Doctor Dorn against the writer Maupassant (On intertextual subtext of Chekhov’s “The Seagull”)

UDC 821.161.1-3

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.1-22.062

Kibalnik Serguei A.,

Doctor of Philology, Leading Researcher,

Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the

Russian Academy of Sciences;

Professor at St. Petersburg State University

e-mail: kibalnik007@mail.ru, s.kibalnik@spbu.ru

Researchers hesitate in the interpretation of the hero of Chekhov’s The Seagull Dr. Dorn, seeing in him either a spokesman for the author’s position, or a “hidden trickster”. Meanwhile, if we say that Dorn embodies in the play the author’s critical attitude towards all its heroes, then both of these positions can be combined into one. The fact that Chekhov “objectified in faces” some of Maupassant’s judgments was justly noted. In fact, almost all the heroes embody certain ideas about a person, embodied in Maupassant’s travel “diary” Sur l’eau and in his latest novels. It is indeed no coincidence that Chekhov was called the “Russian Maupassant”. In The Seagull the Russian writer, on the one hand, openly admitted for the first time that in his works there really is not so little of Maupassant, and on the other hand, he subtly showed that he is “not Maupassant” — “he is different”. And what exactly is this “other”. Chekhov expresses this mainly through the image of Dorn. However, it becomes clear to the reader only if the peculiar intertextual subtext of this Chekhov play is read. The significant intertextual connections between The Seagull and Maupassant’s prose demonstrated in the article make it possible to reveal the presence of special “meanings of intertextuality” in the play. The significant intertextual connections between The Seagull and Maupassant’s prose demonstrated in the article make it possible to reveal the presence of special “meanings of intertextuality” in the play.

Keywords: Chekhov, Dorn, doctor, physician, Maupassant, intertextual, subtext, “Seagull”.

References

1. Chekhov A.P. Poln. sobr. soch. i pisem: v 30 t. Sochineniia: v 18 t. Pis’ma: v 12 t. Moscow, 1974–1983.

2. Rayfield D. Zhizn’ Antona Chekhova / per. s angl. O. Makarovoi. Moscow, 2018.

3. Kubasov A.V. A.P. Chekhov i kontseptsiia “vyrozhdeniia”: k probleme kriptopoetiki russkoi literatury // Problemy istoricheskoi poetiki. 2021. No. 3. S. 206–211.

4. Maupassant G. Sobr. soch.: v 12 t. 2-e izd. St. Petersburg, 1896.

5. A.P. Chekhov v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov: seriia literaturnykh memuarov / redkol.: V.E. Vatsuro, N.K. Gey, G.G. Elizavetina, S.A. Makashin, D.P. Nikolaev, A.I. Puzikov, K.I. Tyunkin. Moscow: Khudozh. lit., 1986.

6. Odesskaya M. Chekhov i problema ideala. Moscow, 2011.

7. Lakshin V. Chekhov i Maupassant pered sudom L. Tolstogo // Chekhoviana. Chekhov i Frantsiia. Moscow, 1992. S. 67–74.

8. Skaftymov A.P. Nravstvennye iskaniia russkikh pisatelei. Moscow, 1972.

9. Tolstoy L.N. Predislovie k sochineniiam Guy de Maupassanta // Na vode: sb. rasskazov / G. Maupassant. Moscow, 1894.

10. Gogol N.V. Poln. sobr. soch.: v 13 t. T. 3. Moscow, 1938.