴金
* 出版社:東方



目錄 序安東·契訶夫


 -  [ 轉為繁體網頁 三個時期,到了知天命的年歲才寫下了這些談契訶夫的文章,雖然總篇幅不長,而且作者還自謙...