AN ANNCTATED AND CRTTTCAL BTBUOGRAPHY OF THE
WBRKS WRTTTEN m ENGLISH SSNCE 1900 ON
THE PRE- AND POST-REVOLUTIONARY , - ’
RUSSIAN THEATRE '

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.

MICHTGAN STATE UNNERSTTY

JAY ELLTGT RAPHAEL '
1971

 
    

1111‘ 11111 L.

3 01094

 

 

 

 

lllllTlTHl

312

 

1111““

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ANNOTATED AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE
WORKS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH SINCE 1900 ON
THE PRE- AND POST-REVOLUTIONARY
RUSSIAN THEATRE

presented by

Jay Elliot Raphael

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Theatre

flfl1p1(¢1/

professor

Date July 23, 1971

0-7639

 

1". E Tawny “11

 
   

MMdEAgNT TSme
Univm Icy

ABSTRACT

AN ANNOTATED AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE
WORKS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH SINCE 1900 ON
THE PRE- AND POST-REVOLUTIONARY
RUSSIAN THEATRE

BY
Jay Elliot Raphael

This bibliographical study attempts to deal with
the problem of the English speaking student interested in
studying the Russian-Soviet theatre. It has been con-
structed in order to provide both the general reader and
the specializing scholar with a current tool which will
facilitate an awareness of the quantity and quality of
research and recording done in this century on the his—
tory and development of the Russian-Soviet theatre.

The classification of source materials falls under
four categories: Books; Articles and Periodicals; Reports;
and Unpublished Materials. Other bibliographies consulted
by the researcher will be found in the appendix. Bulle-
tins, dissertations, and exchange materials are contained
under the apprOpriate headings. The major content areas
(determined by number of listings, and the importance and

stress in the total body of literature) are labeled as

Jay Elliot Raphael

separate subdivisions of the total bibliography. These

areas are Acting and Actors; Stanislavsky; Children's

 

 

Theatre; Design and Technology; Directing and Directors;

 

 

National Republic and Minority Theatres; Pre- and Post-

 

 

Revolutionary Russian Theatre History; The Moscow Art

 

 

Theatre; Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts of Soviet The-

 

atrical Productions; Theory and Criticism; and Training

 

 

the Professional Theatre Worker. A listing for a given

 

source appears under all the applicable headings, although
it is annotated only under the heading of its primary con-
tent. In order to overcome any confusion over subjective
judgments as to the classification of an entry and to
facilitate the use of this bibliography by individuals of
varying degrees of knowledge, a complete subject index
accompanies the body of entries. The index contains an
alphabetical arrangement of individual personalities,
theatres, plays, concepts, and movements. Next to each
item is a list of the numbers which correspond to the re-
lated entries. A second and separate index lists alpha-
betically all of the authors whose works are annotated,
with a similar number guide indicating the individual
works. In order to quickly locate an entry and to ident-
ify it according to its major subject heading, each of

the aforementioned indices is preceded by a number guide
which associates a given run of numerals with the category

within which it is housed.

Jay Elliot Raphael

More than just reporting, the more than three
hundred annotations are intended to compare, to judge,
and to direct the reader; in short, to anticipate the
reader's needs and to accommodate them. The textual
descriptions seek to provide the reader with an overview——
an idea of the scope of the source, the orientation, the
background of the author (where it applies),--and an
evaluation of the author's use of the materials. The
criticism may pertain to conflicts in theory, major
divergences from historical fact, the orientation of the
author, or, on the other hand, provide support for the
entry's form and content.

This bibliography has been created and constructed
so as to encourage further research, indicate the need for
continued translation, and promote study of the Russian

theatre as a source for the modern tradition.

AN ANNOTATED AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE
WORKS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH SINCE 1900 ON
THE PRE- AND POST-REVOLUTIONARY

RUSSIAN THEATRE

BY

Jay Elliot Raphael

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Theatre

1971

l
'1

\

\ “.1

QDCOpyright by
JAY ELLIOT RAPHAEL

1971

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

I wish to express my appreciation to my major
professor, Dr. E. C. Reynolds, and to the other members
of my committee--Dr. David C. Ralph. Mr. Frank C. Rutledge,
and Dr. John A. Waite--for their advice and assistance in
the completion of this dissertation. I also wish to
acknowledge the influence of Dr. Sidney L. Berger, whose
interest in world theatre provided the original impetus
for this study. Finally, I am indebted to my wife Bonnie,
whose patience, encouragement, and critical assistance

made her the "fifth member" of my committee.

ii

Chapter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .

II. A GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

III. AN ANNOTATED AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acting and Actors . . . . . .
Stanislavsky . . . . . . . .
Children's Theatre . . . . . .
Design and Technology . . . . .

Directing and Directors . . . .
National Republic and Minority
Theatres. . . . . . . . .
Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Russian
Theatre History . . . . . .
The Moscow Art Theatre. . . . .
Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts of
Soviet Theatrical Productions. .
Theory and Criticism . . . . .
Training The Professional Theatre

Worker . . . . . . . . .

IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES . . .
SUBJECT INDEX . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHOR INDEX . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

22
33
33
42
55
60
73
99

108
168

183
205

213
215
220
222

240

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

When chroniclers write of the modern theatre, they
allude to Ibsen and after. The after extends to now, to
the 1970's, to a world theatre as active as that of any
other decade in the twentieth century (excluding perhaps
the Broadway and West End variety of production).

When the modern Russian theatre is spoken of, our
sharpest images and memories stop in the middle 1930's.
From 1898 to 1938, the date of the liquidation of the Meyer-
hold theatre, Russian theatre practitioners had anticipated
and frequently realized theories and production concepts
for virtually every major movement of the modern stage up
to and including the present. Actually, by 1917, Stani—
slavsky, Tairov, Meyerhold, and Vakhtangov had already
established their individual methods and ideologies. In
addition to establishing the model of twentieth century
realistic production, Russian theatre people had employed
"some methods as determinedly non-realistic as has {gig}

ever been used."1 This highly varied group of

R

1Oscar G. Brockett, History of the Theatre (Boston:

Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968): p. 582.

 

1

experimenters worked with and developed forms of theatrical
convention in such depth and in such a manner as to be a
representative microcosm of the twentieth century's pursuit
of realism and its ultimate reactions against it. There-
fore, it may be said that in many ways the characteristic
modern Russian theatre is not the Soviet theatre but the
monarchial theatre of Nicholas II, a theatre beginning with
Stanislavsky and Danchenko and with the ballets of Diaghilev
in 1899. This was indeed the freest, most productive period
in the history of the Russian-Soviet theatre. It is true
that this dynamic theatre experience extends into the 1920's
under the Soviets, but, by the mid-1930's, the routinized,
dramatically shoddy theatre that prevailed until the mid-
1950's was firmly established.
John Gassner wrote that the modern theatre:

. . . has swung from extreme to extreme. . . . There

has been no resting point for playwrights and devotees

of the stage ever since realism reached its apogee

half a century ago. At best it may be said that the

multiplication of formal experiments since 1890 has

resulted in an uneasy coexistence of poorly developed

and haphazardly reconciled alternatives.2
However, it has also been said by Gassner (as well as by
many others), that a productive merger has always been
possible. Such a merger demands neither compromise nor a

destructive relationship. Both can be successful when

provided with the freedom to complement one another. The

E

2John Gassner, Form and Idea in Modern Theatre
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1956),
p. viii.

producers and directors in Russia were innovators in real-
ism, in theatricalism, and in just such a productive
merger.

Although Stanislavsky is new best recalled (especi-
ally in America) for his development of an efficient method
of acting, he and Nemirovitch-Danchenko, in the creation
and Operation of the Moscow Art Theatre, also produced the
definitive model of realistic stage interpretation and
raised realism to its highest standard of production.
Accurate detail, milieu, and historical fact were all
painstakingly observed and refined. Although Russia had
produced realistic dramatists before 1898, the eighteenth
century conventions of production practiced by such a
theatre as the Maly were unsuited to such as Ostrovsky and
Pisemsky and ultimately to Chekhov and Gorky.

In America, Stanislavsky's influence has been
detrimental to the ultimate value of his own body of ideas
and subsequently to the development of this country's
theatre. Stanislavsky is most often associated with his
acting "system" rather than his production efforts. The
misinterpretation of the former and its superficial
adaptation (against his recommendations) have caused a
proliferation of Opposed and impractical interpretations.
This tie with the Russian theatre, although strong, has
been narrow in orientation; we are only now becoming aware

of the many other innovators in Stanislavsky's time who

dealt with issues primary to the concerns of contemporary
workers in the American theatre.

Just as Stanislavsky came to be recognized as the
foremost practitioner of realism, so Vsevolod Meyerhold
epitomized the search for antirealistic form (even more
characteristic of this century). The essence of Meyer-
holdia (constructivism, the social mask, plastic movement,
biomechanics, chronometrage, the circus) was the unceasing
experimentation with the very nature of form in art. We
can find examples of his techniques in the work of many of
the directors whose productions have chronologically
followed Meyerhold's earliest pre-Revolutionary experi—

ments (The Fairground Booth, The Death of Tintagiles,

 

 

Spring's Awakening, The Life of Man, etc.). While direct

 

 

and acknowledged influence is difficult to establish,
similarities in purpose, philoSOphy, and actual staging
techniques in the efforts of many individuals throughout
the world point to the significance of the Russian
régisseur. In a review of Peter Brook's 1970 gymnastic

staging of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Charles Marowitz

 

points out not only Meyerhold's generally durable influence
on Brook but that the specific production is Meyerhold's

"circus theatre returned with a vengeance."3 The staging

 

3Charles Marowitz, "Brook: From 'Marat/Sade to
Midsummer Night's Dream,'" New York Times, September 13,
1970, see. 2, p. D7.

 

methods in Meyerhold's productions of The Inspector

 

General and Mystery-Bouffe bear strong resemblance to

 

the approach of Piscator and Brecht. Norris Houghton
has written that "what Brecht and Piscator . . . gained
from close study of Meierhold has never been properly

appreciated."4

Still another example of a parallel re-
lates to the idea of biomechanics which repeats through-

out Artaud's The Theatre And Its Double, and is currently

 

in Operation under other labels in the laboratory of Jerzy
Grotowski. Pictorialism, area spotting, the grotesque,
the gestus, kinesics--these are all examples of what has
been called the avant-garde in the twentieth century. The
appearance of these theatrical conventions in the early
1900's in Meyerhold's productions points to the importance
of the Russian theatre and the value of a study of Meyer-
hold as a valid source for the modern tradition.

Russian theatre sired not only a leader in real-
istic staging and a most thorough and inventive investi-
gator Of nonrealistic form, but also a man who laid the
groundwork for the productive merger discussed earlier
as well. Yevgeny Vakhtangov, a student of Stanislavsky's
(and a director whose short career ended with his death
in 1922), managed to demonstrate, in such productions as

(She Dybbuk and Turandot, the direction for a synthesis of

‘

4Norris Houghton, "Mowcow Theatre 1935 and 1970:
T1118 Is Where I Came In," Educational Theatre Journal,
X1<III (May, 1971), 121.

 

the approaches of Stanislavsky and Meyerhold, of realism
and nonrealism. His method of mediation was known as
"fantastic realism." His productions photographed life
but also filtered it to stress the crucial ideas; the
emphasis was achieved in a shared communication between
actor and audience, in a kind of dialogue established by
neither Stanislavsky nor Meyerhold. "Fantastic realism,
not a paradoxical name for just another paradoxical style
but--a practical workable procedure for achieving a
synthesis of realistic content with boldly theatrical
forms of expression . . . "5

Still another kind of synthesis emerged from the
Moscow Art Theatre. Nemirovitctch-Danchenko's Musical
Studio, in coupling the best of Stanislavsky's methods of
actor training with the highest musical principles of
lyric theatre, accomplished the most for the "romantic
ideal" since Wagner instituted the "synthetic theatre."

Thus, in the work of the few men mentioned, which
does not exhaust the list by any means, the student of
theatre can find the primary characteristics Of modern
theatre, and perhaps even some of the roots.

The significance of the Russian theatre lies in
the aforementioned microcosm of the total modern theatre.

It is possible, however, to identify other individuals

 

5William Kuhlke, "Vakhtangov and the American
Theatre of the 1960's," in Total Theatre, ed. by E. T.
Kirby (New York: E. P. Dutton & CO., Inc., 1969), p. 161.

 

.xu-

9

whose influence in a number of areas also continues to
reach out all over the world. In design, the leaders were
to come from ballet, which saw modernist stylization as
early as 1899 in the pieces of Diaghilev. The sets and
costumes designed by such as Bakst, Benois, and Golovin
effected the use of fantasy in a myriad of European render-
ings. Alexandra Ekster, in the design and construction of
formalized costumes and a cubist setting for Tairov's
Salomé at the Kamerny Theatre (1917), provided a model for
practicing German eXpressionists.6 As for the use of the
physical stage, in addition to Meyerhold's constructivism
and Tairov's eXperiments with levels, Nicolai Okthpkov

is credited with the Operation of the first professional
theatre in the round. His pioneer efforts in central
staging utilized such innovations as "transferring the
action from the boards to a podium built in the middle of
the house and surrounded by other platforms, steps, bridges,
and balconies which served as a stage for various episodes
of the show."7 This is very much the vogue in what is now
called environmental staging. In short, whether the topic
is sensory theatre, decentralization, realism, form versus

content, creative dramatics, children's theatre, actor

 

6Kenneth Macgowan and William Melnitz, The Livin
Stage (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955),
p. 467.

 

7Marc Slonim, Russian Theatre: From the Empire
to the Soviets (New York: Collier Books of the World
Publishing Company, 1961), p. 303.

 

training (Grotowski has said that although his own answers
are different he is still raising Stanislavsky's questions),8
or "politics and performance," a study of the Russian theatre
of the early 1900's provides much of the essential infor-
mation in these areas.

In the last twenty years, armed world conflict, and
the questioning of social values and political morality, to
say nothing Of the spectre of atomic death, have caused the
theatre literature to be filled with references to examples
of theatre of the Movement, theatre and commitment, guerilla
theatre, peOple's theatre, and to be concerned with the
social function Of the theatre art. While social and
political commitment has always been represented in world
drama, the function of the total Soviet theatre, having
been determined by the political conception Of the national
social interest, provides another and Special area of
significance. There can be no doubt that Soviet Russia has
taken more seriously than any other nation in this century
the proposition that the progress of society and the use
Of its theatre can have an inextricable relationship.
Beginning with the early days of Lunacharsky's Commissariat
for Education, the drama and the stage have been subjected
to political pressures, but the institution itself has

been respected as a powerful social lever. In the days

 

8Jerzy Grotowski, "Towards the Poor Theatre,"
Tulane Drama Review, XI (Spring, 1967), 60.

 

following the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, the
development of art was considered the forging of a power-
ful weapon. Although this governmental support stimulated
fantastic growth and public concern (in the 1930's Moscow
alone witnessed the Operation of over forty professional
theatres)9 and ultimately involved as both viewers and
practitioners a large percentage of the population, the
effect of Soviet reconstruction on the literature that
became the Soviet drama promoted an outdistancing of the
printed word by stage technique and thus weakened the
great advances made before 1917. In the opinion of this
researcher, the paucity of even passable dramatic litera-
ture (excluding the censored and stifled works of such as
Bulgakov and Mayakovsky) acted as a very effective stimu-
lant to the already imaginative minds of the Soviet
directors and their students.

The Soviet Union has never accepted the "formal-
istic" doctrine of art for art's sake, but has preferred
to consider art as valuable only in direct relationship
to its utility in other social endeavors. The Soviet
drama begins with a respect, not for the individual's
experiences, but only for the collective power of society.
Science, letters, world affairs, even the chronicling of

Russian and Soviet history have depended upon the Marxian

 

9Norris Houghton, Moscow Rehearsals: An Account
Of Methods of Production in the Soviet Theatre’TNew York:
Harcourt, Brace and CO., 1936), p. 17.

 

10

deus. From such plays as Fear, The thimistic Tragedy,

 

The Armoured Train, and Roar China down to It Happened In

 

 

Irkutsk (a favorite of the 1960's), the Soviet system has
employed the drama first to make previous changes palpable
and then to encourage acceptance of further change. How-
ever, it has consequently changed the spirit of the Russian
theatre; indeed, under Stalin it emasculated it. Under
the banner of "Socialist Realism" life is viewed in books
and plays through the Party eyes, ideologically, and at
best as a didactic parable. Plays of collectivization,
two-dimensional treatments of complex human problems, and
positive heroes stressing social duty made for predictable
and boring fare. "The complex manifestation of the divine
spark of creativity in man is thus reduced to the slogan:

'"10 Treatment Of

'realism in form; socialism in content.
world and Russian classics has been similar. Mikhail

Morozov's Shakespeare on the Soviet Stage makes clear

 

throughout that productions of Shakespeare have been con-
cerned with relating the Renaissance to the Revolution,
Shakespeare to the collective, Macbeth to the war effort,
and Hamlet to imperialism.ll Playbills of Russian classics

produced in the first decade Of the Soviet era contain

 

10Robert Magidoff, A Guide TO Russian Literature
(New York: New York University Press, 1964), p. 49.

11Mikhail Morozov, Shakespeare on the Soviet
Sta e, trans. by David Magarshack (London: Soviet News,
1947).

. «a
'4'.—

5‘. v».

 

IA-

cut.

my a.

9.,

o..

‘r

I‘ l

(1'

11

parenthetical interpretations which indicate the use of

these plays and the emphasis in staging. Tsar Fedor

 

Ivanovitch, the Moscow Art Theatre's first production in

 

1898, was reinterpreted as "an attack on Kingcraft," and

The Lower Depths was presented as "a picture of lodging

 

house life under the Tsars, but objected to by the Bolshe—
vists on account of its christian doctrine of love and
forgiveness."12
Today's critics of the textual theatre and pro-
ponents of a theatre without words will be interested in
the struggles of the most antirealistic directors under
the aforementioned conditions. Antirealists who have con-
centrated on movement, sensory stimulation, and visceral
and sub-conscious response have also tended to regard the
word as just another element rather than as the most im—
portant one. While it is true that Meyerhold freely
adapted, altered, and ground up the original script, one
of his strongest artistic affiliations was with the gifted
poet and playwright, Vladimir Mayakovsky. Norris Houghton,

returning to the Soviet theatre some twenty-five years

after the publication of Moscow Rehearsals (1936), relates

 

in his book, Return Engagement, the idea that the Soviet
theatre has failed to make any progress in the intervening

quarter of a century because of the effect Of a lack of

 

12Huntly Carter, "The New Age of the Moscow Art
Theatre," Fortnightly Review, DCCXXXIII (January, 1928),
62.

'U‘t

 

,...

 

5»

.—
v.

12

freedom Of expression. "Of all the artists Of the Soviet
theatre, its dramatists make the least distinguished
contribution."13
Despite the national malaise that has prevented
the substantial develOpment of dramatic literature, the
effects Of the accomplishments in directing, actor train-
ing, theatrical conception, and design by pre-Soviet
twentieth century innovators on succeeding Soviet develop-
ments, plus the Soviet support for and national dedication
to the value Of the theatre arts, combine to uphold John
Gassner in his belief that "the Soviet Republics provided
the 20th century with the greatest example of a communal
theatre since medieval times when the culture of Western
Europe was federated by the Universal church."l4
Given the significance of the modern Russian
theatre and its exciting variety of events and accomplish—
ments, the student Of world theatre will find a close study
of this nation's artistic develOpment both interesting and
rewarding. This bibliographical study attempts to deal
with the problem of the English speaking student interested

in studying the Russian-Soviet theatre. It has been con-

structed in order to provide both the general student and

 

l3Norris Houghton, Return Engagement: A Postscripp
to "Moscow Rehearsals" (New York: Holt, RIhehart & Winston,
1962), p. 52.

 

l4John Gassner, Masters Of Thepgama (3rd rev. ed.;
New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1951), p. 541.

13

the specialized scholar with a current tool which will
facilitate an awareness of the quantity and quality of
research and recording done in this century on the history
and develOpment of the Russian—Soviet theatre. To date,
there has not been as comprehensive a bibliography. Many
of the well-known general texts and histories contain
selected bibliographies (some annotated; see Simonson's

The Stage Is Set),15 and, in 1938, H. W. L. Dana provided

 

an excellent Handbook On Soviet Drama, which also contained

a general guide to texts and periodicals on the theatre.16

 

Whereas there are content descriptions or statements about
the plays, films, and ballets listed, the specific articles
and books are not annotated. Dana's coverage was broad in
that it also included an expository account of different
theatres in the Soviet Union and even of productions in

the various fields of drama. A comprehensive book, pre-
pared as a preliminary project for a larger book on the
Soviet drama, it was for years a valuable first source

for initiating research on many aspects of the Russian—
Soviet theatre.

Rosamond Gilder, in A Theatre Librapy, published

 

in 1932, listed and annotated seven sample texts, as well

 

15Lee Simonson, The Stage Is Set (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, 1932), p. 540.

 

16Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Dana, Handbook On
Soviet Drama (New York: American Russian Institute,
1938).

 

 

14

as four general works containing good individual chapters,
and mentioned two general journals.17 In 1949, in an
attempt to supplement and update Gilder, Stallings and
Meyers put out a Guide To Theatre Reading, which listed

an additional seven sources published after 1932.18 In

 

1947, Ettlinger and Gladstone presented Russian Literature,

 

Theatre and Art: A Bibliography Of Works in English Pub-
19

 

lished 1900-1945. This offers some fifty sources on

drama, theatre, and film. Blanch Baker's Theatre And

 

Allied Arts (until the completion of the present paper)

 

Offered the largest collection of annotated text entries,
covering a number of areas, all efficiently presented.20
In Paul Horecky's Basic Russian Publications, the student
will find a list Of twenty-three texts and periodicals

compiled by Bertha Malnick dealing with historical develop-

ment and the genesis of trends of theory for specific

 

l7Rosamond Gilder, A Theatre Library: A Biblio-
graphy Of One Hundred Books Relating To The Theatre (New
York: Theatre Arts, Inc. for the National Theatre Con—
ference, 1932), p. 34.

 

18Roy Stallings and Paul Meyers, A Guide To
Theatre Reading (Portland: The Anthoensen Press for the
National Theatre Conference, 1949).

 

 

19Amrie Ettlinger and Joan M. Gladstone, Russian
Literature, Theatre and Art: A Bibliography Of Works in
En lish, Published 1900-l9f5 (London: Hutchinson & CO.,
Lt 0, )0

 

20Blanch M. Baker, Theatre And Allied Arts (New
York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1952), pp. 145-49.

-‘t!
a

iii:
-

u-o

van.
-

. .

O.-
.—
.uv

15

periods in the Russian-Soviet theatre.21 Horecky's com-

panion to Basic Russian Publications, Russia and the Soviet

 

 

Upigp, published in 1965, also has a section on the Russian
theatre, variously subdivided into General Reference Works
and Bibliography, Surveys and History of the Theatre, The
Soviet Period, Eyewitness Accounts, and Special Aspects of
the Theatre.22 The section, containing twenty-one sources
in English, was prepared by Francois de Liencourt.

In the area of dissertations, until 1969, Dossick's

Doctoral Research on Russia and The Soviet Union was an

 

adequate one-stop check point, at least for work predating

1960.23

The volume also provides a supplement of biblio-
graphical items and aids to research for each section. As
Of 1969, however, we have Frederic Litto's American Disser-
tations on the Drama and the Theatre: A Bibliggraphy,
which, owing to its date and thoroughness, has become the

24,25

more valuable source, In relation to the works

 

21Paul H. Horecky, Basic Russian Publications
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 244-47.

 

22Paul H. Horecky, Russia and the Soviet Union
(Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 394-99.

 

23Jesse J. Dossick, Doctoral Research on Russia
and The Soviet Union (New York: New York University Press,
1960): pp. 43-47.

 

 

24Frederic M. Litto, American Dissertations on the
Drama and the Theatre: A Bibliography (Ohio: Kent State
University Press, 1969).

 

 

25It is exciting to note that in 1970 alone, three
new dissertations in progress on aspects of the

ob-

, .

~-

16

described, the bibliography which follows is presented as
the most current and inclusive annotated and critical
bibliography Of works in English. In addition to compiling
a list Of texts not previously presented all together, this
project is unique because of its inclusion of dissertations
and periodical literature and because of its critical
nature. This is the only bibliographical work of the
ones mentioned that is solely dedicated to the Russian
theatre. In addition to being the most comprehensive
study of available materials, it goes beyond listing to
be a comparative study and to provide a partial history
Of the Russian and Soviet theatre in the twentieth century.
More than just reporting, the annotations are in-
tended tO compare, to judge, and to direct the reader; in
short to anticipate the reader's needs and to accommodate
them. The textual descriptions aim to provide the reader
with an overview-~an idea of the scope of the source, the
orientation, the background of the author (where it
applies)-—and an evaluation of the application of materials.
The criticism may pertain to conflicts in theory, major
divergences from historical fact, the orientation of the

author, or, on the other hand, provide support for the

 

Russian-Soviet theatre were listed in the Educational
Theatre Jour231_(Albert E. Johnson, "Doctoral Projects in
Progress in Theatre Arts, 1970," Educational Theatre Jour—
231, XXII (May, 1970), 204.) This‘is a number proportion-
ately higher than the total number accepted to date.

 

 

‘P'

v" -

 

u-
0

“v-

u.

'r

n.

“v
'.

 

‘4

17

entry's form and content. In most cases, the description
and the presentation of the material is sufficient. How-
ever, where the book or article has been judged to have
succumbed to its own bias, or where the author's intentions
and actual accomplishments are not equal, such consider-
ations are duly noted. This research too has developed a
critical bias, and this is considered justified by the
project. After reading and analyzing the included
materials, judgments were made on the basis of how useful
or reliable a given text would be to the bibliographer
were he to undertake a study in any of the various subject
areas of Russian-Soviet theatre.

The critical approach involves the medium itself and
the efficiency of expression. Questions of style may be
a reader's choice, but where an overabundance of "slavic
melancholy" (a seemingly national literary tendency) or
Soviet chauvinism is prominent, these will be noted in the
commentary. A contemporary study of the Soviet theatre
would be hampered by the fact that the cultural climate
Of the Soviet Union is so subject to unexpected shifts
that the material on the arts rapidly becomes dated. In—
vestigations Of the early Soviet theatre are likewise made
difficult by the nature of the reporters, in that they
were frequently peOple who regarded the Soviet system,
the Revolution, and Communism as palliatives for the
world's ills and thus had their vision narrowed by politi-

cal inclinations. On the other hand, it is a tribute to

 

'
ou‘

a
a
s .

or

bu

‘1.

fi .'

'v

 

7‘
U

18

the scope and depth of the early Russian theatres that the
foreign visitors to Moscow and other major cities who came
shortly after the Revolution (and some during the heat of
the Red-White conflict)26 were awed by what for the serious
theatre student and worker was indeed the promise of a
glorious adventure. Thus, the criticism also takes into
consideration discrimination between what the bibliographer
considers sincere and deserved ovations and the cheers of
foreigners discontent with systems or conditions in their
native countries.

The most serious limitation of the value of the
criticism is that the author does not read Russian. Some
Of the texts, both primary and secondary sources, have
been translated from Russian into English, but the biblio-
grapher's evaluation does not extend to the translator's
efficiency. The user Of this paper is cautioned that com-
ments on and criticisms of materials may in places be
unjust. Where it is possible to ascribe the "error" or
fault to the translation, such a factor is noted. The
only valid assumption the reader should permit himself to
make is that those translations which have seen frequent
reissuing and which are cited in general work's biblio-
graphies have already been scrutinized. Also, where a

manuscript is published in English translation in Russia,

 

26Oliver M. Sayler, The Russian Theatre Under The
Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1920).

 

 

19

correct treatment of the language has been assumed. In
some instances the author undertook communication with
contemporary theatre scholars who spoke Russian and were
at the time engaged in relevant studies, in order to
ascertain their Opinions Of specific materials. Where
appropriate, the consensus Of informed Opinion is included
in the annotation.

In addition to an awareness of a technical need
and a respect for an area of academic and professional
interest, this study was initiated by an immediate curi—
Osity and the realization that the need for theatre
scholars to be contributors to a living theatre and not
simply to libraries (making Obvious a commitment to many
pursuits) would frequently necessitate an investigation
into an area in which the researcher does not have a
language proficiency. As was stated earlier in this
chapter, the purpose of this study is to provide both
the general student and the specializing scholar with a
current tool which will facilitate their awareness Of the
quantity and quality Of research completed during this
century on the Russian—Soviet theatre. It is sufficiently
comprehensive to provide the reader not only with an
immediate overview of the types of material available,
but also with those which can help initiate a study in
any aspect of the Russian-Soviet theatre with the ex-
ception Of dramatic literature. It is the Opinion of this

author that much research time is wasted in the countless

20

duplications Of individuals who, without access to the
experience Of others, must repeat the initial investi-
gations necessary to obtain materials to synthesize and
evaluate. A personal acquaintance with the literature is
a necessity, but the task of simply becoming familiar

with what is available, while a skill, is hardly a demon-
stration Of expertise. The nonspecializing student who

is providing himself with an overview in the study of
theatre history, or attempting to gain a background for

a related study, or is engaged in an initial inquiry based
on personal curiosity is Offered a document which, on the
most pragmatic level, saves time and gives direction. He
is also given an idea of the materials extant but not
necessarily available at the site where the research is
initiated. In the case of the scholar, the completeness
of annotation, the analysis of each entry's emphasis, and
the nature of the critical commentary combine to provide
both an indication Of needed areas for continued work and
the basis for an understanding of the diversity of move-
ments, ideas, and develOpments in relation to the outgrowth
of printed materials. Finally, the bibliography is in-
tended as a teaching aid. In the preparation of indi-
viduals capable of depending upon themselves for continued
and applied learning, the bibliography, especially with
its critical provision used as an adjunct to the first

stages of research, would seem to be a most appropriate

~51-

duT

'1'
.v»

tJ’

~O

Ap

21

resource in providing the student with a methodology for

advanced study.

The following chapter serves as a guide to the use
of the bibliography. A pattern of organization is pre-
sented as well as an analysis of the subject headings and
a suggested use for the indices. Chapter III contains the
bibliography itself and all the subdivisions. The final
chapter indicates areas for further research and directs
the reader to source materials in the process of being

developed.

CHAPTER II

A GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and articles on the Russian theatre do not
fall neatly and singularly into clearly delineated cate-
gories. Much Of the material overlaps and includes many
aspects of development and types Of records. Technically,
all of the entries could be simply categorized under
Russian and Soviet Theatre History. However, an effort
has been made to anticipate the types of studies that
might be done by various interest groups, and to analyze
the total body of literature for emphasis and evident
areas of repeated investigation. The location of a par-
ticular annotation as an evaluation of such emphasis is
the judgment Of the bibliographer. To justify the
decisions by including an appendix of chapter headings
for each text would have been insufficient without an
interpretation of the more "poetic" titles. In order to
overcome any confusion over subjective judgments and to
facilitate the use of this bibliography by individuals of
varying degrees Of knowledge, a complete subject index

accompanies the body Of entries. This index contains an

22

gnu-

any“.

15"-

Qty.

‘I.

ind

m.“

(A;

....
g

L.

'c

U“

 

‘1

(II

I .‘._ 1'

V'K'

I

 

It;
-

 

23

alphabetical arrangement of individual personalities,
theatres, plays, concepts, and movements. Next to each
item is a list of the numbers which correspond to the
related entries. A second and separate index lists alpha-
betically all of the authors whose works are annotated,
and a similar number guide indicating the individual works.
In order to quickly locate an entry and to identify it
according to its major subject heading, each of the afore-
mentioned indices is preceded by a number guide which
associates a given run of numerals with the category
within which it is housed.

The classification of source materials falls under
four categories: Books; Articles and Periodicals; Reports;
and Unpublished Materials. Other bibliographies consulted
by the researcher will be found in the appendix, but bulle-
tins, dissertations, and exchange materials are contained
under the above headings. The major content areas (deter-
mined by number of listings, and the importance and stress
in the total body of literature) are labeled as separate
subdivisions Of the total bibliography. These areas are:
Acting and Actors; Stanislavsky; Children's Theatre;
Design and Technology; Directing and Directors; National
Republic and Minoriterheatres; Pre- and Post-Revolutionary
Russian Theatre History; The Moscow Art Theatre; Surveys
and Eyewitness Accounts Of Soviet Theatrical Productions:

Theory and Criticism; and Training The Professional

 

Theatre Worker.

24

With two exceptions, the above areas are presented

alphabetically. The section entitled Stanislavsky, owing

to the historical bias of our country, is most closely
associated with Actors and Acting and is therefore located

accordingly. Although the latter could absorb the former,

the sheer volume of material on Stanislavsky and the inter-
national significance Of his work and writings justifies

Special emphasis. It should be noted that exhaustive

coverage Of all the materials in English on Stanislavsky

could constitute a separate bibliography. The nature,

however, of many of the potential entries (particularly
from: the periodical literature) is such that they would
be <>f little value in providing new information or even

corrxect interpretation of the "system" and of Stanislavsky's

Wriirten statements. For these reasons the section on

Stanislavsky contains a listing and annotation of only the

Elernary'sources and research guides. The sampling Of

periodical literature indicates the types of material that

further study will uncover.
The other section that does not comply with the

 

overall alphabetical organization is entitled The Moscow

W-

EI . . . .
..JQSL~JEpst-Revolutionary Ru351an Theatre History section.

3D . . .
11€3 llistory Of realism in the twentieth century is strongly

This section is an outgrowth Of the Pre-

t 9
led to this theatre. Beginning production in 1898. it has

53‘
lnce established itself as an internationally seminal

on.

R"

v-.:

(ll

6

5v

0..

 

A
d

.-
i.

25

influence in the areas of style, individual artistry, the

concept of the repertory company, and production methods.
Foreign Observers in the first two decades Of this century

used the titles Russian Theatre and The Moscow Art Theatre

synonymously. In addition to the space devoted in general

history texts to the Moscow Art Theatre and its Studios,

there is a large body of material based solely on "the

lumne of the Seagull." Therefore, I have attempted to call

Tattention to its achievements and its place in world

theatre history by creating a separate division.

Chronologically, the materials annotated were

written between the years 1900 and 1969. As some works

are: translations, they may have been published in English

as Slate as 1969 but written as early as 1914. For example,

thE! excellent translations and texts on Meyerhold by Edward
Braun and on Tairov by William Kuhlke, both published in

1969, deal with individuals and movements of the early

‘1530()'s.1'2 If a work written in English during the last

SeVenty years pertains to an earlier time and is still

included, it is due to the fact that the bibliographer

has judged it relevant to a study of the twentieth century

\

 

lVsevolod Meyerhold, Meyerhold On Theatre, trans.

fir“3T ed. with a critical commentary by Edward Braun (London:
ethuen 5. CO., Ltd., 1969).

2Alexander Tairov, Notes of a Director, trans. and
University

:Eth .an introduction by William Kuhlke (Miami:
Miami press, 1969).

 

‘r

in

.,.

j

26

Russian theatre. This may be because of comparisons or
c31313ervations inherent in the works, or because the
materials are potentially illuminating.

Before discussing the characteristics of the
‘IéiJEIiOUS subject headings, it should be noted that a list-
ing for a given source appears under all the applicable
fleaéaadings, although it is annotated only under the title
(Di? its primary content. As indicated earlier, failures

(>13 jpersonal judgment are rectified by the subject index.

Acting and Actors.--This heading needs little

 

description. Most of the entries are about or by leading
Personalities, including commemorative statements and
(ii-Sicussions of past performances. If the reader is inter—
eflstzed in photographs of the actors and the characters they
EXDlrtrayed, it is suggested that he consult the heavily
illustrated general history texts and those texts listed
‘lnder Design and Technology because Of their graphic
illustrations. Most of the theory written about acting
has been associated with Stanislavsky. Tairov, Vakhtangov,
and Meyerhold have also been instrumental in Russian
theatre history in the development of actors and acting
training. Their notes and materials will be found under
Directing and Directors however, owing to the predominant
themes of their writings and to the nature of their pri-

mary achievements in theatre.

27

Stanislavsky.--Despite the English-speaking

 

theatre world's tie to Stanislavsky, as indicated in the
annotations, there is still much to be desired in the
volumes that have frequently been considered definitive
statements. In addition to the translated works, there
are pieces indicative Of Stanislavsky's international fame
and influence, of the controversies that have surrounded

the "system, and of the attempted clarifications. Once
again, the reader is urged to consult the indices of the
general Russian theatre history texts and the volumes on

the Moscow Art Theatre for additional factual data and

interesting anecdotal accounts of his work and reactions.

Children's Theatre.-—These entries describe the

 

industrious and ingenious achievements of a branch which
brought great attention to the Soviet theatre in its
earliest years. Despite the small number of entries,
reference to Gene Sosin's dissertation will make clear
the SCOpe and effect of children's theatre on art edu-

. . . . 3
cation and SOVietization.

Design and Technology.--This category encompasses
scenic and costume design, makeup, and theatre architec-
ture. The most important sources of information are the

great number Of illustrations in all of the general

 

3Gene Sosin, "Children's Theatre and Drama in the
Soviet Union" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University, 1958).

‘r...

\
now

 

up;

 

G,

vv

28

history texts, and in the Soviet-produced special editions.
With reference to the photograph albums and design books,

an effort has been made in the annotations to list the
productions represented as well as the reSpective designers.
Heavy illustration is a characteristic of most of the
studies that have been done on the Russian theatre. FfilOp-

Miller and Gregor's The Russian Theatre, for example, con-

 

tains four hundred illustrations.4 The reader is advised

to use materials in the Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Russian

 

Theatre History and Theory and Criticism sections for

 

 

explanations of constructivism, Mir Isskustva, socialist
realism, etc., so as to obtain assistance in interpreting

the styles and trends depicted in the design section.

Directing and Directors.--The Russian directors,

 

both before and after the Revolution, have been the ideo-
logical art teachers of their companies, and, when not
restricted, the most significant sources of innovation
and direction. Consequently, much of what they have
written and Of what has been written about them encom-
passes theory, critical comparisons of ideas and pro-
ductions, and the evaluation of historical movements and
theatrical conventions. However, because most of this

was developed in preparation for or in analysis of their

 

4René FfilOp-Miller and Joseph Gregor, The Russian
Theatre, trans. by P. England (London: Lippincott, 1930).

'r-

.-
...‘

f1

29

actual productions, and is characteristic of the rehearsals,
actor coaching, physical staging, and approach to dramatic
literature, it is all presented under the heading of Direct-
ing and Directors. Evreinov, who did direct, was pri-
marily a theoretician, a playwright, and a prolific author.

His writings are not annotated under this subject heading.

National Republic and Minority Theatres.--

 

Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, Uzbeks, Byelorussians,
Ukranians, Turks, and Mongolians are only a few Of the many
peoples living all over the great expanse Of Russia.
Ostensibly to aid in the development of national minority
cultures and to provide for social integration and mutual
respect, but also to help eXplain industrialization and
insure widespread sovietization, the develOpment of
national theatres in well over one hundred languages was
given economic, professional, and Official support through—
out the early years of the Soviet era. The books and
articles in this category describe the goals, organization
and management, and styles of presentation of the more well-

known and established of these companies.

Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Russian Theatre His-
tggy,--Containing annotations Of over forty volumes, this
is the largest single category in the bibliography. Almost
all Of the texts include information on all of the other
categories and therefore, the annotations should be con-

sulted as an adjunct to other separate areas of Specific

30

interest. The forceful impact, novelty, and exciting
variety of events in the twentieth century Russian theatre
has provoked partisanship and considerable philosophizing
on the part Of reporters and historians. Indeed, it has
occasionally been difficult to decide whether to classify
a particular entry as history or as theory and criticism.
The nature of the political and social system that evolved
out of the events Of the Revolution is an additional and
undeniable factor in how this theatre history has been
gathered and presented. In some ways this has proven
beneficial, as the life and nature of the Soviet theatre
is inherent in the social system. On the other hand,
Russian historians have been faced with constant ideo-
logical shifts which have forced reinterpretation or

overt fantasizing about past events. Matters of question-
able judgment and reversals of favor in relation to well-
known individuals are often finessed or passed over on—

tirely in many Soviet accounts.

The Moscow Art Theatre.--The structure of and

 

justification for this section has been dealt with earlier
in this chapter. Individual entries pertain to the
evolution Of the distinct style Of the Theatre; the pro-
duction record; changes in the repertory; individual
personalities; and the purpose, organization, and achieve-
ments Of the Moscow Art Theatre Studios and schools. The

interesting relationship between the Moscow Art Theatre

31

and the Soviet government over the years is also the
subject of many native and foreign articles dealing with
the Theatre's history. Additional information can be

found in the section on Stanislavsky and, where indicated

 

by the annotation, in many of the general history entries.

Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts of Soviet The—

 

atrical Productions.--These entries are also historical

 

records. Their scope and form, however, cause them to

differ from the type of item listed in the Pre- and Post-

 

Revolutionapy Russian Theatre History section. Reviews

 

Of individual seasons; reports on activities and plans;
exchanges Of data; investigations Of one theatre or one
group of related theatres during a specific season; and
interviews comprise the bulk of articles which are here
grouped together. They provide updating for the subject
areas first described by the early major historical works,
an ongoing key to trends and shifts in direction, and a

source of artistic evaluation.

Theorygand Criticism.-—AS indicated, the history

 

section contains within it a great many discussions of
movements and critical controversies. This grouping high—
lights those books and articles which isolate movements
and ideas. Usually narrower in approach, and smaller in
text, these writings pertain to such theories as social-

ist realism, the instinct of transformation, theatre of

32

the single will, historical drama, constructivism, and
Similar topics. They can provide a method for analyzing
treatments of similar tOpics in the major historical

treatises and the surveys.

Training The Professional Theatre Worker.--There

 

are only seven entries in this category, but they pertain
to sources containing considerable information on state
institutes, and technicums in Russia responsible for train-
ing every kind of professional theatre worker. The treat-
ment of artists and the planning for the productivity and
development Of creative individuals is one of the out-

standing positive attainments of the Russian system.

It is obvious, I am sure, that this bibliography
treats dramatic literature only incidentally. This is not
to indicate a disparaging view of Soviet drama but rather
an honest analysis of the most significant achievements in
theatre. The developments in staging, production style,
design, performer-audience relationship, and actor train-
ing, are those areas which have made the pre-Revolutionary
Russian theatre and the Soviet theatre (where the latter
has not destroyed previous accomplishments) very important
tO the directions Of world theatre in the twentieth cen-

tury.

CHAPTER III
AN ANNOTATED AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acting and Actors

Books

1. Boleslavski, Richard, and Woodward, Helen. Lances
Down. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Com-
pany, 1932. pp. 296.
See entry number 261 for complete
annotation. -—_

2. Capon, Eric. Actors and Audiences In the Soviet
Union. Leicester: Russia Today Society,
1943. pp. 19. Illus.
See entry number 188 for complete
annotation.

3. Cherkasov, Nikolai. Notes Of A Soviet Actor. Trans—
lated by G. IvanOv-Mumjiev and S. Rosenberg.
Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1965. pp. 228. Illus.

These are the notes of a reknowned Rus-
sian screen actor. Beginning as a super in the
Opera in St. Petersburg, he went on to perform
in pantomimes, ballets, reviews, Living News-
papers, on the legitimate stage, and of course,
in a great number Of films. Written for the
general Soviet reader, the text is both auto-
biographical and critical, containing the
author's Observations and Opinions on the
actor's relationship to the playwright, the
director, the specific role, the make-up
artist, the cameraman, and the public.

In the chapters on technique, Cherkasov
compares the acceptable acting styles in each
Of the media in which he performed, particu-
larly the stage and the screen. Aside from
the expression of a general Obeisance to
Stanislavsky and the relating of his battle

33

34

(Cherkasov's) to overcome a penchant for play-
ing "the grotesque" in order to Obtain realistic
roles, the insights into acting theory are few.

Throughout, the spirit and the letter of
the text is dedicated to socialism, and the
material in the following quotation recurs with
frequency: "The Soviet actor expects new plays
and scripts covering a wide variety of subjects.
What the Soviet actor wants to do is to depict
the new worker, born of the Soviet age, to por-
tray the Soviet scientist as a man who brings
science and production together, to play col-
lective farmers, those wonderful Soviet men and
women who are struggling against all that is
new, progressive and communist, to present a
Party functionary as a man who is closely con-
nected with the masses and whose political and
organizational work is bringing communism
nearer."

Without mentioning any names, Cherkasov
condemns all the formalists responsible for his
early training and direction after the Revolu-
tion. He chides himself for being duped and
led astray. "For us the younger generation, to
follow fashion seemed natural. Most Of us did
not understand the real meaning of this blind
following of fads, and yet it was under its
guise that attempts were being made to degrade
art."

Among his many roles, Cherkasov appeared
as Don Quixote in the Leningrad State Dramatic
Theatre's 1941 staging; as Varlaam in Boris
Gudunov, as Professor Polezhayev in the film
Baltic Deputy; as Alexander Nevsky in Eisen-
stein's film of the same name; in the title
role of Ivan the Terrible; as Maxim Gorky in
the film Lenin in 1918; and as the remarkable
Russian poet in They Knew Mayakovsky. A whole
section of the text, the last, is given over
to "Playing Mayakovsky."

The text is heavily illustrated with
half-tone photographs of Cherkasov in his many
roles. The startling difference in appearance
achieved by the actor from role to role is
justification for the praise Often accorded
Russian performers for their care and ingenuity
in creating facial images for their characters.

