The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased
Born Jan. 17 (29), 1860, in Taganrog; died July 2 (15), 1904, in Badenweiler,Germany; buried in Moscow. Russian writer.
Chekhov’s father, a merchant of the third guild, owned a grocery store. As a boy,Chekhov helped his father in the store; he entered the Taganrog Gymnasium in1868. In 1876 the father went bankrupt and left for Moscow, followed by hisfamily. Left to himself, Chekhov continued his studies, earning his living bytutoring. In 1879 he finished school and moved to Moscow. He studied medicineat the University of Moscow, graduated in 1884 with the title of district physician,and for some time practiced medicine.
Chekhov began writing in the late 1870’s. He contributed to various humormagazines, such as Oskolki, using different pen names—for example, Antosha,A Man Without a Spleen, Brother of My Brother, and, most frequently, AntoshaChekhonte. A collection entitled At Leisure (later called The Prank) was preparedfor publication in 1882 but never appeared in print, apparently because ofcensorship. Chekhov’s first book of short stories, Tales of Melpomene, waspublished in 1884; it was followed in 1886 by Motley Tales.
In March 1886, D. V. Grigorovich wrote Chekhov a letter praising his “real talent”and urging him to “give up working under a deadline” and save “[your]impressions for a well-considered work” (see Slovo, collection no. 2, Moscow,1914, pp. 199–200). This letter was one of the factors that hastened Chekhov’sshift from “trifling” to “well-considered work.” The transition from the purelyhumorous to the “realm of the serious” occurred between 1885 and 1887. “TheSteppe” and “The Name-Day Party” appeared in 1888, followed in 1889 by “AnAttack of Nerves” and “A Dreary Story.” This period also saw the publication ofseveral collections of Chekhov’s short stories—namely, In the Twilight (1887;awarded half of the Pushkin Prize in 1888), Innocent Speeches (1887), Tales(1888), and Gloomy People (1890).
Chekhov’s journey to the island of Sakhalin in 1890 made a deep impression onhim, which left its mark in his journalistic essay of 1893–94, The Island ofSakhalin (published as a book in 1895), in the short stories “In Exile” (1892) and“The Murder” (1895), and in the novella “Ward No. 6” (1892), which summed upthe entire experience. Imbued with a spirit of protest against the horrors of prisonlife, “Ward No. 6” represented the high point of Chekhov’s critical realism of thelate 1880’s and early 1890’s. This is how V. I. Lenin described his impression ofthe work: “When I finished this story last night I was genuinely terrified, I couldn’tstay in my room, I got up and went out. I felt as though I were locked up in wardno. 6 myself” (cited in Reminiscences of V. I. Lenin by His Family, 1955, p. 36).
In the second half of the 1880’s Chekhov wrote extensively for the theater. Hisplays included Ivanov (1887–89), the one-act comedy The Wedding (1889;published 1890), The Wood Demon (1889; published 1890, later revised andreissued as Uncle Vanya), and the one-act farces The Bear, The Proposal, andThe Anniversary.
In the 1890’s and early 1900’s Chekhov made a number of trips abroad. In 1892he bought the estate of Melikhovo in the Serpukhov District, 13 versts from theLopasnia Station (now Chekhov). He administered medical aid to the localpeasants, built schools for the peasants’ children, visited some of the famine-stricken provinces in 1892, worked as district physician during the choleraepidemic of 1892–93, and helped in the national census of 1897.
In approximately 1893, Chekhov’s work moved in a new direction. In 1894 hewrote the story “The Student,” in which he asserts that “truth and beauty . . . havecontinued uninterruptedly to the present day and, it appears, have always beenthe most important thing in human life and on the earth in general” (Poln. sobr,soch. i pisem, vol. 8, 1947, p. 348). The crowning work of this period is the playThe Seagull (1896). As staged at the Alek-sandrinskii Theater, however, the playfailed, and the lyricism that colored Chekhov’s works gave way to a different kindof writing. In his novella of 1897, “Peasants,” and in the short stories written in thesame year, Chekhov sought to reveal the un-embellished truth and even theharshness of life and to show its terrible underside.
In the 1898 trilogy “The Man in a Shell,” “Gooseberries,” and “About Love,” in thestories and novellas of the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, and in his last story, “TheBetrothed” (1903), Chekhov depicted spiritual stagnation and a hero strivingtoward a better life.
Chekhov’s skill as a dramatist came into full flower in the 1890’s and early 1900’s.In 1896, after The Seagull, he wrote the play Uncle Vanya (published 1897),followed in 1900–01 by Three Sisters (awarded the Griboedov Prize) and in1903–04 by The Cherry Orchard. The four plays were all produced at theMoscow Art Theater, which opened in 1898; the triumphant premiere of TheSeagull took place on December 17 of that year.
In 1898, after the death of his father and because of his own deterioratingcondition (due to tuberculosis), Chekhov moved from Melikhovo to Yalta, wherehe built a house. There he met with L. N. Tolstoy, M. Gorky, I. A. Bunin, A. I.Kuprin, and I. I. Levitan. Chekhov’s position during the Dreyfus trial, his breakwith A. S. Suvorin’s reactionary newspaper Novoe Vremia, and his sympatheticattitude toward student disturbances were indicative of his rapid ideologicaldevelopment and heightened interest in public life. Chekhov was elected anhonorary academician in 1900, but together with V. G. Korolenko he renouncedthe title in 1902 in protest against Nicholas IPs refusal to grant the same title toGorky.
Chekhov’s work mirrors a broad cross section of postreform and prerevolutionaryRussian life. Even his early comic pieces cannot be reduced to pure humor. In allthe kaleidoscopic variety of his early stories, the author increasingly reveals hisbasic themes—man and his rank, poetry and prose, life’s facade and its reverseside. Many of Chekhov’s early stories show the triumph of the mercantile spirit.Antosha Chekhonte’s characters belong entirely to the banal and philistine worldthat has given them birth; these are “the fat and the thin,” the “chameleons,”“windbags,” “philistines,” “bridegrooms and papas,” and “barroom philosophers”who never dream of opposing their environment.
The creative turning point that Chekhov experienced in the mid-1880’s resulted inthe appearance of new protagonists who do oppose their environment and whosuffer precisely because of their humanity, such as the characters in “AnUpheaval,” “Aniu-ta,” and “Misery.” The basic direction of Chekhov’s mature workof the late 1880’s and early 1900’s is clearly apparent; the author strives toanalyze what N. G. Chernyshevskii called the influence “of social relations andeveryday conflicts on character” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 3, 1947, pp. 422–23).Chekhov’s unique field of inquiry is the soul of modern man. Hence his maintheme—man’s indifference, or his “somnolent stupor,” as represented by thepeculiar ordeal of a hero who either rouses himself from spiritual slumber or elsegives up and submits to it.
The two basic groups on which Chekhov’s mature work was focused were theintelligentsia and the common people. Likewise, the theme of indifference isdeveloped in two different ways: the hero is either an educated man who isspiritually content and has locked himself up inside a “shell,” or a man of thepeople—downtrodden, worn out by life, and made dull and indifferent. ForChekhov, the “shell” is the symbol of a life built on lies and violence, on thegluttonous satiety of some, and on the hunger and suffering of others. “TheStudent,” in which the hero Ivan Velikopol’skii finds the way to the heart of twopeasant girls, Va-silisa and Luker’ia, was the prototype of the two types of worksthat Chekhov wrote between 1890 and 1900. The hero of “The Student” isfollowed by the characters in the novellas “Three Years” (1895), “The House Withthe Attic,” or “An Artist’s Story” (1896), and “My Life” (1896), the short trilogyconsisting of “The Man In a Shell,” “Gooseberries,” and “About Love,” and thestories “Ionych” (1898), “The Lady With the Dog” (1899), and “The Betrothed.”Vasilisa and Luker’ia, on the other hand, are followed by the peasants in thenovella “Peasants” and in the story “The New Country House” (1899), the ruralpolice assistant in the story “On Official Business” (1899), and the heroes of thenovella “In the Ravine” (1900).
The gulf between the intelligentsia and the common people is a theme thatpervades Chekhov’s work and is closely linked to the theme of the “shell.” Duringthese years Chekhov wrote distinctive cycles of works on this theme—”artisticinvestigations” of life. In addition to the “intelligentsia” and “peasant” cycles, hewrote stories depicting the world of the merchant and the shopkeeper’sstorehouse, as well as the inhumanly harsh life of the factories. “Three Years”(1894), “A Woman’s Kingdom” (1894), and “A Doctor’s Visit” (1898) belong to thisgroup of stories.