 

4. Markov, Pavel. The First Studio: Sullerzhitsky-
Vakhtangov-Tchekov. Translated by Mark
Schmidi. New York: Group Theatre, Inc., 1934.
pp. 80. (Typewritten.)
See entry number 2&2 for complete
annotation.

35

5. Varneke, Boris V. History of the Russian Theater:
Seventh Through The Nineteenth Century. Trans—
lated by Boris Brasol. New York: Macmillan,
1951. pp. 459.

See entry number 225 for complete
annotation.

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

6. Abbott, Hazel. "The Soviet Theatre--Acting and
Staging." Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXIII
(October, 1937), 433-39.

Miss Abbott's report of her Observations
on a twelve-day visit to Moscow are more inter-
esting than the conclusions she draws. In com-
menting on the audience as the prime determi-
nant of the Soviet repertory she writes, "It
revels in the functional and rational aspects
Of a collectivist society. The audience atti-
tude accounts for the removal of a play on the
life Of Moliére." I believe the play in ques-
tion to be Bulgakov's, which was removed by
the Soviet government because in its study of
Moliere it too closely paralleled methods of
government censorship then being applied to
Bulgakov himself as well as others.

The author also infers that Meyerhold's
and Okhlopkov's experiments in staging resulted
from the Specific needs and demands of the
Soviet audience. While it is true that both
men were highly involved in determining the
best audience-actor relationship, a much
broader knowledge and pursuit of world the-
atrical convention seems more likely to have
been the actual base of their work.

Specifically, the author witnessed and
comments on rehearsals at the Moscow Art
Theatre; a production of Pogodin's Aristocrats
at the Vakhtangov Theatre; Meyerhold's presen-
tation of Woe To Wit (seen by the author as "A
memorable performance Of eccentricities which
one might dane [gig] to style 'realism with a
fault'"; and classes at Tairov's Kamerny

 

 

 

Theatre.
7. Andronikov, Iraki. "Solomon Mikhoels: Actor,
Director, Critic." Soviet Review, I (October,

 

1960), 36-41.

Solomon Mikhoels, decorated numerous
times by the Soviet government, was an actor,
director, and producer with the Moscow State

36

Jewish Theatre. He was best known for his
portrayals of King Lear and Tevye. The article
is actually a review Of a book which is a
compilation of his Speeches and writings pub—
lished in Russia after his death. As the title
of the book is never mentioned in the body of
the article, I am assuming that it may be the
same as the title of the review.

In discussing the philosophy inherent in
Mikhoels' writing and acting, Andronikov writes,
"He rejects the actor who can be played upon
like an instrument. He demands that the per-
forming actor Should always be seconded by the
actor-ideologist, not only able to portray life
on the stage but to continue life through his
art, penetrating into the inner world of his
heroes."

There is also a selection Of Mikhoels'
commentaries on Stanislavsky and on poetry and
acting.

8. Ashby, Clifford. "Alla Nazimova And The Advent of
New Acting In America." Quarterly Journal of
Speech, XLV (April, 1959), 182-88.

Most of this article deals with Nazimova's
performances in America. Approximately the
first four pages provide background on her
training in EurOpe; her life in Russia; her
brief period Of employment in the Moscow Art
Theatre; and her relationship to the founding
of the St. Petersburg Players under Paul
Orlenev (the producer who brought Nazimova
to America).

 

9. Ben—Ari, Raiken. "Four Directors and the Actor."
Theatre Workshop, I (January-March, 1937),
65-74 0
See entry number 123 for complete
annotation.

 

10. Carter, Huntly. "A New Principle in Play-production:
The Classics in the Russian Theatre of To-day."
Creative Art, VII (1930), 62-69. Illus.
See entry number 15 for complete
annotation.

 

ll. Fernald, John. "Russian Theatre Now." Drama,
XXXII (Spring, 1954), 14-21.
In a brief salute to Russian acting,
which he believed to be the best he had ever
Observed, Fernald comments at length on
Danchenko's revival Of The Three Sisters,

37

which was put into the Moscow Art Theatre
repertory in 1938. He comments on the mastery
of technique, acting style, and on the use of
ensemble playing.

12. Khmelyov, N. P. "My Karenin." Theatre Workshop,

I (September-October, 1937), 12—13.
The noted actor describes his role in

the Moscow Art Theatre's production Of Tolstoy's
Anna Karenina. He comments on his approach to
the play and the role, on the creation of a
physical type, and on the use of gesture. Un-
fortunately, this is all noted in only two

 

 

pages.
13. Lozowick, Louis. "The Theatre Is For The Actor: An
Iconoclast's Methods in Moscow." Theatre Guild

 

Magazine, October, 1929, pp. 34-35.

Iconoclast is a good term for Tairov's
position in the early post-revolutionary
theatre. This very brief article outlines the
principles of the Kamerny Theatre as practiced
in the staging Of Hansenclever's Antigone. It
is accompanied by photographs of the production.

14. Lukeman, Gerald. "The State Of the Soviet Stage:
How An Actor Fares." Theatre Arts, XLV (April,
1961), 61, 78.

When Ivan Grikura, an Armenian actor,
visited American actors at the Circle—In—The-
Square Theatre in New York, they put a number
of questions to him concerning conditions for
the actor in the Soviet Union. The interview
contains information on training, salaries,
working conditions, and benefits.

A side note but an interesting one is
Grikura's comment that he liked the staging at
The Circle-In-The-Square and was sorry there
was no arena work in Russia. This is strange,
considering the pioneering work in this area
done by Okthpkov as far back as the 1920's.

 

15. Malnick, Bertha. "A. A. Shakhovskoy." The Slavonic
and East Egropean Review, XXXII (December,
1953), 29-51.
See entry number 211 for complete
annotation.

 

16. Malnick, Bertha. "The Actor Shchepkin and His
Friends." The Slavonig and East Eurppean
Review, XXXX (1962), 373-83.
This article, of incidental general
interest, attempts to reveal something of

 

38

Shchepkin's temperament in relation to his
stature as an actor. "Shchepkin had the rare
gift of holding people together: in the
theatre where he would hold thousands in the
hollow of his hand, in life where he could bind
peOple to him even when they disagreed with
him." The author reveals aspects Of Shchep-
kin's friendship and experiences with such men
as Gogol, Belinsky, Herzen, and Schevchenko.

l7. Malnick, Bertha. "The Actors Shchepkin and Sosnit-
sky." The Slavonic and East European Review,
XXXVIII (1960), 289-313.

Sosnitsky and Shchepkin were the most
versatile actors of the first half of the 19th
century. Sosnitsky was primarily famous for
his ability to handle French drawing room
comedy. Although the two were frequently com-
pared in the same way as Mochalov and Karatygin,
Malnick succeeds in illustrating that Shchepkin
was undoubtedly the most famous and perhaps the
greatest Of all Russian actors. The author
sketches both actors biographically, and in
relating their individual skills and styles
discusses their rivalry as Gogol's Major in
The Government Inspector. The stress in the
article is clearly on the material concerning
Shchepkin. Malnick traces his growth and
development from the effect of his first obser-
vations Of Prince Meschersky through his work
with Moliere, Gogol, Griboyedov, Turgenev, and
Ostrovsky, to his creation of a realistic
system of acting.

18. Malnick, Bertha. "Mochalov and Karatygin." The
Slavonic and East European Review, XXXVI-TJune,
1958), 265-93.

Mochalov and Karatygin represent two of
EurOpe's finest actors of the nineteenth cen-
tury, and represent in their differences of
style and approach a contrast "as old as the
history of acting."

The author's highly detailed description
and comparison of their styles and most famous
roles is embodied in a comparison Of the
theatres of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Pavel
Mochalov was considered Russia's greatest
romantic actor. He was a product of Moscow,

a non-formalist city, Russian in emotion and
"classless in audience." Vasily Karatygin,

on the other hand, whose technique embodied a
"disciplined and brilliant outward form" was

39

a product of St. Petersburg. At the time, St.
Petersburg was a bastion of elegance and
artifice, the home of classical stage art and
of a well-established, high ranking class
audience.

The author traces the developments,
style, training, temperament, careers, and
critical reception of the two men. Of par-
ticular interest is the thorough documentation
of the actors' rivalry in the works of Schiller
and Shakespeare. Malnick provides a particu-
larly full critical commentary on Mochalov's
Hamlet. In contrasting the intuitive and in—
born talent Of Mochalov with the craftsman—
1ike precision and training of Karatygin, She
develops the Shape and changes in theatrical
and dramatic form in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
The reader gets an insight into the effects of
the European drama of the period on the develop-
ments and taste of the native Russian theatre.

 

l9. Markov, Pavel. "The Actor and the Revolution."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936),
683-93.

Pavel Markov, once literary director of
the Moscow Art Theatre, reappears in the liter-
ature like a bad dream. Regardless of the
topic, his drippingly propagandistic approach
is irksomely and stubbornly the most outstand-
ing characteristic of his work. In this
article he pushes aside all pre-Revolutionary
acting as at best technically proficient and
spotlights the theatrical messiah as a new
distinctively Soviet acting style made possible
by the Revolution. He refers to the change in
the inner experience of the actor and the
develOpment of social character which was
accompanied by a change in form. In dusting
Off the pre-Revolutionary theatre, he banishes
all of Tairov's experiments as disasters and
labels Vakhtangov's Turandot as a very minor
work. While he hails Meyerhold's biomechanical
system as the symbol of Soviet style, he ulti—
mately and paradoxically lauds Stanislavsky's
approach as the most complete and most durable.

20. Martin, John. "How Meyerhold Trains His Actors."
Theatre Guild Magazine, November, 1930, pp.
26-30. Illus.
This is an attempt to explain bio—
mechanics in theory, by illustrating the
physical training methods, and by contrasting

40

the system with the teachings of Stanislavsky.
As is illustrated by Meyerhold's own writings,
Martin is correct in his belief that the actor
was the key element in constructivist pro-
ductions. Often, Meyerhold was mistakenly
criticized for using the actor as a piece of
machinery or as simply a scenic element. None—
theless, Martin's description of the style as
"heavily accented realism" seems an Odd choice
of words. The most interesting aspect of this
piece is the description of the actual exer-
cises used in training.

21. Mauny de, Erik. "Current Trends in the Soviet
Theatre." Survey, LVII (October, 1965), 73-80.
See entry number 328 for complete
annotation.

22. Metten, Charles. "Mikhail Shchepkin: Artist and
Lawgiver Of the Russian Stage." Educational
Theatre Journal, XIV (March, 1962), 44-49.

TrShchepkin . . . exerted considerable
influence on the Russian theatre of the nine-
teenth century through his personal influence
and as an actor and teacher. Perhaps most im—
portant to the twentieth century, however, is
his influence on Stanislavsky."

This article provides a biographical
sketch of the great serf actor and deals with
those of his writings which indicate an early
concentration on a style of acting based on
realism. Metten deals with the actor's
directions for preparing a role; use of body
and voice; discipline; and the need for en-
semble playing. Those tenets which precede
and obviously influenced Stanislavsky's prac—
tices are stressed. The article makes generous
use of quotations taken from Shchepkin's own
writings and from the works of others such as
Stanislavsky who wrote about Shchepkin's
achievements.

 

 

23. Niyazova, Elvira. "Anniversary of the Death of
Maria Savina." World Theatre, XIV (November—
December, 1965), 612-13. Illus.

On the fiftieth anniversary of her
death, the celebrated actress and interpreter
of Gogol, Tolstoy, Turgeniev, and Ostrovsky
is remembered and eulogized.

 

41

24. Sayler, Oliver M. "The Deeper Roots Of The Russian
Theatre." The Bookman, L (December, 1919),
108-14.
See entry number 25g for complete
annotation.

25. Sayler, Oliver M. "Tudor Twelfth Night in Russia."
The Drama, X (October, 1919), 3-7.
See entry number 349 for complete
annotation.

 

26. Sudakov, I. "The Actor's Creative Work." Theatre

Workshop, I (January-March, 1937), 7-42.
Sudakov, along with Kedrov and Podgorny,

managed the Moscow Art Theatre for Stanislav—
sky and Danchenko. He also directed pro—
ductions for the Theatre For Young Workers
(TRAM), and taught in the Department Of Direct-
ing at the Moscow Theatrical University. This
article is a partial transcript from a "rough
translation made for the Group Theatre" of the
lectures he gave at the university. The
material itself deals with "inner technique"
(playing an action, concentration, attention,
sense memory, character analysis) and "outer
technique" (muscular freedom, relaxation,
rhythm, speech, voice, oral interpretation).
The material gives a good idea of the orien-
tation and methods of training practiced under
Stanislavsky and by such as Sullerzhitsky and
Vakhtangov in the Moscow Art Theatre Studies.

 

27. Sviatskaia, S. "Vera Komissarjevskaia." World
Theatre, XIV (March-April, 1965), 179-85.
Illus.

In commemoration of the artist's one
hundredth anniversary, the author has written
a portrait Of Komissarjevskaya's struggles
with the antiquated methods of the Alexandrin-
sky Theatre and the symbolist-motivated tech-
niques of Meyerhold. The great actress un-
successfully sought a union of her brother's
philosophy and the nonrealistic staging of
Meyerhold. With respect to the latter, her
own desires as a performer clashed with his
"dematerialization" Of the actor.

28. Tarasova, A. K. "Anna Karenina." Theatre Workshop,
I (September—October, 1937), 10-11.
Tarasova played Anna in the Moscow Art
Theatre's production Of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina
(as produced by Sakhnovsky and directed by

42

Volkov). Here she talks of her admiration for
the play and its suitability to the Soviet
repertory. As to her work on the role, she
writes, "I set myself the task not only to act
but to live this role."

29. Turner, W. L. "Vakhtangov: The Director as
Teacher." Educational Theatre Journal, XV
(December, 1963), 318-26.
See entry number 154 for complete
annotation.

 

30. Vishnevsky, As Korchaguina, D.; Alexandrovskaya, E.;
Monakhov, N.; Pashennaya, V.; Pevstov, I.;
Radlov, S.; Satz, N.; Sushkevich, B.; Tairov,
A.; and Uzhivy, N. "Actors and Producers
Speak of Their Work." V.O.K.S. Bulletin,

NO. 6 (1934), 60-69.

The most interesting and informative
statements are provided by Natalia Satz and
Alexander Tairov. Miss Satz expresses her
preference for a children's theatre based on
a synthetic approach "in which the Spoken word
may pass into pantomime, in which the rhythm of
dramatic action is associated with the rhythm
of music. . . ." Tairov talks of the expanse
of his theatre's repertory and of how his
actors are trained to act in many styles. He
discusses the 1933-34 repertory and his con-
ceptions for the Optimistic Tragedy, Fortune

Heights, Bogatyri, and Egyptian Nights.

 

 

Stanislavsky

 

Books

31. Balukhaty, S. D., ed. The Seagull Produced By
Stanislavsky. Translated by David Magershack.
New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1952. pp. 292.
Illus.

Essentially, this book is a reproduction
of Stanislavsky's promptbook for the first pro-
duction of The Seagull in 1898. It is arranged
page-by-page with a translation of the play by
David Magarshack. The production notes are
fantastically detailed including blocking dia-
grams; notes On costumes, props and setpieces;
and an orchestration of every beat. Virtually
every gesture, choice of scenic effect, and
change in vocal intensity and duration (to the
number of seconds) are duly noted. Obviously,

 

 

 

32.

Cole,

43

this production script is not so much a record
of the event as it is a meticulously prepared
prerehearsal plan. Indeed, from an actor's
point of view the plans seems oppressive and
inhibiting to any spontaneous rehearsal re-
sponse. It must be remembered, however, that
this production was mounted long before the
famous Moscow Art Theatre ensemble was solidi—
fied and that it is representative of Stanislav-
sky's earliest work.

The promptbook itself is preceded by a
number Of chapters prepared by Balukhaty on
Chekhov; the unsuccessful first production of
The Seagull at the Alexandrinsky Theatre in
St. Petersburg; background on the establishment
of the Moscow Art Theatre; the Theatre's plans
for The Seagull; and popular and critical
response to the production. The text is illus-
trated with delightful photographs from the
first production and the now-famous scene Of
Chekhov reading the script to the company.

 

 

Toby, ed. Acting: A Handbook of the Stanislav-
ski_Method. New York: Lear Publishers, Inc.,
1947. pp. 223. Illus.

The collection Of eleven pieces, when
published, provided an adjunct to and even an
explanation of the material contained in A3
Actor Prepares. However, as the listing below
indicates, some Of the sources pertain more to
film and directing than to acting. The first
four selections are all attributed to or written
by Stanislavsky. They are entitled "The Actor's
Responsibility," "Directing and Acting," "From
the Production Plan of Othello," and "To His
Players at the First Rehearsal of The Bluebird."
All Of these have appeared separately in the
periodical literature. The remaining sections
include, "The Work of the Actor," by I. Rapaport,
"The Creative Process," by I. Sudakov, "Stan-
islavski Method of Acting," by M. A. Chekhov,
"Preparing for the Role," from the diary of
Eugene Vakhtangov, "Case History of a Role,"
by V. I. Pudovkin, and "Principles of Direct-
ing," by B. E. Zakhava. The reader will find
the Sudakov and Zakhava articles annotated
elsewhere in this paper. The RapOport article
appeared in the first edition of Theatre Work-
shop in October Of 1936 and is one Of the best
explanations and descriptions of the "system"
that I have ever read. Rapoport's notes,
based on the work Of the First Studio, cover

 

 

 

 

44

concentration, organic attention, creative
fantasy, the justification for gesture and
movement, sense memory, inner intent, subtext,
and the use Of Obstacles to Objectives.

The organization of the book requires
reader editorializing in order to follow one
idea through the text, but Cole has neverthe-
less provided a one-stop repository of some
of the better material created in response to
Stanislavsky's investigations.

33. Edwards, Christine. The Stanislavsky Heritage: Its
Contribution to the Russian and American
Theatre. New York: New York University Press,
1964. pp. 345. Illus.

"Just as the saturation point seems to
have been reached in the argument pro and con
the Stanislavsky system, up comes Christine
Edwards (in private life Emmie E. Hyams) with
this fine volume providing some new and useful
clarity in two main areas of the discussion.
First she brings carefully documented and much
needed truth to the history of the ideas em-
bodied in Stanislavsky's work from their in-
ception in pre-Revolutionary Russia right up
to the present-day American theatre. Second,
the popular misconception that the system is
an acting style is laid to rest for all time."
This is a quotation from Robert Lewis' fore-
word, and it sums up quite correctly much of
the value of the text. It is clearly the most
complete and careful work of its time. Miss
Edwards approaches Stanislavsky with an almost
religious fervor but also with a good under-
standing for scholarship. The scope of the
undertaking is considerable. The author has
provided an introduction to the development
of the Russian theatre as a whole; a portrait
of the life and work of Stanislavsky (including
a great deal of material on the Moscow Art
Theatre and all Of its Studios); four chapters
on acting theories and practices in America
prior to Stanislavsky's influence; and three
chapters on the subsequent reactions to the
introduction of his methods. In relation to
his writings, Edwards has provided commentary
on the American editions and the materials
written by Americans that were developed as a
result. An unannotated bibliography of over
two hundred entries is of special interest to
the Stanislavsky researcher. Many Of the
entries do not deal with Stanislavsky specifi-
cally and can be found in this paper. The

 

 

45

reader's attention is directed to her sections
on Periodicals, Newspapers, and Unpublished
Materials. In addition to the listings them-
selves, the more important pieces are discussed
in the body of the text.

34. Gorchakov, Nikolai M. Stanislavsky Directs. Trans-
lated by Miriam Goldina. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls CO., 1954. pp. 402.

Nikolai Gorchakov was a member of the
Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre and
studied under Stanislavsky. Later he was to
become an accomplished director Of the parent
company. This book contains the stenographic
reports of the rehearsals which Stanislavsky
conducted with this group from 1924 to 1936.
The specific rehearsals cover the plays W92
From Wisdom, The Battle Of Life, Moliére, The
Sisters Gerard, Merchants of Glopy, and a
vaudeville production of Lev Gurytch Sinitchkin.
Though Gorchakov's commentary stresses Stanis-
lavsky's general fidelity to and understanding
of the playwright, most Of these pieces are not
sufficiently well-known in production to evalu-
ate his conceptions. Despite a non-systematic
approach, as a whole, this text provides a
better explanation and demonstration of many
aspects of the "system" than do Stanislavsky's
own three volumes. Excellent illustrations
within the rehearsal context touch upon the
inner monologue, scenic rhythm, emotional
recall, and the use Of improvisations and
études. Gorchakov also creates a very strong
personal portrait of a tireless and constantly
imaginative man. The missing element in the
cookbook use of the Stanislavsky "system,"
which Often has the effect of confusing and
defeating the actor, is the combination of
personal distillation, flexibility, intuitive-
ness, and teaching talent that the great
régisseur obviously possessed. Along with
Stanislavsky's greatness, however, one gets a
feeling for an all-or-nothing despotism. Much
Of the literature, in general, indicates that
pupils and protegés were often unquestioningly
subservient to the requests and principles of
all the great Russian directors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.

36.

46

Magarshack, David. Stanislavsky: A Life. New York:

 

Chanticleer Press, 1951. pp. 414. Illus.
Stanislavsky lived for some fifteen
years after he wrote Merife in Art. Magar-
shack's biography of Stanislavsky utilizes the
writings, experiments, and events of this last
period in addition to other biographical
studies. Some of his best material is de-
veloped out of Stanislavsky's working relation—
ships with such men as Kronegk (the manager of
the Meiningen Company), Chekhov, Meyerhold (who,
despite their polar ideologies, never failed
to pay great homage to his former director),
Sullerzhitsky (one of the foremost teachers of
the "system" in the Studios), Gorky, and, of
course, Nemirovitch-Danchenko. A notable
value of the text, both by example and in the
author's commentary, is the emphasis on illus-
trating that Stanislavsky's "system" was
developmental and that it changed--as Stanis-
lavsky changed, experimented, refined, and
rejected--throughout his life.

 

Melik-Zakhurov, S.; Bogatyrev, S.; and Solntsev,

N. Konstantin Stanislavsky, 1863-1963.
Translated by Vic Schneierson. New York:
DBS Publications, 1967. pp. 246. Illus.

This volume was compiled and translated
by Progress Publishers of Moscow as a com-
memorative volume issued in 1963. Some of the
material has appeared before in English, but
much of it has been taken from a seemingly
bottomless archive maintained by the Soviet
government. The compilation of articles,
interviews, letters, and notes is separated
into two categories: "Man and Actor," and
"Stanislavsky and the World Theatre." In the
first section, notable contemporaries of
Stanislavsky, including some still directing
in the Russian theatre, pay tribute to his
work and teachings. These include Nemirovitch-
Danchenko, Vakhtangov, Tairov, Kedrov, and
Okhlopkov, among others. "Stanislavsky and
the World Theatre," contains reactions and
testaments Of influence by actors, playwrights,
teachers and critics, in addition to some Of
Stanislavsky's personal correspondences.
Maeterlinck, Isadora Duncan, Chekhov, Gielgud,
and Lee Strasberg are representative of those
contributing to this section.

 

37.

38.

Moore,

Munk,

47

Sonia. The Stanislavsky System. New York:
Viking Press, 1965. pp. 112.

In 1962, Sonia Moore wrote a book en-
titled The Stanislavsky Method (Viking Press,
1962, pp. 78) which represented a personal
distillation of the "system" but little in the
way of new insights. This volume, a revised
and enlarged edition of The Stanislavsky Method,
is important for its treatment of "The Method of
Physical Actions." Moore explains the progres-
sion from external action to inner feeling and
offers scientific evidence and physiological
confirmation Of Stanislavsky's ideas and exer-
cises which were designed in the last years
of his life. Additional new material covers
directing and Vakhtangov. Eugene Vakhtangov
was considered one of the finest teachers of
the "system" in the Moscow Art Theatre Studios,
and his personal revisions, achieved before
1922, are very indicative of the directions
Stanislavsky was to pursue in later years.

 

 

 

Erika, ed. Stanislavski and America. New
York: Hill and Wang, 1966. pp. 279.

In the Fall and Winter of 1964, the
Tulane Drama Review printed two special issues
on Stanislavsky and America (Volumes Number 1
and 2). This book is an anthology of selected
essays and interviews taken from those two
issues. It also contains additional material,
some of which was published in subsequent
issues, and one piece not printed elsewhere.
Below the reader will find two lists. The
first contains all the articles common to the
journals and the anthology, and the second
contains the material found only in the an-
thology.

 

"Director's Diary, 1905" by Konstantin

 

Stanislavski

"The Three Sisters at the MAT" by M. N.
Stroyeva

"Director and Actor at Work" by Konstantin
Stanislavski

"Stanislavski Changes His Mind" by Leslie
Irene Coger

"Are Stanislavski and Brecht Commensurable?"
by Eric Bentley

"Stanislavski and Shakespeare" by Michael
St.-Denis

"The Notion Of 'Action'" by Francis Fergusson

"Stanislavski and Freud" by John J. Sullivan

48

"Working with Live Material" by Lee Strasberg

"The Reality of Doing" by Vera Soloviova,
Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner

"Stanislavski and America: A Critical
Chronology" by Paul Gray

"Look, There's the American Theatre" by
Elia Kazan

"Would You Please Talk to Those PeOple?" by
Robert Lewis

"The Bottomless Cup" by Geraldine Page

"Lee Strasberg: Burning Ice" by Gordon Rogoff

"Notes on Stanislavski" by Bertolt Brecht

Preface by Erika Munk
Introduction: Exit Thirties, Enter Sixties
by Richard Schechner
"Stanislavski Preserved: An MAT Discussion"
"The Method of Physical Actions" by Sonia Moore
"Stanislavski Triumphant" by Theodore Hoffman
"Further Entries for a Chronology" by Robert M.
MacGregor

The names Strasberg, Adler, Lewis, Mann,
Rogoff, and Bentley are important names in the
development of American theatre, and particu-
larly in the practice and documentation of
American actor training and theory. This
volume is an important distillation of Stanis-
lavsky's appeal in America, and Of how he has
been used and misused in the adaptation of his
methods to the American culture. As one reads
these articles and interviews, one gets the
feeling that part of the reason for the contro-
versy that has surrounded these years relates
to the fact that Stanislavsky changed, elimi-
nated, and refined his ideas and practices
faster than people in this country could ob-
tain, understand, and utilize the results of
his work.

39. Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares.
Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood-
New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1936. pp. 295.
The "preparation" is the training that
provides a methodology for approaching a role.
The text is not a treatise on rehearsal or
performance per se, but an approach to the
business Of becoming an actor. The text
represents Stanislavsky's early thinking. It
is by no means the whole "system" nor the
man's final statement. Duerr, in Tpe Length
and Depth of Actipg, has called it "a mere
fragmentffiiln Russia, the comparable volume

 

 

 

49

contains three times as much material and is
entitled The Actor's Work on Himself, or Actor
and Self: Personal Work in the Creative Pro-
cess of Reliving. It was originally published
in 1938, very shortly before Stanislavsky died.
In semi-fictive form the reader is offered
a series of lessons. Torstov, the acting
teacher, is Obviously Stanislavsky at the time
this material was written; and Kostya, the stu—
dent, is Stanislavsky as he saw himself in his
formative period. What can be learned here are
Stanislavsky's keen insights into the problems
of deciding what acting is, and into the emo-
tional and physical obstacles to concretely
achieving that which the actor plans and
imagines as the transformation. It is not a
cookbook but a guide to understanding those
efficient means by which the actor can isolate,
absorb and practice the acting experience.
This book represents the Stanislavsky of the
"inner technique." The work takes in partial
discussions and analyses of playing an action,
imagination, sense memory, attention and con-
centration, role analysis, the road signs in
the literature. What must be avoided in using
this or any of the Stanislavsky books is a
literal adoption. Much of what he wrote was
in a private language; not SO much the result
Of data and postulates potentially knowable to
everyone as a series of shifting ideas, values,
and intended directions.

 

 

 

40. Stanislavski, Constantin. BuildingiA Character.
Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood.
New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1949. pp. 292.

This is the second part of the material
Stanislavsky began for An Actor Prepares. Al-
though the translator did not receive the
material until after World War II, it was com-
pleted by 1936. Henry Schnitzler contends that
the book is not well edited in terms of the
chapter order. He believes that some of the
chapters were actually intended to be the be-
ginnings of a separate book.

The form is once again the teacher—pupil
dramatic school dialogue. In this volume,
however, the emphasis is on "embodying the
role," on externalizing the character. Stanis-
lavsky deals with "outer technique" including
rhythm, voice, speech, body movement, physical
communication, and the wearing and use of the
costume. The reader will also find interesting

 

 

50

discussions of the relationship between inner
and outer technique, and "Perspective in
Character Building," which defines the actor-
playwright relationship.

41. Stanislavski, Constantin. Creating A Role. Trans-
lated by Elizabeth Reynolds HapgoOd. New York:
Theatre Arts Books, 1961. pp. 271.

The book is divided into three sections
which illustrate the approach to specific roles.
These cover the role of Chatski in Griboyedov's
Woe From Wit, a description of an approach to
Othello, and a discussion of acting problems in
Gogol's The Inspector General. The latter two
sections take the form of lessons between Tor-
stov and Kostya and the other students. There
is also a very useful appendix, "Improvisations
on Othello" which contains excellent concrete
materials on working exercises. Above all, one
gets the feeling that this text is more con-
cerned with Stanislavsky the director, coaching
the role than with Stanislavsky the actor,
creating a role. This is reinforced by a read-
ing of Stanislavsky Directs (see entry number
24). Indeed, Stanislavsky wrote that "every
actor should be his own director." The volume
has been considered important for some of the
material on the method of physical actions.
Nonetheless, the text is neither a synthesis
Of previous writings nor a statement of final
conclusions.

 

 

 

 

42. Stanislavski, Konstantin. Merife in Art. Trans-
lated by J. J. Robbins. New York: Theatre
Arts Books, 1948. pp. 351.

The publishing history of this text is a
complicated one. The following are Edwin
Duerr's notes on the various editions and modi-
fications that have ensued since Stanislavsky
first prepared the manuscript in America in
1923 during his company's first visit to this
country. The notes were prepared for the
section on "Important Writings On Acting" which
appears in Duerr's text The Length and Depth Of
Acting (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1962, pp. 569-70):

"My Life in Art trans. by J. J. Robbins
(1924) (Boston, 1927), 586 pp. Reprinted 1956.

"The revised, better illustrated Russian
ed. Moia Zhizfi'v Iskusstve (Moscow, 1925), and
has been trans. into English as My Life in Art
by G. Ivanov-Mumjiev (Moscow, 195?), with a

 

 

 

 

51

new, hodge-podge Appendix and (translator's)
Notes, 503 pp.

"In essentials, even in most of the
language, the book is the same as the American
ed. However, an editor (Lyubov Gurevich?) has
improved organization of the material. E.g.
the original 61 chapters, most of them retitled,
are lengthened to 72. Also, the first two
sections, called 'Artistic Childhood' and
'Artistic Adolescence,’ pp. 13-116, are a new
arrangement of the original pp. 3-147: Ch. III
becomes Ch. I, Ch. IV follows Ch. V, becoming
two chapters with enough left over for later
pages, Ch. IX is pushed ahead of Ch. VI, which
includes material from Ch. VII, etc. The third
section, 'Artistic Youth,‘ pp. 119-342, while
Often newly paragraphed, briefly cut, rewritten,
and expanded, more closely follows the content
Of the original, pp. 148-457. The fourth
section, 'Artistic Maturity,‘ pp. 345-446, re—
arranged, briefly cut, rewritten, and expanded,
contains much of the new material. Here Stanis-
lavsky significantly comments on voice and
speech, and in a new chapter, 'Departure and
Return,‘ pp. 448-458, reacts to the 'theatrical'
theatre in 1925 in Moscow.

"The original Merife in Art, commissioned
by Little, Brown and CO., was copyrighted in
1924 at Stanislavsky's request in the United
States and all Berne Convention countries so
that the rights might be secure for him and his
heirs. Stanislavsky then allowed a reorganized,
revised Russian translation to be published a
year later when the international copyright had
been established. The appearance in the United
States and Berne Convention countries of the
Soviet version translated into English has been
ruled a violation of the copyright held in
trust for Stanislavsky's heirs."

Perhaps the most useful element of the
book is the information of and exciting de-
scription Of the Moscow Art Theatre's birth and
develOpment. Stanislavsky does not explain his
art as much as he elaborates on his life as an
artist in the Moscow Art Theatre. Within the
autobiography and description of the Russian
theatre, he writes about actors, plays pro-
duced, scenic conceptions, rationale for the
repertory, and the general development of
events that affected his Theatre's growth and
style. Although there is material on his act-
ing theory, it represents his first efforts at

 

52

definition and at confining his thinking to
paper.

Despite the outline quality of this text
and the fact that this "system" was to undergo
constant change, it should be noted that for
many years it was the only available material
in English on Stanislavsky's actual teachings
and practices.

43. Stanislavski, Konstantin. Stanislavski's Legacy; A
Collection of Comments On A Variety Of Aspects
Of An Actor‘s Art And Life. Translated and
edited by Elisabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York:
Theatre Arts Books, 1958. pp. 182.

Mrs. Hapgood, Stanislavsky's official
translator, gathered a collection of rehearsal
notes, personal papers, letters, and speeches
covering a period from 1898 to 1938, and com—
bined them to form this book. While they aptly
illustrate the diversity of Stanislavsky's
interests, they sometimes suffer from too random
a presentation. Part I, which comprises about
half of the text, deals specifically with acting
and actors. It includes commentary on the
actor—audience relationship, the duties and
obligations of an actor, types of actors, the
education of actors, specific rehearsal coach-
ing, the style of acting for opera, and the
personal feelings and reactions of an artist.
Despite this abundance of materials in relation
to An Actor Prepares and Building A Character,
the reader should not expect to find any new
ideas or previously undiscovered insights.

Part II of Stanislavski's Legacy is devoted to
Chekhov. Stanislavsky relates his relationship
to the man, to his plays, and to the Moscow Art
Theatre productions. The final two sections
are an unorganized series of pieces on a wide
variety of subjects. Overall, the book serves
to communicate its commemorative purpose which
was to mark the twentieth anniversary of his
(Stanislavsky's) death, the ninety-fifth anni-
versary of his birth, and the sixtieth anni-
versary of the opening of The Moscow Art
Theatre, but does not really enlarge the
legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

44. Stanislavsky, Constantin. Stanislavsky Produces
Othello. Translated by Dr. Helen Nowak.
London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948. pp. 244. Illus.
In 1929, while in Nice recuperating from
an illness, Stanislavsky began plans for the
Moscow Art Theatre's production of Othello.

 

53

His preparatory notes were not intended for
publication and consequently, they are incom-
plete. Nonetheless, what writings we do have
provide an insight into Stanislavsky's acting
system and his laboratory rehearsal work. Un-
like the promptbook for The Seagull (see entry
number 2;), this effort is not as detailed nor
as well prepared for publication. In the
former, text and notes occupy separate pages
in the classic side-by-side arrangement, and
the notes are accompanied by a large number of
labeled blocking diagrams. In Nowak's presen-
tation, everything appears together in alter-
nating paragraphs. The text opens with a note
on the stage settings and a breakdown of the
distribution of acts and scenes, and then pro-
ceeds to the production notes. Actually, pro-
duction notes is a better classification than
promptbook. Frequently, Stanislavsky was moved
to an aside on a point of acting technique by
the particular moment he was working on. "When
acting a part, and moreover a tragic part, one
must think of tragedy last of all, and most of
all of the simplest physical tasks."
Stanislavsky's interpretation of Othello
and of Shakespeare in general, is open to ques-
tion but given his approach, the instructions
to the actors are imaginative and highly
functional. Stanislavsky provides character
sketches, background biographies leading to
particular scenes and moments, explanations of
objectives and suggestions of tasks for the
actor, scoring for many scenes, written expres-
sion of objectives and inner intents, and out-
lines of the "general rhythm of separate
moments." In the detailed descriptions of
the mass scenes, Stanislavsky prepares the
"supers" and provides clear instruction for
the actor with the non-speaking role as to how
to build a realistic character capable of re-
lating and reacting to a given moment with
consistency and individuality. At times,
Stanislavsky's thinking is guided by a knowl-
edge of the specific actor problems of the
individual who has in fact been cast in the
role, and, at other times, he visualizes how
he himself would play the role or the moment.
This book can be very helpful to the
young actor who is trying to understand the
concept and practical use of choosing and
playing physical actions. The mechanics of
preparation for freeing the imagination ("the

 

54

magic if") and experiencing feeling is carefully
and repeatedly delineated in many of the scenes.
Physicalizing and concretizing in activities
and actions is perhaps clearer in the examples
provided by these production notes than in some
of Stanislavsky's better known theoretical
works (Building A Character, Creating A Role).
"Should you feel to-day so disposed and be
endowed with inspiration, forget everything
about technique and abandon yourself to your
feelings. But do not forget that inspiration
comes only on a red-letter day. Therefore a
more available and trodden path must be chosen
which the actor should be able to dominate, and
not a path which would dominate the actor as
that of feelings and sentiment. The path the
actor can master easier than any other and can
fix for himself is the line of physical

action."

 

 

45. Stanislavsky, Konstantin. Stanislavsky on the Art
of the Stage. Translated by David Magarshack.
New York: Hill and Wang, 1961. pp. 311.
Illus.

The major portion of this volume is the
section entitled "The System and Methods of
Creative Art." The translator lists this in
the Table of Contents as being written by
Stanislavsky. Neither this section nor the
following one, "Five Rehearsals of WERTHER,"
were actually written by the director, though
they contain his thinking and ideas. Between
1918 and 1922, Stanislavsky conducted a studio
organized for the Bolshoi Opera to give opera
singers instruction and advice on acting.
These materials are based on a stenographic
record of the sessions and were written by K.
Antarova, a singer with the Bolshoi company.
Two appendices contain articles on "Stage
Ethics" and "Melodrama." The latter was once
again written not by Stanislavsky but rather
by Gorchakov. As an Introduction to these
pieces Magarshack has written a lengthy essay
which explains and discusses the use of the
ten elements of Stanislavsky's psycho-technique
and evaluates the effectiveness and influence
of the "system."

 

 

55

Children's Theatre

 

Books

46. Cherniavskii, Lev Nikolaievich, ed. The Moscow
Theatre For Children. Moscow: Co-operative
Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the
USSR, 1934. pp. 96. Illus.

"The main principle in all the work of
our theatre is to 'activize' the audience, not
only during the performances but also after
them."

"We must educate through the theatre not
observers, but fighters and builders."

These quotes are from an introductory
article on the history and purpose of the chil-
dren's theatre written by Natalia Satz. In
1934 she was the director, the playwright, and
the guiding force not only behind this theatre
but behind much of children's theatre all over
Russia. The introduction is to a photograph
album of many of the productions, activities,
and personnel of the Moscow Theatre For Chil-
dren. The text of the Introduction and the
various captions provide information on the
size of the theatre, plays produced, number of
performances, scope of the enterprise, size of
the company and the staff, the use of audience
analysis, choice of content on the basis of
age, and the stress on psychological realism.
The photographs cover some twenty-four separate
productions including touring operations,
audience reactions, performers, theorists, and
producers. Below is a list of the photographed
productions.

The Playgof Adalmina

A Thousand And One Nights
Pinocchio

Balda The Worker

Hiawatha

Pioneers (Operetta)
Chronomobile

MiSter Bubble and Chervyak
Amid The External Icefields
The Negro Boy And The Monkey
Katya Maloletka Travels Around The Big

Piatiletka
We Are Strength
The Fight Is On
The Little Communist
The Squealer
Beat The War Drum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47.

48.

49.

50.

56

Dzuba
Aul Gidzhe
The Rapscallion
Crackin
Electricity
The Brother
The Altai Robinson Crusoes
The Matryoshki

"Our theatre is a 'synthetic theatre,‘ a
theatre which includes within its scope the
whole wealth of means of expression, where
music, movement, stage settings and make-up
all contribute to the solution of the problems
of the performance together with the play."
These photographs, in depicting the use of
mixed media, ballet, pantomime, and the various
styles of scenic design, aptly illustrate the
total theatre approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Griffith, Hubert, ed. Playtime in Russia. London:
Nethuen and Co., Ltd., 1965. pp. 249. Illus.
See entry number 22g for complete
annotation.

 

London, Kurt. The Seven Soviet Arts. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1938. pp. 381. Illus.
See entry number 2QZ for complete
annotation.

 

Macleod, Joseph. The New Soviet Theatre. London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1943. pp. 242.

 

Illus.
See entry number 209 for complete
annotation.
Sosin, Gene. “The Children's Theater and Drama in
Soviet Education." Through the Glass of Soviet

 

Literature. Edited by Ernest J. Simmons.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.
There is not a considerable amount of
information in English on children's theatre in
Russia, although there is a full history dating
back to the Revolution, and a full body of
dramatic literature to examine. Gene Sosin
(see entry number 54) provides an excellent
capsule history of the children's theatre move-
ment, and a description of the important plays.
"The purpose of this study is to demonstrate
how the theatre functions in Communist edu—
cation by examining the social content and
ideological direction of its repertoire." I
am reproducing here a section of the summation

 

57

of the forty-page article, in order to indicate
how the author has delineated the periods of
development and change, and how the article is
organized: "The twenties saw a period of
tolerated experimentation, against the back-
ground of a growing demand for plays with a
'Marxist-Leninist' vieWpoint. On the eve of
the First Five—Year Plan, the future role of
the theatre was unmistakenly defined: it was
to serve not as a temple of art for art's sake
but as a 'weapon of Communist education,’ an
ally of the school and youth organizations.
Before 1929, plays dealing with the class
struggle at home and abroad were in the van-
guard of the new repertoire. With the Stalin—
ist revolution came the demand for drama cap-
turing the tempo of industrialization and col-
lectivization. For a time fantasy fell victim
to the excessive emphasis on the contemporary.
While the theory of socialist realism was
hammered out in the thirties, the call sounded
for more contemporary plays, but the repertoire
was broadened to include the fairy tale as a
fillip to the child's imagination. For rein-
forcement of the new regime in the school
system, plays began to appear which sought to
foster disciplined behavior, respect for teach-
ers, application to schoolwork, affection for
classmates. . . . The war years saw the full
flowering of these themes in plays glorifying
the good fight and the victory. . . . Since
1946, under the vigilance of the Party, the
children's theatre has conformed even more
closely to the standards set by Soviet peda-
gogical and literary theory."

In each section, the author describes
the most important plays and the reaction of
the public and the government. The following
is a list of these plays according to the
section: "Soviet Life and the Class Struggle
Abroad,"--Timoshka's Mine, Black Ravine, Be
Ready, Fritz Bauer; "First Five Year Plan“:-
Four Million Authors, Cracking; "MidThirties
Stabilizing DriveTr:—Senezha Strel' tsov, The
Gymnasium Students, Lado Ketskhoveli, Mik, To
Be Continued; vfiWartime"--At the Cove, Our
Weapon, Timur and His Team, The Girls,-T§le of
Truth; "Birth of the Soviet Fairy Tale,W::__—_
A Tale, Laughter and Tears; "Post War,"—-Red
Necktie, Matriculation Certificate, Prescious
Grain; "Beyond The Russian Borders,‘ '--Snowball,
I Want To Go Home. _____—_—

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

Articles and Periodicals

 

51. Lunacharskaya, A. "The Bubnov Central House of
Children's Art Schools." Soviet Culture
Review, II (1934), 23-28. Illus.

In 1930, A. S. Bubnov, then PeOple's
Commissar of Education of the RSFSR, formed the
institution named in the title in order to have
an agency to oversee the national educational
goals and practices of the various arts. The
article, written by a Russian, deals with the
importance of the operation in relation to the
first Five Year Plan, and outlines all of the
responsibilities and duties of the agency. The
Theatre Department working in relation to the
curricula of the primary and middle schools
coordinated the work of some one hundred Young
Spectators Theatres; provided "scientific
pedagogy" in helping the playwrights obtain
tOpics; created feedback from the young; organ-
ized professional programs; and arranged
amateur theatrical circles. The article cap-
tures the didactic purpose of art education in
Soviet Russia, and the national concern for the
arts as exemplified by the widespread and
heavily funded programs.

 

52. "The Moscow Children's Theatre." Theatre Arts
Monthly, XXII (April, 1938), 304-05. Illus.
Unfortunately only a page in length, this
is an abstract of the philos0phy and achieve-
ments of the Moscow Children's Theatre. It is
accompanied by two photographs of a production
of Tolstoy's The Golden Key.

 

 

53. Segedi, Irina. "Theatre For The Young Audience."
World Theatre, XVI (January-February, 1967),
55-61. Illus.

"Life must be shown as it is, made love-
able; young people are to be given a sense of
responsibility and made ready to face a possi-
ble evolution." This is a solid, informative
article on the organization and functioning of
one of the world's most famous and energetic
national youth theatre Operations. Statistics
deal with the number of companies, and the
number and type of personnel. Additional in—
formation illustrates the evolution of the
repertory and the coordination of the program
within the general pedagogy. While indicating
a variety of methods of production and styles
of decor, the author observes that "the actor's
style of interpretation keeps along the lines
of the Russian realist school. . . ."

 

59

54. Sosin, Gene. "Art For Marx's Sake." Theatre Arts,
XXXIV (February, 1950), 28-31. Illus.

"We must use the theatre to educate
builders and fighters, not spectators." This
was the statement of Natalia Satz in 1932, the
woman who was the pioneering force in children's
theatre in Russia. This article acts as an
excellent introduction to the scope of the
operation, and to the kind of material one can
expect to find in Dr. Sosin's dissertation (see
entry number 56). He briefly but precisely
traces the history, philOSOphy, and changing
repertory of this formidable theatre for young
people.

 

55. Wolfson, Martin. "A Leningrad Theatre For The Young
Spectator." Theatre Arts Monthly, XV (May,
1931), 420—25. Illus.

In this short description, Wolfson com-
municates the feeling, thoughtfulness, and
ambition behind the project. In articles of
this size the style is usually anecdotal, but
in this case there is considerable information
given on the repertory, guiding ideology, goals,
types of staging, and the types and uses of
post—performance feedback activities for the
young audiences.

 

Unpublished Materials

 

56. Sosin, Gene. "Children's Theatre and Drama in the
Soviet Union, 1917-1953." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1958.

More than ten years after its creation,
this is still the only work of its kind in the
English language. The author discusses "the
social role of an artistic medium" in relation
to Soviet ideology, and traces the develOpment
of the children's theatre chronologically from
1917-1958 and analytically, as divided into
the periods of the middle and late twenties,
transition and pre-war, war, and post-war to
1953. He illustrates in detail how the Soviets
have employed both theatre and trained theatre-
going for the conquest of illiteracy and for
the education of the Soviet citizen.

Children's theatre in Russia is a planned,
total experience, encompassing even the struc-
turing of the intermissions; its quality is
equal to the finest adult productions. Edu-
cation, the perpetuation of a literary and oral

60

tradition, and, most significantly, the creation
of a political tool are among the accomplish-
ments of this carefully nurtured institution.
In addition to the clearly written text, there
are appendices containing lists of children's
theatres which were in existence at various
chronological intervals; origins and examples
of types of heroes and villains in children's
drama from 1925-1953; and the twenty—five most
frequently performed children's plays as of
1939.

A word of caution to those looking for a
bibliographical source in this area: of
approximately three hundred and forty-four
references listed, only about ninety are in
the English language. Of these, most are in
the areas of law, education, and social and
political science.

Design and Technology

 

Books

57. Bakshy, Alexander. The Path of the Modern Russian
Sta e. London: Cecil Palmer and Hayward,
191%. pp. 243. Illus.
See entry number 182 for complete
annotation.

 

58. Chalif, Louis H. Russian Festivals and Costumes for
Pageant and Dance. New York: Chalif Russian
School of Dancing, 1921. pp. 176. Illus.

The text and photographs cover religious
and secular holidays; peasant costumes; and
games and crafts. I have included this book
in the bibliography because the more than one
hundred illustrations can be of considerable
help to the designer and particularly to the
costumer. There are numerous examples of em-
broidered peasant clothing from various social
strata and geographic regions represented in
this book. Other items of interest include
lace work, linens, dolls, crowns, furniture,
earthenware, tools, homes, and churches. The
reproductions were taken from numerous museum
and private collections.

 

 

S9. Fuerst, Walter René, and Hume, Samuel J. Twentieth-
Century Stage Direction. New York: Benjamin

Blom, 1967. pp. 191. Illus. (387 Plates)

This book is included for its graphic
contribution to those studying Russian costume

 

 

60.

61.

62.

63.

61

and scenic design. Although it covers all the
countries of the world, there are approximately
twenty-five illustrations of designs for the
Russian theatre and ballet. These include the
work of Bakst, Dobujinsky, Benois, Samoff,
Sapunoff, Shervashidze, Falk, Vesnine, Ekster,
Jacouloff, Nivinsky, Rabinovitch, Altmann,
Popova, Eisenstein, and Meyerhold as done for
the Moscow Art Theatre, the Proletcult, the
Kamerny, and the Meyerhold Theatre. The plates
are arranged by chapter so as to illustrate the
text which deals with trends and styles of de—
sign as well as general scenic classifications
(plastic settings, picture stage, painted
setting, architectural stage, permanent set-
tings, etc.).

("This edition, first published in 1967,
is an unabridged and corrected republication
of the work originally published by Alfred A.
KnOpf, Ltd. in 1929. This edition contains a
newly prepared Index, and a detailed List of
Plates and full captions under all illustrations
replace the separately printed Hand-List of
Plates that accompanied the original edition.")

Ffilop-Miller, René, and Gregor, Joseph. The Russian
Theatre. Translated by P. England. London:
Lippincott, 1930. pp. 384. Illus.

See entry number 191 for complete
annotation.

 

Holme, Charles G. Art in the U.S.S.R.: Architecture,
Sculpture, Painting, Graphic Arts, Theatre,
Films, Crafts. New York, London: The Studio
Publications, Inc., 1935. pp. 137. Illus.

See entry number 129 for complete
annotation.

 

 

 

Houghton, Norris. Moscow Rehearsals: An Account of
Methods of Production in the Soviet Theatre.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1936.
pp. 291. Illus.
See entry number 290 for complete
annotation.

 

 

Ivanov, E. G., ed. Sovetskij Teatr (Soviet Theatre).
Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Iskusstvo, 1966. Un-
paged. Illus.

See entry number 293 for complete
annotation.

 

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

62

Komissarzhevskii, Viktor Grigorevich. Moscow
Theatres. Translated by Vic Schneierson and
W. Perelman. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1959. Illus.
See entry number 101 for complete
annotation.

The Moscow Kamerny Theatre. Moscow: Intourist,
1934. pp. 20. Illus.
See entry number 111 for complete
annotation.

 

Rybakov, Yuri. The Soviet Theatre. Moscow:
Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1968?
pp. 62. Illus.

See entry number 116 for complete
annotation.

 

Sovietskii Teatr (Soviet Theatre). Moscow:

 

Izdatelsvo Iskousstvo, 1967. pp. 150. Illus.
See entry number 222 for complete
annotation.

Stage Design Throughout The World Since 1950. Texts

 

and Illustrations Collected by the National
Centers of the International Theatre Insti-
tute. Foreword by Paul-Louis Mignon. New
York: Theatre Arts Books, 1964. pp. 276.
Illus.

This weighty, beautiful book contains
the work of designers from thirty-three nations
and was intended as a sequel to the volume
Stage Design Throughout The World Since 1935.
The U.S.S.R. was among the nations not repre-
sented in the first collection but included in
this later publication. The reader is pro-
vided with pictorial information on current
trends and with the names and styles of more
recent designers. Most of the highly illus-
trated texts in English on the Russian-Soviet
theatre were written in the twenties and
thirties. The illustrations in this text date
from as early as 1929 and extend to 1960. Each
design, print, or set photograph is accompanied
by a caption of information which identifies
the play (in its original language), the author,
theatre and town of presentation, and year of
production. The twenty-four page section on
the U.S.S.R. contains sixty-eight black and
white and color photographs covering more than
fifty plays. A Who's Who appendix provides
biographical information on most of the de-
signers whose works are displayed. The Russian

63

designers whose work is included are: Akimov,
Altmann, Bossulayev, Shiffrin, Dmitriev, Dorrer,
Favorski, Gamrekeli, Popov, Ryndin, Jankus,
Knoblock, Kourilko, Kovalenko, Krivosheina,
Lansere, Navicks, Petritzki, Pimenov, Rabino-
vich, Saryan, Skulme, Timine, Viliams, Tyshler,
Vardaunis, Vassiliev, Viks, Virsaladze,
Yunovich, and Zolotariev.

69. The Theatres of Moscow. Moscow: Seventh Printery.
Undated. Unpaged.
See entry number 23§_for complete
annotation.

 

70. Turpin, F., ed. Alexandra Exter. Paris: Editions
des Quatre chemins, 1930. pp. 177. Illus.
Although the text of a preface by
Alexander Tairov and all the rest of the
volume is in French, the student of Exter's
cubist designs for the Kamerny Theatre will be
interested in studying this volume. It is
composed of fifteen color renderings recreated
handsomely by Tatiana Gontche. Below is a
listing of the plates as it appears in the
text. This volume is a valuable contribution
to understanding the kind of productions Tairov
developed in the years between 1914 and 1920,
though these prints do not represent all of
his productions, nor was Exter his only de-

 

signer.

1. Othello, acte premier

2. Othello, acte seconde

3. Faust, projet

4. Cirque

5. Cirque

6. Operette, projet

7. Operette, projet

8. Don Juan, et la mort, projet
9. Revue bateaux, projet

10. Revue bateaux, projet

11. Pantomime espagnole, projet
12. Maquette de lumiere, projet
13. Don Juan, enter, projet

14. Le Marchand de Venise

15. Ballet, maquette de lumiere

Articles and Periodicals
71. Akimov, Nikolai. "The Designer in the Theatre."

Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936),
700-17. Illus.

 

64

Akimov classified Russian design into two
schools: Illusionist and Constructivist. He
assigned himself to the first school (using the
stage as a "frame enclosing an undefined depth
in which the designer presents a designed illu-
sion of space."). This article is a very clear
and detailed description of his efforts to pre-
pare and focus an audience's response sceni-
cally. In explaining his working methods, he
presents his approach to a balanced realism--
"eXpressive realism," which combines an objec-
tive observation of nature with the temperament
of the artist. A large number of illustrations
from the work of various designers accompanies
the article. These include Knoblock's designs
for The Wedding and Othello; Schctoffer's de-
signs for four plays at the Realistic Theatre
and Monsieur de Pourceaugnac; Moses Levin's
sets for The Poor Bride and Girl Friends (a
film); Peter WilliamsT approach to La Traviata;
Shelpianov's design for After The Ball; Tish-
1er's costumes for Gypsies; Akimov's design
for My Crime and his poster for Hamlet; and
Rabinovich 5 work on the ballet The Sleeping

Beauty.

72. Botkin, Alex; Botkin, Nada; and Gat, John. "Partial
Index to the Russian Journal 'Scenic Techniques
and Technology' 1965-68." Theatre Design and
Technology, No. 20 (February, 1970), 22-23, 35.

A partial index of the Russian journal is
produced in order to familiarize the English—
speaking readers with the journal's existence,
the nature of the articles, and the subjects of
importance to Russian designers and technicians.
The first six issues (1963 and 1964) are not
indexed nor are the first four issues of 1967.
The authors names are not supplied, allegedly
because of lack of space, but such an omission
is nothing more than poor scholarship. The
index should be as complete as it can be made
or not attempted. The reader is cautioned that,
although the titles are printed in English, the
journal itself is printed only in Russian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73. Bykov, V. "TWo Tendencies in the Evolution of

Theatre Architecture: Part I." Translated by
John Cat and Ned A. Bowman. Theatre Design and
Technology, No. 1 (May, 1965), 3—11.

This article, written by a member of the
Soviet Architectural Institute, originally
appeared in the Soviet architectural periodi-
cal Arkhitektury SSR. Bykov theorizes that the

 

 

65

"two tendencies" include a formalistic one (a
proposed solution of capitalistic countries to
the problem of competition with electronic
media) and a simultaneous investigation of a
"realistic" modification of the proscenium
theatre's space. .

The formalistic trend is most heavily
criticized for being nothing more than "cinema-
tographicity." Bykov calls this an abstract
approach developed without actual consideration
for the literature or the conventions of the
theatre. Illustrations, photographs, cross-
sections, and design plans from the work of
Venturelli, Schoffer, and Dobloff are offered
as proof of this eccentric trend. Bykov's bias
is the conventional proscenium arrangement.
Other forms accommodated by the theatre build-
ing are legitimate as long as they are second-
ary. He states that "Soviet architects have
solved this problem," and the specific examples
offered as evidence are contained in Part II of
the article.

74. Bykov, V. "Two Tendencies in the Evolution of
Theatre Architecture: Part II." Theatre
Design and Technology, No. 2 (October, 1965),
21-26.

In this second section, Bykov illus-
trates the Soviet preference for conventional
proscenium "realistic staging" with a report on
eight architectural projects in various stages
of development. He compares these with the
formalistic efforts outlined in Part I of his
article. "At the same time another realistic
tendency is develOping, expressed with particu-
lar clarity in the progressive and creative
search by directors and architects of socialis—
tic countries who are striving to develop the
best world and national traditions of the-
atrical art, to enrich it with new technical
possibilities and to broaden its means for
expressing artistic ways, answering more fully
the meaning of man's contemporary life and
meeting his aesthetic ideals." The examples,
each adapted to the needs and styles of the
individual régisseurs (such as Okhlopkov,
Akomov, and Tovstonogov) include The Theatre
of the Young Spectator (Leningrad, 1963);
Project for the V. V. Mayakovskii Theatre;
Leningrad Comedy Theatre; A. M. Gorkii Theatre
(Leningrad); Project for the Theatre Studio of
Pantomime; and the Project for the State Dance
Theatre.

 

66

75. Carter, Huntly. "A New Principle in Play-production:
The Classics in the Russian Theatre of To-day."
Creative Art, VII (1930), 62-69. Illus.

The paper's emphasis is divided between
an outline of the efforts made since 1917 to
free the actor from the "studio picture" scene
and a critical appraisal of The Russian Theatre
by René Ffilop-Miller and Joseph Gregor, Though
the two seem unconnected and could indeed have
stood separate treatments, they are linked here
by Carter's desire to defend the Soviet theatre's
achievements against those whom he feels are
unable to be just in their criticism.

The article's title and main consider-
ation is with the unique and relevant, rather
than jollying or bastardizing, approach Carter
felt the Soviets had given the Russian and
world classics. In dealing with design, he
stresses the efforts of Tairov and Meyerhold
to promote "the principle of power in the actor,
of tearing him out of the scenery and setting
him before the audience . . . of moulding the
scene to serve him." He refers to constructiv-
ism as a key to removing the actor from tra-
ditional restraints. Here Carter is referring
specifically to the experiments in expanding
stage space both in design and human grouping
as opposed to the flat stage of the realistic
approach.

In the analysis of The Russian Theatre,
Carter criticizes Ffilop-Miller and Gregor's
lack of first-hand experiences. He does point
out, however, that the sheer bulk of material
and the wealth of illustrations (400) makes the
volume important and useful.

 

 

 

76. Carter, Huntly. "Present-Day Decoration In the
Moscow Art Theatre." Creative Art, V (1929),
579-83. Illus.

"In short, Stanislavsky still leans
rather towards a stage picture definitely com—
posed by a painter, than a scene constructed in
terms of architecture or engineering or both."
In a brief text which accompanies the five
illustrations (three full-page prints), Carter
points out the trends in constructivist staging
that emerged after the Revolution, and dis-
cusses the Moscow Art Theatre's refusal to
adopt these changes. The photos are all of
Moscow Art Theatre productions: The
Decembrists, The Armoured Train, The Marriage
of Figaro, and The Day of the Turbins.

 

 

 

 

67

77. Clements, Colin Campbell. "The Bat." Theatre Arts
Magazine, October, 1921, pp. 275-78. Illus.
See entry number 104 for complete
annotation.

 

 

78. Dana, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. "Afinogenov."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XXVI (March, 1942),
168-76.

Dana marks Afinogenov's death (at the
front on November 5, 1941, during an air raid)
with this commemorative article on the play-
wright's life and the production of his plays.
Although this bibliography is not primarily
concerned with dramatic literature, this
article contains three pages of illustrations
depicting the sets for Raspberry Jam, Fear, and
Distant Point.

 

 

79. Efros, Abram. "The Russian Theatre and Its Artists
Since the Revolution." Translated by H. L.
Gordon. Parnassus, I (February, 1929), 6-9.
Illus.

Mr. Efros, then the Vice Director of the
Government Museums of Fine Art in Moscow, in
most flowery rhetoric (which may be the fault
of the translation), dedicates the first section
of this report to the proposition that "The
Russian concept of the theatre is deeper,
fuller, and mightier than the concept the
Western theatre gave us during the last thirty
years." He goes on to say that, "The theatre
as it is thought of in the West is to be
written with a small 't' . . . but the Russian
theatre is the theatre, the theatre with a
capital 'T.'" This is all reminiscent of
Huntly Carter's statements in The New Spirit
in the Russian Theatre: 1917—1928 (see entry
number 182).

The historical content relates the
development of post-Revolutionary movements in
directing and decoration. Efros emphasizes
the swing from the "Mir Isskustva" decorative-
ness of Diaghilev to constructivism. For all
his pride in surprising the West with revolu-
tionary theatrical developments, he condemns
the capriciousness of the new schools and,
somewhat confusingly, ends his discussion by
expressing the belief that old and new theatres
are repeating each other's practices and
methods. "From Meyerhold to the Little
Theatre--1ike the water in two vessels con-
nected by a pipe--the level is the same." If

 

 

 

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

68

the play titles are any indication (Love to
Three Oranges, Mascarade, etc.), the trans-
lation should be questioned.

 

 

Flanagan, Hallie. "The Russian Theatre: One Theory

"From

As To Its Inspiration." Theatre Guild Magazine,
June, 1930, pp. 46-47. Illus.

See entry number 136 for complete
annotation.

 

The Russian Theatre: A Portfolio." Theatre
Arts Month1y, XVII (December, 1933), 941-44.
Illus.

In January of 1934, the Museum of Modern
Art in New York held an International Exhibit
of Theatre Art. The portfolio is a collection
of five scenes from the Russian Theatre. These
include the productions of Fear, Machinal, The
Lucrative Place, and The Armoured Train 14-69.

 

 

 

 

Gilliam, Florence. "The Kamerny Theatre of Moscow."

Freeman, VII (May, 1923), 255-58.

"The total impression given by this com—
pany is that of the charge of a living force
against a whole world of inert tradition; a
force which loses none of its energy by being
disciplined and sophisticated to a very high
degree."

The author reports on the company's
appearance in Paris with clear and meticulous
descriptions of set design, lighting, and use
of form and color for Giroflé-Girofla, Phédre,
Princess Brambille, Adrienne Lecouvreur, and
Salome} She found only Salomé disappointing
and, without explanation, made a point of de-
claring that the design concept, despite what
is usually said, was not cubistic. The article
also contains some interesting critical commen-
tary on the visual concepts and acting tech-
niques.

 

 

 

Glagolin, Boris. "What is Constructivism in the

Russian Theatre?" Translated by Dr. William
Olen. The Drama, XX (1930), 242.

See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

Houghton, Norris. "Nikolai Akimov: Portrait of a

Designer." Theatre Arts, XX (May, 1936),
349-53. Illus.

In an expression of admiration, Houghton
relates his visit to the Russian designer and

 

69

director. Akimov reveals his "designs as
schemes for productions" and explains his
meticulous and detailed graphic approach to
designing a show. He discusses the "famous"
Hamlet which he both designed and directed at
Vakhtangov Theatre.

85. Kalintsev, V. "A Mechano-Optical Model for the
Determination of Seat Row Elevations." Trans-
lated by John Gat. Theatre Design and Tech-
nology, No. 3 (December, 1965), 14-15.

This translation of an article appearing
in Arkhitektura SSR, proscribes a "method for
the determination of the elevation of the rows
of seats in theatres and other public buildings
using a mechano-optical model."

 

 

 

86. Korolev, I. "Contemporary Stage Decoration in
U.S.S.R." The Drama, XX (January, 1930),
100-03.

Essentially, Korolev, once President of
the Association of Theatrical Artists of Moscow,
describes and champions constructivism as a
replacement for what he considered the decadent
and limited two-dimensionality of the "Mir
Issustva" scene painters of the pre—Revolution-
ary years. Using his own designs, as well as
the work of Ivan Vakhonim, Victor Kiseler,
Alexander Fomin, and Alexei Rudnyev, he ex-
plains constructivism in practice and in
relationship to the national purpose. The
illustrations are particularly worthy of study.
He links the designs to the work of the TRAMS,
Blue Blouse reviews, and the activity of the
Pan-Russian Association of Theatrical Artists.
Actually, almost as much space is devoted to
the organization and activities of the amateur
youth and independent workers' theatre as to
the tenets of constructivism.

87. Leyda, Jay. "Alexander Tishler: Creative Stage
Design." Tgeatre Arts Monthly, XVIII
(November, 1934), 842-48. Illus. -

In the 1930's Tishler was best known in
Russia for his work in the national minority
theatres and for the development of truly
native designs. As the article describes and
illustrates, he concentrated on a union of
national forms with the national materials
for motif. The design for Fuente Ovejuna
utilized a playing space shaped like a basket
and structures faced in basketry. Although
the text is brief, there are many illustrations.

 

 

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

70

Margolin, s. "The Artist And The Theatre." V.O.K.S.

"News

Bulletin, No. 6 (1934), 42-52. Illus.

This is a clearly written and reliable
statement of the Soviet viewpoint on design in
the 1930's. It is accompanied by illustrations
from the work of Rabinovich, Favorsky, the
Stenberg brothers, Akimov, Tishler, Levin, and
Ryndin. Margolin isolates the characteristics
and compares the schools of "Mir Isskustva"
(Benoit, Golovin, Bakst, Supunov) with con-
structivism. He regards the former as design
without social consciousness, and the latter
as instruction in the development of artistic
thinking. The required and achieved synthesis
of graphics and architecture, the blend of con-
structivism and decoration, is labeled "scenic
architecture" and is analyzed in the work of
Tishler, Levin, Akimov, and Ryndin.

From The Soviet Socialist Republics." World
Theatre, I (1951), 156. Illus.

See entry number 111 for complete
annotation.

"The Optimistic Tragedy." World Theatre, VIII

 

(1959), 287. Illus.

This is a photograph of Bossoulaiev's
design for The Optimistic Tragedy. The design
won the Theatre of Nations Trophy for Best
Stage Design.

 

"Pictorial News From Russia: A Portfolio." Theatre

Arts Monthly, XIX (June, 1935), 431-38. Illus.

There are eight full-size illustrations
on these pages with information on the plays
depicted, the participating theatres, directors,
designers, etc. The productions include
Pogodin's Aristocrats, Fletcher's The Spanish
Curate, Shakespeare's King Lear, Ostrovsky's
Storm, and Bulgakov's adaptation, The Pickwick
Club.

 

 

 

 

 

Pojarskaia, Militza. "Soviet Stage Design in the

20th Century." World Theatre, X (Autumn,
1961), 223-50. Illus.

This is an important article, for its
thirty-eight illustrations, for the Opinions
advanced by its text, and because of the
scarcity of similar materials. The editors
of World Theatre believed that the article was
"the first complete panorama, since the revo-
lution, of the development of stage design in
the U.S.S.R."

 

 

71

Underlying the significant collection of
names, movements, and achievements is a running
(and sometimes confusing) account of the contro-
versy between the relative merit of painters and
non-painters. The author condemns the early
constructivists and abstractionists but is un-
able to pass over the achievements of the con-
temporary designers who did not qualify as
painters. She summarizes or rather reconciles
her arguments by predicting a coexistence
united in socialist realism for both schools.
Stanislavsky is quoted in calling for stage
convention and "an aftertaste of truth."

The designs are analyzed by decades, with
special sections on Shakespearean stage pro-
duction, Akimov, depictions of the heroic
struggle of the war years, and the New Soviet
theatre beginning in the 1950's.

"Towards the end of the 1940-50 decade
and even during the following years, two Oppos-
ing trends--both equally faulty--have been ob-
served in some stage productions: on one side,
a tendency for too sumptuous, pompous and
clumsy scenery, and on the other, an incli-
nation towards realism."

"The fear of modern conventionalism, and
scorn for the law of the stage, the habit of
considering scenery only as a series of decora-
tive panels, such are the errors which contri-
buted till quite recently to the diminuation
and impoverishment of the Soviet theatre, which
fought tenaciously against them and finally
succeeded in eliminating them."

93. Sayler, Oliver M. "Constantin Korovin." Theatre

Arts Magazine, April, 1920, pp. 154-55. Illus.
In what is an illustrated resumé rather

than an article, Sayler praises the work of
Korovin and points to the characteristic
Russianness of his use of color and design in
the painted drops and sets used in the treat-
ment of folktales for Opera and ballet.

 

94. Sayler, Oliver M. "Tudor Twelfth Night in Russia."
The Drama, X (October, 1919), 3-7.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

 

95. Theatre Arts Magazine, April, 1923, pp. 165-68.
Illus.
This is a series of illustrations, photo-
graphically depicting scenes from the

 

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

72

productions of The Mexican at the Proletcult,
and Phedra, Romeo and Juliet, and Adrienne
Lecouvreur at the Kamerny Theatre.

 

 

Theatre Arts Magazine, March, 1924, pp. 205-08.

Illus.

This is a series of four sketches by
Andreyev, done in Berlin for German movies. A
native Lithuanian, Andreyev designed for the
Moscow Art Theatre, the First Studio, and for
the State Theatre. There are descriptive
captions for each illustration.

Theatre Arts Magazine, January, 1926, pp. 53-56.
Illus.
See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

Theatre Arts Magazine, October, 1926, pp. 755-58.
Illus.
See entry number 181 for complete

annotation.

"Theatres of the Soviet East: A Portfolio."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936),
731-34.

See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

Stepanov, Valerian. "New Russian Theatres."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XVIII (September, 1934),
674-83. Illus.

"New Russian Theatres,‘ appears in an
issue dedicated to theatre architecture.
Stepanov reflects on the guiding ideas and
similarities in a number of projected plans
for new theatres all over Russia. The key is
the concept of the "Transformable Theatre,"
with highly adaptable audience seating and a
flexible stage space. Most of the plans are
united by an effort to provide close contact
between the audience and the actors. The
theatres discussed and illustrated include a
theatre for Meyerhold, the Central Theatre of
the Red Army, the Kharkov Opera House, and the
Little Theatre of the Palace of Culture (al-
ready built at the time).

 

73

101. Strong, Anna Louise. "The Cubist Theatre of Moscow:
As It Looks To An American Layman In The
Audience." Theatre Arts Magazine, July, 1923,
pp. 224-27.

This was not only seen by a layman but
is also best read by a layman. Largely, the
article is a description of the plot and pro-
duction of Harlequin As King, at the Kamerny
Theatre. The purpose is to shed light on
Tairov's theatrical conceptions and on the
nature of the theatre's pOpular appeal. The
author tries to get at the underlying philo-
sophy and the production scheme, but is more
successful in the description of what she has
seen.

 

102. "Theatre In The U.S.S.R." V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 6
(1934), 105. Illus.
See entry number 161 for complete

annotation.

 

103. Wolfson, Martin. "Types and Make-Up In The Russian
Theatre." Theatre Arts Monthly, XV (April,
1931), 339-42. Illus.

The written text is more like an over-
sized caption for the six illustrations. Wolf-
son emphasizes that most of the dramatic
material employs types rather than individuals,
and as such the make-up quickly identifies the
character. Old czaristic figures or imperial-
ists were caricatured in make-up, historical
Russian figures closely duplicated, and con-
temporary proletarian individuals created on
the basis of studies of people in the streets.

Directing and Directors

Books

104. Alpers, Boris. The Theatre Of The Social Mask.
Translated by Mark Schmidt. New York: Group
Theatre, Inc., 1934. pp. 157. (Typewritten.)

"A great deal of Meyerhold will be diffi-
cult to understand for the future historian.
Theatre is an art which is not easily grasped
by historians of a later generation. Much of
what is characteristic and essential lives
only for the contemporaries. In particular,
the one that will study Meyerhold will have
to deal with a variegated material, contra-
dictory estimates, characteristics and unin-
telligible descriptions."

74

In the compilation of a bibliography such
as this one, the above quotation is an appropri-
ate and intelligent caution. The historians of
the modern Russian theatre are Often reflected
in their books as awestruck crusaders or as
reporters sifting events through personal
values. The accumulation of names and dates,
plays, production data, and lists of personnel
(which is considerable even for such a large
and active theatrical nation) does not recreate
the performances themselves. Perhaps the most
relevant personal guides are the writings of
the theatre practitioners themselves.

As relates to Meyerhold, the statement is
of particular significance. The contrast of
statements and reactions is found not only in
his work as a whole but in the attempt to dis-
cover his direction and to explain what many
writers felt were the abrupt and frequent em-
bracings of new forms. Most of the texts on
the Russian and Soviet theatre view Meyerhold
in a passionate and vigorous manner, but fail
to explain what it is that he did (beyond
simple definitions of biomechanics and con-
structivism). Alpers, in this monograph,
attempts to relate all of Meyerhold's work in
the first quarter of the twentieth century by
explaining the place of his productions in the
theory of the social-theatrical mask.

The author literally and metaphorically
sees the mask as a symbol of completeness. The
features are immobile and final. As such, the
mask can be made to represent the close of a
historical period. He compares this to Meyer-
hold's "characters" who, in the period of
"storm and stress" and in the period of "his-
torical apparitions" were devoid of inner move-
ment. All his productions represented a halt
in development, a backward glance. Alpers
views the early works (Dawn, The Forest) as
representative of the use of satirical works
to ridicule the aesthetic admiration of the
romantic characters Of the past. In the
period beginning with Bubus (1924-25), the
furious action was displaced by static pic-
tures and expressive but frozen figures.

Here, according to the author's theory, Meyer-
hold assembled the remnants Of the past and
conserved them in "motionless but expressive
panopticon pictures for the instruction of

the new generation." With the figure-actor
mask in all periods, Meyerhold eliminated the

 

105.

106.

107.

108 O

75

illusion of authentic life on stage and pitted
an "altered versimilitude" against the realism
Of the Moscow Art Theatre.

Using the same production profiles as
Alpers does, it might be possible to conclude
that Meyerhold's early work depicted the rush-
ing impetuousity of the first years of the
Revolution, and that his later, static "look-
ing into the past" works were really a prophetic
indication of the eclipse of art by what he saw,
through an historical perspective, as the in-
evitable social direction inherent in the emerg-
ing Soviet political style. This would elimi—
nate the idea that the cause of Meyerhold's
waning popularity was the old-fashioned, iso—
lated quality of his artistic credo and support
the possibility that this unpopularity rested
in his suggesting that the problems of the
past were still the problems of the present.

A hint to Alpers' approach and to his con-
clusions about the influence of Meyerhold lies
in a statement on socialist realism, which he
wrote "is not satisfied with a perfunctory
external staging of an agitational theme, but
aims to draw deeply from the material of modern
life in its complexity and variety."

Bakshy, Alexander. The Path of the Modern Russian
Stage. London: Cecil Palmer and Hayward,
1916. pp. 243. Illus.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

Ben-Ari, Raiken. Habima. Translated by A. H.
Gross and I. Soref. New York: Thomas
Yoseloff, Inc., 1957. pp. 253. Illus.

See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

Carter, Huntly. The New Sp1rit in the Russian
Theatre: 1917-28. London: Brentano's, Ltd.,
1929. pp. 350. Illus.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

 

Freeman, Joseph; Kunitz, Joshua; and Lozowick,
Louis. Voices Of October: Art and Literature
in Soviet Russia. New York: The Vanguard
Press, 1930. pp. 317. Illus.

See entry number 116 for complete
annotation.

 

76

109. Gladkov, Aleksandr. "Meyerhold Speaks." Translated
by Karen Black. Pages From Tarusa: New Voices
in Russian Writing. Edited by Andrew Field.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963,
310-22.

The book is a translation of an anthology
which appeared in Russian in 1961 and was
quickly withdrawn. It is a collection of Soviet
prose and poetry intended to serve as a repre-
sentation of the important currents in con-
temporary Soviet literature. "Meyerhold Speaks"
purports to be a reproduction of notes on some
of V. E. Meyerhold's utterances at rehearsals
and in conversations as recorded by Aleksandr
Gladkov. It is an interesting and lively col-
lection of thoughts and comments spoken by
Meyerhold in the mid-1930's on his theatrical
ideas; the theatre people of his time; and
public and professional reactions to his work.
"The art of the theatre does not progress, but
only changes its means of expression in relation
to the character of an era, its ideas, its
psychology. its techniques, its architecture,
its fashion." It is no wonder that a book of
spirited, new writings considered to be
reactionary by the Soviet government should
contain the name and words of Meyerhold though
he be dead some twenty-three years before its
publication.

 

 

110. Gorchakov, Nikolai M. The Vakhtangov School of
Stage Art. Translated by G. Ivanov-Mumjiev.
Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
195?. PP. 206. Illus.

Nikolai Gorchakov was Vakhtangov's stu-
dent, friend, and professional colleague. He
stage-managed Turandot (Vakhtangov's last pro-
duction before his death), to which a con-
siderable part of this book is dedicated.
Throughout there are occasional warnings such
as "my reminiscences are . . . fragmentary"
and indications that the book is an expansion
of notes the author took on matters that were
of personal interest. To me this is less a
problem than is the influence of idolatry.

The book can be of considerable value if it

is approached with a method for reading and

a machete. It is very easy to relax into the
text as one would a green room story and subse-
quently find that the passions have obscured
what amounts to a great deal of fact and analy-
sis. I would suggest that the 1ast chapter be

 

 

77

read first. Here the author draws on the
specific points that have been made, organizes
them, and presents them in a specific relation-
ship.

Gorchakov writes, "But the originality
of Vakhtangov's productions did not lie solely
in these methods or in their external appear—
ances. It lay in the fact that for each of
them he sought, long and arduously, the most
expressive form, the only possible form which
he considered could fully express the idea of
the particular play, its style and genre. He
considered this his main task." This quotation
is well-illustrated by the description of the
staging of Chekhov's The Wedding as compared
with the staging of GozziTs Turandot. Further-
more, much of the text provides an insight into
how Vakhtangov taught the Stanislavsky method
of acting without subscribing to the solitary
production point of view of the Moscow Art
Theatre. The techniques he used to train his
actors exemplify how he personalized "the
method" and repeatedly adapted it to the par—
ticular group of students. Most interestingly
and repeatedly described is his method of
participating in rehearsals as one of the
characters in the play. If indeed Gorchakov
has not given too much credit, Vakhtangov seems
to have had a fabulous instinct for creating
the exact étude or improvisation which would
solve a given actor's problem. The various
stories and descriptions reveal his emphasis
on determining rhythms for the play, scene,
character, beat, etc. as the search for the
grain of the role. This was often accomplished
through the concretization of intellectual
obstacles through improvisation, and the direct
use of Vakhtangov as an actor. His methods
reappear today in many forms, but the essence
remains the use of improvisation in the teach-
ing of acting. In the chapter on Turandot,
Gorchakov quotes from a conversation on
cerebral activity and creative freedom: "'Will
you four come here please,' Vakhtangov called
the masks. 'Why is it you couldn't do anything
an hour ago and now you can? You don't know?
Well, I do. When we started our impromptus
the first time, you tried to think them up. I
don't deny the importance of thinking, invent-
ing, or planning, but if you have to improvise
on the spot, . . . you must act and not think.
Its actions we must have--wise, foolish, or
naive, simple or complicated, but action."

 

 

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

78

The chapter on the staging of Turandot
illustrates how Vakhtangov arrived at his
directorial conceptions; how he efficiently
used assistants and acting coaches; how he
arrived at his rehearsal sequences; and his
relation to the design elements of production.
Overall, the book is quite helpful in comparing
and contrasting Vakhtangov with Stanislavsky
and Meyerhold (though the latter is not dis-
cussed in the text itself).

Houghton, Norris. Moscow Rehearsals: An Account
of Methods of Production in the Soviet Theatre.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and CO., 1936.
pp. 291. Illus.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

 

Jelagin, Juri. Taming of the Arts. Translated by
Nicholas Wreden. New York: Dutton, 1951.
pp. 333.
See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

 

London, Kurt. The Seven Soviet Arts. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1938. pp. 381. Illus.
See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

Markov, Pavel. The First Studio: Sullerzhitsky-
Vakhtangov-Tchekov. Translated by Mark
Schmidt. New York: Group Theatre, Inc.,

 

 

1934. pp. 80. (Typewritten.)
See entry number 265 for complete
annotation.

Meyerhold, Vsevolod. Meyerhold On Theatre. Trans-
lated and edited by Edward Braun. London:
Methuen and CO., Ltd., 1969. pp. 336. Illus.

"The aim Of this book is to provide the
English-speaking reader with a comprehensive
selection of Meyerhold's writings, speeches
and other utterances on the art Of theatre
and the cinema. The selection has been made
from all the material published in Meyerhold's
lifetime and in the years since his death up
to 1968." Meyerhold On Theatre represents a
valuable selection of materials accompanied by
well—documented critical commentary. As the
author indicates, it is only an introduction,
but it is a much needed one-stop source. The
twenty-nine selections are grouped according

 

 

79

to period and idea and are introduced by essays
which place the writings in the context of the
times. There are also clarifying footnotes,
general notes, and a bibliography of principal
English and Russian works devoted in part or
whole to Meyerhold.

Braun attempts to document reports of
productions and to clear up myths where possi-
ble. In Yuri Yelagin's Taming of the Arts (see
entry number 161), and also in Yelagin's biog-
raphy of Meyerhold, Dark Genius, a version of
Meyerhold's famous speech to the All-Union Con-
ference of Stage Directors (June, 1939) is
presented, based on Yelagin's own notes. The
passage, valiant words of Meyerhold's refusal
to recant in the face of government Opposition
to his experiments, has been popularized in
such texts as John Mason Brown's Dramatis
Personae. Braun, however, says that Yelagin's
book is incorrect in other places not dependent
on his own observations and that the passage is
totally at variance with extracts from other
sources which indicate that Meyerhold "finally
committed the act of total contrition so long
demanded of him."

This collection, though not his complete
works, reveals the essence of Meyerholdia. One
can find the director's own pronouncements on
naturalism; on Stanislavsky (whom he never
failed to praise); on the comic and social
mask; on commedia dell'arte; on the concept of
plastic movement; on biomechanics (" . . . only
through the sports arena can we approach the
theatrical arena"); and on the importance of
the sense of musicality (one of the most dis—
tinguishing elements of his work). Through
these words we can also learn of the person-
ality of "Dr. Dapertutto" who unceasingly
experimented with the very essence of form in
art. Production notes include passages on
such controversial works as The Inspector
General, The Masquerade, The Dawn, Mystery-
Bouffe, Moliére's Don Juan, and the plays of
Mayakovsky. These notes indicate the nature of
Meyerhold's shifts as well as the nature of
the threads that ran through all Of his work.
It is these threads which cause one to wonder
whether Meyerhold's work indeed anticipated
Brecht, Piscator, Artaud, and Grotowski.

 

 

 

 

116.

117.

80

Sayler, Oliver M. The Russian Theatre Under The

 

Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1920. pp. 273. Illus.

See entry number 111 for complete
annotation.

 

Simonov, Reuben. Stanislavskyfs Protégé: Eugene

 

Vakhtangov. Translated by Miriam Goldina.
New York: DBS Publications, Inc., 1969.
pp. 243.

Eugene Vakhtangov died in 1922, leaving
behind a small but brilliant production record
and a significant influence on the Russian
theatre. He combined realism with a theatrical
flexibility in presenting the ideas of post-
Revolutionary Russia. His work on the Dybbuk
for the Habima Theatre and on Princess Turandot
for the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre,
the last productions before his death, have re-
ceived increasing analytical attention over the
past five decades. As illustrated in the book,
his ideas placed him between Stanislavsky and
the staunch anti-realists, Meyerhold and Tairov,
but he is felt to have transcended all three.
His "theatre of representation" combined Stanis-
lavsky's early emphasis on the actor's inner
technique with a physical and vocal discipline
and creativity or outer technique. Indeed, it
is quite possible that Stanislavsky's late writ-
ings on working from the outside in owed a
great deal to the experiments and statements
of his cherished student, Vakhtangov. The
latter's stylistic approach synthesized the
realism of the Moscow Art Theatre and the
"formalism" of Meyerhold. The synthesis,
"fantastic realism," is described in the text
in Vakhtangov's own words: "The correct the-
atrical means, when discovered, gives to the
author's work a true reality on the stage. One
can study these means, but the form must be
created, must be the product of the artist's
great imagination-fantasy. This is why I call
it 'fantastic realism.'"

The author, Reuben Simonov, was a student
of Vakhtangov's and continued his mentor's tra-
dition as a director and head of the Vakhtangov
Theatre in Moscow. The material, written as a
tribute, was completed in the early 1950's but
not given to the translator until 1963. Miriam
Goldina (herself having studied and worked with
Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov) is well known for
her translation of Gorchakov's Stanislavsky
Directs (see entry number 16).

 

 

81

In three parts, Simonov concentrates on
Vakhtangov's conceptions and methods of direc-
tion for Chekhov's A Wedding, Maeterlinck's 166
Miracle of St. Anthony, andiGozzi's Princess
Turandot. It is interesting to read Gorchakov's
The Vakhtangov School of Stage Art (see entry
number 116) and the Simonov book sequentially.
Simonov brings to Gorchakov's detailed anec—
dotal description of rehearsal incidents an
analysis of Vakhtangov's theoretical concepts,
a discussion of the director's feelings about
other forms of theatre in his time, and an
idea of how Vakhtangov's work affected later
productions in the theatre named for him. The
discussion of Princess Turandot is particu-
larly helpful in understanding the similarities
and differences between Stanislavsky and
Vakhtangov. The section on A Wedding illus-
trates Vakhtangov's methods for the continuous
adaptation of materials to the changing con-
ceptions and changing needs of changing times.
Throughout, the author is perceptive in his
analysis of the director's use of specific
techniques such as rhythm in attaining a
"chiseled clarity of action," a "graphic
theatricality."

Finally, in addition to the text, the
reader is supplied with a detailed chronology
of Vakhtangov's life and theatrical career as
actor, teacher, and régisseur.

 

 

 

 

 

118. Tairov, Alexander. Notes of a Director. Translated
and with an introduction by William Kuhlke.
Florida: University of Miami Press, 1969.
pp. 153. Illus.

This is an important work, as it repre-
sents the first publication of Tairov's notes
in English. First published by the Kamerny
Theatre in 1921 in Russia, it appeared two
years later in an authorized German trans-
lation. The "notes" apply to the period be-
tween 1914 and 1920, the first years of the
Kamerny Theatre.

The translator provides a well-written
and highly informative twenty-one page intro-
duction. He complains of the necessity of
having to provide so much background and ex-
tends his observations to the general lack Of
knowledge about other such innovators as
Meyerhold and Vakhtangov. Certainly, materials
by or about these men are much fewer in number
than books by or about Stanislavsky, but the

 

82

comment seems most relevant in relation to
Tairov. The introduction serves to provide
biographical material about both Tairov and

the Kamerny Theatre (which lasted, with re-
locations and reopenings, from 1914 to 1950!);
places the writings in the context of the
director's own work and that of others operative
in the Russian theatre at the time; and relates
Tairov's theatrical ideology to the work of the
theatres in Western Europe. In addition,
Kuhlke prepares the reader for discovering the
relevance of writings completed in 1921 to cur-
rent issues in American theatre. He states,
"The stifling hold of realism on the stage is
once more being challenged by new forms of
playwriting as well as by production; decentral-
ization is increasing rapidly, and the need for
new schools of acting to train artists for new
theatres and new forms of theatre is urgent.
And so we find ourselves returning once more

to the still untapped reservoir of information
about one of the great periods of experimen-
tation in the history of Western theatre, not
out of mere antiquarian curiosity, but out of

a pressing need to profit from the experience
of a cadre of theatrical genuises who faced
problems similar to ours."

In the "Notes . . . ," Tairov deals with
the actor, the director, music, scene design,
costuming, the role of literature in the
theatre, and the relationship of the spectator
to the work of art. Tairov lies between Meyer-
hold, whom he severely criticizes, and Stanis-
lavsky; between formalism and realism. His
synthesis implies that the key to good theatre
lies not solely in the audience's mind nor
solely on the stage but in a "dynamic inter—
action between the audience and the stage."

Of contemporary interest is Tairov's evalu-
ation of the place of the play. For him
literature had little importance in the theatre.
His theatre was not to act "as a purveyor of
literary works through the mouths of actors,"
and at best, the play was raw material. The
section on the director is actually only a
definition of the actor-director dependency
and of the actor's creative freedom. This was
prompted by Meyerhold's treatment of the actor
as a kind of scenic clay. Tairov's own idea
of the actor fell between Stanislavsky's
"perezhivanie" and the schematized portrayal
of emotion. "The scenic figure is a synthesis

83

of emotion and form brought to life by the
creative fantasy of the actor." Another inter-
esting section, which reveals the source of
Official government dissatisfaction with
Tairov's early work, is the last chapter, on
the spectator. Kuhlke concludes that, "It was
Tairov's tragedy that his whole View of the
theatre was aesthetic, not social, at a time
when the concern of his society was just the
reverse." In the last chapter, Tairov refers
to communal theatre, the theatre of spectator
participation, as a step backward in the
theatre. In his theatre the spectator func-
tioned only as an observer. Ideally, he points
out, theatre art can be created without an
audience.

It should be remembered that the Notes
of a Director does not extend to Tairov's
ideas and work in his later years, in the
Soviet era, but is an example of the pre-
Revolutionary period, perhaps the freest period
in Russian theatre.

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

119. Andronikov, Iraki. "Solomon Mikhoels: Actor,
Director, Critic." Soviet Review, I (October,
1960), 36-41.

See entry number 1 for complete

 

 

annotation.

120. Aronson, Gregor. "The Tragedy of Cosmopolite
Tairov." The Russian Review, XI (July, 1952),
148-56.

In 1949 Alexander Tairov found himself a
victim of a Politburo patriotic witchhunt which
denounced "pro-western anti-marxists." Aronson
provides a good biographical summary of the
perilous thirty-year life of the Kamerny
Theatre and a documentation of its demise. He
describes Tairov's playhouse as "an isolated
isle, foreign to its Soviet surroundings."
Tairov had been threatened many times before,
but the indictment appearing in Soviet Art
(reprinted in this article) sounded the death
knoll. In 1950, after having been taken over
by the government, the Kamerny became the
Pushkin Dramatic Theatre of Moscow. Tairov
died a month before the theatre reOpened.

 

84

121. Bakshy, Alexander. "Russian Dramatic Stage." 166
Drama, XIX (February, 1919), 31-61.
See entry number 116_for complete
annotation.