In his late works, including the short story “A Visit to Friends” (1898) and the playThe Cherry Orchard, Chekhov develops the theme of the impoverishment andruin of the “nests of the gentlefolk.” Thus the theme of human indifference isresolved not only in moral and psychological terms but also on the scale ofdifferent social situations.
The Chekhovian image of “the man in a shell” grows into a symbol of callousnessand conventionalism, simultaneously intimidating and fearful. V. I. Lenin oftenreferred to this satirical symbolic image.
The essence of Chekhov’s thoughts on faith in man and on the truthfulness ofartistic portrayal is conveyed by an entry in the writer’s notebooks: “Man willbecome better when you have shown him what he is” (Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem,vol. 12, 1949, p. 270). Chekhov believed in the possibility of human renewal andthe victory of man over the “shell.” In Chekhov, man is constantly being tested bythe harsh truth of life. Another important aspect of Chekhov’s observation is thatliterature should show man his own image, without trying to persuade and withoutresorting to ennobling deceptions, generalized arguments, or attempts by theauthor to sway the reader’s emotions.
Chekhov’s artistic style is profoundly and organically linked to the ideologicaldirection of his work—that is, the desire to awaken “the living soul” in modernman. His writing firmly establishes the principle of restrained and outwardlyunemphatic narration: the greater the author’s objectivity, the stronger the impact.Chekhov’s terseness of expression, conciseness, and condensed narration(“Brevity is the sister of talent,” ibid., vol. 14, 1949, p. 342) stemmed from his faithin the reader’s ability to catch the author’s hidden and complex meaning. Linkedto this is the heightened role of details that at first glance seem minor and of littleimportance; such details, which are not in the least incidental, are psychologicallyand emotionally significant. Chekhov’s details not only hint at what is importantand characteristic but also serve as vehicles for the internal movement of thestory, novella, or play. Examples of such details are Iuliia’s umbrella in “ThreeYears,” the carriage in which Dr. Startsev rides in “Ionych,” and the dead bird inThe Seagull.
The mature Chekhov avoided tense action, intrigue, and external diversion,shifting the center of gravity to the internal plot, the story of the hero’s soul, andthe hidden dynamics of the hero’s struggle against circumstance, theenvironment, and the mire of a parochial existence. The tragic meaning of manyof Chekhov’s works lies precisely in the fact that nothing happens—everythingremains as it was. Complex plotting, which played an important role in theanecdotal novellas of Antosha Chekhonte, is put aside in the works of the matureChekhov. Events “dissolve” into the flow of daily life or into psychology. In thisrespect the plot structure of Chekhov’s prose works resembles that of his plays.
An integral trait of Chekhov the artist is the profound realization that tragedy doesnot consist of what is terrible, exceptional, or out of the ordinary but of what isprosaic, everyday, and commonplace. The “tragedy of the prosaic” is all the moredangerous because it destroys the hero imperceptibly, by lulling him to sleep andconvincing him that a different kind of life—one that is not prosaic—is impossible.For Chekhov, terror lies in that which is not terrible; the benign and the bloodlessare what is fatal. This is also related to the evolution of Chekhov’s humor. Thewriter’s development as an artist did not consist of the transition from the comic tothe serious but rather of his deeper understanding of the comic as tragicomic,uniting laughter, irony, and sadness. Few of the Russian satirical writers havecreated such a complex yet outwardly simple mixture of laughter andseriousness, satire and lyricism. Chekhov’s laughter is not a separate facet of hisart; it is the very atmosphere of his works, representing a complex gamut offeelings. What is encompassed in his laughter ranges from accusation, derision,and disdain aimed at an entire way of life to the revelation of the grievousrootlessness and humanity of the “little souls” who are Chekhov’s protagonists.
Chekhov laid out new paths for the development of Russian and world drama. Herefused to divide his characters into angels and villains, or one-sidedrepresentatives of good and evil. Just as in his prose works, he avoided plotintrigue and shifted the center of gravity to the hidden, internal plot involving themental world of the hero. Plot emerges not as a chain of events but as the storyof man’s desire to act and his attempts to break out of his daily routine—out ofthe bonds of “prosaic tragedy.”
Chekhov’s plays are built around many themes and leitmotifs that unfold on manydifferent levels and are associated with various men’s fortunes. The themedeveloped in Chekhov’s prose works emerges in his plays as well—namely, theloss of inner connections between people. The characters in Chekhov’s plays areseparated from each other by invisible barriers; each is immersed in his owncondition. The dialogue in Chekhov’s plays tends toward monologue; eachcharacter speaks his own particular “mi-cromonologue.” Nevertheless, the overalllyrical atmosphere unites the seemingly isolated heroes.