122. Bakshy, Alexander. "Vsevolod Meyerhold and the
Soviet Theatre." Dial, No. 84 (January, 1928),
25-30.

In a slight description of the charac-
teristic methods of the exponents of "formal
theatre," Bakshy calls on the essays in The
Theatrical October to illustrate Meyerhoide
use of constructivism to depict the Soviet
social and political movement. Constructivism
is compared with Evreinov's psychological
theatricalism and with Tairov's aesthetic
experiments. While embracing Meyerhold's
work, he criticizes all of Tairov's early pre-
sentations, preferring instead the "theatrical
realism" in the latter's staging of Desire
Under the Elms. Bakshy fails to point out
that all of what he calls the Soviet Theatre
existed long before the Revolution.

 

 

 

123. Ben-Ari, Raiken. "Four Directors and the Actor."
Theatre Workshop, I (January-March, 1937),
65-74.

Raiken Ben-Ari worked on almost every
production of the Habima Theatre when it re-
sided in Moscow. In 1937 a book of his memoirs
was published in Yiddish (available in English
as of 1957). This article is supposed to be a
translation of a chapter from the volume en-
titled Habima, but it does not correspond with
the text. This version takes the form of a
series Of questions about the Russian theatre
answered on the basis of Ben-Ari's own experi-
ences. The questions include: (1) What methods
must one use in order to produce a play accord-
ing to the Vakhtangov method? (2) What briefly
constitutes Stanislavsky's system? (3) To what
extent did Vakhtangov follow Stanislavsky and
where did they part? (4) What is Meyerhold's
theory and where does it coincide or depart
from Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov? (5) What is
constructivism? By and large the replies are
factually correct, but they are in no way as
inclusive as the queries. The scope of each
question is too great for all to be compre-
hensively covered in a nine-page effort.

85

124. Clurman, Harold. "Conversation With Two Masters:
From An Informal Diary of a Five Week Stay In
The Soviet Union." Theatre Arts Month1y, XIX
(November, 1935), 871-76.

The conversations are partial tran-
scriptions of interviews with Stanislavsky and
Meyerhold. The interviews elicited comments
on working procedures, acting training, per-
sonal habits, and approaches to dramatic
literature. There is little here of a unique
nature or not previously covered in existing
general sources.

 

125. "Danchenko Directs: Notes on The Three Sisters."

Theatre Arts, XXVIII (October, 1943), 603-06.
Valdimir Glebov, then Assistant Director

of the Moscow Art Theatre, sent a ten-page
telegram to Theatre Arts containing the "Notes
. . . " Danchenko analyzes the play to illus-
trate the elements to manipulate when making
a revival contemporary. He discusses the
three truths: the social truth (the modern
Soviet world outlook), the psychological truth,
and the theatrical truth. The notes do not go
beyond the plans and goals of the revival to
any working or rehearsal ideas.

 

 

126. Efros, Abram. "The Russian Theatre and Its Artists
Since the Revolution." Translated by H. L.
Gordon. Parnassus, I (February, 1929), 6-9.
Illus.
See entry number 11 for complete
annotation.

127. Ehrenburg, Ilya. "People, Years, Life: Selections
From Memoirs." Soviet Review, II (July, 1961),
20-27.

Chapter 18 of Ehrenburg's memoirs is
entitled "Meyerhold and the Theatre." Ehren-
burg's relationship with Meyerhold (according
to the author) ranged from stormy controversy
to intense friendship. He began working with
the régisseur in 1920 in the Theatre Depart-
ment of the PeOple's Commissariat of Education
(TEO) which Meyerhold headed. One of the few
intimate portraits of Meyerhold in English,
the lively commentary on his work makes for
an interesting comparison to the usual weighty
conjectured academic analyses of trends and
themes in his work.

 

86

128. "The Eugene Vakhtangov Theatre." World Theatre,
XVI (1967), 184-88.
See entry number 116 for complete
annotation.

 

129. Fagin, Bryllion. "Meyerhold Rehearses A Scene."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XVI (October, 1932),
833-37. Illus.

Most of the articles in Theatre Arts
Monthly dealing with transcriptions or faith-
ful reproductions of working sessions involv-
ing the personnel of the Russian theatre are
both interesting and valuable. Here we find
Meyerhold rehearsing Erdmann's Suicide. The
reader gains an insight into the regisseur's
use Of improvisation, his intuitive feeling
for the key to a given moment, and his employ-
ment of the rehearsal as a fluid technique
in his "search for style."

 

 

130. Gard, Robert E. "The State of the Soviet Stage:
How A Director Redeems Social Realism."
Theatre Arts, XLV (April, 1961), 60, 79, 80.
Illus.

The play is Arbuzov's The Optimistic
Tragedy, the director Gheorgi Tovstonogov, and
the theatre, the Gorky Drama Theatre. Gard
provides a plot summary and a play analysis,
and aims at illustrating how the director's
clever staging and ingenious blending of
theatrics with the theme made for an impres-
sive production. Except for the graphic
illustrations, however, the article remains
short on the "how" part of the title.

 

131. Gladkov, A. K. "The 225th Studio." Translated by
Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. Tulane Drama Re-
view, IX (Fall, 1964), 22-23.

Allegedly, this piece was noted down by
Gladkov from comments made by Meyerhold at a
rehearsal of Boris Godunov on November 28, 1936.
Meyerhold comments on his work as an actor at
the Moscow Art Theatre and those rehearsal
situations during which Stanislavsky revealed
his expertise in finding the actor's problem
and in supplying the étude that would solve
it. When queried about Stanislavsky's Obei-
sance to realism, Meyerhold recalled the
beautiful lyric moments Stanislavsky obtained
in The Seagull. He is also quoted as saying
that, 1Pliny stereotyped approach is bad, even
if it is based on Meyerholdism."

 

 

87

It was said in the teens and the twenties
that Meyerhold and the Moscow Art Theatre were
at Opposite poles. As the title of this article
is meant to indicate, the régisseur himself
placed them both on the same continuum. On the
other hand, he expressed the opinion that the
real polar relationship existed between his
theatre and the Kamerny. In 1936 he accused
Tairov of develOping the first theatre of
socialist realism. This is probably a refer-
ence to Tairov's production of The Optimistic

 

Tragedy.
132. Graham, Kenneth L. "Meyerhold And Constructivism In
The Russian Theatre." Quarterly Journal of

 

Speech, XXIX (April, 1943), 182-87.

"Our artists must throw down the brush
and compass, and lay hold of the axe and hammer
for the shaping of that new stage which must be
the pattern of our technical world--Meyerhold."
In a clear synthesis of materials, Graham
sketches, the historic background, social and
political link-up, and the methods of bio-
mechanics and constructivism as Meyerhold
practiced them. The definitions are vague but
the point summaries of characteristics and
examples of their use serve as good expla-
nations. In a "dramatically organized event
of life" Graham labels biomechanics as the
actor training which provides the physical
adaptation necessary for the production--a
"machine for theatricalizing social life."

Much of this material is based on Huntley
Carter's New §pirit in the Russian Theatre
(see entry number 161).

 

133. Hoover, Marjorie L. "A Mejerxol'd Method--Love for
Three Oranges (1914-1916)." The Slavic and
East European Journal, XIII (Spring, 1969),
23-41.

"The theatrical theatre is such that the
audience does not for one moment forget that
the actor it sees is acting, and the actor
does not for one moment forget that he has
before him a theatre, beneath his feet a stage,
and at his back a set."--Meyerhold (1908)

In addition to his accomplishments as an
innovative theatrical revolutionist, and to his
work as a director, Meyerhold was a teacher of
actors and directors. Although his teachings
were not as systematized as Stanislavsky's,
and although we know little about the actual

 

88

application of his principles, there is ample
evidence that his work in instructing actors
and directors spanned well over thirty years
and was invested with a definite method. Miss
Hoover, in another excellent article (see entry
number 116) uses recent materials and the care-
ful inspection of pre-Revolutionary writings to
promote new research into Meyerhold as a valid
source for the modern tradition.

"Love for Three Oranges," named for the
1761 Gozzi scenario, was a magazine, or rather
a bulletin, published, for a time, under Meyer-
hold's editorship. Between 1914 and 1916
Meyerhold was responsible for nine issues which
provided information on theatrical purpose,
curriculum and educational statements relative
to his acting school, the Meyerhold Studio.
Using these issues, the author explains what
the régisseur taught his pupils and how he
achieved continuity throughout his teaching
career. Hoover relates class work and studio
production to Meyerhold's investigations of
rhythm, movement, stage space, folk theatre
devices, the grotesque, and the concept of the
"obraz" or key idea.

"Theatricalism was common to Evreinov,
Tairov, Vakhtangov, and Kommisarzhevsky but
none began so early nor practiced so long with
such consistent greatness as Meyerhold this
theatricalism. Certainly none except Stanis-
lavsky quite achieved Meyerhold's importance
as a teacher of actors and directors."

134. Hoover, Marjorie L. "V. E. Meyerhold: A Russian
Predecessor of Avant-Garde Theatre." Compara-
tive Literature, XVII (Summer, 1965), 234-50.

1'By advocating the exposure of the
illusion, activation Of the audience, play with
the mask, the restoration of a wealth of de-
vices from the past as well as the innovation
of contemporary techniques, Meyerhold helped
to end the century-and-a-half predominance of
the realistic convention and to inaugurate the
contemporary era in theatre." Meyerhold re-
jected the use of the terms "formalism" and
"theatre theatricalism" as descriptive of his
work. In an excellent article, the word
"uslovnost," used to mean "consistent" is
advanced as the key to Meyerhold's contri-
bution. The word has been used by Russians
to mean "convention" but it has also been used
to mean "consistent" as in a device that is

 

89

consistent with all of theatre convention. The
author concentrates on the latter usage and
clearly illustrates Meyerhold's integral and
continuing employment of "consistent" theatrical
devices as applied to the modern theatre of his
own time. With relation to the title of this
piece and to plays Meyerhold produced, Hoover
elaborates on pictorialism, gigantism, multiple
uniformity, the "Gestus," episodic structure,
area spotting, the "grotesque," and chrono-
metrage. This is a thorough, well-documented,
and insightful piece of work.

135. Houghton, Norris. "Theory Into Practice: A Re-
appraisal of Meierhold." Educational Theatre
Journal, XX (October, 1968), 437-42.

Houghton's reminiscences lead him to a
brief statement on the essential characteris-
tics of Meyerhold's genius. The author deals
with what he regards as the Russian director's
two major contributions and with his tie to
Brecht.

The first contribution is labeled as
Meyerhold's manipulation of the physical
equilibrium of the stage scene as a means of
accomplishing a dynamic theatricality. Hough-
ton writes about Meyerhold's staging techniques
and reproduces the definition of Biomechanics
formulated by the Meyerhold Theatre in the
1930's.

Secondly, the author discusses Meyer-
hold's "absorption in the spectator and in the
problem of spatial relationships that the
presence of an audience and the performers in
the same place at the same time presents."

The tie with Brecht is presented as a
general statement on both men's insistence that
the spectator always be aware that what occurs
on the stage is not to be confused with real
life. He encourages more research in the area
of comparison between the two great figures.
For more on this topic the reader is advised
to look at entry number 116.

 

 

136. Knebel, Maria. "Becoming a Director in Five Years."
World Theatre, XVI (January-February, 1967),
62-63.

"A director has to be an intellectual
of the greatest possible culture . . . he
attends courses in Marxist-Leninist aesthetics,
history, philosophy, historical and dialectical
materialism, history of the literature, history

90

of the theatre, of the plastic arts, of music.
. . ." This is an outline of the exhaustive
five-year director training program at the
Lunacharski Institute of Dramatic Art. In
addition to the technical and literary courses,
the student undergoes extensive actor training
("No one who does not feel himself to be an
actor can truly direct an actor."). Knebel
presents an enviable program Of both course-
work and numerable practical apprenticeship
opportunities.

137. Kuhlke, William. "Vakhtangov and the American
Theatre of the 1960's." Educational Theatre
Journal, XIX (May, 1967), 179-87.

"Today in the United States . . . , we
find ourselves fighting Vakhtangov's battle
all over again--struggling to be free of a
remarkably obstinate realistic tradition and
yet understandably reluctant to turn the
theatre over to the seven foot marionette and
the electrical engineer."

Using Vakhtangov's work with "fantastic
realism" and explaining how it was used as a
synthesis Of realistic content and original
expressive theatrical form, Kuhlke calls for
a study Of the Russian director's work, not as
an artifact but as a significant and imagina-
tively powerful answer to the stultifying grip
of verisimilitude in this country.

Background information is provided on
the theory and practice of Vakhtangov's solu-
tion in such productions as Turnadot and 166
Miracle Of St. Anthony. Vakhtangov is com-
pared and contrasted with Meyerhold and Stanis-
lavsky in order to isolate the unique charac-
teristics of his work.

 

 

138. Lozowick, Louis. "The Theatre Is For The Actor:
An Iconoclast's Methods in Moscow." Theatre
Guild Magazine, October, 1929, pp. 34-35.
See entry number 11 for complete
annotation.

 

139. Lozowick, Louis. "V. E. Meyerhold and His Theatre."
Hound and Horn, IV (October-December, 1930),
95-105. Illus.

Lozowick traces the meeting points of
the political and theatrical revolutions,
attempting to indicate the social meanings
of Meyerhold's uses Of biomechanics, con-
structivism, stage space, rhythm, and the

 

91

manipulation of Objects. The best sections of
the article are the detailed descriptions Of
Meyerhold's productions of Cocu Magnifique and
The Inspector General.

140. Malnick, Bertha. "A. A. Shakhovskoy." The Slavonic
and East European Review, XXXII (December, 1953),

 

29‘51 0
See entry number 247 for complete
annotation.
141. Martin, John. "How Meyerhold Trains His Actors."

Theatre Guild Magazine, November, 1930, pp.
26-30. Illus.

See entry number 16 for complete
annotation.

142. Meyerhold, Vsevolod. "Farce." Translated by Nora
Beeson. Tulane Drama Review, IV (September,
1959), 139-49.

"The public comes to the theatre to see
the art of man, but what kind of art is it to
walk on the stage as one really is? The public
expects fantasy, acting, skill, and instead
sees either life or slavish imitation to it."
In an interestingly written position paper,
Meyerhold calls for writers and producers to
understand the theatrical framework and to
utilize the "cabotinage" of the market place,
the commedia stage, and the festivals. He
speaks out against literary slavery and accuses
the Russian dramatists of simply moving the
viewer from the library to the auditorium with-
out altering the material. One can read in
these lines the origins of Meyerhold's break
with the Moscow Art Theatre, and the thinking
that propelled him toward endless experiments
with the basic elements of theatre art.

 

143. Meyerhold, Vsevolod. "From On The Theatre." Trans-
lated by Nora Beeson. Tulane Drama Review,
IV (May, 1960), 134-47.

The two translated sections are Meyer-
hold's comments on The Naturalistic Theatre
and The Theatre of Mood, and The First Experi-
ments of the Conventional Theatre. These deal
with his work from 1902 to 1907. The above
selections and a great many more can now be
found translated and edited in one volume by
Eric Braun. For a complete annotation see
entry number 116.

 

92

144. Meyerhold, Vsevolod. "Meyerhold Orders Music."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936),
694-99. Illus.

The order is to Shebalin, the composer,

for Meyerhold's production of La Dame aux
Camelias. Taken from a series of letters dis-
cu551ng the whole musical plot, they illustrate
the considerable musical knowledge and operatic
background Meyerhold possessed.

 

 

145. Meyerhold, Vsevolod. "Meyerhold to Chekov."
Translated by Nora Beeson. Tulane Drama Review,
IX (Fall, 1969), 24-25.
See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

146. Mirsky, D. "Dos Passos in Two Soviet Productions."
International Literature, III (1934), 152-54.
Illus.
See entry number 111 for complete
annotation.

147. Okhlopkov, Nicolai; Tovstonogov, Gheorgi; and
Zavadsky, Yuri. "Three Great Soviet Pro-
ducers Pay Tribute." World Theatre, XII
(Summer, 1963), 88-94. Illus.

We learn little from these testamonials
about Stanislavsky or about the producers.
Tovstonogov's contribution is the best written
and reminds the reader that Stanislavsky never
professed to be tied to a "system" but was
always refining, testing, and reviewing. Con-
sidering the source, this may actually be a
plea for more experimentation and variety in
the contemporary Soviet theatre.

 

148. Rybakov, Yuri. "Old and New Trends in Productions."
World Theatre, XVI (January-February, 1967),
23-34. Illus.

"Our theatre is nurtured on rich and
powerful traditions." Here the reader will
get an idea of who the reigning directors are
considered to be and how they are disciples
Of or related to former Soviet greats.
Rybakov claims that all of modern production
hearkens back to the early Soviet theatre.
Even the freest rendering of the classics is
charged with a debt to the discoveries made
by the early Stanislavsky-Danchenko pro-
ductions. Gheorgi Tovstonogov, an inter-
nationally recognized director, is viewed as
a fusion of Stanislavsky and Meyerhold, the

 

93

first such since Vakhtangov. Tovstonogov and
others such as Okthpkov, Ravenskikh, Akimov,
and Zavadsky are analyzed and contrasted.

149. Sayler, Oliver M. ”The Deeper Roots of the Russian
Theatre." The Bookman, L (December, 1919),
108-14.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

 

150. Sayler, Oliver M. "Meyerhold and the Theatre
Theatrical." Bookman, L (November-December,
1919), 350-56.

In addition to biographical and person-
ality sketches of Meyerhold and Golovin (one
Of Meyerhold's primary designers), this well-
written article contains a number of trans-
lated passages from Meyerhold's writings.
These include working notes for the production
of Moliére's Don Juan and an article from the
journal, For the Love of Three Oranges. The
former deals with the theory of reviving a
classic "in the prism of its own time," and
the latter houses Meyerhold's arguments with
realism in a review of the Moscow Art Theatre
First Studio's production of The Cricket On
The Hearth. A partial production list notes
the plays Meyerhold directed at the Kommis-
sarzhevaskaya Theatre from 1906 to 1908, and
his work at the Imperial Theatres in Petrograd
(St. Petersburg).

 

 

 

151. Tovstonogov, Georgii. "Chekhov's 'Three Sisters' at
the Gorky Theatre." The Drama Review, XIII
(Winter, 1968), 146-55. Illus.

Tovstonogov is a contemporary director
of the Gorky Theatre in Leningrad, and an
editor Of the Soviet review, Teatr. "It seems
to me that those who defend the old classic
productions are confusing the works themselves
with one way of producing them. A dramatic
experience dies when the theatrical form for
it dies, and it revives when the theatre finds
it a new form." This article deals with the
author's conception for and defense of re-
viving the Russian classics, and particularly,
his own efforts to overcome the tendency toward
clichéd Chekhovianism. The play is analyzed
in terms of form and idea, and in relation to
Tovstonogov's use of cinematic staging (use of
the revolving stage to focus, pan, and present
things from different angles). Of particular

 

94

interest are the director's interpretations of
the meaning behind the external reproduction
of life and verisimilitude, and his methods
for concretizing these in the staging.

152. Tovstonogov, Gheorgii. "New Solutions For The
Theatre." The Soviet Review, III (March,
1962), 40-48.

The mood of this piece bespeaks a call
for reviving the spirit of investigation that
made the pre-Revolutionary theatre unique.

The article itself is the author's summary of
his address to the Leningrad Branch of the
All-Russian Theatrical Society, delivered in
1961, on the problems of the artistic expres-
siveness of productions on a contemporary
theme. Essentially, Tovstonogov was calling
for a reapplication of Stanislavsky's "method,"
but with the infusion of an understanding of
more contemporary conventions. In analyzing
the Soviet Man of 1961, the author found him
undemonstrative, and thus felt that acting
needed to be precise and terse in action and
word, brief and economic, utilizing suggestion,
and developing the "silence zone," (the physi-
cal action or the union of word and action).

 

153. Tovstonogov, G.; Okhlopkov, N.; Akomov, N., and
Simonov, R. "Directing in Today's Theatre."
Soviet Life (February, 1963), 55-57. Illus.

These are abridged comments, taken from
a forum on stage directing and its problems,
which appeared in Russian in Teatr magazine.
Each of the régisseurs comments on what he
feels requires the most attention to insure
the quality of the Soviet theatre.
Tovstonogov argues for the importance
of the playwright and against the director
who fails to be limited by the play itself.
"It is the author of the play who sets the
limits of our imagination, and a director who
goes beyond these boundaries deserves to be
punished for cheating the playwright."
Okhlopkov is concerned with the drama,
but urges the playwrights to deal with indi-
viduals. He encourages them to forsake the
two-dimensional positive hero and to reveal
character with "psychological complexity."
Akimov, a famous designer as well as a
director, faults the theatre for failing to
develop a contemporary style. He attributes
this to the failure to adapt existing tech-
nology to theatre architecture and design.

 

95

"Only when our theatres have thoroughly modern
stages with thoroughly modern equipment will we
see the birth of a modern theatrical style, one
in which both the mechanics and the artistry
of the theatre will be a harmonious whole." ,
Reuben Simonov, a disciple of Vakhtangov's,
calls for an elevation of the actor's artistry.
He complains that many young actors lack "inner
technique," and can only rant and rave rather
than express the emotional experience.

154. Turner, W. L. "Vakhtangov: The Director as
Teacher." Educational Theatre Journal, XV
(December, 1963).

This article is a summation of Vakhtan-
gov's basic theories and methods of teaching
acting and directing. It provides a profile
of the man's personality and of his all too
brief period of production. Within this con-
text, Turner touches on "fantastic realism,"
a comparison with Stanislavsky, and the evi-
dence of a synthesis of the theories of Meyer-
hold and Stanislavsky in Vakhtangov's work.
Vakhtangov is seen in relation to his effect
on his students, and the effects of his pro-
ductions on the Soviet society as a whole.

 

155. Vakhtangov, Eugene. "From The Notebooks." Theatre
Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936), 679.
Illus.

These are two excerpts from documents
collected by the director's theatre after his
death, in preparation for publication. One
section deals with flexibility in acting and
scenic movement, and the other is a precise,
clear statement of "fantastic realism," the
production concept that established Vakhtan-
gov's position as a mediator between the
approaches of Stanislavsky and Meyerhold.

 

156. Vishnevsky, A.; Korchaguina, D.; Alexandrovskaya,
E.; Monakov, N.; Pashennaya, V.; Pevstov, I.;
Radlov, 8.; Satz, N.; Sushkevich, B.; Tairov,
A.; and Uzhivy, N. "Actors and Producers ‘
Speak of Their Work." V.O.K.S. Bulletin,
NO. 6 (1934), 60-69.

See entry number 161 for complete

annotation.

96

157. Zakhava, B. E. "Principles of Directing: Part I."
Theatre Workshop, I (April-July, 1937), 43-55.

B. E. Zakhava, a director in the
Vakhtangov Theatre well known for his pro-
duction of Pogodin's Aristocrats, deals in
this two-part essay with the principles of the
Russian company system and with the director-
actor relationship.

Part I supports the supremacy of the col-
lective and the reinforcement of the actor's
creativity. Above all, Zakhava condemns an
approach such as the "single will" or a
Sologub or a Craig or a star actor. He regards
such individuals as the "offspring of the
'rugged individualism' existing in bourgeois
society at the decline of the capitalist
system." Pages are spent isolating and elimi-
nating all the other artists of the theatre in
order to prove that the actor is the only one
who is indispensable. "The contributions that
go to make up the art Of the theatre are essen-
tial only so long as they furnish material for
the creative activity of the actor." Zakhava's
theories are a synthesis of Stanislavsky and
Vakhtangov. He alludes to other practitioners
(Meyerhold and Tairov) in denying the impor-
tance of the actor's body or his soul. "The
material Of the director's creativeness is
the creativeness of the actor."

 

 

158. Zakhava, B. E. "Principles of Directing: Part II."
Theatre Workshpp, I (September-October, 1937),
14-33.

This section of Zakhava's "Principles
. . . " considers the director's job as a
carefully chosen and planned stimulus to evoke
a truthful response from the actor. The
director's task is the elimination of the
obstacles to the actor's creativity; Zakhava
outlines the aids the director can employ
toward this end. These include a description
Of playing an action, biography, explaining
and demonstrating, attention, muscular free-
dom, justification, falsehood, playing emo-
tions, and creative mood.

 

159. Zavadsky, Yuri. "Conversation With a Young
Régisseur." Theatre Arts Monthly, XX
(September, 1963), 726-30.
This is less a conversation than a dia-
logue between a high priest and a neophyte.
In this form, Zavadsky, then the director of

 

97

the Rostov Dramatic Theatre, comments on his
working methods, his view of the actor, and
the distinguishing differences between Meyer-
hold, Stanislavsky, and Vakhtangov. To
Zavadsky, Meyerhold's exacting laws produced
"little Meyerholds" and not actors, whereas
Stanislavsky depended upon the actor as a
creative individual, and Vakhtangov sought a
union of the two strengths.

Unpublished Materials

 

160. Beeson, Nora Beate. "Vesvolod Meyerhold And The
Experimental Pre-Revolutionary Theatre."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University, 1960.

It is the hypothesis of this paper that
Russian theatre between 1900 and 1917 embodied
all of the theoretical, human, and experimental
sources of whatever success the Soviet theatre
experienced in the first decade after the
Revolution. In short, Russia's unique and
seminal contribution to world theatre had
little to do with Soviet influence.

Beeson begins with the state Of the
theatre in the Imperial houses in the 1800's
and the evolution of the "realistic" response
as it was produced by Ostrovsky, Shchepkin,
Stanislavsky, and Danchenko. This in turn is
contrasted with the growth of non-realistic
experimentation, which is placed in the context
of world art, art and aesthetics in general,
Appia, Fuchs, Craig, Diaghilev and the thrust
of the symbolist movement in art, poetry, and
theatrical theory and criticism (Briusov,
Ivanov, Sologub). In addition to the five and
one-half chapters on Meyerhold's work from its
beginnings in Stanislavsky's studio in 1905,
there are also separate sections on Evreinov
and Tairov.

Meyerhold's emphasis throughout his work
was visual and spatial. He worked to create
an original theatrical art which would be
"always faithful to the conception of an ab-
stract, mechanical unrealistic presentation of
the human being." With reports, documentation,
and commentary on many Of Meyerhold's pro-
ductions (Hedda Gabbler, Soeur Beatrice, 166
Show Booth, The Life of Man, Tristan Und Isolde,
Orpheo et Euridice, Elektra, Don Juan, The
Masquerade, and ColumbineTs Scarf), the author

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

presents an excellent synthesis of the links
in all of Meyerhold's experiments, and an
evaluation of the concrete achievements as
well as the controversies in his creations.
In addition to material on the productions in
the Stanislavsky Studio, at the Imperial
Theatres, and in the studios of Dr. Daper-
tutto, Meyerhold's writings are represented
in excerpts from On Theatre, in production
notes, and in an annotation of the Love For
Three Oranges (the magazine he edited in 1914
and 1915).

In the chapters on Tairov and Evreinov,
a clear statement of similarities and differ-
ences in theory, direction, and production work
emerges, as well as a framework for viewing
the experiments Of all three régisseurs. A
helpful appendix lists all of the plays done
by each man. The data include the play, the
author, the director, the designer, the place
of staging, and the date of production.

 

 

161. Kuhlke, William. "Vakhtangov's Legacy." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa,
1965.

Kuhlke, who is also known for his ex-
cellent translation of Tairov's Notes of a
Director (see entry number 116) makes another
valuable English language contribution with
this dissertation on Vakhtangov. The stated
and achieved purposes of the paper are to
identify Vakhtangov's place in the modern
theatre, and to present in English translation
sections from Vakhtangov's own notes, letters,
and articles.

The most interesting of Vakhtangov's
writings deal with actor training and with the
director's ideas on the supremacy of the actor's
position in the theatre. Vakhtangov's thinking
on plasticity, faith in the unconscious and the
use of improvisation, coupled with Gorchakov's
description of the director's work on 166
Wedding, as written in The Vakhtangov School of
Stage Art (see entry number 116)} comprises some
of the best material on acting craft in world
theatre literature. In his short lifetime
Vakhtangov was considered by many to have been
the most gifted teacher of the Stanislavsky
system. Kuhlke ably contrasts Stanislavsky
and Vakhtangov as to the use of "inner feel-
ing" and "psychological realism."

In total, the paper provides original
material and a good contextual commentary on:

 

 

99

Vakhtangov's sources (a perceptive evaluation
of just where Vakhtangov lay between Stanis-
lavsky and Meyerhold); his work prior to the
Revolution; his writings on the relationship
of art to society; the conception and staging
of The Dybbuk and Princess Turandot; and an
attempt to determine from Vakhtangov's death-
bed conversations with his students the actual
meaning of "fantastic realism."

The reader is also supplied with a life
and work chronology for Vakhtangov in the form
of an appendix to the text, and with illus-
trations from the production of Princess
Turandot.

 

 

National Republic and Minoripy Theatres
Books

162. Ayvasian, Kourken. The Theatre in Soviet
Azerbaidzhan. New York: Research Program on
the U.S.S.R., 1955. pp. 29. (Mimeographed.)

This pamphlet is devoted to providing
historical information on Azerbaidzhan drama,
and to illustrating the destructive Soviet
influence introduced under the guise of sup-
port for national minorities. Section I,
"Pre-Soviet Azerbaidzhan Theatre," is concerned
with theatrical activity, the nature of the
repertory, and the acting style in the late
1800's. The author emphasizes the work of the
playwrights Akhundov, Vezirov, and Akverdov,
and the talents of Zaynulov, a noted tragedian.

Section II, "The Soviet Era," analyzes
the drama, the acting style, and the theatre's
effectiveness as a whole so as to illustrate
the artistic and political difficulties that
arose in complying with the demands of sovieti-
zation. The works of Dzhabarly, Aydun (The
Bridge of Fire, Yashar), Vurgun (Vagif),-_—
Ibrahimov (Hayat), and Rustam (Nabi, the
Brigand) are summarized and dissected for
factuality. "The distortion of fact in
Vagif, The Bride of Fire and other historical
plays was scarcely noted by the general public,
which was not well acquainted with the his-
torical occurrences treated in these plays."
Ayvasian's criticisms of the literature deal
with structural unity, visual concept, dra-
matic action, character develOpment, and verbal
expression. Though he places the blame on the

 

 

100

plays, the author faults the acting for being
rhetorical, presentational, and caricatured.
It is claimed that the Soviet acting insti-
tutes placed greater emphasis on philosophical
indoctrination than on native style and lan-
guage facility.

The last section, "The Political Status
and Living Conditions of Actors in Soviet
Azerbaidzhan," dwells mainly on the activities
of the NKVD police and how they drove the
reknowned actor Sharifov to commit a chilling
suicide in his solitary confinement cell where
he had been isolated as a "political unde-
sirable" for refusing to play two assigned
roles.

163. Ben-Ari, Raiken. Habima. Translated by A. H. Gross
and I. Soref. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, Inc.,
1957. pp. 253. Illus.

The Habima Theatre was founded in 1919
in Moscow and experienced a brief but exciting
life in Russia, where it achieved the status
of State Theatre. Ben-Ari, who worked on al-
most all of the Russian productions Of this
internationally known company, wrote this his-
tory in 1937. It is annotated here because in
addition to the information on the Habima it-
self, the book contains material on the work
Vakhtangov and Stanislavsky did with this
theatre. Vakhtangov's production of The Dybbuk
at the Habima represented the company's first
major success, and is equally important to the
short history of the director himself. Ben-Ari
writes on Vakhtangov's theories, methods of
actor training, ideas of theatricality, and the
concepts and exercises employed in rehearsing
the Dybbuk. This includes études used for
develOping and defining thematic situations and
character studies. Stanislavsky was also im-
portant to the theatre, both in support and
actual production assistance. He gave a series
of informal lectures to the company which were
accompanied by laboratory sessions used to
teach the playing of basic emotional and real-
istic situations. Ben-Ari writes clearly and
admiringly of these sessions, and also in-
cludes a separate chapter on "The Stanislavsky
System." For a while, until he became ill,
Stanislavsky also supervised a production of
Jacob's Dream at the Habima. His rehearsal
techniques are outlined. Within this history
of the company's activities in Russia, Europe,

 

 

101

America, and Israel, are descriptions and com-
parative statements on the theories and prac-
tices of Vakhtangov, Stanislavsky, and Meyer-
hold (who never actually directed the Habima).
The author communicates the professional wor-
ship Of these men and the virtually hypnotic
power they had over the actors they directed.

164. Bradshaw, Martha, ed. Soviet Theatres, 1917-1941:
A Collection of Articles. New York: Research
Program on the U.S.S.R., 1954. pp. 371.
See entry number 166 for complete
annotation.

 

 

165. Macleod, Joseph. The New Soviet Theatre. London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1943. pp. 242.
Illus.
See entry number 161 for complete
annotation.

 

166. Seduro, Vladimir. The 6yelorussian Theatre And
Drama. New York: Research Program on the
USSR, 1955. pp. 517. Illus.

A great deal has been written in Russia
about the encouragement and help given to estab—
lish autonomous theatres in national republics,
and to the "development of all manner of in-
digenous expression in the arts among minority
peoples." Emphasizing a history of regimen-
tation, encumbrance by fear, and sterility
under socialist realism, Seduro strikes out
against the Soviet claims and attempts to
illustrate how the Soviet pattern of develop-
ment in the arts since 1917 has been repeated
in the history of the Byelorussian theatre and
drama. In a highly detailed and documented
work, the reader, after a background of Byelo—
russian cultural history beginning with the
middle ages, is exposed to the early years
after the Revolution, the valiant efforts by
the Byelorussian people in the twenties and
early thirties to maintain an independent
nationalistic approach to writing and perform-
ing, and "the final enforced submission to the
cultural dictates of the Party which today has
turned the Byelorussian theatre and dramatists
into dull and boring instruments of government
propaganda."

The history of the Byelorussian theatre
is systematically developed, revealing the
origins of various theatres; the repertory,
complete with discussion of many of the indi-
vidual plays; styles of production; actor

 

102

training; and biographical data on numerous
dramatists, directors, and actors. The sixty-
three chapters of information and commentary
are divided according to the following classi-
fications: The Pre-Soviet Byelorussian Theatre;
The First Byelorussian State Theatre; The Second
Byelorussian State Theatre; and Uladislau
Halubok's Byelorussian Travelling Theater. The
text is accompanied by a Bibliography of Byelo-
russian Dramatic Literature; a Bibliography of
Books and Articles on Byelorussian Theatre and
Drama (together, the bibliographies contain
over five hundred entries of works written in
Russian and Byelorussian); a Transliteration
Table; an Index of Dramatic Literature; and a
section of over fifty photographs of pro-
ductions and personalities.

Articles and Periodicals

 

167. Amaglobeli, S. "Revolutions in Drama As Seen In The
Contemporary Georgian Theatre." Pacific
Affairs (July, 1930), 661-67.

The sovietization of a national republic
via the theatre and the efforts to create a
revolutionary repertory for a Georgian dramatic
heritage "steeped in an atmosphere of classical
and nationalistic plays" is the theme of
Amaglobeli's essay. Unlike most articles
written on the theme of national minority
theatre, this one reveals some of the struggle
involved in implanting a Proletariat theatre
in a hostile environment of Opposing and long—
1ived varying cultural habits and mores. In
1922, K. A. Mardjanov became the head of the
Georgian theatre. Much of the text is devoted
to his work as a director and producer of
eclectic styles, fantasy, Operetta, and what
he called "synthetic theatre." While Amaglo-
beli establishes that his work had no class
basis and that realism was not his forte,
Mardjanov is complimented for being able to
utilize "exceptional expressiveness" to
satisfy the demands of the various classes of
audiences. Included in the report are out-
standing examples of Georgian repertory as
produced by the Second State and Rustavelli
theatres, with occasional production notes
and records of critical acceptance.

103

168. "At The Gypsy Theatre Moscow, U.S.S.R." Theatre Arts
Monthly, XXIV (April, 1940), 264-65. Illus.
This is a small collection of illus-
trations of productions of Carmen and The
Gypsies, as performed at the Gypsy Theatre.

 

169. Flanagan, Hallie. "The Soviet Theatrical Olympiad."
Theatre Guild Magazine, September, 1930, pp.
10-13, 62.

The Olympiad brought a great many
national minority theatres and rural pro—
fessional theatres to Moscow for performances,
discussions, and planning. The event was not
intended for the public but rather for the
benefit of the practitioners themselves. The
author provides a clear description of the
purposes and organization of the event and
tries to communicate the spirit of the par-
ticipants. The meetings to discuss future
plans, and the Soviet theatre in general, are
represented by admittedly free translations of
addresses by Petrov (director of the State
Academic Theatre), and Petrovsky (a dramatic
critic).

 

170. Gorelik, Mordecai. "Theatre Outpost, U.S.S.R."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XVII (January, 1933),
44—48.

The effect of theatre and specifically
communist themes on the lives of simple peasants
in rural Russia is romantically depicted. The
village is Shchedrin, and the play is performed
in a synagogue by youngsters for the towns-
people. Gorelik tries to show how the melo—
dramatic and politically simplistic theme
actually renews the souls and gives courage
to the peasants. We have Gorelik's word.

 

171. "Gypsy Theatre Stages Pushkin Classic." Inter-
national Literature, XI (1938), 93-95. Illus.
The text is only a one-page review of the
then seven-year-old Romany Theatre's production
of Pushkin's poem, The Gypsies. However, the
accompanying four large photographs of the play
may be of more use to the researcher.

 

 

172. Leyda, Jay. "The Rustavelli Theatre." Theatre Arts
Monthly, XX (January, 1936), 60-73. Illus.

The depth of this article makes it unique
to this magazine, whose emphasis admittedly is
not that of a scholarly journal. Nonetheless,
the historical background and the fullness of
detail are in the tradition of the publication's

 

104

earnestness and enthusiasm for world theatre.
The Rustavelli, or First State Georgian Theatre,
is an example of a non-Russian Soviet enter—
prise. Named for a twelfth century Georgian
poet, its work encompassed more than the cul-
tural products of its own people. Leyda dis-
cusses its most famous productions up to 1935,
including Lanura and Anzor (an adaptation of
The Armoured Train). An interesting note
describes a collective improvisation method
including the evolution of a script which
yielded such productions as Tetwald.

 

 

 

173. Lozowick, Louis. "The Jewish Theatres of Russia."
Theatre Arts Magazine, June, 1927, pp. 419-22.
Illus.

This is a look at one aspect of the
national minority theatres. Lozowick lists
three companies: the Jewish State Theatre of
White Russia, the Jewish State Theatre of the
Ukraine, and the Jewish Kamerny of Moscow. He
includes a discussion of three of the charac-
teristic plays done by these groups with illus-
trations and biographical sketches of the
designers. Represented are Souhker Ber Ryback
(designer of On The Confessional Chain and The
Purim Play) and M. Falk (designer of A Night In
The Old Market Place).

 

 

 

 

 

174. Lozowick, Louis. "Soviet Gypsy Theatre." Theatre
Arts Monthly, XX (April, 1936), 282-87.
Illus.

 

In commemoration of the Soviet Gypsy
Theatre's fifth year of production, Lozowick
presents an outline of the company's background
and development. Dealing mostly with musical
thesis drama, the company's repertory included
Life On Wheels, Between Fires, Pharoah's Tribe,
and an adaptation of Carmen.

175. Lozowick, Louis. "The Theatre of Turkestan: Old
Forms Serve New Needs." Theatre Arts Monthl ,
XVII (November, 1933), 885-90. Illus.

An oft-repeated theme in Russian theatre
articles in this magazine is the methods em—
ployed to achieve sovietization among the
national minorities in remote areas through
the use of theatre. This example covers the
spread of "culture" in Soviet Asia through
dramatized incidents and the celebration of
technology.

105

176. Nikolayev, V. "Theatre In The Colhoz." V.O.K.S.
Bulletin, No. 6 (1934), 83-88.

Rural areas, primitive villages, and
national minority settlements were frequently
the most difficult areas to sovietize. The
theatre became one of the strongest media for
uniting people and selling them on socialism.
At first, travelling theatres serviced the col-
lective farms, but ultimately, professional
rural resident companies were set up along with
colhoz dramatic circles (amateur theatre clubs).
The bulk of this article deals with the
mechanics of development, including statistics,
organization, subsidy, establishment of the
repertory, training and guidance for the clubs,
relationship to government agencies, and
reciprocal relationships with permanent urban
companies.

 

177. Osnos, Yuri. "The Kirghiz Dramatic Theatre."
V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 9 (September, 1956),
22-25.

The Kirghiz is a highland country in the
northeast of Central Asia, and is a Soviet
republic. The article indicates how the drama
reflects the advances of these originally
nomadic peOple since the October Revolution,
and the organization of theatres and training
institutes in one area of the country. The
plot descriptions of such plays as The New Joys
and The Daughter of Alubek illustrate that
these works reflect more of the desired soviet-
ization and the mainstream of socialist realism
than of native culture. The author also
describes and provides background for some
of the country's leading performers, and
critiques some of the recent productions.

 

 

178. Schwartz, Sulamith, and Hanoch G., eds. "Bamah
Theatre Art Journal." Bama (1939), 1-48.

This is a special edition, English publi-
cation of Bama, which is the Theatre Art Jour-
nal of the Habima Circle in Palestine. The
publication was issued in honor of the Habima's
twentieth anniversary. Started in Russia in
1918 as one of the Moscow Art Theatre's
studios, and guided by Vakhtangov, the Habima
remained in Russia until 1926. The issue con—
tains a series of articles, listed below,
which sentimentalize and hearken back to the
beginnings. In addition, they express a debt
to Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov and talk of what

 

106

was hoped to have been a Hebrew and Zionist
Renaissance. The reader will be supplied with
the names of the original personnel; an expres-
sion of the spirit of the endeavor; and remi-
niscences about Stanislavsky's addresses and
Vakhtangov's rehearsals. For more complete
annotations, see the entries for individual
articles.

Foreword

"In The Beginning." As told by Hannah Rovina
to G. Hanoch

"Habima on its Twentieth Anniversary." by
Issac Gruenbaum

"Bialik on Habima, The Legacy, Reminiscences
of Stanislavsky." by Bialik

"Leaves From A Moscow Diary." by Chemerinsky

179. Seton, Marie. "The Evolution of the Gypsy Theatre
in the U.S.S.R." Journal of the Gypsy Lore
Society, XIV (1935), 65-72. Illus.

In 1931, guided by Russian theatre
artists and with the backing of the Commissar
of Education, the Moscow State Gypsy Theatre
was established. The purpose was threefold:
encouragement of national minority art; the
breaking down of social prejudices; and the
furthering of the sovietization process. The
article describes the initiation of the company,
its particular problems, and the first pro-
ductions, Yesterday and Today (a political
review) and Ethnological Studies (a collection
of pOpular songs and dances). Though neither
of these were legitimate plays, the efforts
won the company a small theatre building of
its own. Seton reports on subsequent estab-
lished productions, including the first real
gypsy play, Germano's Life On Wheels, and an
adaptation of Merimée's Carmen. The critical
reliability of the article is open to question.
It closes with the statement, "Without exag-
geration the First State National Gypsy Theatre
of the Soviet Union is the most remarkable
theatre in the world."

 

 

 

 

180. Strong, Louise. "The Theatrical Olympiad in Moscow."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XIV (December, 1930),
1037-50. Illus.
In 1930, the Soviet Union sponsored the
Olympiad of National Theatres, in which fifteen
of its national groups from all over Russia
performed in Moscow for one month. These

 

107

groups did not entertain the public, but per-
formed for each other in the interest of improv-
ing their own techniques. Strong provides the
background for the purpose in sponsoring
national minority theatres, and the nature of
the organizations themselves. Specifically,
the article concentrates on the Uzbek Dra-
matic Musical Theatre, the Armenian Theatre,
and special emphasis is given to the Georgian
State Theatre and the Jewish State Theatre of
White Russia. The author discusses the various
methods of approach and contrasts the Georgian
group's emphasis upon "movement of the body"
with the Jewish Theatre's emphasis upon the
"movement of the soul."

181. Theatre Arts Magazine, October, 1926, PP. 755-58.
Illus.

Five photographs, with captions, depict
the Moscow Habima Theatre. Specifically,
close-ups illustrate the use of stylistic
make-up design and scenic tableaux in The
Wandering Jew, The Deluge, and The Dybbuk.
The group performed in New York during the
winter of 1926, after leaving Russia per-
manently.

 

182. "Theatres of the Soviet East: A Portfolio."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (September, 1936),
731-34. Illus.

Together with a paragraph of introductions
and captions, Theatre Arts presents a port-
folio illustrating the national theatres of
the Eastern Republics. The series includes
Othello at the Turkist Art Theatre, Hamlet at
the Uzbek Academic Theatre, Shah-Name at the
First State Theatre of Armenia, Bride of Fire
at the Crimean State Tartar Theatre Studio,
In The_Sands of the Karakum at the Turkoman
State Theatre, Alman at the State Opera
Theatre of Armenia, and Zhigden at the State
Buriat-Mongolia Theatre.

 

183. Tikhonovich, V. "Theatre Culture of the Peoples of
the U.S.S.R." V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 6 (1934),
70-80. Illus.

This is a good article to compare with

Vladimir Seduro's book on The Byelorussian
Theatre and Drama (see entry number Th9). It
is Tikhonovich's contention that the pre-
Revolutionary Russian autocracy and bourgeois
attitudes inhibited the flourishing of national
minority cultures, while Soviet know-how,

108

encouragement, and substantial monetary, pro-
fessional, and social support helped establish
minority theatres in one hundred and fifty
languages. Seduro recognizes the energy and
funds but maintains that, for the Byelorussians
at least, the Soviets subverted efforts at any-
thing but a Soviet repertory. He claims that
all national republic theatres were extensions
of socialist reconstruction and handy control
devices for achieving sovietization in areas
far from the main capitals.

This article covers the cultural and
technical obstacles to the establishment of
the minority theatres, and the methods employed
by the Soviet government to overcome them. It
is filled with lists of plays and personalities
from the various national repertories and com—
panies. Reports are on the styles of such
operations as the Georgian Rustavelli State
Theatre, the State Jewish Theatre, the Uzbek
Academic Theatre, the Gypsy State Theatre, and
the Chinese Young Workers Theatre of the Far
East.

184. Yazykova, Tatiana. "The Khamsa Theatre At Tashkent."

World Theatre, I (1951), 72.
Tashkent, home of the Khamsa Theatre, is

the capital city of Uzbekistan. This half-page
"history" illustrating the repertory, style of
presentation, and key successes through the
years commemorates the theatre's thirtieth
anniversary.

 

Pre— and Post-Revolutionary Russian
Theatre History

 

 

Books

l85.~ Bakshy, Alexander. The Path of the Modern Russian
Stage. London: Cecil Palmer and Hayward,
1916. pp. 243. Illus.

I can find little in this text to recom—
mend it. At the outset the author indicates
that he is neither a scholarly researcher nor
has he a practical knowledge of the stage, yet
what little there is in this book on the
Russian theatre is an attempt at critical
appraisal and analytic and theoretical dis-
cussion rather than simple reportage. His
purpose in writing is basically to express a
philOSOphy of art and to apply its principles

 

109

to staging in the Russian theatre. He dis-
succes the principle of form and idea and,
through the concepts of continuity and dis-
continuity, establishes that "the subjective
role of the spectator determines the form of
the work of art." He dwells on the interaction
between the work of art and the spectator, the
changing attitude of the spectator and the form
of art in mutual relationship. The problem of
theatre is one of "the relationship between

the stage and the auditor, expressed in terms
of space." Although this is a relevant and
valid idea and applicable to the experiments
made in Russia, the author's application does
not search thoroughly enough, nor does he prove
the hypothesis through documented measurement
of effect. Bakshy's application of the idea

to the Russian theatre is limited by the nature
of his writings on the innovators themselves
and the paucity of people included in the study.
Chapters Two through Six deal with the use of
space in the naturalism of the Moscow Art
Theatre and the subjective illusionism in
Meyerhold, Evreinov, and Reinhardt(?).

One gets the feeling throughout most of
the early chapters that Bakshy prefers the ob-
jective illusionism of the Moscow Art Theatre,
and that for all his analysis of the use of
space as form, he does not much care for experi-
mental theatre. Finally, in the conclusion to
Part I (Part II is a series of essays on Craig,
Ivanov, and film), he comes out in favor of
film as the answer to all the theatre's spatial
restrictions. He refers to the "kinematograph"
as a form of theatre. He concludes with the
following personal appraisal of film's future:
"There will be no complete continuity and no
'theatre of action' in the kinematograph, as
the position of the spectator, the actor and
the play will be strictly defined as against
each other. For such reason, if for no other,
I particularly welcome this new development of
the art of the theatre and I do so the more
willingly, because I am a convinced spectator,
jealous of my own personality, and eager to
watch a spectacle, but never to act in somebody
else's show."

The factual information is correct but
sketchy. In some sections there is more written
about the Classical and the Medieval periods
than about the Russian theatre of the 1900's.

A reader interested in information, historical

110

analysis, or the definition of the various
production theories in the pre—Revolutionary
Russian theatre is advised to begin first with
sources of a more general historical orien-
tation.

186. Bradshaw, Martha, ed. Soviet Theatres, 1917—1941:

A Collection of Articles. New York: Research
Program on the U.S.S.R., 1954. pp. 371.

Although, as this bibliography indicates,
there has been considerable work done in
chronicling the Soviet theatre, the quality
varies in almost equal proportion. Some of
the work is propagandist; some by disgruntled
Westerners looking for the promised land; and
some by awed visitors whose experiences have
been carefully controlled. As is mentioned in
Bradshaw's preface, the contributors whose works
were translated in this volume were all practi-
tioners in the Soviet theatre and they speak of
facts not potentially knowable to most non-
Russian scholars. This series deals with the
early and middle periods of the post-Revolu-
tionary theatre as the reporters are men who
emigrated after 1940. Also in the preface,
Bradshaw presents a concise outline of politi-
cal control of production and repertory as
background for understanding the essays that
follow. The two partial quotations reproduced
here from her conclusion are perceptive sum-
maries of the thread of the articles. She
feels that the words of these men reveal a
"great diversity of style of the modern Russian
stage in the process of monolithic monotony"
and "a picture of an extraordinarily vital
theater making a heroic attempt to meet the
needs of a new audience and express the trans-
formation of life taking place in its homeland."
Below is a list of the collected articles.
"Moscow Theatres, 1917—1941." by Orlovsky

Includes discussions of the Moscow Art
Theatre and all three studios; the Meyerhold,
Maly, and Kamerny Theatres; and the specific
movements and problems of the 1930's.
"The Red Army Central Theater in Moscow." by

Volkov

Reports on the goals, organization, and
repertory of this military theatre.
"Training Actors For The Moldavian and Bulgarian

Theatres, 1934-38." by Yershov

This article gives insight into the pur-
pose and significance of the national republic
theatres.

 

 

111

"The Theater in Soviet Concentration Camps."
by Ramensky
The material includes portraits of the
actors, the type of plays performed, and the
audience relationship.
"Birth and Death of the Modern Ukranian
Theatre." by Hirniak
This is another report on the Soviet
control over the expression of national cul-
tural history and mores under the guise of
promoting freedom for all minorities.

The volume contains an index to all the
subjects covered and to all the plays, by
author. The bibliography is selective and
reliable.

187. Brown, Benjamin W. Theatre at the Left. Providence:
Bear Press, 1938. pp. 105.

"These brief essays are designed to
supplement rather than rival such an excellent
study as Norris Houghton's Moscow Rehearsals.
The turbulent flux of material on the theatre
of the U.S.S.R. surges with contradiction. The
Theatre at the Left does not pretend to chart
this flood with finality; it lays no claim to
presenting a comprehensive or definite expo-
sition of the Soviet drama. It is hOped, how-
ever, that the general reader, unfamiliar with
the very foreign ideals of utilitarian aes-
thetics, may gain from these few pages a more
sympathetic understanding of this mighty and
confusing movement in stagecraft and a more
enthusiastic appreciation of (not necessarily
a belief in) the different but idealistic
standards of this Theatre at the Left."

Using the major classifications of more
inclusive texts, the author provides the general
reader with a concise statement of the condition
of Soviet theatre as of 1938. This is a book
of brief essays the scope of which extends from
the purpose of the theatre after the Revolution
to an evaluation of the theatre as art versus
the theatre as a social lever ("It is a theatre
of revolution which is attempting to change the
lives of men and not explain them. ART is a
weapon.").

In The State As Producer, the concen-
tration is less on the organization of a state
subsidized Operation than on the promotion of
a variegated program. Brown contrasts the work
of the Moscow Art Theatre with that of Meyer-
hold, Okhlopkov, Tairov, and Vakhtangov. The

 

 

 

 

 

112

terminology used to discriminate between move-
ments is unnecessarily labelistic. In this
chapter we find such terms as illusion-
disillusionment, outward theatre-inward
theatre, psychological synthesis-counter real-
ist, etc.

Other chapters deal with children's
theatre; the contrast between nineteenth cen-
tury forms of opera and the emerging musical
drama of Nemirovitch-Danchenko; the socialist
function of producing national and international
classics (including a list of such plays pro-
duced in 1936 in Moscow, and a comparison of
the Moscow Art Theatre's staging of Tolstoy's
Resurrection with the Vakhtangov Theatre's
Hamlet); the drama resulting from the Revolu-
tion and the subsequent civil war (Optimistic
Tragedy, Armoured Train, Lyubov Yarovaya, The
Fighters, Intervention, The Days of the Turbins,
and Egor Bulychev); national minority theatres
(Jewish, Gypsy, Kazakstan, and Georgian); and
the new subject theatre brought about by col-
lectivization (Bread), the "new domesticity"
(Inga, Squaring The Circle), and the politicis-
ing of individualism (Fear).

The best thing about this book is the
author's critical facility. It is often re-
served but, unlike many books written in this
period, it is not overwhelmed in its judgments
by the sheer amount of activity taking place.
For example, in discussing the chronicle plays,
Brown makes an important point that could apply
to much of the early Soviet theatre. He says
that, "Some few there are of these Civil War
chronicles which legitimately may make a bid
for a place in world-theatre repertory. Be-
cause of the careful production and liberal
interpretation current in the Soviet Union, the
shoddy qualities of a text may be disguised by
the radiant materials of performance to such a
degree, indeed, that glittering appears like
true golden lustre." Brown is quick to indi-
cate where propaganda has destroyed art, where
there is an absence of real playwriting and
construction, and where the Marxian deus is in
evidence. The last chapter and summary,
though very brief, is an objective approach
to what was for many in the 1930's a blinding
ray of theatrical light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

188. Capon, Eric. Actors and Audiences In The Soviet
Union. Leicester: Russia Today Society,
1943. pp. 19. Illus.

This little pamphlet presents itself as
a short sketch of the primary aspects of the
Soviet theatre. The author touches on the
Soviet audience; the stature and training of
actors; and descriptions of the Moscow Art
Theatre, the Vakhtangov Theatre, the Theatre
of the Red Army, the State Jewish Theatre, the
Kamerny Theatre, and several others including
provincial and republican playhouses. The
author sets himself up as a qualified evalu-
ator, but the criticism is masked and biased.
Here, for example, is the analysis of Meyer-
hold's accomplishments: " . . . an extra-
ordinarily gifted producer who was given years
of unremitting support until it was noticed
that except for a handful of rather detached
intellectuals the Moscow populace were not
much interested in his very formalistic pro-
ductions."

The text is accompanied by an eight
photograph inset of various aspects of the
Soviet theatre.

189. Carter, Huntly. The New Spirit in the Russian
Theatre: 1917-28. London: Brentano's, Ltd.,
1929. pp. 350. Illus.

The overriding impression one gets from
reading this book is that of the author's con-
ceit. In the Introduction, he establishes
himself as the only person capable (at that
time) of writing on the Russian theatre with
authority. In addition, he points to the
Soviet theatre as proof that his sociological
theory of theatre was prophetic. The book is
filled with statements about theatre with a
capital "T" versus theatre with a small "t."
One such statement reads: "Russian people are
instinctively dramatic. It is not extravagant
to say that there is more real theatricalized
life expression in the Russian street_and open
spaces, in the cafés, in short in the life of
the people than in all the theatres of Western
Europe put together." The choice of wording
is at times confusing, as in the use of
"actualism" and "conditionalism" used to com-
pare the theatrical right and left. At other
times the wording is condescending, as in the
classification of the major portion of the
population as "the common-folk." If you can
get by all of this and can separate out the

 

114

facts from the author's determined purpose of
acclaiming the new Russian society as the end
of man's searching for meaning, you will find

a great deal of historical information in this
text, as well as a frequently detailed analysis
of a vital theatrical era. The appendices, for
example, contain records of foreign tours; notes
on film distribution; a list of the plays pro-
duced in Moscow and Leningrad from 1917 to
1928; a list of Bolshevist authors and their
plays for the same time period; and a critical
series of notes on other books on the Russian
and Soviet theatres published as of 1929.

"The primary aim of this book is to make
an analysis and synthesis of the New Theatre.
It also advances a thesis and uses the Russian
Theatre to illustrate it. The thesis, simply
put, is that the Theatre (the term includes
the drama) when fulfilling its true vital
function is an indispensable part of the social
organism. And its pOpular function today is
to interpret the new and practical sociology
which is a feature of present day society."

The book is divided into four parts.

Each part contributes to the metaphor of the
Building Plan of the Theatre (which, the

author explains, has nothing to do with archi-
tecture!) in order to trace its social purpose
alongside a decade of Soviet history. Part I,
The Planning of the Theatre, describes the
theatre's utilitarian purpose and gathers the
historical and modern materials used in 1917.
Part II, Building The Theatre, is concerned
with two developmental stages: theatre as a
"fighting machine" and theatre as a "microcosm
of the new social world of economic determin-
ism." Lunacharsky, Meyerhold, Tairov, Granov-
ski, and Stanislavsky, referred to as "The Big
Five," are analyzed in their roles as builders.
Twenty-five pages is given over to Meyerhold,
including a good chronological outline of the
influences on his work from 1898-1923. Part
III, Completing The Theatre, 1923-23, essenti-
ally outlines the Bolshevist practical sociology
as it was established in the works of "The Big
Five," and the "Left Theatrical Organizations"
(Theatre of the Revolution, Trade Union
Dramatic Theatre, Mass Theatre, Living News-
papers). Finally, Part IV, The Complete
Theatre, looks to the future and predicts a
spiritual theatre with science as God. In this
final section there are two chapters on cinema
and radio which are called "the two auxiliaries."

 

 

 

 

 

115

Carter did not see the theatre's purpose
(Soviet or otherwise) as aesthetic, but only
as constructive. For him the Soviets had
proved that the technical evolution from
militancy to economic reconstruction was
quickened and made successful by the forging
of a new tool: Theatre-—with a capital "T."

190. Carter, Huntly. The New Theatre and Cinema of Soviet
Russia. New York: International Publishers,
1925. pp. 288. Illus. .

The author states his purpose, which is
to "analyze and synthesize the theatre which
has been established in Soviet Russia since
the Russian Revolution of 1917 and which is
the direct outcome of that . . . event." The
organizational scheme involves classifying the
theatres of Russia in politically conceived
divisions, termed Left (Revolutionary theatres,
Proletcult theatre, Political Satire theatre,
Club theatres, Theatre of Improvisation, Open
Air, Street, and Mass Theatres); Centre (Moscow
and Petrograd Theatre, Children's Theatre,
Jewish and State-supported Progressive
theatres); and Right (Old Bourgeois theatres,
Moscow Art Theatre and Studios). These are
further analyzed in relation to the dominating
personalities (Meyerhold-Left, Lunacharsky-
Centre, Stanislavsky-Right); and the varying
roles of the actor in the new theatres.

I find it personally amusing that in this
as in other early texts there is evidence of a
determined effort to find passionate labels
for movements and ideas. In Carter's book,
for example, Meyerhold is called a "mystical
anarchist," Lunacharsky a "cultural revolution-
ist," and Stanislavsky an "emotional insur-
rectionist."

‘The author, apparently struck with the
magnitude and promise of the Soviet theatre,
was intent on stimulating theatre people
everywhere to pay closer attention to Soviet
aesthetics and the theatre itself. Thus, the
theme of theatre as social servant and as the
people's tool rather than as a means of
"acquisitive gain" is the thread of the text.

In addition to covering theatre, there
is also a section on the develOpment of the
cinema.

Unfortunately, the reader is not provided
with a bibliography, but Carter has included
six very useful appendices. These include

 

191.

Dana,

116-

transcripts and sections of statements by
Lunacharsky; documents from the All—Russia
Union of Art Workers; and of symposia held by
the author in Russia. There is also a typical
weekly theatrical poster and a list of the
productions presented in Moscow and Petrograd
from 1917 to 1923.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Drama In Wartime
Russia. New York: National Council of
American-Soviet Friendship, 1943. pp. 48.

This is a kind of hands-across-the sea
pamphlet, designed to indicate the nature of
theatrical activity in wartime Russia, to
glorify the efforts of the Soviet peOples,
and to act as both a national and inter-
national tribute to the allied goals.

The seven short chapters are titled,
"Soviet Theatre at War"; "From The Present TO
The Past"; "Moscow Theatres in the War"; "The
Seige of Leningrad"; "In The Ukraine"; "A New
Playwright"; and "The Theatre International."

Throughout the book, Dana describes the
history of wartime performances in all the
Russian conflicts and Offers anecdotal accounts
Of the heroic performances of actors, singers,
and dancers under fire.

The initial discussion of the wartime
repertory is divided into three classifications:
pre-World War II invasions of Russia; the Nazi
invasion; and the invasion of Russia's allies
and the goals Of the war of liberation. The
bulk of the material is devoted to the wartime
relocation and Operation of the theatres in
Moscow, Leningrad, and the Ukraine. Some
eighty to ninety plays are listed and/or dis-
cussed concerning the drama Of the beseiged
cities. The plays listed in the chapter on
Moscow include Our Moscow, Girl From Moscow,
Soul of Moscow, Sky of Moscow, Moscow Nights,
The Battalion Goes West, and The Stars Cannot
Fade. A similar chapter on Leningrad includes
lengthier plot summaries for such works as
The House on the Hill, Ruza Forest, The Smoke
of the Fatherland, and The Citizen Of Lenin-

rad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In The Ukraine," illustrates the the-
matic develOpment of the rescue workers and the
guerilla fighters. Specific mention is made of
the accomplishments of Alexander Korneichuk
(author of Platon Krechet, and The Front), a
dramatist who was a three-time Stalin Prize

 

192.

Dana,

117

winner and the Assistant People's Commissar
for Foreign Affairs.

"The New Playwright," is a sketch Of
Constantine Simonov, who was a war hero and
whose The Russian People was produced both by
the Moscow Art Theatre and the New York Theatre
Guild.

The text ends with a testament to
Russia's efforts to defend an international
culture. This is supposedly supported by the
presence Of the works of Shakespeare, con-
temporary British playwrights, and such Ameri-
cans as Odets, Hellman, and O'Neill in the
Soviet repertory.

 

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Handbook on
Soviet Drama. New York: The American Russian
Institute, 1938. pp. 158.

This book was prepared as a preliminary
project for a longer illustrated book on Soviet
drama. "It begins with an account of the
different theatres in the Soviet Union and a
bibliography of the books and articles about
them and then proceeds to give accounts of new
productions in the various fields of drama."
The several sections deal with Theatres, Plays,
Operas, Ballets, and Films. All Of this is
preceded by an introduction which elaborates
upon and glorifies the contributions of the
post-Revolutionary Soviet government to the
already established tradition of the Russian
theatre. Information is given under main
classifications in each section and there are
content descriptions of at least one line for
every play, film, and ballet listed. The plays
are also listed under categories such as "The
Revolution," and "Reconstruction And Social
Problems," with Opening passages of commentary
in each case. The specific articles and books
listed in the handbook are not annotated. The
author has used both Russian and American
libraries for the compilation. The reader
will find that most Of the texts listed origi-
nated in Russia, while the periodical litera-
ture is primarily American. As a whole, the
book is a very useful place to begin research
for many aspects Of the Soviet theatre.

 

118

193. Derjavine, Constantin N. A Century Of The State
Dramatic Theatre, 1832-1932. Leningrad:
Leningrad State Publishing House, 1932. pp.
120. Illus.

This small volume was issued as a
centenary history of an Imperial theatre (the
Alexandrinsky Theatre) which became a Soviet
Academic theatre after the Revolution. The
history of the theatre's repertory is broken
down into many periods and analyzed to show
changes in ideology from the time of the
aristocracy to the solidifying Of the social-
ist ideal. The essay reads like a history of
the inevitable decay of bourgeois values and
the rise of the proletariat, with the inclusion
Of the theatre's work as exemplification and
documentation. Much of the introduction is
about socialism, Russian history, and the
allegiance of the theatre art to the con-
struction Of the classless society. Derjavine,
relying on the plays themselves but sometimes
alluding to scenic representation and acting
style, traces the philOSOphy of the repertory
from its initial dedication to "patriotic
exploits of the heroes of an idealized Russian
history" through democratic dramas of the
Realist school, Operetta, psychological con-
flict drama, ideological reactionism, plays of
social relevance, and the emergence of a
Soviet drama, to the depiction of a "struggle
for the renascency Of man on a basis of an
individual and collective consciousness recon—
structed by Revolution."

The text is accompanied by an attractive
set of twenty engravings Of plays produced at
the State Dramatic Theatre over the one hundred
year period.

 

194. Dickinson, Thomas H. The Theatre In A Chahgihg
Europe. London: Putnam, 1938. pp. 492.
Illus.

I have avoided discussing sections in
general history texts, as in most cases these
represent basic adaptations of more primary
sources. This book, however, is a collection
of twelve chapters, each written by a separate
author who was a specialist in his or her
field. Although the chapters are still cap-
sules, they reflect carefully chosen material
and a trained point of view. In the case Of
the chapter on Russia, I believe the framework
provided to be a solid one for study. Chapter

 

119

II, "The Russian Theatre," contains two
sections. The first, "The Theatre of Soviet
Russia," is by Joseph Gregor (whose other works
including the huge survey The Russian Theatre
are annotated in this paper), and the second
section, "Note on the Development of Soviet
Drama," is by H.W.L. Dana. The latter is not
included in this annotation as it deals solely
with the dramatic literature. Gregor's section
contains some fifty-one pages and covers many
topics, movements, individuals, productions,
and play scripts. The basic theme is that of
the determination of the Russian theatre's
inner value for itself, for Europe, and for
the world. The author traces the real the-
atrical revolution from its origins with the
Moscow Art Theatre in 1897 through the changes
in the early Soviet years into the 1930's. As
indicated in the summation, the organization
emphasizes the theatre as literature, the
theatre as science, and the theatre as organi-
zation. Throughout, Gregor concerns himself
with the effect of the October Revolution and
socialist reconstruction on the poor quality
of drama that followed. The following is a
list of the topics and types of information the
reader can expect to find in this section.
(This is not an all-inclusive list but does
highlight the points of interest.) Such infor-
mation includes quotations from Tairov's address
to the International Congress of the Royal
Italian Academy in Rome on the "new social
order" and the October Revolution; pre- and
post-Revolution statistics on the number of
theatres in Russia; quotations from Vakhtan-
gov's diary relevant to formalism, Meyerhold,
and Soviet Drama; FfilOp-Miller's description
Of the events of the public mass spectacle The
Storming of the Winter Palace; samples of the
plays performed between 1922 and 1929 at the
Moscow Art Theatre, the Kamerny Theatre, the
Theatre of the Red Army, the Dramatic Theatre,
the Theatre of the Revolution, and the Jewish
State Theatre; an outline of the ideology of
the VZSPS (All Trade Union Theatre) in re-
lation to doctrinnaire plays; and a discussion
of the relationship between cultural and
spiritual changes from 1900 to 1930 in Russia
and the development of scenic art and the-
atrical architecture.

An appendix for the book as a whole but
readable by specific country lists the related

 

 

120

and referred-to theatres and theatrical organi-
zations, directors, artists and technicians,
actors, dancers, playwrights, and chief plays
of the period.

195. Flanagan, Hallie. Shifting Scenes of The Modern
European Theatres. New York: Coward-McCann,
Inc., 1928. pp. 280. Illus.

The eighty-page section on "Russian
Theatre," entertainingly achieves an expression
of the spirit and atmosphere Of the twenties.
Miss Flanagan communicates the vital quality
of productions dedicated to the concept that
"the audience is the play." She creates a
Slavic feeling for a theatre that was reli-
giously dedicated to the Revolution and the
revolutionary. She balances this with a chap-
ter on Stanislavsky, his own place in the
Russian history, and his feelings at the time
toward the conflict of the "Old" and the "new"
theatre. In addition, the author provides a
contrast of the styles of the symbolically
oriented Moscow Art Theatre II (also known as
the First Studio) and the pure expressionism
of the Kamerny Theatre. In handling the
latter, there is a brief but interesting
account of Tairov's concept of acting. The
section concludes with a description of the
characteristics of theatre in Leningrad and
St. Petersburg.

 

 

196. Freeman, Joseph; Kunitz, Joshua; and Lozowick, Louis.
Voices of October: Art and Literature in
Soviet Russia. New York: The Vanguard Press,
1930. pp. 317. Illus.

The complete book is described as a
"preliminary sketch . . . which outlines the
leading tendencies." It was created at a time
when the authors felt that, although there was
ample material on Soviet sociological, social,
and economic policy, the United States suffered
from a noticeable lack of Objective cultural
and arts reporting on the occurrences since the
1917 Revolution. Chapter III, entitled "The
Soviet Theatre," is written by Lozowick and
Freeman and is some forty-two pages in length.
Included are brief sketches of the Academic
Theatres; the Moscow Art Theatre; Vakhtangov's
Theatre; The Jewish Kamerny Theatre; Tairov's
Kamerny Theatre; Meyerhold (the most heavily
emphasized figure in the chapter); the Little
Theatre; the Proletcult Movement; the Theatre

 

 

121

of the Moscow Trade Unions (MGSPS); Peasant
theatres; marionette shows; and Children's
Theatre.

197. FfilOp-Miller, René, and Gregor, Joseph. The Russian
Theatre. Translated by P. England. London:
Lippincott, 1930. pp. 384. Illus.

One of the unique aspects Of this book
is that it contains four hundred illustrations.
The illustrations are divided into fourteen
picturial sections, covering theatres, move-
ments, and personalities. The text is divided
into a discussion of the social context Of the
Russian theatre from the late nineteenth cen-
tury through the beginning of the Revolution,
and "an analysis of the methods of artistic
representation." The latter includes the
development of theatre buildings, production
design, acting techniques, etc. The text and
illustrations combine to Offer a highly compre-
hensive and clearly written source work. For
an interesting critical reaction to the book
and the qualifications of its authors, the
reader is directed to an article by Huntly
Carter entitled "A New Principle in Play Pro-
duction: The Classics in the Russian Theatre
of Today." (See entry number lg.)

 

198. Gorchakov, Nikolai A. The Theater in Soviet Russia.
Translated by Edgar E. Lehrman. Edited by
Ernest J. Simmons. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1957. pp. 480. Illus.

Nikolai Gorchakov was a former Soviet
actor, and, more importantly, a directorial
assistant to both Vsevolod Meyerhold and
Alexander Tairov. This book is both an attack
on the Bolshevik manipulation and destruction
Of Russian theatre and an attempt to provide
the kind of historical account and Objective
study that could not (according to the author)
be created in the Soviet Union. Indeed, this
book was the first and remains the most complete
and authoritative study of the Russian and
Soviet theatre written in English outside the
U.S.S.R.

The wealth Of material is structured by a
definite set of objectives. The develOpments
of the Soviet theatre are studied in relation
to the trends, ideas, and innovations of the
pre-Revolutionary Golden Age and the systematic
enslavement Of the theatre; in comparison to
the Party policy view of historical research;

 

122

and as a reflection of the prolonged resistance
of the Russian artists to bolshevism. The first
four sections Of the text deal with the nine-
teenth century and pre-Revolutionary theatre;
the role of the theatre in the first ten years
after the Revolution; the fight to avoid Party
restrictions of the theatre's aims in the
second decade; and, finally, "The Tragic End-
ing," in terms of creative freedom and inno-
vation during the Stalin years. The material
on Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, and Tairov provides
an excellent analysis Of style and methodology.
As a whole, the pre-twenties section on the
"great innovators" in thorough and exciting.
The author also provides a play synopsis
and discussion of production and social ramifi-
cations for almost every important play written
and performed during the period covered by the
text. The bibliography contains one hundred
entries Of books and articles, but all Of the
sources cited are in Russian. If there is any
drawback to this volume, it is perhaps the
abundance Of philosophizing, though in a book
dedicated to revealing the subjugation of an
art to a dictatorship this may be unavoidable.

199. Holme, Charles G. Art in the U.S.S.R.: Architecture,
Sculpture, Painting, Graphic Arts, Theatre,
Films, Crafts. New York, London: The Studio
PublicatiOns, Inc., 1935. pp. 137. Illus.

As the title reveals, this volume con-
cerns more than theatre. This entry is con-
cerned with pages 87-94 comprising an illus-
trated text by J. M. Nikonov, and with an
additional and most welcome fifteen-page photo
album containing thirty illustrations of plays
done at the Kamerny Theatre, the Meyerhold
Theatre, the Vakhtangov Theatre, the Moscow
Art Theatre, the Moscow Trade Union Theatre,
the Moscow Theatre For Children, and others.
The article describes the theatre since the
Revolution, and is quick to state that the
pursuit of socialist realism has not prevented
a variety Of trends in staging. Nikonov cites
the work of Tairov and Meyerhold as proof Of
this variety. The illustrations contain de—
signs by such as Golovin, Ryndin, Tishler,
Rabinovitch, and Favorsky.

 

 

 

123

200. Houghton, Norris. Moscow Rehearsals: An Account of
Methods of ProductiOn in the Soviet Theatre.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and CO., 1936. pp.
291. Illus.

"Being neither critic nor historian, I
have attempted to make a record of the Soviet
theatre not externally from the standpoint of
an observer and a recorder of effects, but
internally through the eyes of a participating
craftsman."

Houghton enjoyed the theatre and scruti-
nized its practices. His study was limited to
Moscow but at a time when there were forty pro—
fessional theatres Operating, and more than
that number of playhouses in the city. The
author's Observations are analytical, inter-
nally comparative, and while Objective, highly
appreciative Of the events witnessed. Houghton
sees the effects Of the performances on the
viewer without a bias to protect but with a
professional and a trained curiosity. Until
the appearance of Gorchakov's book (see entry
number T28), this was the best single source
in English.

The content of the text is helpful in the
study of specific movements and individuals.
In early chapters the author relates the con-
struction and Operation of the Kamerny, Maly,
and Meyerhold technicums for teaching acting
and compares these operations with the Stanis-
lavsky system. In the case Of the latter, he
discusses physical develOpment, relaxation,
concentration, actor contact, develOpment Of
imagination, emotional recall, rhythm, and the
"grain of the role." Perhaps the most informa-
tive sections, both for their content and for
the effect of the material on the author, are
those that deal with the directors. Meyerhold,
Tairov, Vakhtangov, and Okhlopkov's approaches
are defined and compared. In relating Meyer-
hold to Stanislavsky, he writes, "Meierhold's
adventure into art has been solitary; where he
is gone there will be no one to succeed him.
His contribution was that of producing the
impetus to theatrical revolution and it is a
contribution which has been completed." This
was most certainly true in comparison with the
collective efforts and the results of the
Moscow Art Theatre, but it would be interest—
ing to analyze this statement in relation to
the succession of ideas and the revolt against
naturalistic form in other countries in the

 

 

124

decades following. The text attempts to pin-
point the specific differences in each man.
Houghton comments on the "theatre theatrical"
approach of Tairov; Vakhtangov's translation
of Russia's theatrical heritage into the con-
cept of the Soviet stage; and Okhlopkov's mer-
ger of the spectator and the actor.

The remaining segments deal with design,
playwriting, and the future of the Russian
theatre. Analyzing conception versus execution
in design, the text covers constructivism,
naturalism, formalism, and the eclecticism Of
socialist realism. The chapter on playwriting
makes a point which has remained of primary
interest. On the one hand, Houghton writes
that "when we come to playwriting we have
reached the low point of the Moscow theatre."
Later, though referring to more than just the
literature, he writes that the Soviet theatre
was made great by converting propaganda into
art. "What the mourners for the lost freedom
of expression in Soviet Russia fail to realize
is that life as the Soviet artist sees it is
the realistic life of the Communist State. SO
far as the liveliness of its art is concerned,
the Soviet theatre is neither the better nor
the worse for its government control." I
Often wonder if the directors, actors, de-
signers, and innovators of the Russian theatre
were not in part spurred to their creativity
and experimentation by the very absence of art
in the literature. It is valuable to compare
the just-quoted statement with the theme and
mood Of Houghton's "postscript," Return Engage-
ment, which was written in 1962 (see entry
number TQT).

Finally, in addition to an interesting
and clear style, the generous helping of
anecdotes and theatre-goer's reactions makes
this a highly readable book.

 

201. Houghton, Norris. Return Engagement: A Postscript
to "Moscow Rehearsals“. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1962. pp. 214. Illus.

Return Engagement is the result of a
three-month visit to Moscow made some twenty—
five years after the voyage that produced
Moscow Rehearsals. As before, the author con-
centrates on the "life, training, and the work
of the artists in the dramatic theatre."
Houghton is quick to caution the reader to make
comparisons on the basis Of the realization

 

 

 

 

125

that the author has undergone as much or more
change as has the subject matter.

The book is indeed a postscript, and it
is most beneficial for the reader to digest
these volumes sequentially. The underlying
theme of this book is that the Soviet theatre
has failed to make any progress in the inter-
vening quarter of a century because the Rus-
sians could not subscribe to a belief in the
freedom Of expression. Houghton again turns
to the playwrights and says that "Of all the
artists of the Soviet theatre, its dramatists
make the least distinguished contribution."

I refer my reader to a quotation on freedom of
expression in my annotation of Moscow Rehear-
sals (see entry number Th9), and ask that it
be compared to the following one, from the
chapter "Plays and Playwrights Today," in
Return Engagement: "If then I am persuaded
that writers, like the public at large, are
committed to communism, how can I attribute
the inferiority of contemporary dramatic out-
put to a lack of freedom? My answer is that
dialectical materialism seems to me to impose
a narrowness upon one's vision of man and of
life that thwarts the creative spirit. The
will to conform is alien to the will to con-
ceive. In yielding his freedom to an omni-
cient state, even voluntarily or unconsciously,
an artist forfeits one of the surest well-
springs Of his creativity. I am convinced that
this is the reason why in all the arts com-
munism has produced so few great figures."

Houghton revisits in theory and activity
the Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, Okhlopkov, and Mos-
cow Art Theatre traditions. He again compares
them to each other and to their directions in
the early 1930's. In relation to then and now,
there is coverage of five training institutes
--those attached to the Maly (Shchepkin School),
to the Moscow Art Theatre (Nemirovich-Danchenko
School), to the Vakhtangov Theatre (the
Shchukin School), to the Central Children's
Theatre, and to the State Institute of Theatre
Arts.

 

 

By accident, Houghton also revisited the
world of Natalia Satz. There is a fascinating
account of his meeting her in a theatre audience
after believing her to be dead for many years.
The comment on her exile from and subsequent
return to Moscow is not only an interesting
sidenote but an insight into the Stalin years
and the "thaw" that followed his death.

126

The author is careful to point out those
advances made by the Russians in the early part
of the century which, even without continued
progress, are still advances over the rest of
the world's theatre. Specifically, he treats
the View Of the theatre person as an honored
member of the society; the ongoing analysis
of the creative process; and the Russian the—
atrical ability to represent the past as rele-
vant to the present.

202. Ivanov, E. G., ed. Sovetskij Teatr (Soviet Theatre).
Moscow: IzdatelTstvo Iskusstvo, 1966. Unpaged.
Illus.

Soviet Theatre is a small special issue
pictorial magazine which illustrates the
develOpment of the Russian theatre from 1922
to 1965. The illustrations are grouped under
the following headings: "Plays By Soviet Play-
wrights," Classics of the Peoples of the USSR
on the Soviet Stage," "World Classics On The
Soviet Stage," "Modern Plays By Foreign Play-

 

wrights On The Soviet Stage," "Juvenile
Theatres," "Puppet Theatres," "Opera," "Ballet,"
"Operetta," and "Amateur Theatres." Captions

for each are printed in Russian, French, and
English, but only the Russian titles are found
on the same page as the photos. In addition,
there is an article (also in translation)
accompanying the photos, by V. Komissarzhevskii.
It is an overview of the glories and accomplish-
ments of the Russian theatre, dealing with
specific plays, productions, and individuals

for each decade. The article briefly summarizes
major occurrences in children's theatre, ballet,
and opera as well. The writing is part of a
showpiece and thus is protective and not very
self-critical. Meyerhold, for example, is
treated as an eccentric genius who "himself was
very critical of his work and Often warned his
pupils against repeating his mistakes." I
personally found the photographs themselves
informative and enjoyable to view. The his-
torian as well as the designer can benefit

from a look at the stage pictures, designs,

and styles of presentation.

203. Jelagin, Juri. Taming of the Arts. Translated by
Nicholas Wreden. New York: Dutton, 1951.
pp. 333.
Taming of the Arts is a compilation of
Observances and experiences by a once im-
prisoned and disenfranchised musician who

 

 

127

became a member of the Vakhtangov Company. He
writes, based on his eXperiences, Of the con-
dition of theatre and music in the decade from
1930-1940. "The true significance Of what has
happened to art in Soviet Russia during that
fateful decade is tragic, yet the reader might
find much that will seem Odd, ridiculous, and
absurd."

By and large, the author's writings are
anecdotal but allegedly factual sequences about
the suffering of individual personalities.
These portraits include such people as Shostako-
vich, Bulgakov, Tolstoy, and Dmitri Dorliac.
The most valuable for our purposes is a report
on Vsevolod Meyerhold. Yelagin provides an
outline of Meyerhold's work in Russia and his
productions and notable techniques. This leads
up to a description of the conditions surround-
ing the liquidation of the great director's
theatre and his own downfall. The chapter ends
with an extensive quotation from the speech
Meyerhold supposedly made to the First Con-
vention Of Theatrical Directors, a speech that
prompted his imprisonment in June Of 1939. The
truth of this speech and other material in the
text has been challenged by Eric Braun in his
edition Of Meyerhold On Theatre (see entry
number TTE).

Using the Vakhtangov Company as an
example, Yelagin writes at length on the per-
sonal comforts, privileges, and excellent work-
ing and living conditions provided by the
government for artists who complied with the
Party wishes in the 1930's. The theatre was
regarded as a mediator of social conflicts as
well as a tool for education and internal
prOpaganda. Consequently, the government
marshalled all resources in order to guaran—
tee contentment and high quality.

Most of the remaining material attempts
to explain the effects of Stalin's programs
and the "Yezhov terror" on the alteration and
destruction of form and content in the Russian
theatre. This includes an illustration Of the
functions of the various committees on art; the
censorship practices; the process of merging
theatres so as to phase out one or the other
completely; and the nationalization of artistic
style in the form of socialist realism.

128

204. Johnson, Priscilla. Kruschev And The Arts: The
Politics Of Soviet Culture, 1962-64. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1965. pp.
300.

 

 

There is no way to study the history Of
the Russian theatre in the twentieth century
without being aware of the role of government
interference and censorship in the arts. None-
theless, if one reads a great deal about the
Soviet theatre, it is possible to pass over
the government's role and the concerns of the
Soviet doctrine as a given and become more
engrossed in the scope of the national theatre
in Russia, the enormous financial and public
support, and the resiliency of individual
practitioners. What we read of the Soviet
efforts in the last twenty years, from Russian
reviewers and reporters and an occasional
Western Observer, carries with it the impres-
sion of great activity, a recovery from the
Stalin years, and some loosening up as to the
variety of style permitted by socialist real-
ism. Priscilla Johnson's book, though contain-
ing less than a page on the theatre specifi-
cally, gives an excellent and well-documented
account of the destructive and stultifying
effects of Soviet politics on the Soviet cul-
ture as a whole. Censorship does not begin
with the October Revolution (Stanislavsky knew
difficulties in coping with the Czar's minis-
ters), but the Soviet method of control, in the
hands of the early Party bureaucrats, in the
events Of the Stalin thirties, in the boorish-
ness and ambiguity of the Kruschev years, and
in the more recent persecutions of "pro-Western"
writers, is a fertile and permanent character-
istic of what that event has wrought for intel-
lectuals and artists. Kruschev And The Arts
deals with a period from 1962 to 1964 and the
effects of the de-Stalinization program on
painting, sculpture, and literature. The first
eighty-nine pages chronicle and interpret the
develOpments and identify the protagonists.

The remainder of the text is composed of trans-
lations of the literature, reviews, and plenary
session speeches which exemplify and summarize
the controversy. This is an important book
which should be used as a filter and as a guide
to the possibilities and limitations for art

in Soviet Russia.

 

129

205. Komissarzhevskii, Viktor Grigorevich. Moscow
Theatres. Translated by Vic Schneierson and
W. Perelman. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1959. pp. 219. Illus.

Books or articles on the Russian theatre
by Russian authors Often appear to be over-
bearingly propagandistic and self-aggrandizing.
Nonetheless, they still provide an insight into
the national purpose, and with a careful read-
ing will reveal those movements and individuals
of special concern. Komissarzhevskii's text,

a capsule history of the first forty years of
the Soviet theatre, is accompanied by an exten-
sive photo outlay of production highlights for
theatre, opera, and ballet. '

The author fails in his few attempts at
critical Objectivity. Nothing can be per-
mitted to appear all bad. The text is riddled
with balanced statements--giving with one
phrase and taking away with the next. Still,
these statements are road signs to aesthetic
questions and developments too well known
internationally to be passed over, but too
debatable as to the wisdom Of their resolutions
to be viewed objectively. The following is an
insignificant but humorous example of the fre-
quent "double talk": Komissarzhevskii, in
writing about the American Everyman Opera Com—
pany's presentation of Porgyhand Bess, states,
"Although some of the naturalistic and expres-
sionistic aspects of 'Porgy and Bess' remi-
niscent of some of the experiments Of the early
Soviet stage were alien to us, we could not
help appreciating the parts in which the pro-
foundly human folkart was in the forefront."
Truman Capote, who accompanied the cast and was
present at its Opening performances in Moscow,
wrote in his anecdotal account of the trip The
Muses Are Heard that the Russians were virtu-
ally shocked into aphonia by the physical
handling of human bodies, and that it was
less the idea of folkart than seeing a band
of Negroes which aroused interest.

Rather than criticize the Obvious liter-
ary drawbacks to socialist realism, Komissarz-
hevskii writes that the "stage people misin-
terpreted the tasks of the struggle against
formalist art." Unable to justify the effect
of Stalin's regime on a once vital theatre, he
condemns those few who created a "Stalin
personality cult" and reduced the literary
hero to a "cachectic state."

 

 

130

Regardless Of the textual limitations I
would highly recommend this book for its visual
Offering. The costumer, the designer, and any-
one trying to capture more than an Observer's
reminiscences of past productions will find it
valuable and exciting to see a glimpse of the
work of the Moscow theatres. There are well
over two hundred and fifty photographs and
drawings of scenes, performers, designs, and
notable productions. The text and captions
include background on the shows, directors,
and some fifteen theatres of the then thirty
theatres operating in Moscow. The following
list indicates the theatres whose repertories
are represented: Bolshoi, Maly, Moscow Art
Theatre, Vakhtangov Theatre, Mayakovsky Theatre,
Central Soviet Army Theatre, the Mossoviet, the
Central Puppet Theatre, Central Children's
Theatre, and the Yermolova and Komsomol
Theatres.

206. Kommissarzhevskii, Fedor F. Myself and the Theatre.

New York: Dutton, 1930. pp. 205. Illus.
Myself and the Theatre is a fast-moving

account of KommiESarzhevskii's personal ex—
periences in the Russian theatre before and
just after the Revolution and of his work in
America and England. In many ways, the book
is a multi-page complaint against the physical
poverty of the theatre and the limitations Of
personal freedom that resulted from the Revo-
lution. The author was equally disturbed by
the "star system" conditions he encountered in
EurOpe and America when he fled his native
country. Although colored by the family tie
and personal pride, Kommissarzhevskii provides
an interesting description of his famous actor
sister Vera and her theatre, in which Meyerhold
worked for more than two years. Finally, there
is also an explanation of the author's personal
philosophy of production, which he calls
"Synthetic Theatre."

 

 

207. London, Kurt. The Seven Soviet Arts. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1938. pp. 381. Illus.
This book accepts much Of the greatness
Of Russian art as reported by journalists and
critics writing in the late twenties and early
thirties, but is strongly aware of how move-
ments in the latter years tended to destroy
and sterilize all creative effort. Covering
the "seven Soviet arts," London illustrates

 

131

how the dictatorship of a socialist bureacracy
produced a violent cultural clash. The subject
areas encompass music, literature, theatre,
film, radio, opera, ballet, children's theatre,
fashion, and architecture.

The text is divided into five parts and
an epilogue. Part One provides the framework
for the government's concept of how art should
be developed, encouraged, and controlled.
Chapters in this section discuss the develop-
ments leading up to the tight structure of the
thirties; the function of the C. A. C. as a
control and as an administrator; and the con-
struction Of the individual specialist associ-
ations--"the pillars on which the central com-
mittee rests."

Part Two, entitled "The Artistic Prin-
ciples Of the Stalin Regime," describes the
clash between the new revolutionary political
ideas and the stylistic principles of art.
Essentially, the reader gets a translation of
the argument over socialist realism versus
formalism in terms of form and content, Western
artistic ideas, and the revolutionary analysis
of beauty in art as determined by the Lenin-
Marx-Engels aesthetic. In the chapter on
theatre of Part Three, "The Traditional Arts,"
the author dwells on the effects of the cul-
tural organization on theatre as of 1936. The
handling of movements and individuals is inter-
esting in that London rates Tairov over Meyer-
hold and Stanislavsky and consequently deals
with Tairov's work at some length. He includes
a quotation from a personal conversation with
Tairov in which the director states his views
on synthetic theatre, socialist realism, and
his own goals. There are also illuminating
quotations from articles in Izvestia and
Pravda stating the Party line on socialist
realism and such "radicals" as Tairov. This
chapter also manages to cover a report on the
curriculum of the acting school of the Luna-
charsky Institute and the types of acting exer-
cises being used. In Part Five, on Children's
Theatre, the author pays homage to the crea-
tive genius of Natalia Satz and presents a
valuable personal statement in which Satz
talks about the work done in the Moscow Chil-
dren's Theatre.

Overall, the book is filled with inter-
esting and documented material, but the reader
will detect some confusion between what the
author favors in the Soviet theatre and what
he dislikes about the Soviet government.

132

208. Macleod, Joseph. Actors Across The Volga: A Study
of the Nineteenth Century Russian Theatre and
of Soviet Theatres in War. London: George
Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1946. pp. 359. Illus.