Even in his early plays Chekhov did more than re-create everyday reality. ButThe Seagull marks a new advance. Running through the entire play is an imagethat is raised to a symbol and is pregnant with meaning—the image of theseagull, symbolizing Treplev’s and Nina Zarechnaia’s dream of a new kind of art,pure and bold; also related to this image is the theme of wounded and tragic love.There is yet another side to the multifaceted image of the dead bird, representinga soulless, lifeless, mediocre art.
Discouraged by the failure of The Seagull, Chekhov retreated somewhat from theuse of such devices. In The Cherry Orchard, however, he turned to them onceagain. Chekhov’s notion of the dramatic genre acquired new content as well. TheSeagull and The Cherry Orchard were called comedies by their author, but thecomic components of these plays are inseparable from the tragic ones. The pastexperience of Russian and world theatre attests to the failure of those directorswho view Chekhov as a “mere satirist” whose writing is based on farce or ofthose who go to the opposite extreme and adopt a lyrical approach to the playswhile ignoring their comic elements. We are now entering the stage of integratedand multifaceted analysis of Chekhov the dramatist in all his dialecticalcomplexity and inimitable mixture of lyricism and satire.
Chekhov inherited and carried forward the best realistic traditions of Russianliterature. L. N. Tolstoy’s definition—”Chekhov is Pushkin in prose”(Ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal dlia vsekh, 1905, no. 7, p. 427)—illuminates the role ofA. S. Pushkin’s poetry as an influence on Chekhov the prose writer anddramatist. Pushkin’s perfect sense of rhythm and his attempt to achieveharmonious integrity, clarity, and musicality were interpreted by Chekhov in hisown way. Chekhov was profoundly influenced by M. Iu. Lermontov, the author of“Thought” and of the novel A Hero of Our Time, who wrote of the “cooling” of thesoul of modern man. Lermontov’s “Taman”’ was for Chekhov an unsurpassedmodel of prose. It has also been noted that I. S. Turgenev’s plays foreshadowedthe hidden lyricism characterizing Chekhov’s dramatic work.
Among Chekhov’s predecessors and contemporaries, the one who took firstplace in the writer’s creative consciousness was Leo Tolstoy, whose brilliantartistic creations invariably earned Chekhov’s enthusiastic praise. AlthoughChekhov was definitely influenced by Tolstoy’s philosophy, the ideologicaldifferences between the two writers became more pronounced in the late 1890’s.Tolstoy’s concept of nonviolent resistance to evil aroused Chekhov’s opposition.Tolstoy reproached Chekhov for his lack of a consistent moral position—in otherwords, for his skeptical attitude toward faith; he had, however, a high opinion ofChekhov’s writing talent and called him “an incomparable artist.” “Thanks to hissincerity,” said Tolstoy, “Chekhov has created forms of writing that are new—entirely new, in my opinion—for the entire world [and] the likes of which I have notencountered anywhere” (cited in P. Sergeenko, Tolstoi i ego sovremenniki:Ocherki, Moscow, 1911, p. 226).
Chekhov exerted a strong influence on Russian and world literature—both proseand drama. His pupils included the young Gorky (particularly in drama), Bunin,Kuprin, and to some extent L. N. Andreev. K. A. Trenev and A. N. Arbuzov havewritten about Chekhov’s role in the education of Soviet dramatists, and manyEuropean and American writers have noted the part he played in the art of the20th century. G. B. Shaw’s play Heartbreak House, published in 1919, wasclearly written under Chekhov’s influence; Shaw called it “a fantasy in theRussian style on English themes” (Izbr. proizv., vol. 2, Moscow, 1956, p. 286). J.Galsworthy wrote of Chekhov’s salutary effect on English literature. A. Wurmser,F. Mauriac, E. Triolet, and the French directors J.-L. Barrault and J. Vilar havepointed to the impact of Chekhov’s work. In “A Word on Chekhov,” T. Mannrevealed in depth the Russian writer’s unique position in terms of his creativeideology and his unpretentious and selfless goal—namely, the use ofunvarnished artistic truth in the people’s service.
Chekhov is one of the most popular playwrights of contemporary Soviet andforeign theater. Many of his works have been filmed for the cinema andtelevision, including The Wedding, The Lady With the Dog, The Seagull, UncleVanya, The Cherry Orchard, and the early drama Without Fathers.