Basically, this is a study of the Soviet
theatres during World War II, with a prepara-
tory partial historical background. The book
is divided into five parts. The first two
parts deal with the people and events of
Russian theatre, including the serf theatres;
the influences of France and Germany; the first
private and court theatres; the strolling and
touring players; and the provincial repertories
The text is very anecdotal, but a good source
Of many small details, and contains such refer-
ences as lists of early theatres, managers, and
actors. The summary for this whole period is
rather general, as is most Of the critical
appraisal of movements and ideas. The author
tends to admire rather than to analyze. "At
first all was static; and there were slave
theatres. Then the localities woke up, with
free and eXpert players gradually winning the
people of the neighborhood to come to the
theatre. A freer flow of people, now from
place to place; but all is still very quiet
in the landscape. . . . A place to admire the
skill of the performer, not a place in which
to find the truth. . . ."

The third and fourth sections cover the
functions and movements of the Soviet theatres
during the war. This thorough compilation
deals with the groups performing at the front
(the Vakhtangov Theatre, the Central Theatre
of the Red Army, the troupes Of the Navy fleet)
and the relocating improvising organizations
at home. SO extensive was the war program at
home that T.A.S.S. reported 800,000 perfor-
mances at the front by 1945. Macleod covers
the types of drama performed, puppet shows,
circuses, and operas.

The final section encompasses the efforts
made to use the theatre to strengthen the cul-
ture in war-time; to keep up the heritage; and
to prepare, via socialist realism, for the re-
building of the state. The author deals with
the production of Russian classical works and
Shakespeare; and with the international
productions given to represent Spain, Italy,
France, Germany, Scandanavia, the U.S.A., and
Britain. In total, the book is valuable for
its accumulation of data on the Soviet theatre
during the war.

 

 

133

209. Macleod, Joseph. The New Soviet Theatre. London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1943. pp. 242.
Illus.

The "new" stands for the origins and
influences of socialist realism, and the text
is dedicated to showing its effects. The
reader should be cautioned that Macleod not
only discusses the movement but embraces it.
The book is filled with data on production,
and although most of the facts and statistics
are faithful to their sources, the subsequent
conclusions that are drawn are questionable.
The following quotation from the first chapter
will illustrate the author's purpose and
methodology. The last line Of the quotation
leads one to question generalizations, in some
cases based on productions not personally wit-
nessed. "There are many books and articles
about the Soviet theatre in its revolutionary
period, the exciting terseness of the Prolet-
cult, the dynamism of Meyerhold, and all those
other frenzied theatre Solons who codified
theatre laws for newly freed townslolk. There
are many books and articles about the aesthetic
delights of the formalist period, when ab-
stract sets worthy of Leger or Braque, when
strange chaos of bits and pieces used to frame
behind dessicated units of humanity the col-
lectivism Of the crowd. But I know of no book
since Norris Houghton's Moscow Rehearsals which
even alludes to the fading of these ideas from
the Soviet stage, certainly none which gives
any detailed account of the astonishing tasks
it has undertaken instead; and Houghton, though
his book was published here in 1938, wrote of
what he had seen in 1935. SO I have pieced
together from scattered articles and reports,
from books and bulletins, and from what I know
of the Russian theatre, and the U.S.S.R. in
general, a picture of what I believe to be,
though scrappy and limited, at any rate
accurate in detail and correct in perspective."

The second chapter is dedicated to show-
ing both what socialist realism is and what it
is not in theory and on the stage. " . . . the
representation must not be untrue, either to
present to-day's fact or to the facts of the
past; but it must express that truth in such
terms that the worker audience Of today gets
a perspective of either the Socialism it is
helping to build or of the factors Of the past
out of which that Socialism has come." The
following six chapters analyze how this method

 

 

134

was adapted for a variety of national audiences
in the Soviet Union including those in the
areas of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekis-
tan, Tadjikstan, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan,
Kazakhstan, and the Arctic Circle. In each
case an encyclopedia-like capsule is given
about the people, land conditions, industry,
customs, and the industrial leaps made under
Communism. The author also illustrates how
rural theatres were organized; how instruction
and materials were gotten to outlying areas;
and the procedure for touring employed by the
companies and cells from the Maly, Moscow, and
Leningrad Central Theatres. Chapter Six, en—
titled "Special Audiences" concentrates on the
collective farms, on children, and on the sub-
national groups--Jews and Gypsies. Chapter Ten,
"New Socialist Audiences," covers the minority
audiences of the "liberated lands"--the Byelo-
russians and the Ukranians. For a completely
different view of the effects of sovietization
on the national republic and minority cultures,
the reader is urged to read Vladimir Seduro's
book, The Byelorussian Theatre And Drama (see
entry number £99)'

I would like to call attention to two
references to activity in Children's Theatre
which illustrate my earlier point about the
author's bias and the questionable reliability
of his Observations. Mr. Macleod dedicates
about ten lines to the work of Natalia Satz,
whom he passes Off as a secondary Meyerhold
and who he accuses Of presenting simpleminded,
one-sided portraits of good buys and bad guys.
Though her penchant for narrowminded propaganda
can be borne out by the literature she wrote
and produced at the Moscow Theatre For Children,
his dismissal of her work and allusion to her
removal in 1937 as probably the result Of a
limited ability fails to take into account the
other Observations and writings on the in-
genuity and creativeness of her productions
and total theatre approach to Children's
Theatre. Norris Houghton, in Return Engage-
ment, states that the source Of Miss Satz's
removal most likely had nothing to do with
her theatrical abilities, but most probably
with familial political ties. In another
section, Macleod writes Of Evgeny Shvarts'

The Shadow as a good example of the effect
of socialist realism on children's plays and
fairy tales, and he cites the production done
by Akimov in 1940 at the Leningrad Comedy

 

 

135

Theatre. However, The Shadow has been called
"a profoundly shocking comedy or modern satire
on social manners" by F. D. Reeve, and history
tells us that the production was removed by
the government from the Leningrad's repertory
almost immediately after its first showing.
These are only two examples Of material the
reader is urged to question.

Chapter Eight, "The Central Theatres of
Moscow and Leningrad: Left Wing," represents
the dissection and burial of the "abstract
formalists" such as Tairov and Meyerhold.
Whether or not this discussion is one-sided
and whether or not one agrees with the logic
or theatrical values under consideration, the
text provides an insight into the specific
arguments that were used to advance socialist
realism and to urge the termination of "formal-
ist experiments."

Using Okhlopkov as an example of experi-
mentation that was "realistic" and socialist
in its ideology, the author writes that " . . .
when his productions were 'queer' it was the
outcome of a logical process based not on
theory like Meyerhold's but on a study of the
individuality of the play in question and re-
flection about the best way to communicate it
to the audience."

Chapter Nine reinvestigates the older
traditional theatres--the Maly, Alexandrinsky,
and the Moscow Art--and through a discussion of
the production records attempts to demonstrate
how they found their say and naturally embraced
socialist realism. "It will be seen that
Socialist Realism was never really very far
from the Art Theatre's methods; one might also
way it was the theatre's predestined mode, the
only line it could take, yet only when Social-
ism was being achieved." The Moscow Art
Theatre productions covered include Yegor
Bulychov, Earth, Wit Works Woe, Tartuffe, and
The Three Sisters.

Macleod also makes projections concerning
figures whose work in the thirties indicated
to him their probable prominence. Chapter Ten
is devoted to Alexey Popov, head Of the Theatre
of the Red Army. An extensive analysis of his
production of Taming of the Shrew is Offered
as an exegetical example Of how socialist
realism works with period drama. The follow-
ing chapter deals with Radlov, Zavadsky, and
Akimov (considered a formalist designer, but
a social realist producer).

 

 

 

 

 

136

The final three chapters deal specifi-
cally with the literature: "New Writers and
New Plays"; "A New Attitude Toward The Class-
ics"; and "Shakespeare on the Soviet Stage."
These chapters are heavy with information,
but the organization is weak and at times
confusing.

At the conclusion of the text, Macleod
provides two appendices. The first is a
description and presentation of statistics
relevant to the building plan of the Central
Theatre Of the Red Army. At the time, this
was a new building and aroused interest for
its external shape (that of the Red Star), its
interior decahedron stage plan, and its irregu-
lar hexagonal auditorium. (The Frontispiece
for this book is a groundplan for the theatre.)
The second appendix, entitled "The Debt of the
National Republics to Stalin," is a tribute
to the "vision and determination of Stalin,"
to whom the author attributes the Soviet
Union's "strength and solidarity" in the
1940's. It is basically a reproduction of
brief texts such as the "Declaration of Rights
of the Peoples of Russia." History has shown
that Stalin's regime and the practice of
socialist realism did not bring about the brave
new world Of theatre and dramatic literature
that Macleod foresaw.

210. Markov, Pavel. The Soviet Theatre. New York:

G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1935. pp. 176. Illus.
In approaching this book, one must

strongly consider the source. Pavel Markov,
aside from being the literary critic for the
Moscow Art Theatre, was also the drama critic
for Pravda, Izvestia, and Novy Mir. The pub-
lisher, in a prefatory note, tells the reader
that most works on Russia are by visitors and
that consequently "the lack of really precise
and definite information has been as notice-
able as the plethora of impressions." We are
led to believe that this book is the real "how"
of theatre in post-Revolutionary Russia. My
predominant feeling upon finishing the book,
however, was that the subject of theatre was
an excuse for one hundred and seventy pages
of hornblowing and flagwaving. Responsibility
to the masses; theatre as the battlefield Of
the class war; the training ground of the
socialist citizen; and the auditorium as the
rallying place of the masses are phrases

 

 

137

indicative of most of the material throughout
the text. They also reflect much of the basis
for aesthetic judgment and the evaluation of
theatrical trends both in Russia and inter-
nationally. In the last chapter, Markov
writes " . . . one of the chief things about
the work of the Soviet theatre is that it
strives not merely to represent but to change
the world." In addition, he writes " . . .
under the Second Five Year Plan the theatre
has been assigned the task Of transforming the
individual and bringing up the citizens of the
socialist state."

Somehow, with typical Party-line logic,
Markov manages to reconcile the diverse ele-
ments of the Vakhtangov, the Moscow Art, and
the Meyerholdian approaches with the develop-
ing tenets Of socialist realism. He somehow
depicts the variety of Russian artists as
struggling to find the truth in theatrical
expression, and reports that most of them are
headed in the right direction. Furthermore,
he congratulates the Moscow Art Theatre for
overcoming its pre-Revolutionary uselessness,
and lauds Meyerhold as the "Shakespeare of
Modern Russia." He considers Meyerhold and
Stanislavsky as the main influences in the life
Of the post-Revolutionary Soviet theatre.

In addition, the book covers a variety
Of other theatres and artists, non-professional
groups, and such special events as the Open-
air Mass Spectacles. I was impressed by his
account of the progressive staging and audience
involvement in use for children's theatre.

Although there is an obvious bias to
this text, it is reasonable to assume that it
closely reflects the thinking Of the People's
Commissariat of Education (then the regulat-
ing government agency for the national Soviet
theatre) and is therefore quite worth reading.

211. Miller, Anna Irene. The Independent Theatre in
Europe: 1887 to the Present. New York: Ray
Long andwRichard R. Smith, Inc., 1931. pp. 430.

The eighth chapter of this book is en-
titled "The Moscow Art Theatre and The Soviet
Theatre of Russia." The latter half of the
title stands for a survey of the experimental
or "advanced playhouses" of Moscow. The
material provides an overview and comparison
of the developments in the conservative and
radical theatres, but there is detailed infor-
mation on the types of plays and styles of

 

138

production, particularly in such as the Kamerny
and Kommissarzhevsky theatres. Miller begins
with a biographical sketch of Danchenko and
Stanislavsky and leads into the formation and
evolution of the Moscow Art Theatre. The first
section includes the goals, purposes and tech-
niques of the company, and touches on the
physical plant, training, foreign tours, and
the production of the works Of such playwrights
as Chekhov, Gorky, Ibsen, and Hauptmann. In
the second half, the author concentrates on
illustrating the work Of Meyerhold, Tairov, and
Baliev. She also includes an explanation of
Evreinov's monodrama. An interesting note is

a reference to constructivism and biomechanics
as developments in some part due to the Soviet
economy, availability Of materials, and the
national attitude toward physical training.

212. Morozov, Mikhail M. Shakespeare on the Soviet Stage.
Translated by David Magarshack. London:
Soviet News, 1947. pp. 71. Illus.

This slim volume is dedicated to the
symbiotic relationship between the Soviet
Shakespearean scholar and the performer. The
stage is considered the prOper and necessary
laboratory for literary analysis, and the
audience, the final interpreters. Morozov was
a Shakespearean scholar and professor at Moscow
University, and, in addition to providing trans-
lations, he worked with actors and directors
all over Russia in the mounting Of new pro-
ductions. His text contains a sizeable amount
of information on the history of Shakespearean
scholarship, translation, and stage production
in Russia from 1748 to 1947. If anything is
to be criticized, it is not the text's approach
but what appears to be the national approach
to Shakespeare. Productions seem to be less
concerned with modern questions of universal
relevance than with the necessity to make these
plays grist for the socialist mill. Although
there is continued emphasis upon the Soviet
peOple's intuitive response to Shakespeare's
greatness, the criticism and the production
concepts are aimed at relating the Renaissance
to the Revolution, Shakespeare to the col-
lective, and plays such as Macbeth to the war
effort.

The five chapters deal with the history
of translation and production before the
twentieth century; the important modern Russian

 

139

translators (Pasternak, Marshak, Shchepkina-
Kupernik); the production record for the trag-
edies (Othello, King Lear, Hamlet, and Romeo
and Juliet); the production record for the
comedies (Taming of the Shrew, As You Like It,
Comedy of Errors, Twelfth Night, and Much Ado
About Nothing); the organization of Shakespear-
ean research; the dissemination of materials
and aid to the production groups; and Shakes-
peare at the Front. In addition to the
material on the more well-known productions,
Morozov utilizes an intimate knowledge of the
work done throughout the national provinces.
He makes an effort to contrast and compare the
distinctive examples of the most frequently
produced of Shakespeare's plays in Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

213. The Moscow Kamerny Theatre. Moscow: Intourist,
1934. pp. 20. Illus.

This is basically a photograph album of
past productions with an introductory essay.
Only the essay pages are numbered, but the
text is accompanied by twenty-eight pages of
sepia illustrations. The following is a list
of the productions depicted (except where indi-
cated, the names in parentheses are those of
the designers): Sakuntala (Kuznetsov); The
Merry Wives of Windsor (Lentulov); Salome:—
Adrienne Lecouvreur, King Harlequin (Ferdinandov-
costumer); Princess Brambilla (Yakulov);

Romeo and Juliet (Exter); Annunciation (Vesnin);
Phédre (Vesnin); Giroflé-Girofla (Yakulov);
Storm, Desire Under The Elms; Day and Night;
Sirocco; Anti one (Naumov); All Gode Chillun
Got Wings (V. & G. Stenberg); Machinal (Ryndin);
The Optimistic Tragedy (Ryndin); Egyptian
Nights (Ryndin); NO Surrender (Tatlin).

The essay provides a variety of infor-
mation on different aspects of Tairov's oper-
ation. The author explains the director's
philOSOphy of Synthetic Theatre and discusses
how it affected the scope and variety of the
repertory, and, in turn the range Of the
actors. A list of the company's first fifty-
two productions is provided, complete with a
breakdown as to style and international origins.
In keeping with the international theme, an
extensive series Of quotations from the foreign
press on the Kamerny's world tours Of Europe
and the Americas is Offered, including the
plaudits of Eugene O'Neill, Luigi Prolovorno,
Leopold Hessner, Firmin Gémier, and others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

From the Soviet point of view, Tairov's early
work was socially irrelevant and formalistic.
He was believed to have begun a transition
period with the production Of some of the works
of O'Neill (Desire Under The Elms, All God's
Chillungot Wings), and to have finally
warrived" with his production, in 1933, of
Vishnevsky's The Optimistic Tragedy. A section
Of the essay deals with this important pro-
duction.

 

 

 

 

214. Moskovin, I. The Soviet Theatre. Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1939. pp. 32.
Illus.

"All I have attempted is to give the
most prominent features Of one of the most
significant develOpments in world culture--the
Soviet theatre." This is a pamphlet-type
publication, written by an actor from the
Moscow Art Theatre, aimed at exportation and
at informing the world's uninitiated as to the
scope of the Soviet enterprise. Most of the
material is composed of statistics, but there
is some textual discussion Of the growth of
theatrical activity in the national republics;
the repertory of the provincial theatres;
touring Operations; children's theatres;
amateur productions; and professional com-
panies in the cities. The reader will find
many articles through the years reporting on
numbers of theatres, size of audience, number
Of plays performed, and similar areas of status
information. It would be wise to compare the
data in a number of these articles within a
specific time period in order to Obtain a
broader and more reliable idea of the actual
growth patterns and emphasis.

 

215. Ruhle, Jurgen. "The Soviet Theater." Russia Under
Kruschev. Edited by Abraham Brumberg. New
York: Praeger, 1962. pp. 489-528.

The business of reading history is often
confusing and frustrating. Theatre history,
when it deals with the events themselves, is
hearsay and a slave to the subjective per-
ceptions of the viewer. The human factor is
Often complicated by translation and, in the
case of the Russian theatre history, the diffi-
culty is compounded by scattering of records,
by intrigue, fear and capricious ideological
shifts. In much of the material in English,
translation or otherwise, the basic outline of

 

141

events is Often repeated, but the specific
details show incredible variety. It would seem
that one can say anything about the Russian-
Soviet theatre, and indeed, the complexity and
dynamics of experimentation throughout the
first two decades Of the 1900's makes the
interrelationships and shifts Of style and form
very difficult to trace and isolate. I have
read Of everything from Stanislavsky actor-
coaching a horse to three separate accounts of
Meyerhold's disappearance. Frequently, owing
to a personal disbelief in repeated patterns
of superlatives or strongly conflicting reports,
I have cautioned the reader against being overly
influenced by the sheer amount of theatrical
activity. Within this volume is an article
entitled "The Soviet Theater," by Jurgen Ruhle.
It is for all of the above reasons that I lay
out the ground rules for reading this article.
The author was for six years an art editor and
theatre critic in East Germany before gaining
political asylum in the West in 1955. This
article appears in an anthology consisting of
selections from Problems of Communism, a bi-
monthly journal published by the United States
Information Agency. Given these conditions,
in an article highly critical of the Soviet
theatre, one must expect exhaustive care and
documentation. Many Of the hypotheses advanced
and sources quoted are not substantiated in
such a way. While I agree with the arguments
this article presents, I am not satisfied with
the approach. I have provided such an exten-
sive preface to the annotation because I be—
lieve that the reader can learn something about
Russian as well as non-Russian research in
Soviet theatre history from this piece and its
place in the general literature.

"Historians of the Soviet theatre of the
1920's advance two Opposing theses: One
school says that the brilliant artistry of
the theater in that early period of the Soviet
Union was but an afterglow of the Silver Age
that preceded the Revolution, that the
Bolsheviks simply had not yet had time to
liquidate the Russian theater; the other
school holds that the Soviet theater of the
1920's was a product of the Bolshevik cultural
revolution, a testimony to the fertility that
revolutionary ideas bring to the arts." The
purpose of this article is to support the
former thesis, one which is eminently sup-
portable from both the events Of the pre- and

 

142

post-Revolutionary years. The weakness of this
article is in establishing the wealth of the
so-called "Silver Age." The author treats the
period prior to the "October in the Theater"

and the work of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Tairov,
and Vakhtangov in some eight pages, while the
Soviet period up to 1958 is granted some thirty
pages of text. The proportionate time spans

do not justify the treatment. While the evi-
dence here, as in other texts, impressively and
depressingly illustrates the wasteland of Soviet
dramatic literature and the pigheadedness that
crushed a theatre of genius, there is not

enough specific material here to illustrate the
nature Of the achievements that were disregarded
and destroyed. At best we can evaluate the loss
Of creative freedom. The reader will find an
excellent documentation of the superiority Of
the pre—Revolutionary years in Nora Beeson's
dissertation "Vsevolod Meyerhold And The Experi-
mental Pre-Revolutionary Theater in Russia
(1900-1917)" (see entry number Th9).

The brevity of the first section creates
some confusion and contradiction with later
statements. Despite his overall point of view,
early on the author makes the statement that
"even though the great Russian stage directors
were well-matured in their ideas even before
the Revolution . . . with the exception of
Stanislavsky . . . all of them . . . derived
from that upheaval creative impulses without
which their rise to world fame would have been
inconceivable." The most important achieve-
ments of these directors and movements such as
constructivism can all be traced to earlier
years. Vakhtangov embraced ethical but not
political influences in his work, and died
before the Soviet grip was firmly established.
Tairov's aesthetic was not alien to the con-
ception of revolution as such but was certainly
not in line with Soviet purposes. It was the
early work beginning in 1914 rather than post-
Revolutionary conflicts that made Tairov
famous. As for Meyerhold, the reader is
directed to an article on the fundamental
sources of his work by Marjorie Hoover which
is also annotated in this bibliography (see
entry number T14). To return to Mr. Ruhle's
quote, "inconceivable" seems an inconceivable
choice of word!

The greatest value in this article is to
be found in the summary of the Stalin years

143

and the aborted Leninist renaissance in the
early Khrushchev years. The author discusses
the kinds of plays permitted, the trends in
the literature, the identity of the persecuted,
and the incredible cutthroat logic that passed
for the dialectic which in turn determined the
repertory and the Operation of the theatre in
Russian cultural life.

216. Rybakov, Yuri. The Soviet Theatre. Moscow: Novosti
Press Agency Publishing House, 1968? pp. 62.
Illus.

There is no publishing date provided, but
from the text and some of the photographs it is
obvious that this little pamphlet-like book was
compiled no earlier than 1967. In addition to
the sixty-two page essay, there is a separate
unnumbered section of over fifty production
illustrations. The text is divided into three
sections: Early Soviet Stage Productions;
Theatrical Education; and, After The War. The
author supplies an adequate picture of what the
Soviets consider the highlights Of the twentieth
century Russian theatre, starting with the
origin Of the Moscow Art Theatre and leading
up to the "talented directors Of the new gener-
ation"--Tovstonogov, Lyubimov, Simonov, and
Efros.

The difficulties with this history are
common to Soviet showcase documents. The
demise of Meyerhold's theatre is attributed to
the public recognition of the régisseur's fail-
ing abilities rather than to government dis-
approval, and the director's physical demise
goes unmentioned. Tairov's early works are
paid lipservice, while his "socialist realism"
production of The Optimistic Tragedy is hailed
as the highest tribute to his talent. As for
the ignominious end of the Kamerny Theatre,
once again there is no mention made. Half-
truths and whitewashing should be no surprise
to the experienced reader, but are acknowledged
here as a caution to others. Texts such as
this one can and should be used for production
data, history, and the Soviet viewpoint; how-
ever, they must be compared with other docu-
ments for verification. Rybakov's glowing
account of the 1930's and 1940's is a good
example of what I mean.

The section on Theatrical Education is
meager, both in space devoted and in content.

I suggest that the interested reader see
entry number 31;.

 

 

144

217. Samarin, Roman, and Nikolyukin, Alexander, eds.
Shakespeare in the Soviet Union: A Collection
Of Articles. Translated by Avril Pyman.
Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966. pp. 275.
Illus. '

"The study of Shakespeare in the U.S.S.R.
has developed in close contact with the arts of
the theatre and translation. These three main
trends which go to make up our understanding of
Shakespeare--the work of our actors, producers
and stage designers, of our translators,
scholars and critics--are closely interwoven.

. . . It is for this reason that, in this col-
lection of articles, we have tried to give a
typical selection from Soviet Shakespeareana

by including works by poets, scholars, actors,
and producers. Taken together, they give an
idea of the main lines along which the study
and interpretation of Shakespeare has develOped
in this country, and help us to understand the
underlying significance Of the development of
Shakespeare studies in the U.S.S.R."

This handsome volume contains a series
of articles taken from interviews, periodi-
cals, journals, and from larger works written
by the individual authors. It is divided into
two sections: "Shakespeare And The Study of
Literature," and "Shakespeare And The Theatre."
In keeping with the focus Of this bibliography,
the articles in the former section are not
annotated but only listed below. Of the
articles in the second section (which are
annotated), the lengthiest also tend to be
virtually literary critiques. Actually, there
is little in the text directly applicable to
production technique.

 

 

SHAKESPEARE AND THE STUDY OF LITERATURE

A. Blok: Shakespeare's King Lear

A. Lunacharsky: Bacon and the Characters Of
Shakespeare's Plays

I. Sksyonov: What Is The Question?

A. Smirnow: Shakespeare, the Renaissance and
the Age of Brarroco [gig]

M. Morozov: On the Dynamism of Shakespeare's
Characters

A. Anikst: Shakespeare--a Writer of the
People

I. Anismov: Life--Affirming Humanism

 

 

145

SHAKESPEARE AND THE THEATRE
Konstantin Stanislavsky on Hamlet

This section is a transcript of an
address made by Stanislavsky in 1938 to his
acting students on creating the character of
Hamlet. He emphasizes developing an ability
to handle the language and provides instruction
in correct diction and vocal technique.

 

Alexander Ostuzhev on Othello

This is an edited interview taken from a
collection entitled Ostuzhev-Othello. It
centers on the actor's life-long study of the
play and the character in order to portray the
Moor as an admirable and even loveable man.

 

Alexei Popov: Shakespeare And The Theatre

The book Taming of the Shrew by Popov is
the source of this piece. It deals with the
Red Army Theatre's staging of the play in 1940.
It is the only article in the collection which
actually treats the staging concept, emphasis,
style, and movement patterns.

 

Galina Ulanov: My Juliet
Ulanova writes of her experience dancing
the role of Juliet to Prokofiev's score.

Innokenti Smokturnovsky: Shakespeare In My
Life

Smokturnovsky played Hamlet in a 1964
film made by the Leningrad Cinema Studio.
These two pages are taken from an article in
Teatr, and they indicate what the author used
Of Shakespeare's writings as director's notes
to help him build the role.

Nikolai Okhlopkov: From The Producer's EXpo-
sition of Hamlet

In 1954, Okhlopkov directed a production
of Hamlet at the Mayakovsky Theatre. This
lengthy article, originally appearing in Teatr,
analyzes the play as a sampling Of the litera-
ture which champions socialist humanism.

Grigori Kozintsev: King Lear

This, the last in the series of articles,
is actually a chapter from Kozintsev's book
Our Contemporary Shakespeare, which was pub-
liShed in 1962. Kozifitsev produced King Lear
in 1941 at the Gorky Bolshoi Drama Theatre in
Leningrad. The material does not describe the

 

 

 

218.

146

production but is rather a representation of
the director's preparatory socio-literary
analysis Of the play and the changing social
order of Shakespeare's time.

The text itself is interspersed with a
series of very attractive color plates of set
designs for The Merry Wives of Windsor, The
Merchant Of Venice, Julius Caesar, Much Ado
About Nothing, Othello, The Taming of the
Shrew, A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear,
Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night, and Hamlet.
In additiOn, at the end of the book, the edi-
tors have provided a special section of fifty-
three black and white production photographs
for Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Antony and
Cleopatra, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Richard III,
Romeo and Juliet, The WinterTs Tale, Twelfth
Night, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado About
Nothing, As You Like It, A Midsummer Night‘s
Dream, Two Gentlemen of Verona, and The Merry
Wives of Windsor.

 

 

 

Sayler, Oliver M. The Russian Theatre. 2nd rev.

and enl. ed. New York: Brentano, 1922. pp.
346. Illus.

This highly readable text displays the
author's courage in gathering his material
under fire, and gives the reader a sense Of
the excitement (without the usual melodrama)
of a theatre person witnessing the develop-
ments in Russian theatre right after the
Revolution. In addition to the usual materials
covered by this type Of text, Sayler provides
a chaper on the history of productions of
Russian drama in America from 1900 to 1920
by both the visiting Russian companies and
the Americans.

The text describes the theories and
production work Of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold,
and Tairov. Sayler analyzes and compares all
of the theatrical movements in Moscow and
Petrograd from 1917-1921 including accounts
of the shows he witnessed and the directors
he interviewed. It is interesting that in
the early twenties, the author summarized his
experiences by predicting the "termination of
national isolation and rigid governmental
control."

The reader is advised to see entry number
2T2_which is a complete annotation of The
Russian Theatre Under The Revolution, the first
edition Of'this text.

219.

147

Sayler, Oliver M. The Russian Theatre Under The

 

Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, and Com-
pany, 1920. pp. 273. Illus.

In this book, Oliver Sayler tries to con-
vey a feeling for the excitement of the Revo-
lution and how it affected the theatres of
Moscow as they attempted to carry on immedi-
ately following the Bolshevik takeover in 1917-
1918. In addition, he communicates his own
feelings as a reporter literally under fire!
The text is not so much analytical as thorough
and true in its reporting. Much of the pro-
duction description is accompanied by lengthy
play synopses. The material, naturally, bears
great similarity to The Russian Theatre by
Sayler, which is a revised and enlarged edition
of the basic form Of this text, published in
1922.

The first six chapters deal entirely with
the Moscow Art Theatre (The Blue Bird, The
Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard, The Lower
Depths, The Village of Stepantchikov) and its
studios.

Sayler remarks that his anti-realist
instincts were silenced by the impeccable use
Of realism at the Moscow Art Theatre. He con-
trasts Stanislavsky, in theory and practice,
with Meyerhold, Evreinov, and Tairov. Although
he devotes three chapters to the Kamerny
Theatre (Salomé, Azure Carpet, King Harlequin),
it was his feeling that Meyerhold, Stanislavsky,
and Evreinov were the major influences. His
analysis of Tairov is based on a paraphrase of
the régisseur's own notes as translated into
French. Today's reader can find a complete
English translation Of the Notes of a Director
(see entry number ll§)' The coverage Of
Evreinov contains the best biographical sketch
of the author in English and a list of his
written works and of the plays he directed.
Sayler also freely translates the preface to
The Repreeentation Of Love (published in 1910)
entitled "Introduction to Monodrama." The
chapter on Meyerhold is sketchy but useful for
its list of plays he produced in various
theatres between 1898 and 1917.

The picture is filled out by relating
the major movements to the classical repertory,
and to modern forms and personalities. The
eighth chapter looks at the background Of the
Maly Theatre and Sumbatoff's presentation Of
the realistic tradition of Ostrovsky. Still

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

other capsules illustrate the ideas concretized
by the Kommissarzhevskaya Memorial Theatre, the
studio experiments of Baliev's cabaret "The
Bat," and the pioneering light designs of
Salzmann.

220. Slonim, Marc. Russian Theater: From The Empire To
The Soviets. New York: Collier Books, 1962.
pp. 382. Illus.

This industrious, if inconsistent, volume
spans the Russian theatre from its origins in
pagan rituals into the early German and French
influences, through the evolution of the dis-
tinctive and multi-faceted pre-Revolutionary
theatre, to the Soviet theatre of the 1930's.
The period of greatest emphasis is 1890-1930.
These chapters cover the development Of the
Moscow Art Theatre in contrast with the methods
and styles of such other régisseurs as Meyer-
hold, Tairov, and Evreinov. They also contain
clear statements and summations of such systems
as biomechanics and constructivism. While none
Of this represents new scholarship, it does
contain valid critical insights and is written
in an animated style. The last chapter, also
the lengthiest, describes the doctrine and
practice of socialist realism, and the conse-
quent destruction of pre-Revolutionary inno-
vation. Although the author recognizes that
the death of Stalin altered the dull and con-
trived repertory, and subsequently permitted
creativity to emerge again, he concludes that
"The Russian theatre still has a long way to
go before it acquires a tenth Of the freedom
and variety it possessed in the twenties."

The excellence in some areas of the text
succumbs to omissions and sloppiness in others.
The early sections for example, up to the
1890's, are sketchy at best. Overall, the book
would have benefited from Notes and a Biblio—
graphy. Finally, the reader is cautioned to
watch for such errors as the statement that
Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko formu-
lated their plans for the Moscow Art Theatre
in 1898, when in fact, it was conceived in
1897.

 

221. Soviet Art in Wartime. Washington, D.C.: Infor-
mation Bulletin of the Embassy Of the Union Of
Soviet Socialist Republics, 1943. pp. 116.
Illus.
The volume, in its entirety, covers
music, drama, dance, literature, cinema, and

 

149

the graphic arts. Each section is comprised
of a series of articles written by different
artists. The section on drama extends from
page 32 to page 55, and contains the following
brief essays: "The Russian PeOple"; "A Play
About The Soviet People": "Our Women At The
Front"; "The Theatre of the Red Army"; "Ukran-
ian Actors at Stalingrad"; "The Moscow Jewish
Theatre"; "Plans For the Moscow Art Theatre";
"The People Are An Eternal Source Of Art";
"Actors of the Front"; and "A Children's
Theatre in Embattled Moscow."

The supplement was created to demonstrate
the great courage and purpose of the Soviet
peoples in their war effort and to illustrate
how a culture can thrive even in the face of
Hitler. Indeed, most texts describe Soviet
wartime theatrical activity as prodigious and
determined with makeshift but continuous oper-
ations in all the battle zones.

The first three articles deal with
Simonov's play The Russian People (which was
adapted by Clifford Odets and performed by the
Theatre Guild in America in 1942). "The most
significant thing in this play about the
Russian peOple is that it is nobly modest."
The articles include a plot summary, production
instructions, an analysis of the play's place
in the wartime literature, and a description
of sample acts of heroism that motivated its
author. While the description Of events and
the evaluation Of the importance of this play
is Often overly boastful and melodramatic, these
articles are a good index of how the theatre was
used to buoy morale and romanticize the national
identity.

Another article, "Plans For The Moscow
Art Theatre," written by Nemirovitch—Danchenko
while he was safely bunkered in Tiflis, looks
ahead to peacetime and projects plans for the
Moscow Art Theatre. Peacetime would see the
reopening of the "home of the Seagull," but
other theatres did not fare as well. As late
as 1953, there were fewer theatres Operating
in Russia than there had been in 1913.

In "Actors Of the Front" and "The People
Are An Eternal Source of Art," the authors de-
scribe how companies relocated outside of the
major cities or were separated into touring
cells which performed at the battlefronts. In
general, these profiles discuss the actors'
experiences and relate information on the
specific plays performed and the methods of

 

150

production. The text is accompanied by some
Of the best photographs available Of wartime
theatrical activity in Russia.

222. Sovietskii Teatr (Soviet Theatre). Moscow:
Izdatelsvo Iskousstvo, 1967. pp. 150. Illus.
An album of close to six hundred illus-
trations is advanced to illustrate the achieve—
ments of the Soviet theatre during the period
from 1917 to the mid—1960's. It is accompanied
by a three-page essay on the highlights of
Soviet production, written by K. Rudnitsky.
Some of the photographs, specifically those
recording Meyerhold and Vakhtangov's early
post-Revolutionary productions, have not been
found elsewhere by this researcher. Most Of
the other photographs, in keeping with tra-
ditional Russian publishing practices, are Of
individual actors. The information provided
by the English language captions is not as
complete as the original Russian titles.

 

223. The Theatres of Moscow. Moscow: Seventh Printery,
Undated. Unpaged.

This is a very interesting Russian album
of photographs and drawings depicting various
productions, artists, and theatres. "The pic-
tures in this album do not, of course, give a
comprehensive survey of all Moscow theatres.
They are merely a pictorial table of contents,
as it were, of the great book of Soviet dra—
matic art." There are seventy-nine repro-
ductions covering the Academic Theatre;
Theatres Created By The Great October Revo-
lution; The National Theatres; Theatres For
Children; Collective Farm Theatres; and New
Theatres In Construction. There is no date Of
publication, but from the introduction and some
of the photographs in the album, I believe this
book to have been printed in 1936. The photo-
graphs communicate a considerable variety of
design, staging, and acting style. Under each
photograph is a caption listing the play and
author, the producer, the designer, and the
theatre at which it was performed.

 

224. Van Gyseghem, André. Theatre in Soviet Russia.
London: Faber & Faber, 1943. pp. 220. Illus.
Van Gyseghem's writings are based on
four visits to the Soviet Union, including a
pre-war, year-long visit during which time he
worked under Nikolai Okhlopkov at the Realistic

 

151

Theatre. At the time of publication, however,
events had altered much of what Van Gyseghem
had seen up to 1938.

This book covers a particular segment
of Russian theatre history from the Revolution
through the 1930's. The author provides an
account Of the work of major directors, com-
panies, and playwrights including Meyerhold,
Vakhtangov, Okhlopkov, The Moscow Art Theatre,
the Maly, the Kamerny, the Theatre Of the
Revolution, the Trade Union Theatres Of Moscow
and the R.S.F.S.R., the national minority
theatres, and the children's theatres. He
gives an extensive personal description of the
physical surroundings, the emotional atmos—
phere, and the nature of the personalities in
connection with each movement and each theatre.
Introductions to philOSOphies and methods are
supplemented by extensive descriptions of key
productions witnessed by the writer, and/or
plot summaries for the purpose of comparisons.
Examples of the scope of the material include
a description of one of Meyerhold's biomechani-
cal exercises "Throwing The Stone"; the cur-
riculum Of the Kamerny Theatre School of Moscow;
Tairov's own comments on his production of
Egyptian Nights; Ryndin's designs for the
Kamerny; Akimov's Hamlet; Birmin's mounting
Of The Spanish Priest; Obraztsov's fascinating
puppet shows; and Okhlopkov's flexible staging
for Pogodin's Aristocrats.

 

 

 

225. Varneke, Boris V. History of the Russian Theater:
Seventh Through The Nineteenth Centupy. Trans-
lated by Boris Brasol. New York: Macmillan,
1951. pp. 459.

"The account encompasses the history of
the Russian theatre from its origins up to the
end of the nineteenth century. This conforms
to the program of the first year's study of
the subject as set forth by the Central Adminis-
tration of Educational Institutions. . . . In
the arrangement Of materials the greatest
emphasis was placed upon the origin and develop-
ment of realism on the Russian stage, which
constitutes the fundamental and the most pro-
ductive tendency Of our entire art."

This was a classic book in Russia, used
widely in schools as a text. It first appeared
in 1908, was revised in 1913, and this trans-
lation is of the third Soviet edition, issued
in 1939. As may be inferred from the first
quotation, the revisions are the result Of a

 

 

152

committee's suggestions (Central Administration
of Educational Institutions of the Council of
People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R.), and thus
is an indication of the unscholarly Soviet
penchant for reworking facts in order to coin-
cide with Party policy. Nonetheless, the text
does not seem overpowered by Marxist addenda.

In general, the chapters are heavy with
notes, information, and quotations, and the
style of writing succumbs to the weight of the
research. As to the translation, it has been
described by some scholars as smooth and by
others as pedestrian.

The emphasis of the history is on the
develOpment Of native drama and on histrionic
personalities in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, rather than on periodic movements
and social influences. Varneke begins with the
agrarian folk and ecclesiastical drama. He
traces change and development through the plots
and themes of the works of such playwrights as
Sumarokov, Kynozhin, Nikolev, Fonvizin,
Griboyedov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, and
Ostrovsky. Of classical authors, Ostrovsky
is established by Varneke (and perhaps by the
Commission) as occupying "the first place on
the Soviet stage." Performance tradition is
heavily represented by information on the serf
theatre, well-known actors and acting companies,
and with an entire chapter on Shchepkin.

Though certainly unintended, the data on and
descriptions Of government rule and censorship
under the aristocracy, the bureaucratic manage-
ment Of the court theatres, and the miseries

of the serf theatres promote thinking about
parallels in the Soviet theatre of the 1930's.

226. Zelikson, Mikhail A. The Artist of the Kamerni

Theatre: 1914-1934. Moscow: Ogiz, 1935.

I know only that there is indeed a book
of this title and that it is listed in the
Catalog of Printed Cards of the Library of
Congress. The Library of Congress indicated
in March of 1971 that Zelikson's book was not
in its collection nor was it aware of a library
in this country that did house the volume.

 

153

Articles and Periodicals

 

227. Bakshy, Alexander. "Latest Trends in Soviet
Theatre." Russian Review, V (Autumn, 1945),
80—88.

Bakshy is primarily concerned with dra-
matic literature. Nonetheless, the summary of
trends after the Revolution, up to and specifi-
cally during the 1940's, is helpful in evalu—
ating the many social and political influences
on the theatre as a whole. The reader sees
the effect of the ideological stranglehold of
the 1930's, the national martial goals of the
war years, and the post-war reconstruction
efforts. There are brief summaries of war
and post-war plays considered to have been
the most popular and the most successful.

 

228. Bakshy, Alexander. "Russian Dramatic Stage." The
Drama, XIX (February, 1919), 31-61.

In an earlier theatre bibliography, this
article was described in part as a "History of
stagecraft in Russia from the mid-seventeenth
century to 1919." The dates are right but
rather than a history I would call it a hastily
assembled frame for the article's real subject,
which is a comparison of representational and
presentational theatre, as practiced by the
Moscow Art Theatre and Meyerhold respectively.
Though not highly illustrated with references
to productions, the summary of differentiating
characteristics is thorough and clear. Bakshy
pays particular attention to the disparate
approaches to dramatic literature, linking
Chekov to the Moscow Art Theatre and Maeter-
linck to Meyerhold. The work of such men as
Evreinov and Tairov is avoided (and I believe,
mistakenly so) as the author considers theirs
to be "isolated experiments."

229. Bakshy, Alexander. "Ten Years of a Revolutionary
Theatre." Theatre Arts Magazine, XI (November,
1927), 867-75. Illus.

The emergence of a new proletarian
audience and the subsequent nationalizing of
the theatres is the background for Bakshy's
analysis of the period from the October Revo-
1ution to 1927. He divides the emergent forms
according to creative theory and to construc-
tivist theory. The former was represented by
the nationwide non-professional club and fac-
tory theatre, and the latter as a theatrical

 

154

organization of real life (art as action and
the futurist revolutionism of Meyerhold).
Bakshy writes that biomechanics and construc-
tivism represented industrial activity on the
stage (complete with overalls). The theatre
was a tool for serving the revolution and
shaping the sentiments Of the new audience.
His criticism Of the constructivist achieve-
ment is based on the lack Of depth in the dra-
matic material and the failure of the form to
emerge as distinctly different and unique from
the theatre of any other nation. The second
argument appears quite narrow and goes un-
proven in the text. When evaluating Meyerhold,
the connection must be sought not with other
contemporary movements, but with the history
of theatrical convention.

230. Barbisan, Gala, and Valot, Henriette. "The Soviet
Theatre--Problems and Solutions." World
Theatre, X (Winter, 1961-62), 15-27. Illus.

Authors Barbisan and Valot were the
French translators of such Soviet "comedies"
as It Happened in Irkutsk. This article was
stimulated by the visit of the Vakhtangov
Theatre to the Theatre Of Nations in Paris.
Despite the article's title, there is little
real analysis of contemporary problems. In-
deed, the piece suffers from the same melan-
choly and ideology-flaunting to be found in
It Happened in Irkutsk. It seems that what
is meant by problems is the difficulty in
studying Soviet theatre. The ladies write of
the troubles to be found in trying to analyze
the huge Soviet audience, and of determining
criteria for judging a national theatre whose
purpose is political and social education.
Most outsiders, they determine, do not under-
stand Or appreciate the Russian elements or
the Russian purpose in Soviet drama. The
article also contains a pseudo-critical,
sketchy history tracing the Soviet dramatic
theme from a theatre of events to a theatre
Of man, and discusses the relation of both to
classical Russian drama.

 

 

231. Beiswanger, George. "Soviet Russia At War: Theatre
and Film in Action." Theatre Arts Monthly,
XXVI (November, 1942), 682-89. Illus.
One of the most amazing aspects of the
total theatrical organization in Russia has
been the mobilization effected during World

 

155

War II. Beiswanger illustrates the immensity
and the courage of the Operation, tracing the
movements Of state and military ensembles at
the front. The reader will also find state-
ments from Russian performers as to what it
was like to perform for the soldiers. During
the war, efforts were made in every field to
make Russian history supply militant heroes
and to establish a heritage of national courage
and bravery. As the performers contributed
their abilities, the dramatists too kept writ-
ing and developing this national image. The
author comments on examples of the war litera-
ture such as Simonov's The Russians and Afio-
genyov's On The Eve.

 

 

232. Bertensson, Sergei. "The Premiere of 'The Inspector
General.'" The Russian Review, VII (Autumn,
1947), 88-95.

The history of Gogol's play was a very
painful one for its author. In this essay,
Bertensson describes Gogol's extreme dis-
pleasure with the vaudeville-like initial pro-
duction at the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St.
Petersburg and with subsequent misinterpre-
tations; and how these incidents led to an
Obsessive sense of disgust and pain. Gogol,
"had not at all wished to make fun of the
established order of government, but only of
those who deviated from this order."

 

233. Buchwald, Nathanial. "The First International

 

Olympiad of Revolutionary Theatres." Inter-
national Literature, IV (October, 1933), 137-
42.

Moscow was the gathering place for
agit-prop revolutionary theatres from all over
the world. For a period, the Blue Blouse Bri-
gades were used as politically instructional
devices in club houses, factories, and outly-
ing areas all over Russia. This article deals
with the organization of the event; the par-
ticipants; the goals Of docu-drama; style of
presentation; and the specific operation of
the Soviet TRAMS (Workers Youth Theatres).
There is an interesting critical emphasis on
the general need for more intensive character
portrayal and greater understanding of the-
atrical convention in the work of these groups.
The Soviets themselves were to discover that,
for similar reasons, the one-dimensionality of
the living newspaper-approach rapidly exhausted
its appeal.

156

234. Bulletin Of the Society For Cultural Relations With
The U.S.S.R. London: Society For Cultural
Relations With The U.S.S.R., 1953-1955.
(Mimeographed.)

These six issues, dated from July 1953
to October 1955 but not following a specific
chronological schedule, contain translations
and abridgements from Russian periodicals and
reports, some of which were in turn compiled
from still other journals. Below is a list of
the articles appearing in each short issue.
Any incomplete bibliographical listing is the
fault of the original issues.

 

July, 1953 (Number 1)

"Soviet Audiences." translated by Anne
Collingwood

"With The Help Of 100 Switches." by Kameney

"Soviet Drama Today."

June, 1954

"Soviet Ballet and Ballet Dancers."

"Satire As A Weapon." by A. Maryamov

"What Makes For Good Plays." by K. Simonov
and others.

"Theatre Going In The Soviet Union."

September, 1954

"Stage and Screen Acting." by V. Pudovkin

"Backstage Miracles." by N. Shelkan. A.
Bronnikov, and A. Lev

"Reminiscences Of Chekov." by Stanislavsky
and Danchenko

January, 1955

"Training and Working Conditions in the
Soviet Theatre."

"National Studios."

"The Urgent Needs of Soviet Ballet." by
R. Zakharov

"New Plays and Productions."

June, 1955

"Repertoire Problems." by V. Pimenov

"Stanislavsky's Legacy." by V. Zavadsky

"Ballet and Contemporary Themes." by Dyatlov
and Sibirtsev

"A Young Ballerina's Debut." by Timme and
Karp

235.

236.

237 O

157

October, 1955

"Hamlet: A Soviet Producer's View." by
Okhlopkov

"Recent and Forthcoming Productions."

"Awards and Appointments."

"Artistic Council of the Maly Theatre."

Burgess, Malcolm. "Russian Public Theatre Audiences

of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries." Egg
Slavonic and East Eurppean Review, XXXVII
TI§59Y, 160-83.

This article traces a rather boisterous
theatrical beginning (not uncommon to other
European countries) all the way to the estab-
lishment of the Petrovsky and Bolshoi theatres
in the 1780's. Burgess centers the article on
the court and public theatres of Moscow and
St. Petersburg, illustrating how influences of
European companies and stagecraft and ulti-
mately the beginnings of a native theatre
affected the state of being in both the pit
and the box. In addition to being informative
and making considerable use of diaries and
logs kept by foreign observers, the article
provides a number Of excellent anecdotes of
the Covent Garden and Drury Lane-brawl variety.

 

Carter, Huntly. "An Historical Sketch of the

Theatre in Soviet Russia." Fortnightlngeview,
CXI (March, 1922), 498-508.

Carter has aimed in this article to
illustrate how the Revolution and Soviet social
ideology changed the Russian audiences and
subsequently the forms of theatre. He chroni-
cles events beginning in 1918 and leading up
to the establishment of the Proletarian Theatre.
The Proletarian Theatre is seen in the Cultural
Theatre, Mass Spectacles, Studios, Independent
Workers Theatre, and Children's Theatre. The
discussion takes in the nationalization Of
established theatres; agit-prop reviews,
repertory reform; Lunacharsky; and the develop-
ment of mass audiences through ticket distri-
bution to Trade Unions and industrial firms.

 

Deutsch, Babette. "The Russian Theatre Today."

Theatre Arts Magazine, August, 1925, pp. 537-47.
Deutsch viewed the Russian theatre as a
continuum stretching from theatricality to
propaganda. The article makes statements about
a variety of companies, classifying them accord-
ing to this continuum. For example, Meyerhold

 

158

is seen as a propagandist handling social
themes, Zemach and the Habima are said to
reject prOpaganda for a theatre of social
tragedy, and the Kamerny is categorized as an
aesthetic enterprise without social relation-
ships. Generally, the discussions are sketchy
and the comparisons simplistic. The passing
mention of some of the theatres also includes
their directors, but in the case of the Third
Studio and the Kamerny, Deutsch fails to
identify or relate to Vakhtangov and Tairov
directly.

238. "The Eugene Vakhtangov Theatre." World Theatre, XVI

(1967), 184-88.
This article is divided into a tribute

to Vakhtangov himself and the traditions of the
theatre that took his name. The author aims
at communicating the guiding aesthetic and
temperament of the Vakhtangov throughout its
existence. Examples of the approach are given
in the description of the staging of Living
Death and of Filumena Marturano. The author
also treats the revival of Princess Turandot,
Vakhtangov's last production before his death
in 1922, as produced by his disciple Reuben
Simonov on the eightieth anniversary of the
director's death. Actually, given Vakhtangov's
commentaries on the need to see a classic or
a revival through the more modern times of its
representation, this museum resurrection seems
strangely alien to the director's teachings.

 

 

 

239. Fevralsky, A. "Non-Professional Theatre." V.O.K.S.
Bulletin, No. 6 (1934), 80-83.

The Soviet theatre distinguished between
professional theatre, amateur theatre, and
self-acting theatre. The last, also known as
agit-prOp, shock brigade, and Living News-
paper, theatre acted as a political and social
extension Of industrial establishments and
public institutions. Using the TRAM or Theatre
of Young Workers as the primary example, the
author describes the kind Of plays performed,
the social function, company organization,
subsidy, and relationship to other forms of
theatre.

240. Flanagan, Hallie. "The Russian Theatre: One Theory
As To Its Inspiration." Theatre Guild Magazine,
June, 1930, pp. 46-47. Illus.
In the book The Russian Theatre, written
along with René FfilOp-Miller, Joseph Gregor

 

159

advanced the proposition that "in the miniature
art of the illuminator we can trace the main
ideas expressed by the most modern form of the
Russian theatre." Flanagan explains and ampli-
fies this theory. She analyzes icon painting
and draws parallels with existing Russian set
designs. The article provides a good back—
ground for understanding the book in general.
It indicates an interest in the theory, but

is also properly cautious. "Provocative as is
Gregor's theory, it cannot be held to account
entirely for the astounding phenomenon of the
revolutionary stage; it ignores the influence
of the machine, the circus, and the cinema."
One might also add that it fails to account for
the influences Of the symbolist movement of

the early 1900's and of the theatrical work of
Appia, Craig, and Fuchs.

241. Glade, Henry. "The Death Of Mother Courage." The
Drama Review, XII (Fall, 1967), 137-42. Illus.

This concise article traces the phases
of Brecht's acceptance in Moscow from M.
Straukh's production of Mother Courage at the
Mayakovsky Theatre in 1960 to the nine Brecht
plays in the Moscow theatre repertories as of
the 1966-67 season.

Glade discusses the approaches to staging
and acting Brecht as illustrated by the Straukh
mounting, Lyubimov's Good Woman of Setzuan and
Galileo, and the Student Theatre of Moscow Uni-
versity's presentation of The Resistable Rise
of Arturo Ui. He points out that the most
successful productions Of the playwright, who
only really became the vogue in Russia in the
1960's, are those that "have synthesized a new
theatre from old traditions--Stanislavski and
Vakhtangov--and current concerns, political
and intellectual."

 

 

 

 

 

242. Glenny, Michael, and Kinsolving, William Lee.

"Soviet Theatre: Two Views." Tulane Drama
Review, XI (Spring, 1967), 100-16. Illus.

If one has been or is intending to read
the World Reviews on Russia in World Theatre
or similar accounts by Russians, it is suggested
that these two articles be read before and after
any others. Both views (which are not in con-
tradiction as might be inferred) contain a great
deal of historical summary, placing the activi-
ties Of the late 1950's and 1960's in the per-
spective of the "elan of the 20's" as well as

 

 

243.

244.

160

in that of the boring, tired, unresponsive
theatre that extended from the late 1930's
right through into the 1950's. The emphasis
lies with Tovstonogov, Lyubimov, Yefremov, and
Akimov, illustrating the daring and iconoclasm
that emerged with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization
program. As well as providing numerous ex-
amples of the work of the contemporary direc-
tors, these articles contrast the newcomers
with the state Of the academic theatres--the
Maly, the Moscow Art Theatre, and the Pushkin.
Statistics update the records on numbers of
theatres, companies, ticket prices, organi-
zation, etc. Illustrations depict the variety
of style and the use of theatrical convention
employed in the Gorky, Contemporary, Taganka,
and Leningrad Comedy theatres.

Houghton, Norris. "Russian Theatre: Oneness and

the Missing Element." Theatre Arts, XLVI
(April, 1962), 12-16, 66-70. Illus.

This article is an excerpt from the
final chapter of Houghton's book Return Engege-
ment. The reader is directed to the annotation
for this text (see entry number g2).

 

 

Isaacs, Edith J. R., ed. "The Soviet Theatre Speaks

For Itself." Theatre Arts Monthl , XX
(September, 1936), 663-752. Illus.

This special issue on the Soviet theatre
contains all the articles listed below. Those
pertaining specifically to production are
annotated under the appropriate headings else-
where in this paper. The reader may be inter-
ested to also read the World Theatre Russian
issue (see entry number Egg) at this time. The
World Theatre issue coming some thirty-one
years later, and in the post-Stalin period,
offers updating and some interesting contrasts.

 

 

 

"A New Chapter in Dramatic Thought," by Vladimir
Kirshon

"From the Notebook," by Eugene Vakhtangov

"The Actor and the Revolution," by Pavel Markov

"Meyerhold Orders Music," by Vsevolod Meyerhold

"The Designer in the Theatre," by Nikolai
Akimov

"Gorky and Bulichov," by Jozef Youzovsky

”Conversations With A Young Régisseur," by Yuri
Zavadsky

"Theatre of the Soviet: A Portfolio."

I I. I tlll" [Al 4

161

"Through Theatre To Cinema,‘ by Sergei M.
Eisenstein
"A Soviet Bibliography."

"The Soviet Theatre Record."

The following is an interesting edi-
torial note appearing in Theatre Arts in 1944
on the effect of this specialiissue. "In
September, 1936, after a year and a half Of
hard but fascinating labor, spearheaded by Jay
Leyda then in Moscow, Theatre Arts published
a special issue callediTThe Soviet Theatre
Speaks For Itself.‘ It was written entirely
by leaders in each field of the Soviet theatre
art and was illustrated with rare photographs.
We were so sure we were presenting something
of unusual interest that we ordered a large
overprint. To our great chagrin nobody bought
it. Even the newstands returned a large share
of their supply. The extra copies so cluttered
the office that we had soon to throw most of
them away. The epilogue is the revealing part
of this story. In the summer of 1943 (seven
years later) orders began to pour into Theatre
Arts' Office for this issue, absorbing almost
all that was left. It was evidently the vic-
tory Of Russian armies against the Germans
that made peOple rub their eyes and want to
know more about Russia, and, incidentally,
about Russian theatre."

 

 

245. Karpova, Susan. "The Story of Russian Theatre."
Poet Lore, XXVIII (Spring, 1927), 77-95.

A bibliographical listing for an eighteen-
page historical survey in this kind of journal
is unusual and intriguing, but this one is not
worth the interest. Written as if an anecdote
to be told on a talk show, it is riddled with
grammatical errors, misspellings, and useless
generalizations. Shchepkin variously appears
as Shekine and Schepkin; Huntly Carter is
listed as Burtley Carter; and O. M. Sayler
appears as Saylor. The author is generous
with such illuminating statements as, "Russians
have many failings; they also have their quali-
ties. . . ." In discussing one of Carter's
books, she writes, "Is this book reliable all
through? Is it fair? To err is human and to
be fair is not, and Mr. Carter is human."

This article can be safely passed up.

162

246. Litovsky, O. "Sixteen Years of the Soviet Theatre."

V.O.K.S. Bulletin, NO. 6 (1934), 3-10. Illus.
We are asked to believe that the pre-

Revolutionary theatre was always in chaos--an
art isolated from life "in the pursuit of
aesthetic forms." A statistical report on the
sixteen years gives information on the number
of theatres, stage workers, buildings, training
institutions, etc. The All-Union Theatrical
Conference of 1927 is treated as a milestone
in the develOpment of a Soviet repertory. It
has been illustrated that for many minority
theatres it brought an end to individual cul-
tural expression. The key ideas at that Con-
ference were the elimination Of "purely formal-
istic innovations" and the development of
socialist realism, which it was maintained
could enfold the "artistic differentiation of
various theatres." Looking to the future,
Litovsky outlined future plans for the use of
socialist realism in "liquidating the survival
of capitalism in people's conscience."

 

247. Malnick, Bertha. "A. A. Shakhovskoy." The Slavonic
and East Epropean Review, XXXII (December,
1953), 29-51.

"Prince Aleksandr Aleksandrovich
Shakhovskoy was the most versatile man of the
Russian theatre in the first half of the nine-
teenth century." This article provides not
only a great quantity of important biblio-
graphical material, but also a detailed picture
of the conditions and practices of the Imperial
theatre in the late eighteenth and early nine-
teenth centuries.

Malnick looks into all of Shakhovskoy's
achievements and endeavors. He was a play-
wright, translator, adapter, critic, acting
coach, producer, and important administrator.
The article reveals his accomplishments from
the develOpment and encouragement Of native
language drama to bringing vaudeville to the
Russian stage and establishing the theatrical
journal, Dramatic Herald, in 1808. This piece
serves as a highly interesting view of one of
the Russian theatre's earliest "total" artists.

 

 

248. Malnick, Bertha. "The Origin and Early History of
The Theatre in Russia." The Slavonic and East
European Review, XIX (1940i, 203-27.
The Official history of the Imperial
Russian theatre began with the establishment
of the court theatre in 1756. There are a

 

 

163

great number of important dates in the rela-
tively short history of the Russian theatre
which can be analyzed as significant for a
myriad of reasons. Many of these dates corres-
pond to setbacks or awkward attempts to find a
national natural dramatic outlet. Malnick be-
gins demonstrating the nucleus of difficulty

by documenting that "it was the extreme ascetic-
ism Of the Greek Orthodox Church which really
made the natural development of a national
theatre possible." In the article she traces
threads Of drama in family ritual, in vertep

or marionette theatre, in the school plays from
Poland and Germany, and in the first secular
plays produced for Tsar Alexis by the German,
Johann Gregory in the 1660's. The author goes
on to amplify the various directions and
developments that were influenced by importing
whole companies, professional theatres, and
types of dramatic literature from Italy, France,
and Germany. One gets a feeling from Malnick
for the irony inherent in juxtaposing the novel
innovations Of the twentieth century Russian
theatre with the fact that "the first perfor-
mance Of a Russian theatre before the general
public for money" was not given until 1757.

249. Malnick, Bertha. "Russian Serf Theatres." The
Slavonic and East European Review, XXX-Ti952),
393-411.

At its best, serf theatre both developed
and transmitted native drama. At its worst,
it was a decadent, degrading, cruel, power-
abusing institution similar to any other form
of slavery. Malnick, candidly and with con-
siderable documentation, provides an insight
into how the form emerged and develOped, and
examples of how several of the companies
functioned. The phenomenon existed throughout
the late eighteenth century and the early nine-
teenth century, with as many as one hundred
and seventy-three Of these theatres in exis-
tence in the late 1700's. The style and type
of each theatre was most Often dictated by the
mania of the particular owner, although pur-
pose, taste, education, and intended audience
frequently entered into the decisions. On one
level, the productions were simply glorified
diversions, early models of conspicuous con-
sumption which satisfied the desires Of fabu-
lously wealthy eccentrics. Some individuals
however, such as Nikoloy Sheremetev, whose

250.

251.

164

theatre palace at Ostankino is detailed in this
article, developed a plaything into a sophisti-
cated art.

The author covers such topics as play
repertory; the French influence; Vorontsov's
theatre and the emergence of the "infant Rus-
sian drama"; individual serf actors and their
training; ballet and opera in the serf theatre;
and the history and techniques of some Of the
more prominent companies. "Serf theatre
broadened the basis for the development of a
native theatre. At their best, the serf
theatres undoubtedly disseminated a theatrical
culture that would otherwise have remained the
monopoly of the educated gentry."

Sayler, Oliver M. "The Deeper Roots Of The Russian

Theatre." The Bookman, L (December, 1919),
108-14.

The "deeper roots" translates into a
short but informative and detailed history of
the Maly Theatre (the Small State Theatre).
The spotlight is shared with an equally detailed
biography of Prince Sumbatoff, actor, director
and playwright who is credited with having re-
vived the "home of the classics" in 1908 when,
owing to a weakened company and a decade or more
Of "made-over plays from the French," it had
declined into an example of just what the Moscow
Art Theatre had been created to overcome.
Sayler's article includes information on the
theatre's most famous productions such as hip
Works Woe (which the author insists on calling
The Sorrows of the Spirit); and a report on the
first two productions done after the Revolution,
Salomé and A Florentine Tragedy. Finally, there
are also sketches of the actors and playwrights
associated with the famous Old theatre since
the 1840's.

 

 

 

 

Stepanov, Valerian. "Gostim: Russia's Experimental

Theatre Museum." Theatre ArEs Monthly, XXVII
(September, 1933), 689-95. Illus.

The problem of preservation is one of the
things this bibliography and all of its entries
is about. Short of sound films for a permanent
history of productions, we must rely on the
highly imperfect memory and perceptive abili-
ties Of man. Gostim (the Museum Of the State
Theatre in the name of Meyerhold), organized in
1927, was "a scientific research laboratory for
systematizing documentary material for the pur-
pose Of studying and displaying the creative

165

methods of the experimental theatre itself.

. . ." Stepanov explains the museum's approach
to saving and using materials, and relates the
background of the collection. At the time,
there were great plans for the expansion of

the museum as part of a projected new archi-
tectural stage space theatre to have been built
for Meyerhold. The theatre never materialized.
In general, Russia has been systematic and
industrious in maintaining materials in the-
atrical libraries and museums.

252. Svobodine, Alexander. "The Last Ten Years Output."
World Theatre, XVI (January—February, 1967),
35-42. Illus.

The stress in output has been on youth--
young performers and the growth of young com-
panies. The author illustrates the trend with
the Sovremenik Theatre, which came into exis-
tence in 1956, and the Taganka (living for some
time in an officially uncertain environment),
and with the description of the influx of young
actors playing major roles in the established
companies (Maly, Mossoviet, and Vakhtangov
theatres). Utilizing opportunities for a "one
man show," young performers have had a chance
to express individual aesthetic principles
regardless of company bent, without feeling
that individual development necessitated a
change of affiliation. The trends and themes
are also discussed in relation to the theatres
in the Republics.

 

 

253. Theatre Arts Magazine, January, 1926, pp. 53-56.
Illus.

A series of four photographs represent
the genre Of the "Living Newspaper." They
include the productions of Hands Off China!
and The Zinoviev Letter. These are good illus-
trations of the type of tableaux and scenic
presentations utilized by this short-lived
form which indicated the role Bolshevism had
assigned to the theatre.

 

 

254. "Theatre In The U.S.S.R." V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 6
(1934): pp. 105. Illus.

This is a special edition of the bulletin
dedicated almost entirely to the theatre during
the post-Revolutionary years. Although the
articles contain little of a critical nature,
there is an abundance of information, a strong
presentation of the Soviet theatrical ideology,

166

and a large number of good illustrations.
Below is a list of the articles. Each is
annotated separately under the appropriate
heading.

"Sixteen Years of the Soviet Theatre," by
O. Litovsky
"Soviet Drama," by N. Oruzheynikov
"Our Dramatic Theatres," by Y. Sobolev
"Opera and Ballet in the Soviet Union," by
E. Braudo
"The Artist And The Theatre," by S. Margolin
"Soviet Writers on the Soviet Theatre," by
V. Vishnevsky and others
"Actors and Producers Speak Of Their Work," by
A. Vishnevsky and others
"Theatre Culture of the Peoples of the U.S.S.R."
by V. Tikhonovich
"Non-Professional Theatre," by A. Fevralsky
"Theatre in the Colhoz," by V. Nikolayev
"Theatrical Education," by D. Kalantarov
"Theatrical Museums," by N. Ulovich
"Foreign Opinion on Soviet Theatre," by An-Yang
and others

255. "Theatre In The U.S.S.R." World Theatre, XVI
(January-February, 1967), pp. 104. Illus.

The entire issue is dedicated to the
Russian theatre. Below you will find a list
of the articles it contains. The annotations
appear elsewhere under the appropriate head-
ings. In keeping with the form of this biblio-
graphy, there are no entries for the articles
on dramatic literature, Opera, or ballet.

This is an important issue for its recog-
nition of the Soviet theatre, and a good status
survey for the student. It will prove inter-
esting and profitable to compare this edition
with the special issue on the Russian theatre
prepared by Theatre Arts, in 1936 (Sept., 1936).

 

"Aspects of the Soviet Theatre," by Mikhail
Tsarev

"Diversity in Soviet Drama," by Inna
Vichnevskaia

"Old and New Trends in Production," by Yuri
Rybakov

"The Last Ten Years Output," by Alexander
Svobodine

"Contemporary Opera and Its Problems," by
Boris Pakrovski

"New Paths in Soviet Ballet," by Boris
Lvov-Anokhine

167

"Theatre For The Young Audience,“ by Irina
Segedi

"Becoming A Director in Five Years," by Maria
Knebel

256. Tsarev, Mikhail. "Assets of the Soviet Theatre."
World Theetre, XVI (January-February, 1967),
2-10. Illus.

"The problems of the truth of life in
art, of the positive hero, Of present-day
heroism, of the nature of Socialist ethics and
of Socialist humanism, of authentic and illusory
innovation are of passionate interest to the
Soviet man of the theatre." At the time of
this article's writing, we are told by its
author, there were one hundred and twenty-six
thousand theatre companies performing in forty-
five languages in Russia. If one gets the im-
pression that everyone in Russia was either
performing or in the audience, Mr. Tsarev is
equally desirous of depicting a national theatre
that covers all the bases of literature, pro-
duction, innovation, and international commit-
ment. The reader will find information on con-
temporary Soviet drama; the production of
foreign playwrights; the Stanislavsky legacy;
the extensive provincial theatre Operation;
participation in such groups as the I.T.I.,
the International Puppet Union, and the Inter-
national Children's and Youth Theatre Associ-
ation; and the history of the staging of world
classics in Russia. To the accusations of
being a propagandistic theatre, the author
replies that such is indeed the case, but that
it is propagandistic about the ideals Of peace
and socialist humanism.

 

257. Ulovich, N. "Theatrical Museums." V.O.K.S. Bulletin,
NO. 6 (1934), 94-96.

As an example of the dedication to the
preservation of Soviet accomplishments in the
arts and to a scientific approach to change,
this section of the Special edition of the
V.O.K.S. Bulletin deals with theatrical museums.
Wfiileiit touches on the operations of specific
theatre-associated museums including the Maly,
the Moscow Art, and the Meyerhold, the primary
concern is with the Bakhrushin Theatrical
Museum in Moscow. The type and organization
of holdings is outlined, as are the special
exhibits and programs. In addition, the reader
is informed of future plans for the use of
photography and cinema to record complete pro-
ductions.

 

 

168

258. Vacquier, Tatiana I. "The Russian Theatre."
Sewanee Review, XXXIX (January-March, 1931),
39-53.

This article attempts a great deal more
than it achieves. The relation of events be-
gins in the seventeenth century and ends shortly
before 1920. At best providing an outline for
the general reader, the hurried style, scatter-
ing of superlatives, and bounding approach to
events and individuals makes the commentary
sometimes confusing and sometimes superficial.
Meyerhold's activities following his stay at
the Kommissarzhevsky Theatre are summarized
(or rather brushed Off) by saying that "The
theatre was no more a temple to him but the
Opposite extreme--a grotesque puppet show."

The author incorrectly concludes that "his
creative efforts seem to have degenerated."
Although, in general, she points out many high-
lights and characteristic features of the first
two decades of the 1900's, the events are pre-
sented more as chaotic happenings than as out-
growths or reactions to one another.

 

259. Von Szeliski, John J. "Lunacharsky and the Rescue
Of Soviet Theatre." Educational Theatre
Journal, XVIII (December, 1966), 412-20.

This article is intended to provide a
biographical sketch of Lunacharsky, outline the
information of early Soviet policies towards
the theatre and 'approved' playwriting, and
evaluate Lunacharsky's position in that shaky
artistic evolution."

Although specific in pointing out
Lunacharsky's weaknesses and the blinding
quality of his intense belief in an inevitable
world communist future, the author attempts to
prove that the Commissar's humanist sensitivi-
ties, organizational abilities, and efforts to
maintain "a Bolshevik spirit without being
destructive," stand as evidence of his success
in keeping the early Soviet theatre from suc-
cumbing to mere "violent artistic radicalism."

 

169

The Moscow Art Theatre

 

Books

260. Bakshy, Alexander. The Path of the Modern Russian
Sta e. London: Decil Palmer and Hayward,
1 16. pp. 243. Illus.
See entry number T§§ for complete
annotation.

261. Boleslavski, Richard, and Woodward, Helen. Lances
Down. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Com-
pany, 1932. pp. 296.

Richard Boleslavski came to America (to
use Harold Clurman's term) as a "truant from
the Moscow Art Theatre." Together with Maria
Ouspenskaya, he started the American Laboratory
Theatre. He was the first man to teach the
Moscow Art Theatre acting techniques in America.
In addition to the shows he directed in New
York in the '20's he also directed some seven
films in Hollywood before his death in 1937.
The theatre student knows him best for his book
Acting, the First Six Lessons, and for various
articlesiin Theatre Arts Magazine. Lances Down
does contain chapters entitledinhe Moscow Art
Theatre" and "Our Studio," but the material is
incidental and anecdotal. The book is a vivid
account of the horrendous and bloody fighting
that broke out between the Reds and the Whites
following the Revolution. Boleslavski recalls
what he observed in Moscow and describes his
reactions. Aside from incidentals on Boleslav-
ski's audition for the Moscow Art Theatre and
the life of the apprentice, there is little in
the book on the Soviet theatre.

 

 

 

262. Edwards, Christine. The Stanislavsky Heritage: Its
Contribution to the Russian and American
Theatre. New York: New York University Press,
1965. pp. 345. Illus.
See entry number 3; for complete
annotation.

 

 

263. Fovitzky, Alexsiei Leonidovich. The Moscow Art
Theatre and Its Distinguishing Characteristics.
New York: A. Chernoff Publishing CO., 1922.
pp. 46. Illus.

In this brief text, the author success-
fully communicates the accomplishments and the
spirit Of the Moscow Art Theatre; what it meant
to the Russian theatre in the early 1900's; and
the response of its devotees. Subjects of the

 

 

170

study include the characteristics of literary
interpretation and the develOpment of "pereji-
vanie" in the Moscow Art Theatre; Stanislav-
sky's goals and some of his training methods;
the theatre's repertory; and a general history
of the first twenty-four years of production.
The history shows a good understanding of themes
and the threads that connected the various and
diverse periods in the Moscow Art Theatre's
early history. The discussion of the meanings
of some Of the plays in relation to their stag-
ing at the Moscow Art Theatre is not quite as
successful. Fovitsky's acceptance of Stanis-
lavsky's ideas about The Cherry Orchard are
Opposed to much of the subsequent scholarship
and to Chekhov's own feelings and intentions.
The considerable coverage of the Stanislavsky—
Craig Hamlet depicts the Prince, through a lens
of Ru531anization, as a "Knight of the Holy
Ghost"(!) The literary critique, in general,
is in march tempo and filled with slavic
melancholy.

In the working notes, including quotations
from the dramatist Yartzev's diaries, we gain
some insight into the almost mesmeric effect
Stanislavsky had on his workers, and into the
type of improvisatory and concentration-
building exercises he employed.

264. Grigoriev, Boris Dmitrievich. The Faces of Russia.
Berlin: Sinaburg and CO., 1924. pp. 106.
Illus.

In 1923 the Moscow Art Theatre visited
Paris and there a Russian emigrant painter,
Boris Grigoriev, was reunited through the per-
formances with his past and his memories. The
experience provoked him to do a series of
paintings and sketches, mostly of the per-
formers themselves, and these portraits form
the reason for this book. Some of them were
executed in the theatre and some in Grigoriev's
studio where the actors often came to make them-
selves up and to dress. The sketches are
striking both in the use of color and in line.
Many utilize a cubistic rendering of the planes
of the face. The accompanying text (written
by Louis Réau, Claire Sheridan, André Levinson,
Claude Farrere, and André Antoine) is of only
casual interest. Most of the commentaries,
when not on Grigoriev himself, are impassioned
descriptions of characterization and style in
the three plays performed--Czar Feodor, The

171

Cherry Orchard, and The Lower Depths. One of
the writers is André Antoine Of the Theatre
Libre. His reaction to the Moscow Art Theatre
was to feel that, although unaware of each
other's work, the Free Theatre and the Moscow
Art Theatre had been pursuing the same ends.
The following is a list of the portraits in-
cluded in this volume: Kochalov as Czar Feodor
Joannovich; V. Loujski as Boris Godounov; P.
Bakshev as Vasska Pepel (Lower Depths); V.
Loujski as the Hatter (Lower Depths); V.
Kachalov making himself up for the part of
Czar Feodor; Mrs. Knipper as Nastassja (Lower
Depths); I. Moskvin as Sniegirev (Brothers
Karamazov); N. Podgorni as Peter Trofimov (The
Cherry Orchard); I. Alexandrov as the Actor
(Lower Depths); I. Moskvin as Czar Feodor
Joannovich; portrait of V. Loujski.

 

 

 

 

 

 

265. Markov, Pavel. The First Studio: Sullerzhitsky-
Vakhtahgov-Tchekhov. Translated by Mark
Schmidt. New York: Group Theatre, Inc., 1934.
pp. 80. (Typewritten.)

There is a lot to wade through here, but
a close reading yields valuable information on
the activities Of the Moscow Art Theatre's First
Studio, an enterprise which eventually became
the Moscow Art Theatre Number Two. The typed
manuscript is full of spelling errors, multiple
transliterations Of the same name, switches to
double spacing from single spacing, and, in
general, suffers from poor editing. The trans-
lation occasionally succumbs to such phrases
as "indwelling saturatedness of character," and
the language describing individuals is fre-
quently chokingly heroic. One last caution
should note the difficulty of successfully con-
veying an actor's style and his method of
creating a role. A section of the text is
devoted to the work Michael Chekhov did as an
actor for the First Studio as a way of por-
traying the nature and stylistic bent of the
Studio. Markov analyzes the actor's charac-
terizations individually and comparatively, but
I nevertheless find it hard to completely com-
prehend such descriptions as "pathological
quality." The reader is advised to read this
section in conjunction with Chekhov's own book
on acting, TO The Actor.

In the first two parts of the text,
Markov deals with the birth of the studio
principle and with the evolution Of its style

 

 

172

and development into a "theatre." This
evolution is seen in the work of Sullerzhitsky
and Vakhtangov. To the general theatre re-
searcher, the name Of Sullerzhitsky is not as
well known as that Of Vakhtangov. Nonetheless,
the former, as the first head of the Studio,
and as its spiritual leader, had a great effect
on Vakhtangov's own work. Sullerzhitsky taught
the acting students and supervised all the pro-
ductions until his death in 1916. Markov
describes his teaching methods, his view of

the "system," and the first five plays produced
under his guidance. "The actors have come to
love their laughter, their tears, their terrors,
moreso than that which is the source Of it.

. . ." The words are Sullerzhitsky's, and the
result was a penetration of psychological real-
ism beyond the recognizable signs and symbols.
Markov saw this penetration as the fostering

of a style which was "psychological to a fault
. . . ;" a strange intimacy which seemed to find
"significant in the insignificant." In the
author's discussion of Vakhtangov, the man's
view of life is Often clearer than his phi-
losophy of theatre. There are, however, some
direct quotations and analytical statements
which help to contrast Vakhtangov with both
Sullerzhitsky and Stanislavsky. He did not
want the theatre to be a copy of life but
rather to "function as a substitute for life.

. . . The audience must feel that it is in a
theatre and not in Uncle Vanya's house. . . .
The actor should not embody things to the
destruction of his own personality." In re-
creating the director's Studio productions of
The Deluge, Rosmersholm, and Eric XIV, the
author emphasizes Vakhtangov's expressionism;
his use of a "scenic framing for the psycho-
logical kernel."

266. Nemirovitch-Dantchenko, Vladimir. M Life in the
Russian Theatre. Translated by John Cournos.
New York: Little, Brown, Inc., 1936. pp. 358.
Illus.

The playwright, critique, dramaturge,
and co-founder of the Moscow Art Theatre's
book can be classified in many ways. It is
neither pure autobiography nor pure chronicle.
It is more a collection of memories of men,
events, and ideas. In a loose, anecdotal, and
folksy way, Nemirovitch-Danchenko presents his
life and the life of the Moscow Art Theatre in

 

 

173

their inextricable relationship. It has been
said that My Life In Art shows a wholly differ-
ent Moscow Art Theatre and thus illustrates

the conflict between Danchenko and Stanislavsky.
On the contrary, the differences in personality
and primary interests complement one another in
these two volumes to give a total picture of
the diversity that was to be unified in the
greatness of achievement. The author writes

a great deal about his encounters with people
who were closely tied to the Moscow Art Theatre.
Three Of the text's five sections are based on
his dealings with Chekhov, Gorky, and Tolstoy
respectively. Other material includes the
famous meeting between Stanislavsky and
Nemirovitch—Danchenko which gave birth to the
Moscow Art Theatre; the company's first Euro-
pean tour to Germany and Czechoslovakia; the
division Of responsibility between Stanislavsky
and Danchenko; and an infinite number Of capsule
portraits of performers and others the author
met in his work with the Moscow Art Theatre and
the Musical Studio.

 

267. Miller, Anna Irene. The Independent Theatre in
Europe: 1887 to the Present. New York: Ray
Long and Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931. pp.
430.

 

 

See entry number 211 for complete
annotation.

268. Sayler, Oliver M. Inside The Mgegow Art Theatre.

New York: BrentanoTs, 1925. pp. 240. Illus.
The author's primary emphasis is upon

the development of Danchenko's Moscow Art
Theatre Musical Studio. Seven chapters are
given over to-a discussion of lyric drama,
synthetic theatre, and the actual productions
staged by 1925--The Daughter of Madame Apgot,
La Perichole, Lysistrata, Carmencita and the
Soldier, and Love and Death. Sayler elaborates
on the develOpments of each production in
separate chapters. He deals with the poetry,
the composers, the social impact, and the
designs (including very interesting material
on Rabinovitch's constructivist designs for
Lysistrata). One chapter is dedicated ex-
clusively to the examination of the concept,
historical background, and implications of the
Synthetic Theatre. Danchenko's methods and
theories are discussed in the light of the
writings of the Greeks, Nietszche, Mosel,
Wagner, and Craig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174

Other sections of the book report on the
Moscow Art Theatre's visit to America; Sayler's
biographical notes and impressions of Danchenko
and Stanislavsky; and an overview of the total
Moscow Art Theatre Operation in the mid—
twenties.

269. Sayler, Oliver M., ed. The Moscow Art Theatre Musical
Studio of Nemirovitch-Danchenko. New York:
Morris Gest, 1925. pp. 31. Illus.

This interesting souvenir program deals
with the background, compositions, and perfor-
mances of lyric drama as witnessed in this
country in 1925 when Morris Gest succeeded in
bringing the Musical Studio to New York. The
booklet contains the following items: "The
Story of the Moscow Art Theatre Musical Studio"
by Dr. Sergei Berthensson (Vice Director of the
Studio); a portion of Sayler's Inside The Moscow
Art Theatre on Danchenko's life and work; a
synopsis of the repertory prepared by Danchenko
and Berthensson (The Daughter of Madame Argot,
La Perichole, Lysistrata, Carmeneita and the
Soldier, Love and Death, Aleko, The Fountain
of Bakchi-Sarai, and Cleopatra); Lyric Drama;
The Synthetic Theatre by Yuri Sakhnovsky;
elaborated descriptions of Aleko, and Carmencita
and the Soldier; a brief Who's Who Of the major
performers; and a selection on the scenic de-
signers and their techniques. The booklet is
heavily illustrated with photographs of the
personnel, scenes from the repertory, and full-
color lithographs of sets, costumes, and chorus
groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

270. Sayler, Oliver M. The Russian Theatre Under The
Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1920. pp. 273. Illus.
See entry number 3T2 for complete
annotation.

271. Stanislavski, Konstantin. Mnyife in Art. Trans-
lated by J. J. Robbins. New York: Theatre
Arts Books, 1948. pp. 351.
See entry number 3; for complete
annotation.

 

175

Articles and Periodicals

272. Bakshy, Alexander. "Russian Dramatic Stage." The
Drama, XIX (February, 1919), 31-61.
See entry number TEngor complete
annotation.

273. Carter, Huntly. "The New Age of the Moscow Art
Theatre." Fortnightly Review, DCCXXXIII
(January, 1928), 58-71.

"The object Of this article is to tell
the story Of the forces and circumstances that
saved the Moscow Art Theatre and directed it
along its new path." Carter claims to be con-
cerned with the first ten years after the
Revolution and the special circumstances,
beyond Lunacharsky's protection and the public
regard for Stanislavsky's world wide reputation,
that kept the Moscow Art Theatre from being
destroyed by what the author calls the "Com-
munist iconoclasts." The article is interest-
ing and does contain material not found else-
where in the periodical literature, but, in
truth, its information is about general con-
ditions and forces which affected all the
theatres after the Revolution. Until 1920,
the new Bolshevik government was too troubled
elsewhere to watch the theatres closely. Also,
in the early years, it was easy to justify the
continued production of the classics by employ-
ing the proper parenthetical inserts in the
playbill. Carter has reproduced many examples
Of these interpretations, such as "Tsar Fedor
Ivanovitch (an attack on kingcraft); Lower
Depths (picture of lodging-house life under
the Tsars, but objected to by the Bolshevists
on account of its christian doctrine of love
and forgiveness)." It seems more to the point,
however, to say that the "special circumstances'
really involved Stanislavsky's capitulation or
acquiescence--a manifestation of his sense of
survival. Carter met with Stanislavsky after
the latter returned from America. "I had al-
ready seen several Of his present-day pro-
ductions, which testified quite plainly to his
deepening revolutionary interest--an attitude
which, he explained, he could not avoid if he
wished, because the public demand was for Left
stuff, and he must play Left stuff or shut up
shop."

 

 

176

274. Chekhov, A. "Tchehoff Letters About Plays and
Players." Translated by Louis S. Friedland.
Theatre Arts Magazine, VIII, February, 1924,
pp. 91-97.

These letters are actually snatches and
excerpts numbering seven altogether. The most
informative for the purposes of this study is
part Of a correspondence with Nemirovitch-
Danchekno, in which the playwright tells the
régisseur who (and why) to cast in the Moscow
Art Theatre's production of The Cherry
Orchard.

275. Chramoff, Alexander. "Moscow Art Theatre." The
Liberator, VI (February, 1923), 15-20.

Chramoff's ideas and conclusions are a
hit and miss affair. In sketching the accom-
plishments of the Moscow Art Theatre and its
relationship to other Soviet theatrical move-
ments, Chramoff makes questionable judgments.
He regards the Meyerhold and Evreinov theatres
as examples of Operations where the dramatist
reigned supreme and the Kamerny as the capital
Of stage decoration. Evreinov, though a play-
wright, focused his concern on the audience
member; Meyerhold was frequently accused Of
disregarding the author entirely (The Inspector
General); and Tairov, at the time of this
article, had published his notes, in which he
emphasized the importance Of the actor's soul
and creativity. In evaluating the Moscow Art
Theatre's collective artist approach, the
author fails to note just how strongly Stanis-
lavsky controlled the Operation.

There is an interesting note to Chramoff's
description of the effect of the Revolution on
the Moscow Art Theatre: "The Moscow Art
Theatre could not become the theatre of the
Revolution. Nevertheless, the great Russian
Revolution carefully preserved it, as living
brilliant illustration of the best traditions
and achievements Of Russian art and as the very
best creation of the bourgeois period, now
about to depart into the realms of musty his-
tory." The first statement is indeed true, but
not because the Soviet government did not pres-
sure the theatre. It tried many times and
sometimes successfully to alter the repertory.
It has been written in later years by foreign
Observers that the Moscow Art Theatre's museum-
like productions were Often more "musty" than
the history they reflected.

 

276.

277.

278.

177

Dana, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. "50 Years of the

Moscow Art Theatre." Soviet Russia Today
(February, 1949), 15-18. Illus.

The celebration of the Moscow Art
Theatre's fiftieth anniversary in 1948, regally
celebrated all over Russia, was the occasion
for Dana's survey of the theatre's activity
since 1898. He relates the theatre's history
to the changes in Russia and to a half-century
Of literary and artistic movements. For pur-
poses Of organization and emphasis, the time
is divided into five, ten-year periods: "The
first decade with the great plays of Chekhov
and Gorky; The somewhat groping years that
followed the Revolution of 1905; The reorgani-
zation and readjustment after the Revolution
of 1917; The series of great revolutionary
plays from 1927 to 1937; and The period of
Nazi invasion and of reconstruction." The
plan is more impressive than the content,
which is a few paragraphs of praise for each
decade.

 

D'Auvergne, Jean. "The Moscow Art Theatre."

Tortnightly Review, XCV (January-June, 1914),
793-803.

In an article admonishing the English for
not attempting to learn and adapt the lessons
Of the Russian theatre, the author has written
a concise if not insightful summary of the
Moscow Art Theatre's first fifteen years. Like
many other articles written during this period
by foreign students of the Russian theatre, the
subjective considerations Of the Moscow Art
Theatre's achievements and what these were felt
to portend for the theatre's future are inter-
esting as historical documents.

 

Hapgood, Elizabeth Reynolds. "Two Orphans in

Moscow." Theatre Arts, XXXIV (October, 1950),
31-35. Illus.

Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood was Stanis-
lavsky's Official English translator, and here
she provides an interesting English version of
a stenographic record kept of rehearsals at
the Moscow Art Theatre for the melodrama The
Two Orphans. The reader is treated to Stafiis-
lavsky conducting improvisatory exercises on
blindness and achieving Objectives in a melo-
drama.

 

 

178

279. Lunacharsky, A. V. "Stanislavsky, The Theater And
The Revolution." International Literature,
X-XI (1938), 151-58.

Lunacharsky was among those who pro-
tected Stanislavsky against the charges that
the Moscow Art Theatre failed to embrace the
Revolution and maintained a bourgeois repertory
long after 1917. The first "acceptable" play
was Vishnevsky's The Armoured Train, which was
not produced by the Moscow Art Theatre until 1927.
Lunacharsky, a playwright, Marxist critic, and
Commissar Of Education, chronicles the forty-
year history of the Moscow Art Theatre and uses
the testament to ward off productions of The
Last Deys of the Turbins (which is strange, as
the government attacked Bulgakov, the author,
for sympathetically depicting the Whites), and
The Armoured Train, and chides the Soviet play-
wrights for not providing the theatre with more
of these kinds of plays. While Lunacharsky
admits that the Moscow Art Theatre had not
attained a sense of "militant human action,"
he suggests that progress was being made.

 

 

 

280. Malnick, Bertha. "The Moscow Art Theatre: A
Jubilee--1898-l948." The Slavonic and East
European Review, XXVII (May, 1949i) 563-70.

The fiftieth anniversary of the Moscow
Art Theatre served as the basis for an article
which places the founding of this theatre into
the perspective Of the theatrical environment
of the late nineteenth century, and shows
through its evolution how this particular
theatre brought Russia to a point of world pre-
eminence. Malnick begins with the immediate
background of the famous meeting of Danchenko
and Stanislavsky in 1897 and illustrates the
nature Of their first plans and actions. The
remainder of the article deals with the emerg-
ing repertory; individual personalities; and
the specific contributions made by Stanislav-
sky and Danchenko to the collective effort.
This is purely a piece written in respect and
praise. The author has not chosen to indicate
the effect on the Moscow Art Theatre Of the
Revolution, later rival companies, or the
relationship of the quality Of production to
socialist realism and the sterility of the
Stalin years.

 

 

179

281. Meyerhold, Vsevolod. "Meyerhold to Chekhov."
Translated by Nora Beeson. Tulane Drama
Review, IX (Fall, 1969), 24-25.

This is a brief letter Meyerhold wrote
to the playwright, praising his considerable
talents and accusing the Moscow Art Theatre
production Of The Cherpy Orchard of failing
to understand and realize the purpose and
themes of the play.

 

282. Mitchell, John D.; Drew, Gorge; and Mitchell,
Miriam P. "The Moscow Art Theatre in Rehear-
sal." Educational Theatre Journal, XII
(December, 1960), 276-84.

This article reports and records the
Observations of the authors upon viewing
rehearsals at the Moscow Art Theatre and train-
ing procedures at the Moscow Art Theatre
School. They watched primarily the work of
Victor Stanitsyn, who was conducting rehearsals
for Battle On The Road. The purpose of the
visit was to see first-hand how the Stanis-
lavsky system is employed by his disciples.
"From all that was said and from all that was
Observed, we came away from Moscow thinking
that in their striving to create great and
inspiring performances the stage directors
of Moscow concern themselves less with the
'method' and more with maintaining their en-
sembles Of actors playing in repertory."

 

283. "Moscow Art Theatre Today." Theatre Arts, XXX
(February, 1946), 117-20. Illus.
Forty years after the premiere production,
the Moscow Art Theatre revived The Three
Sisters. This is a portfolio of scenes from
the rehearsals and the production itself.

 

 

284. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vladimir. "The Staging of a
Novel." Theatre Workshop, I (September-
October, 1937), 7-10. ‘

The Moscow Art Theatre's adaptation and

staging of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is the
subject of this very brief article. The play-
wright and co-founder of the Moscow Art
Theatre touches on the reasons for the project
and justifies the textual emphasis and
cuttings.