Russian prerevolutionary and Soviet studies of Chekhov have produced a wealthof textual information and commentary. In articles appearing even before theRevolution, Chekhov’s prose works and plays were searchingly analyzed by suchwriters as M. Gorky, V. G. Korolenko, N. K. Mikhailovskii, F. D. Batiushkov, D. N.Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii, and the Marxist critics V. V. Vorovskii and A. A.Divil’kovskii. In the Soviet period, enormous efforts have been devoted to thecollection and publication of Chekhov’s literary legacy and the study of his lifeand work. Among those who have contributed to this undertaking are A. V.Lunacharskii, S. D. Balukhatyi, Iu. V. Sobolev, A. B. Derman, A. I. Roskin, K. I.Chukovskii, I. S. Ezhov, G. A. Bialyi, E. N. Konshina, N. I. Gitovich, M. L.Semanova, V. V. Er-milov, and G. P. Berdnikov. New works and publications(such as Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 68) were issued in commemoration of the100th anniversary of Chekhov’s birth.
The A. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Academy of Sciences of theUSSR is publishing the complete works and letters of Chekhov in 30 volumes. Aseries of collected research studies is being published to accompany theacademy edition: the first such collection. In Chekhov’s Creative Laboratory, wasissued in 1974; the second, Chekhov and His Times, in 1977; the third, Chekhovand Leo Tolstoy, is being prepared for publication.
There are Chekhov museums in Taganrog and in Moscow (in the house wherethe Chekhov family lived from 1886 to 1890), as well as in Melikhovo, in thevillage of Luka in Sumy Oblast, and in Yalta.
WORKS
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–23. St. Petersburg, 1903–16.
Poln. sobr. soch., vols. 1–12. Edited by A. V. Lunacharskii and S. D. Balukhatyi.Moscow-Leningrad, 1930–33.
Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem, vols. 1–20. Moscow, 1944–51.
Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem v 30 tomakh, 1974–.
REFERENCES
Biographies, memoirs, and correspondence
Izmailov, A. Chekhov: Biografich. nabrosok. Moscow, 1916.
Sobolev, Iu. Chekhov. Moscow, 1934.
Derman, A. B. A. P. Chekhov. Moscow, 1939.
Ermilov, V. Chekhov, 3rd ed. Moscow, 1951.
Roskin, A. I. Chekhov: Biografich. povest’. Moscow, 1959.
Berdnikov, G. P. Chekhov. Moscow, 1974.
A. P. Chekhov i V. G. Korolenko: Perepiska. Moscow, 1923.
Perepiska, A. P. Chekhova i O. L. Knipper, vols. 1–2. Moscow, 1934–36.
Pis’ma A. P. Chekhovu ego brata Aleksandra Chekhova. Moscow, 1939.
M. Gorkii i A. P. Chekhov: Perepiska, stat’i, vyskazyvaniia. Collection. Moscow,1951.
Chekhova, M. P. Pis’ma kbratu A. P. Chekhovu. Moscow, 1954.
Chekhova, M. P. Iz dalekogoproshlogo: Zapis’ N. A. Sysoeva. Moscow, 1960.
Bunin, I. A. “O Chekhove.” Sobr. soch., vol. 9. Moscow, 1967.
A. P. Chekhov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. [Moscow] 1960.
Chekhov, M. P. Vokrug Chekhova, 4th ed. [Moscow] 1964.
Knipper-Chekhova, O. L. [Vospominaniia i perepiska], part 1. Moscow, 1972.
Major critical studies
Vorovskii, V. V. “Lishnie liudi.” Soch., vol. 2. Moscow, 1931.
Lunacharskii, A. V. “Chekhov i ego proizvedeniia kak obshchestvennoe iavlenie.”In his Klassiki russkoi literatury (Izbr. stat’i). Moscow, 1937.
Ovsianiko-Kulikovskii, D. N. “Etiudy o tvorchestve A. P. Chekhova.” Sobr. soch.,vol. 5,3rded. Moscow, 1923.
Derman, A. B. Tvorch. portret Chekhova. Moscow, 1929.
Sobolev, Iu. V. Chekhov. Moscow, 1930.
Balukhatyi, S. D. Chekhov-dramaturg. Leningrad, 1936.
Stanislavskii, K. S. A. P. Chekhov v Moskovskom khudozh. teatre. Moscow, 1947.
Ermilov, V. Dramaturgiia Chekhova. Moscow, 1954.
Semanova, M. L. Chekhov v shkole, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1954.
Semanova, M. L. Chekhov i sov. litra, 1917–1935. Moscow-Leningrad, 1966.
Leonov, L. “Rech’ o Chekhove.” Sobr. soch., vol. 5. Moscow, 1954.
Stroeva, M. N. Chekhov i Khudozh. teatr. Moscow, 1955.
Berdnikov, G. Chekhov-dramaturg. Leningrad-Moscow, 1957.
Berdnikov, G. A. P. Chekhov: Ideinye i tvorch. iskaniia, 2nd ed. Leningrad, 1970.
Golubkov, V. V. Masterstvo A. P. Chekhova. Moscow, 1958.
Papernyi, Z. A. P. Chekhov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1960.
Papernyi, Z. Zapisnye knizhki Chekhova. Moscow, 1976.
Aleksandrov, B. I. A. P. Chekhov: Seminarii. Moscow-Leningrad, 1964.
Erenburg, I. “Perechityvaia Chekhova.” Sobr. soch., vol. 6. Moscow, 1965.
Shakh-Azizova, T. K. Chekhov i zapadnoevrop. drama ego vremeni. Moscow,1966.
Kataev, V. B. “Geroi i ideia v proizv. Chekhova 90-kh godov.” Vestnik MGU:Filologiia, 1968, no. 6.
Berkovskii, N. Ia. “Chekhov: ot rasskazov i povestei k dramaturgii.” In his Lit-ra iteatr. Moscow, 1969.
Chukovskii, K. O Chekhove. Moscow, 1971.
Chudakov, A. P. Poetika Chekhova. Moscow, 1971.
Skaftymov, A. “Nravstvennye iskaniia rus. pisatelei.” Stat’i i issledo-vaniia o rus.klassikakh. Moscow, 1972.
Anikst, A. Teoriia dramy v Rossii ot Pushkina do Chekhova. Moscow, 1972.
Belkin, A. “Chitaia Dostoevskogo i Chekhova.” Stat’i i razbory. Moscow, 1973.
Bialyi, G. A. Rus. realizm kontsa XIXv. Leningrad, 1973.
Chekhovskie chteniia v Ialte. Collection. Moscow, 1973.
Chekhovskie chteniia v Ialte: Chekhov i teatr. Collection. Moscow, 1976.
Lakshin, V. Ia. Tolstoi i Chekhov, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1975.
Foreign literature
Duelos, H. B Antone Tchékhov, le médecin etl’écrivain. Paris, 1927.
Gasparini, E. ll teatro di Cechov. Milan, 1940.
Triolet, E. L’Histoire d’A. Tchékhov: sa vie, son oeuvre. Paris, 1954.
Laffitte, S. Tchékhov par lui-même: Images ettextes. Paris, 1955.
Magarshack, D. Chekhov the Dramatist. New York, 1960.
Magarshack, D. The Real Chekhov: An Introduction to Chekhov’s Last Plays.London, 1972.
A. Čechov: Some Essays. Edited by T. Eekman. Leiden, 1960.
Düwel, W A. Tschechow: Dichter der Morgendämmerung. Halle/Saale, 1961.
Picchio, R. I raccontidi Čechov. Turin, 1961.
Winner, T. chekhov and His Prose. New York, 1966.
Maegd-Soëp, C. de. De vrouw in het werk en het leven van A. P. Tsjechov.[Brugge-Utrecht, 1968.]
Sliwowski, R. Czechow woczach krytykis’wiatowej. Warsaw, 1971.
Reference and bibliographical works
Masanov, I. F. Chekhoviana, fasc. 1. Moscow, 1929.
Fridkes, L. M. Opisanie memuarov o Chekhove. Moscow-Leningrad, 1930.
Arkhiv A. P. Chekhova: Annotirovannoe opisanie pisem k A. P. Chekhovu, fascs.1–2. Moscow, 1939–41.
Gitovich, N. I. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. P. Chekhova. Moscow, 1955.
A. P. Chekhov: Rukopisi, pis’ma . . . . Opisanie materialov TsGALI SSSR.Moscow, 1960.
Polotskaia, E. A. “Bibliografiia vospominanii o Chekhove.” In Lit. nasledstvo, vol.68. Moscow, 1960.
Сообщения