 

 

180

285. Osanai. Kaoru. "Gordon Craig's Production Of Hamlet
at the Moscow Art Theatre." Translated by
A. T. Tsubaki. Educational Theatre Journal,
XX (December, 1968), 586-93.

This is a translation Of a memoir written
in 1913, complete with an introduction describ-
ing the background and the work of Osanai in
attempting to create Western theatre in Japan.

The actual memoir is a highly detailed
report and analysis, scene by scene, of the use
of Craig's screen set. Osanai describes the
multiple uses of the screens; the use of plat-
forms and areas; all the important light and
color changes for the set and the costumes;
the visual forms of staging; and those aspects
of acting interpretation which particularly
struck the viewer. The report is written with
Obvious admiration for and devotion to Craig's
and Stanislavsky's ideas, but remains scholarly,
if not critical, in its attention to creating
a cogent historical document.

286. Ostrovsky, N. "The Moscow Art Theatre: A Model."
Theatre Arts Megazine, August, 1917, pp. 178-
82. Illus.

This basic outline of the aims and
administrative Operation of the Moscow Art
Theatre was intended to serve as an example
of the best model for the American art theatre,
particularly the "little theatre." Ostrovsky
sketches the three stages of the Moscow Art
Theatre's production work (up to 1917), indi-
cating these to be Chekhovian realism, symbol-
ism (The Blue Bird), and modified realism
("attempting to interpret the realistic play
spiritually.").

287. Pierce, Lucy France. "The Seagull Theatre of
Moscow." The Drama, IX (1913), 168-77.

The author's enthusiastic response to
the Moscow Art Theatre is indicative Of the
feelings of many early Observers who were
taken with Stanislavsky's work and the promise
of the modern Russian theatre, in general.
Although the article does include material on
the Moscow Art Theatre's purpose, organi-
zation and public reception, this material
is scant. As a measure of early enthusiasm,
the piece can be useful but later more inclu-
sive histories should be consulted.

 

181

288. Rogoff, Gordon. "The Moscow Art Theatre: Surprises
After Stanislavskii." Reporter, XXXII (March,
1925), 49-50.

Mikhail Kedrov said to Ossia Trilling, in
1964, "We in Russia do not hold with some so-
called pupils abroad. Take the case of Lee
Strasberg in America. He stood still for twenty
years and Stanislavsky would have been the first
to repudiate him, had he been alive." Viewing
the history Of "method" instruction in America,
criticism of the same, and productions Of
Chekhov in this country, Rogoff reviews and
describes his pleased surprise at the accom-
plishments of the Moscow Art Theatre, witnessed
during their visit to America in 1964. He
points out that the revivals of Chekhov had not
stood still for Stanislavsky and he describes
the reinterpretation of the text and the stag-
ing. Most articles on the Moscow Art Theatre
written after the 1930's discuss museum-like
resurrections, but Rogoff goes beyond this to
Offer some interesting Observations.

289. Sayler, Oliver M. "An Old New Theatre And A New
Old Theatre." Theatre Arts Magazine, IX,
October, 1925, pp. 694-99.

The physical facilities of the Moscow
Art Theatre and the Komodie Theatre of Berlin
(a new building in 1925) are compared. The
illustrations include a groundplan Of the
Moscow Art Theatre and photographs of the
exterior and interior. Sayler also describes
the layout of the stage, house, offices, and
other related areas.

 

290. Sayler, Oliver M. "Dictatorship For The Moscow Art
Theatre." Theatre Arts Magazine, February,
1926, pp. 105-08.

Some six years after presenting an
article which included the statutes of the
Cooperative Society of the Moscow Art Theatre,
Sayler reports the change in organization and
management that took place in 1925. Nemirovitch-
Danchenko's role as the singular leader, re-
sponsible for the total operation of the Moscow
Art Theatre's various parts (Studios One and
Two, the Musical Studio, the Dramatic School
and Studios, etc.), is compared and contrasted
with the COOperative autonomy experienced by
the group in earlier years. A chart, taken
from Sayler's book Inside The Moscow Art
Theatre, illustrates the new structure.

 

182

291. Sayler, Oliver M. "The Moscow Art Theatre: Pro-
duction and Organization in Stanislavsky's
Playhouse." Theatre Arts Magazine, October,
1920, PP. 290-315. Illus.

This article contains a translation of
the "Statutes of the COOperative Society of the
Moscow Art Theatre." First penned in 1917, it
represented the basic organization and type of
management followed by the Moscow Art Theatre
for many years before the Revolution. The
document includes the goals, rights and duties
of the members; guidelines for composition of
the company; hierarchy Of the management; vot-
ing procedures; use of general council; and
the basis for the financial Operation and
distribution of operating funds and profits.
In the body of the article, Sayler questions
how long this kind of Operation could continue
unaltered, given the changing Soviet Civil
Codes. The reader will be interested to look
at "Dictatorship For The Moscow Art Theatre,"
in the February, 1926 edition of this magazine,
in which Sayler reports on the complete change
of organization and management demanded of the
Moscow Art Theatre.

As to production, Sayler reports on the
Moscow Art Theatre's physical set-up, flexible
stage sections, the revolve, the plastic use
of the proscenium, etc. He carries the theme
of flexibility through to rehearsal schedules,
and the use of the repertory system. There is
also a sample program for a nine-day period in
December of 1917.

 

292. Sayler, Oliver M. "The World's First Theatre." The
Bookman, XXXXIX (1918), 434-40.

In the spirit of the title, Sayler pays
tribute to Stanislavsky and to the Moscow Art
Theatre's accomplishments in an intimate por-
trait Of the activities and personalities of
the "home of the Seagull," from its inception
to the Revolution. The emphasis on passion as
opposed to close analysis is closely related to
Sayler's own experiences. As is more thoroughly
illustrated in The Russian Theatre Under The
Revolution (see entry number ng), much of
Sayler‘s research was literally accomplished
under fire in 1917 and 1918. He ably communi-
cates the problems, the mood, and the courage
of Stanislavsky and his company in economically
and physically treacherous times.

 

183

293. Sobolev, Y. "Forty Years of the Moscow Art Theatre."
International Literature, X-XI (1938), 159-70.
Illus.

This article is in the same spirit as
Lunacharsky's speech "Stanislavsky, The Theatre
And The Revolution" (see entry number 312).
Within a history of the Moscow Art Theatre's
first forty years is the story of its gradual
development into a Soviet theatre. To illus-
trate, Sobolev describes the productions of
The Armoured Train, Yegor Bulyphev, and Anna
Karenina. He quotes Nemirovich-Danchenko as
saying that "The Art Theatre remains basically
clear, simple and vividly realist, just as it
was before. The Revolution has deepened our
understanding of art and made it bolder and
stronger." The reader may be interested to
compare this statement with Stanislavsky's
comments to Huntly Carter on the "change"
which is quoted in my annotation Of the article
"The New Age of the Moscow Art Theatre," (see
entry number 212).

 

 

294. Tutaev, David. "Gordon Craig Remembers Stanislavsky:
A Great Nurse." Theatre Arts, XLVI (April,
1962), 17-19. Illus.

Gordon Craig's famous collaboration with
Stanislavsky on a production of Hamlet is the
key subject in this transcript of Tutaev's BBC
interview with the designer. Craig finesses
the questionable success of the screens he
designed for the production ("It was like
bringing God Almighty into a music hall."),
and talks about the use of a bad translation,
his differences with Stanislavsky over charac-
terization, and his evaluation Of Stanislavsky's’
varying abilities in staging Chekhov and
Shakespeare.

 

Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts of
Soviet Theatrical Productions

 

Books

295. Bowers, Faubion. Broadway U.S.Seh. New York:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1959. pp. 227.
Illus.

This is an account of the author's

visit to the Soviet theatres during the 1957-
58 season. As an American theatre critic he
reports on Ballet, Drama, and Other Entertain-
ment. For some reason, the author classifies

 

184

Children's Theatre under Other Entertainment.
The commentary, observations, and evaluations
are undocumented and best serve the general
reader. The text is freely laced with anec-
dotal amplifications and accounts of interest-
ing encounters made with Russians during the
stay. At times the reviewer seems very taken
with the scope of the Soviet Theatre and at
others is very quick to qualify and narrow his
praise. Early in the Drama section he says
that, "certainly no other country in the world
exposes its people to so wide a variety of
theatrical fare--either geographically in
space or historically in time." However, he
concludes from the level of production at the
time of his visit that "Unless another Stanis-
lavsky or Meyerhold comes along, we need little
from the U.S.S.R. at the present."

The Drama section covers the production
Of European plays, an American play (Autumn
Garden), Shakespeare, Russian classics, and
Russian contemporary literature. The author
provides a list of the Moscow theatres in
order of their official recognition and rating.
For the theatres he visited, such as the Moscow
Art Theatre, he discusses the total Operation
and the style of acting and production.
Throughout there is a consideration of each
play, complete with a plot synopsis and a
classification of its place in the general
literature and in the specific repertory.
Bowers also provides an interesting evaluation
Of the repertory concept and a conjecture as
to its value to any other country. Where
appropriate, Bowers employs historic sketches
such as one on the theatrical innovations in
Russia in the early 1930's and an account of
the havoc of the Stalin years which kept the
"expectations of the golden years from being
justified."

296. Griffith, Hubert, ed. Playtime in Russia. London:

Methuen and CO., Ltd., 1935. pp. 249. Illus.
This is a collection of articles result-

ing from a visit to the 1934 Moscow Theatre
Festival by a number of English critics and
specialists. The word playtime is meant to
cover more than just theatre, as the list of
contributions below indicates. This anno-
tation excludes the chapters on sport, music,
cinema, ballet, and holidays.

 

185

1. "Introduction And A Word on Russia" by
H. Griffith
2. "Programme of the Moscow Theatre Festival,
1934"
3. "Politics In The Theatre" by E. A. Baughan
4. "Some Russian Plays" by A. E. Wilson
. "A Note On The Amateur Theatre Movement
in U.S.S.R. Theatre" by Geoffrey Whitworth
6. "Some Impressions of the Ballet in Russia--
1934" by Marie Rambert and Lesley Blanch
7. "The Soviet Cinema And The People: Their
Social Unity" by Huntly Carter
8. "Music" by Dr. Heinz Unger
9. "Playtime Of The Child In Modern Russia"

by Ethel Manin
10. "Sport" by P. E. Hall
11. "Crimean Holiday" by H. Griffith
12. "Conclusion" by H. Griffith

The most valuable chapter for the theatre
researcher is probably Ethel Manin's on the
education and acculturation of the Russian
child. The material includes a discussion Of
the Moscow Children's Theatre's aims and pro-
grams; numerous quotations from conversations
with Natalia Satz; and references to the scope
of the Operation including the children's con-
sulting board, the professional touring bri-
gades for Pioneer Camps, and the contents of
the Quarterly Bulletin of Children's Plays
Printed in Russia (then being put out by the
International Union of Revolutionary Theatres).
The author also touches on the content of the
plays being presented such as The Negro Bay and
the Monkey, Hiawatha, Robin Hood, and The
Sguealer. Other plot descriptions are offered,
but without title identification. The writer's
reactions to her visit are highly enthusiastic,
critical of the propaganda emphasis, and indica-
tive of the considerable degree of creativity
and professional success that was achieved. It
is interesting that she repeatedly compares the
work Of Natalia Satz to the ideas and writings
of the English educator A. S. Neill (Summer-
hill).

Baughan's observations boil down to
understanding why the drama was political but
asking "why not forget politics in their plays?"
The chapter brushes over Tairov's staging of
The Optimistic Tragedy_and Meyerhold's approach
to The Inspector General and The Lady of the
Camellias.

 

 

 

 

 

186

A. E. Wilson's chapter, thirty-three
pages long, actually contains only thirteen
pages on production material. The rest is
background on the growth of Russian theatre,
the extent of various enterprises, and the
system of government subsidy. The plays on
which he does comment include: Intervention,
Egyptian Nights, Marriage Of Figaro, Twelfth
Night, and The Lady of the Cameliias. As
relates to the last play listed, he writes,
"Meyerhold--the great revolutionary of the
Soviet theatre--has apparently calmed down
after his constructivist fever and the worst
of his excesses that I saw was the production
of The Lady Of the Camellias. . . ." There
are also quotations from Tairov and Meyerhold
on the variety of approaches to dramatic con-
ception and execution.

The "Note on Amateur Theatre" is just a
note, written to explain that the brevity is
the result of the fact that the author arrived
in Russia only to discover that the approxi-
mately two hundred amateur clubs actually pro-
ducing were all closed for the participants'
vacations.

 

 

 

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

297. Altmann, Johann. "The Soviet Theatre Today."
International Literature, 4-5 (1939), 170-81.
Illus.

This is a classic demonstration of the
party ideology's effect on theatrical criti-
cism. The Marxist tag and the tenets of
socialist realism are applied to a myriad of
productions all over Russia. Altmann covers
Shchepkin and Stanislavsky; an analysis and
comparison Of the two productions of Wit Works
flee at the Maly and the Moscow Art Theatre; and
a three-year history Of the most-produced
Shakespearean plays. Lest a Soviet production
be classified as without merit, the critic
skirts controversial plays and tries to balance
the impression. Subsequently, the article is
filled with such hedging phrases as "striking
though debatable," and "not fruitless." In a
similar manner, he seeks to counteract impres-
sions of Soviet displeasure with all the non-
realistic theatres. The Kamerny's production
of Stronger Than Death is called indicative Of
Socialist theatre; Meyerhold's Masquerade is

 

 

 

 

187

regarded as his liberation from symbolism; and
the Jewish Theatre is lauded for its work with
"anti-fascist barbarism" plays such as Sholem
Aleichem's Tevye der Mikhiker(!).

 

298. An-Yang; Christe-Bennet, Helene; Boll, Andre;
Durtain, Luc; Feldman, R.; Carnott, E. 8.;
Masferer-i-Canto, 5.; Priacel, Stefan; and

 

Salmoni, Andre. "Foreign Opinion on Soviet
Theatre." V.O.K.S. Bulletin, NO. 6 (1934),
97-105.

The Chinese, French, Americans, and
Eastern Europeans extol Meyerhold, Okhlopkov,
the Worker's Theatre movement, and Soviet
dramaturgy. The most informative piece is
Durtain's Observations on the alien style of
the Moscow State Jewish Theatre. He comments
on the successful use of the grotesque, the
individuality of approach, and the Obvious
avoidance of a strictly revolutionary repertory.
Indeed, the plays done by the State Jewish
Theatre were very infrequently a showcase for
the "new Socialist Jew."

299. Attoun, Lucien. "News Events: Fourth World Theatre
Day in The U.S.S.R." World Theatre, XIV (July-
August, 1965), 422.

March twentieth to April tenth is not
exactly one day, but the Soviet program in
celebration of the Fourth World Theatre Day
extended over this twenty-day period. In this
overview of the activities, created to empha-
size the importance of the theatre to national
life, we are also informed that the purpose
and strength inherent in Soviet theatre
emanates from the unceasing pursuit of real-
ism. In total, the event was participated in
by five hundred professional theatres, eight
hundred people's theatres, and one hundred
thousand amateur groups(!).

 

300. Becker, John. "The Russian Scene." Theatre Arts

Monthly, XV (August, 1931), 627-33. Illus.
"The audience in Moscow . . . is composed

of engineer-administrators, Officeworkers, and
manual workers, and these people want propa-
ganda." Becker intimates that propaganda is
faith and that the theatre has replaced the
church. This position denies government
scheming or maneuvering. In addition, it mis-
takes the Russian passion for theatre for
indiscriminate taste. The author tries to

 

188

substantiate his position by pointing to the
government's transference of interest to films
and by predicting an increase in the autonomy

Of individual companies. He comments critically
on three plays newly introduced in 1931 (The
Last Decisive Combat, The Haul, and Poem of

the ForgE) and the efforts made by such as
Meyerhold to unite drama and propaganda. Un-
fortunately, autonomy did not prove to be the
keynote of the theatre in the 1930's.

 

 

 

301. Campbell, A. J. "Poets and Playwrights." Survey,
XXXXVI (January, 1963), 68-76.

"This article is not intended to give
more than a fleeting impression of some of the
highlights, some of the problems, and some of
the advances and setbacks of the contemporary
Soviet theatre in the early 1960's--illustrated
almost entirely from the Moscow background."

The fleeting impressions are well-written
both stylistically and critically. Using
specific productions, Campbell comments on the
work of the Sovremenik (The Naked Kihg, Moscow
Time, Five Evenings), and the Akimov Comedy
Theatre (The Shadow). He also summarizes and
analyzes the drama of the 60's--standard heroic
plays, black and white east-west plays, the
drama Of the "smiling, buxom, simple peasants,"
and the rare treatments of individual lives and
problems.

"Save for the emergence of the Sovremenik,
there have been few major institutional changes.
At times some of the Moscow theatres are a
little reminiscent of the two Irishmen who beg
their friends to restrain them from hitting
each other, a thing which for all their pugi-
listic antics, neither of them has the slight-
est intention Of doing."

 

 

 

 

302. Choumov, N. "The Centenary Celebrations of the
Birth of Stanislavski in the U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, XII (Summer, 1963), 85-87. Illus.

The celebration of the centenary was
marked by a great variety Of events. Choumov
chronicles the scholarly meetings, special
events, plays performed by the Moscow Art
Theatre, and the speeches given at the special
meeting of the Soviet Committee for the Cele-
bration of the Centenary of Stanislavsky's
Birth.

189

303. "The Chekov Centenary In The U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, IX (Summer, 1960), 100-01.

As an introduction to the issue, which
is dedicated to the centenary, the editorial
staff provides a partial listing of the
Chekhovian productions (theatre, play,
director-producer) staged in Russia for the
anniversary.

304. Clements, Colin Campbell. "The Bat." Theatre Arts

Magazine, October, 1921, pp. 275-78. Illus.

A brief sketch (more like an enlarged
caption) indicates the orientation and mood of
Baliev's supercabaret. The entry is worth
seeing for the illustrations, which depict
the concept of design for these review-type
productions.

 

305. Craig, Gordon. "The Russian Theatre Today." London
Mercury, XXXII (October, 1935), 529-38.

There is no real potential audience for
this piece. It is undisciplined and con-
fusingly organized. The reader will learn more
about Craig's ideas than about the actual work
of the Soviet theatre. The Moscow canvas is
dotted with the author's impressions of the
Maly, the State Jewish Theatre, and the Kamerny
Theatre. In addition, the noted designer pays
homage to Stanislavsky and Danchenko, and
praises the serious ideals and creative Oppor-
tunities in the Russian theatre.

306. Evguenov, E. "Theatre Notes: U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, XV (1966), 74-76. Illus.

A lot of attention was attracted by
Lyubimov and his youthful spirited work at the
Taganka Theatre. Here the production under
discussion is the total theatre approach he
gave Ten Days That Shook The World. The author,
in illustrating the staging techniques, com-
ments that this treatment relies heavily on
Vakhtangov, Brecht, Meyerhold, etc. He calls
it "a young approach which is based on a solid

tradition of the past." It is indeed from the
past, if not a past that was valued by the
Soviets! .

307. Ferrer, Olga Prjevalinskaya. "Theatre in the
U.S.S.R." Books Abroad, XXXIX (Summer, 1964),
297-302.
"Undoubtedly the ideological drama linked
with the develOpment of new regions had a
basically lyrical plot and was the type of

190

play most frequently seen on the repertoire Of
Moscow and province theater. If criticism of
present day deficiencies was far from being
absent from the theater, it was more con-
spicuous in variety shows. During the last
few years we have witnessed the development

of a theater that has nothing or very little
to do with indoctrination; it deals with human,
universal subjects. The Russian public, and
especially the young, manifests a preference
for theater pieces of high calibre, where
humanity's fundamental problems are aired, such
as classic tragedies, or the engaged drama,
which it would be a mistake to consider devoid
Of interest or aesthetic value because of
political bias."

In 1964, the author toured Russia's
theatres during the end of the regular the-
atrical season, for the entire summer season,
and into the beginning of the new regular
season in September. In these six pages, via
listings, occasional complete plot summaries,
notes on production, and occasional comment on
public reception, she touches on over forty
plays. The titles appear in Russian and Eng-
lish and information is related regarding the
theatres that housed the plays. This, for its
size, is a comprehensive view Of the big city
repertory and offers specific examples of the
Observations quoted above.

308. Frolov, V. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, XII (Winter, 1963), 354-58. Illus.
As a preface to the notes on the season,
Frolov chooses the appearance of certain new
works (such as Pavlova's Conscience) and their
popular acceptance to reaffirm the formula that
the best plays feature a "trueness to life of
the imagery and the situations." Space is
devoted to the occasion of a heavy Brecht
season, including Erwin Axer's direction of
" . . . Arturo Ui." The production history
Of Brecht in the Soviet Union is an interest-
ing one in the light of Brecht's own shifting
political ideology.

 

309. Galenian, A., and Leonidov, I. "World Reviews:
U.S.S.R." World Theatre, X (Spring, 1961),
82-88. Illus.

Although we are informed that 1961 marks
the fiftieth anniversary of Tolstoy's death,
the reviewers do not describe any productions
done in commemoration. The big event of the

 

191

season was considered to be the production of
Mother Courage, at the Mayakovsky Theatre.

The authors also report on openings at the
Maly, the Moscow Art Theatre, and the Kremlin
Theatre. The review closes with a discussion
Of the touring activities of the Bolshoi, Maly,
and Mossoviet theatres in the Ukraine.

310. Gilliam Florence. "The Kamerny Theatre Of Moscow."
Freeman, VII (May, 1923), 255-58.
See entry number 83 for complete
annotation.

311. Gorelik, Mordecai. "The Horses of Hamlet."
Theatre Arts Monthly, XVI (November, 1932),
883-87. Illus.

In this well-written report of the still
famous Hamlet directed by Akimov at the
Vakhtangov Theatre, Gorelik describes an
eccentric production that was "provocatively
brilliant, opulent, and muddled." He vividly
describes such scenes as Hamlet deluding his
enemies by appearing publicly "clad in a night-
gown wearing a saucepan on his head and holding
a carrot"; the appearance of a drunken Ophelia;
and the use Of real and papier-maché horses.
These things provided a lush, robust and
totally altered Shakespeare.

312. Griffith, Hubert. "Bolshevik Dramatics: The Sur-
face of the Scene." Theatre Arpe Monthly,
XV (December, 1931), 1029-35.. Illus.

Based on a very unscientific survey of
mechanics and students, it is concluded that
"This intensive propaganda is not more thrust
on the public by the government, than it is
demanded and desired by the public itself."
Griffith uses this to conclude his obser-
vations on a month's stay in Russia. The
article communicates how impressed he was by
the phenomenal attendance and the enthusiasm
of the audiences.

313. Hainaux, René. "Twelve Days in the U.S.S.R."
World Theatre, XIV (November-December, 1965),
595-99. Ilius.

In light of most of the articles in this
journal written by Russians, Mr. Hainaux's
Observations, as he himself mentions, are sur-
prising. His predisposed idea of Soviet
theatre was contradicted by the majority of
the plays he attended. He indicates that the
plays were done in more than one style and that

 

192

thirteen of the shows he witnessed were pro-
duced without realistic decor. His comments

on production methods and design cover
Sholokov's The Soil Upturned, Byron's Don Juan
(as directed by Akimov), Okhlopkov's production
Of Euripides' Medea, and Reuben Simonov's
successful museum resurrection of the original
Vakhtangov staging of Turandot. General con-
clusions touch on a variety of subjects, in-
cluding the huge, non-elite, non-demonstrative
audiences; the heavy use of Open staging; the
employment of follow spots regardless of style
or staging; and the absence Of any examples of
what is classified as the "theatre of evasion."

 

314. Houghton, Norris. "Mr. Smith's Mission to the Land
of the Bolsheviks." Theatre Arts, XXX (January,
1946), 25-34. Illus.

Mr. Smith was Edwin S. Smith, Director
of the National Council of American-Soviet
Friendship. Following his summer in Russia,
he was interviewed by Houghton as to the
general theatrical developments and the
specific shows he saw. The article synthe-
sizes printed programs he brought back and
presents his Observations on the techniques
being employed by Zavadsky at the Mossoviet,
and by others at the old Meyerhold Theatre.
He reported that the general repertory in
Moscow included works by J. B. Priestley and
Lilliam Hellman; and that plans were being
made for Okhlopkov to stage Oedlpus Rex, while
Electra would be mounted at the Vakhtangov
Theatre. The illustrations are accompanied
by generous captions which indicate the im-
portance of the show depicted.

 

 

315. Houghton, Norris. "The Soviet Theater Today." The

Russian Review, XXII (April, 1963), 139-48.
This paper is very much in the spirit Of

Return Ehgagement. " . . . there is no longer
the exhilaration of discovering something un-
expected, something new on the Moscow stages.
We have been it before, either in Moscow in
the thirties or elsewhere since." Houghton
reports on those developments which he con-
sidered to be the newest and most promising.
Such developments include the Sovremenik
Theatre started in the late fifties by Yefremov
and catering to young interests and life styles;
and the continuing work of the Theatre of
Satire. Russia's cultural isolationism and the
effect that twenty years of party control and

 

 

193

"dreary sameness" has had on Russia's position
as a leading figure in world theatre forms the
basis for many of the author's concerns and
Observations in this article.

316. Kalitine, Nikolai. "World Theatre: U.S.S.R."
World Theatre, II (1952), 63.
Other than the standard "new plays"
report, this slim review contains a note on
Shakespeare and other classic playwrights most
frequently produced in Russia.

 

317. Karintzev, N. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, I (1951), 61-62.

This article contains general information
on a variety of theatres including the Maly,
the Komsomol, the Pushkin, the Theatre of the
Red Army, the Moscow Art Theatre, and the
Vakhtangov. The coverage gives the reader
an idea of the season's repertory. Sorov's
Dawn Over Moscow, performed at both the
Mossoviet and the Ermolova, is singled out as
material for a commentary on the unifying pur-
pose which socialist realism gives tO all
productions.

 

318. Khodunova, E. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, XI (Summer, 1962), 214-18. Illus.

A typically busy year is represented,
along with the additional highlight of the
first Russian production of Medea as directed
by Okhlopkov. Among the newly written plays,
Khodunova focuses on The Colleagues by Aksenov
at the Maly, and My Elder Sister by Volodine at
the Grand Drama Theatre of Leningrad. She also
reports on a revival of Lermontov's The Mas-
guerade, also at the Maly; activity in the
Republics; and the visit of Eduardo de Filippo's
Neopolitan Theatre.

 

 

319. Leyda, Jay. "In Leningrad." Theatre Arts Monthly,
XIX (March, 1935), 209-19. Illus.

This review Of all the year's activity
covers quite a bit of territory including
theatre, Opera and ballet. Leyda analyzes
the State Theatre's repertory, and the
efficiency and foresight shown in planning
for future years. Also noted are the Lenin-
grad Comedy Theatre, the Grand Dramatic
Theatre, and the then rapidly developing new
companies and club theatres such as the TRAM,
Red Theatre, Radlov's Studio Theatre, and the

 

194

Leningrad Theatre For Young Spectators. In
addition, he summarizes the productions of the
military theatres, the Leningrad Music Hall,
and the "ethnographic" theatre. The article
efficiently depicts the degree and variety of
the activity and the stylistic direction of

the work. This article is even more useful

if compared with similar articles on the Moscow
seasons.

320. Leyda, Jay. "News From Moscow." Theatre Arts
Monthly, XVIII (April, 1934), 281-94. Illus.

The "news" is an overview Of the Soviet
theatre's seventeenth season. In addition to
information on new productions in drama, ballet,
and Opera, the article contains critical re-
views Of specific productions and comparisons
of theatres (Kamerny and the Moscow State Jew-
ish) for purpose and approach to production.
Leyda reports on My Friend, Intervention, and
Somebody Else's Child, which were the three
most popular productions in Moscow in 1934.
Combining theatre for young people with new
young groups and groups young in spirit, Leyda
comments on the rise of the Theatre of Working
Youth, and the Worker's Art Theatre; Natalia
Satz's Moscow Children's Theatre and the
Theatre of the Young Spectator; and the
KrasnOi-Presny Theatre (in which Okhlopkov
directed). At this time the reader might like
to read Leyda's review Of the Leningrad scene,
"In Leningrad," for comparison and perspective
(see entry number llg).

Reading about plans for the repertory Of
the Vakhtangov, the Theatre Of the Revolution,
the Kamerny, and particularly the State Jewish
Theatre, one gets the feeling from the article
that this vitality, variety, and ambition was
in no danger from social or political re-
strictions. History tells us, however, that
within a few short years this "activity" would
no longer reflect the variety and innovation
of earlier days.

 

 

 

 

321. Malnick, Bertha. "The Soviet Theatre, 1957." Soviet
Studies, IX (January, 1958), 245-55.

The chief mistake in the theatre is now
admitted to have been oversimplification of the
concept of 'socialist realism,‘ and the nature
of man is the root of the dispute. Socialist
was taken for granted but everyone had their
own idea Of realism." With her usual thorough-
ness, Malnick reports on a theatre still

322.

323.

324.

195

suffering the effects of the "grey years," a
period of nearly two decades, and the initial
post-Stalin efforts to revitalize a once unique
and highly varied Operation. The author tries
to illustrate indications of this return to the
spirit of Meyerhold (if not tO his practices),
a spirit of inquiry and innovation. The
repertory in 1957 was primarily that of classi-
cal and historical spectacle, but new plays
dealing with everyday emotions were appearing
and gaining popularity. Included in the dis-
cussion of the status and directions of the
Soviet theatre are such topics as decentralized
control; the regulation of state subsidy;
Okhlopkov's controversial Hamlet; general stag-
ing techniques; and an overv1ew Of the practices
between Stanislavsky's death and 1957!

Mariane, Marina. "Theatre Notes: U.S.S.R." World

Theatre, XV (May-June, 1960), 314-16. Illus.

The year 1966 was the tenth anniversary
of the founding of the Sovremenik Theatre. In
celebration, Galina Voltchek staged the first
presentation of An Ordinary Story (adapted by
Rozov from Goncharov's novel). Mariane also
provides information on Korostelev's direction
of Don Quixote at the Moscow Art Theatre, and
the Vakhtangov Theatre's premiere of Leonid
Maliowguire's My Ironic Feeling (based on the
correspondence between Chekhov and his brother,
his sister, his wife, and Gorky).

 

 

Mariane, Marina. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World

Theatre, X (Autumn, 1961), 288-92.

Mariane reviews a variety of plays in-
cluding Stein's The Ocean, which received two
differing productions at the Mayakovski Theatre
and at the Central Theatre of the Soviet Army
respectively. Among other presentations, the
author comments on the staging of The Ex-Urchins
at the Central Theatre For Children; The Pig's
Tail (a Czechoslovakian comedy); and Gheorgi
Tovstonogov's mounting of the American scenario
They Didn't Bend Their Heads by Douglas Smith.

 

 

Markov, Pavel. "Milestones of Moscow's Past Theatre

Season." Modern Drama, III (February, 1966),
373-77. Illus.

The Soviet theatre year saw two major
events: the Chekhov Jubilee and the appearance
of Arbuzov's It Happened In Irkutsk. Markov
briefly reports on the staging of the rarely

 

 

196

produced Platonov and on The Wood Goblin.
Critical comment touches on Bohochkinis pro-
duction of The Seagull, both at the Moscow Art
Theatre. Arbuzost play went on to be one of
the most pOpular in the 1960's. Here, the
author describes and contrasts the two initial
Moscow stagings, Simonov's at the Vakhtangov
and Okhlopkov's at the Mayakovsky.

 

 

325. Markov, Pavel. "Moscow Theatre Season." Modern

Drama, II (December, 1959), 283-88. Illus.
Markov selects Korneichuk's When The

Stars Are Smilihg and Illinsky's staging of
Thackeray's Vanity Fair, from the over twenty-
five Moscow premieres, to discuss as samples
of the season. Along with the usual seasonal
review, he discusses the status of the Moscow
Art Theatre; its work abroad; the production
of The Third Pathétique; and the effect on the
company of the influx of new and young members.
The work of this theatre is compared with
Okthpkov's staging of Posodine's The Little
Student Girl and Speshnev's The Day Cannot Be
Stopped, both at the Mayakovsky.

This was also the season Of the birth of
Yefremov's Sovremenik Theatre (Contemporary
Theatre), and information is provided on the
company's purpose and style Of production.

In the tradition of a good Soviet summary,
all the varied production forms reviewed are
reconciled in the statement: "Though each con-
tinues to work in the theatrical forms it has
chosen, all are united by the trend of Social-
ist Realism."

 

 

 

 

 

 

326. Markov, Pavel. "Theatrical Moscow." Modern Drama,
VI (September, 1963), 187-94. Illus.

This is a summation of the 1962-63
season in Moscow. There is little criticism
or amplification here, but rather an attempt
to provide a picture Of the tremendous amount
of theatrical activity that took place. Most
noteworthy are the plot descriptions of newly
written and produced plays. Markov covers
European touring companies; contemporary
comedies and psychological drama; American
plays (Raisin in the Sun, The Assasin, Orpheus
Descending); Okhlopkov's staging of Orestes;
and the revivals of such Russian classics as
The Storm, The Masquerade, and Wit Works Woe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

327. Marshall, Norman. "Amateur Theatre in Russia."

Drama, LVI (Spring, 1960), 33-35.

The author visited Russia in December of
1959 and studied the history and organization
of the extensive amateur program. He relates
his visit to the scheme and type of production
common in his homeland, Great Britain, and
makes suggestions for possible adoption of
certain Soviet techniques. Information is
provided on how the network of clubs is
developed and managed, where and how amateur
companies perform, and touring Opportunities.
Considerable stress is placed on explaining
the symbiotic relationship between professional
and amateur theatre in Russia and on how this
has provided a key to the latter's success.

328. Mauny, de, Erik. "Current Trends in the Soviet

Theatre." Survey, LVII (October, 1965), 73-80.
Covering the Taganka, the Sovremenik,

and the Komosomol theatres, de Mauny reports
on the emergence of these new operations and
the "new" régisseurs whose conceptions are seen
to be in the spirit of Yefremov. Comparable
discussion of the plays and styles of production
can be found in many similar articles of the
period, but this piece is of special interest
owing to the author's criticism Of the quality
Of acting in Soviet "avant garde" theatres. In
support Of his Observations, he paraphrases and
quotes from a similarly critical article by
Gheorgi Tovstonogov, from a June issue of the
newspaper Sovetskaya Kultura. "Purely acting
successes in the Lenin Komosomol Theatre are
few and in the Taganka Theatre, even fewer."
Tovstonogov objects to the over-reaction to
grey realism which brought with it an obliter-
ation of the value of that which had already
been learned and practiced successfully in the
area of acting training. He calls for a return
to the disciplined collective inquiry of the
Studio situation.

 

 

329. Mirsky, D. "Dos Passos in Two Soviet Productions."
Tnternational Literature, III (1934), 152-54.
Illus.

On the surface, this is a standard review
of two varying productions of the same play.
The play is Dos Passos' Fortune Heights and the
rival directors are Tairov and Alexander Diky.
What is really being criticized is anti-realism
and Tairov's "theatrical culture" approach.

198

Diky is praised for understanding and project-
ing the "social processes" of Dos Passos' play.
Diky's own history of capitulation sheds light
on the actual theatrical value Of this article
and the general criteria for much of the dra-
matic criticism in the 1930's. Diky was a stu-
dent of Vakhtangov's in the Moscow Art Theatre
First Studio. Though his early work was it-
self Often considered expressionistic, during
the Stalin years he dedicated himself to the
Marxists. Within the Studio, Diky became the
leader of the Opposition against Mikhail
Chekhov, who was then considered to be a
reactionary idealist.

330. Morozova, N. "Theatre Notes: U.S.S.R." World

Theatre, XIV (July-August, 1965), 406-16.
These reviews include plot resumés and

comparative staging descriptions. The focal
point of the notes is Boris Ravenskikh's stag-
ing of Sholokov's The Soil Upturned, done at
the Pushkin Theatre. My Poor Marat, by Arbuzov,
received varying treatments at the Leninsky
Komsomol and at the Central Theatre of the
Soviet Army. The latter theatre also produced
Chekhov's The Cherrlerchard, in, to parphrase
Morozova, an untraditional but thoroughly
Chekhovian way (?).

 

 

331. Morozova, N. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World
Theatre, XI (Summer, 1962), 392-97.

During the summer of 1962, Barrault and
Renaud both brought companies to Moscow. In
turn, the Soviet's exported the Maly to the
Theatre des Nations in Paris, and the Vakhtan-
gov to the twenty-first Drama Festival in
Venice. This was also the year of the World
Congress on Peace and Disarmament in Moscow.
Morozova reports on the productions staged to
mark the occasion: Women's Revolt (Hikmet and
Komissarzjevski), My Heart Is In The Highlands
(Saroyan), and Saturday, Sunday, and Monday
(Eduardo de Filippo).

 

332. Murray, Ella Rush. "The Russian Theatre Under The
Soviet." Carolina Playbook, I (December,
1928), 5-9.

There is more information here on the

author's health while abroad than on the
Russian theatre. Her critical facility is
summed up in this quotation on the last scene
of Roar China: "Had I known how trying the

 

199

last scene was going to be I doubt if these
lines would ever have been written, as I am a
sedulous avoider of horrors." Without dis-
tinction, she reports on Meyerhold's productions
of Roar China, The Eyes of the Village, and an
Anti one, which she fails to place either by
director or theatre.

 

333. "News From The Soviet Socialist Republics." World
Theatre, I (1951), 56. Illus.
The "news" is a series of four photo-
graphs Of productions Of The Unforgettable Year
1919 (Vishnevsky), The Vast Steppe (Vinnikov),
The Government Inspector (Gogol), and SadkO
(an Opera by Rimsky—Korsakov).

 

 

334. Pilcher, Velona. "The Theatre of the Revolution."
Theatre Arts Magazine, April, 1927, pp. 258-72.
Illus.

Pilcher reports on the witnessing of such
productions as Roar China, The Destruction of
EurOpe, Le Cocque Maghifique, and a rehearsal
of Meyerholdis adaptation of The Inspector
General. In the case of the first two, the
notes on the story line and presentation are
lengthy. Unfortunately, this article succumbs
to drippingly SOphomoric and self-conscious
verbiage. The author communicates her awe and
the striking quality Of the stage interpre-
tations, but the article lacks depth in its
analysis. We know this is a revolutionary
theatre from the plot summaries, but the expla-
nation Of theatrical technique is replaced by
an ethereal portrait of Meyerhold.

 

 

 

335. Pollock, John. "Glimpses of The Russian Theatre."
Fortnightly Review, No. 5 (1920), 384-96.

The Opinions and the type of information
contained in this article are uncommon. The
author, whose occupation and interests were
not tied to a professional investigation of
Russian theatre, found the Moscow Art Theatre
stagnant. All the observations are based on
the period before 1918. During that period,
Pollock found the Maly's presentations of
Ostrovsky and Griboyedov most consistently
entertaining.

He was also very interested in what he
described as "stock companies" Operating
throughout the provinces with the aid of what
is termed "gastrolers" or jobbed in stars who
roved from one company to another (such as the

 

200

Adelheim brothers). These companies are not
rare finds but regular provincial operations
utilizing people like Vera Kommissarzhevskaya
who was unhappy with the type of roles she

could play in Moscow. A great deal of the
information here appears fresh or little written
Of but is actually appearing under less familiar
titles, and as the title indicates, was viewed
in glimpses.

336. "Postmark Moscow." Theatre Arts, XXV (November,
1941), 840-43. Illus.

These pages reproduce the contents of a
letter received by the Society For Cultural
Relations days before the Nazi onslaught. The
notes describe the plays that managed to open;
original plans for additional productions; and
the results of the Second Shakespearean Con-
ference held in Moscow by the All-Russian The-
atrical Society in 1941. The illustrations
are of Bulgakov's Don Quixote at the Vakhtangov,
A Fellow From Our Town at the Moscow Komosomol,
and of Mashenka as presented at the Mossoviet
Theatre in Moscow.

 

 

337. Rowan-Hamilton, Norah. "Drama Under The Soviet
Government." London Mercupy, XX (September,
1929), 497-505.

In an overview of dramatic theories and
outstanding characteristics, Hamilton touches
on Meyerhold, agit-prop troupes, children's
theatre, the Habima, Vakhtangov, and construc-
tivism. The observations are clearly stated,
but overall the text is too simplfied, too
black-and-white in its evaluations Of the
people's responses, and Often accompanied by
erroneous conclusions. Bulgakov's play The
Days of the Turbins is translated as "The
Turbiesiiand many other plays are described
without ever being identified by title. The
claim is made that the Moscow Art Theatre had
never left Russia, while Stanislavsky and the
company appeared in America in 1923. The
author is also faulty in her analysis of
Vakhtangov's production of Turandot, in which
she reduces the director's brilliant concept
to mere avoidance of "bourgeois endeavors."

 

 

201

338. Rudnitsky, K. "Foreign Plays on the Soviet Stage."
V.O.K.S. Bulletin, NO. 4 (April, 1956), 20-22.
Illus.

This is an interesting, brief account of
foreign drama produced or planned for production
on the Russian stage in 1956. The Markov pro-
duction of Halldor Laxness' play, A Lullahy
Sold, is discussed in detail. Other plays
listed or discussed (indicating their relation-
ship to the contemporary repertory) include
Witches of Salem (The Crucible), All My Sons,
Little Foxes, The Ferellis Are Disturbed (Watch
on the Rhine), Ladies And Gentlemen (Another
Part of the Forest), Autumn Garden, Lizzie
McKay (Lalputain respecteuse), and Nothing But
Truth. There is a comment to the effect that
Polish, Rumanian, and Bulgarian playwrights
are also receiving production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

339. Saint-Denis, Michel. "Reflections on the Russian
Theatre." Theatre Arts, XLII (June, 1958),
12-13, 72. Illus.

In the course of his candid observations
concerning repertory, scenic design, and dra-
matic interpretation, Mr. Saint-Denis raises
good questions concerning the critical taste
Of the Russian audiences, the effect on the
drama of the isolation of the Soviet culture,
and the degree of change that could be expected
in post-Stalin years. The material is the
result Of the author's third visit, a trip
taken in 1957, during which time he saw four-
teen productions, and which motivated him to
compare the Moscow Art Theatre's productions
of Chekhov over the years.

 

340. Sayler, Oliver M. "Tudor Twelfth Night in Russia."
The Drama, X (October, 1919), 3-7.

The First Studio Of the Moscow Art
Theatre, under the guidance Of Vakhtangov,
acted as a training school for Stanislavsky,
but also developed its own ideology and pro-
duction style. This article presents a
thirteen-scene account of the setting and
staging techniques for ShakeSpeare's Twelfth
Night. It is accompanied by an account of
the acting style and some of the individual
performances. The design description is most
useful.

 

202

341. Seton, Marie. "The Russian Scene: Soviet Theatres
in 1933." Theatre Arts Monthly, XVIII (April,
1933), 367-77. Illus.

Seton's reconstruction of the development
of Russian theatre practice and the penetration
of revolutionary ideas contains many question-
able statements. For example, she comments
that the actors wore rags in Vakhtangov's
Turandot because times were so bad. Gorchakov,
1n hlS book The Vakhtangov School of Stage Art,
discusses the director’s rejection of render-
ings for conventional costumes on the basis of
a different stylistic concept for design. In
describing the Russian reconstruction of the
classics she speaks favorably of Akimov's
Hamlet. As the reader may discover by reading
Gorelik's article on Akimov (see entry number
lll), Hamlet was virtually rewritten, and may
be considered eccentric at best.

 

 

342. Singermann, Boris. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World

Theatre, IX (Summer, 1960), 178-81.
The article contains a brief seasonal

review of three recently Opened plays: Th
Happened in Irkutsk (Arbuzov), The Unequal
Struggle (Rozov), and The Sword Of Damocles
(Hikhmet). It Happened in Irkutsk was one of
the biggest hits in Russia in the 1960's. This
review describes three different original stag-
ings it received.

 

 

 

343. Singermann, Boris. "World Reviews: U.S.S.R." World

Theatre, IX (Winter, 1960), 358-63. Illus.
The amount and variety of year round

activity in the Soviet theatre is emphasized
in this report on the programs and tours for
the summer months. During the summer, many of
the Moscow-based companies tour the provinces,
and provincial companies in turn travel to the
major cities. In 1960, fifty-nine provincial
productions were offered in Moscow alone,
including those of the Rustavelli, the North
Ossetia, and the Novosibirsk theatres, which
are discussed in this review. Among the foreign
visitors, Singermann reports on the Vieux Colom-
bier, the Piccolo Teatro of Milan, the Sambo,
and others. As in other "World Reviews," the
reader should not expect detailed reports of
production approach, but can gain access to
what the Russians considered the most impor-
tant events in the year's repertory, and thus
piece together trends and ideological shifts.

203

344. Sobolev, Y. "Our Dramatic Theatres." V.O.K.S.

Bulletin, NO. 6 (1934), 20-30. Illus.
Conceived as a review of the national

repertory, the author isolates what he con-
siders the focal points of the Soviet the-
atrical art. These primary areas include an
avoidance of art for art's sake; the practical
service of the construction Of socialism;
socialist realism; and the supremacy of the
Russian actor. Within these divisions he out-
lines the production plans for 1935 for com-
panies in Moscow and Leningrad; illustrates
the concern for Russian and world classics;
takes snipes at both the "infantile sickness
of leftism" found in constructivism and the
"naturalistic primitivism" Of the Moscow Art
Theatre; and traces the history of the Russian
thespian from jester to priest to the Soviet
teacher of art to the masses.

345. "Tickets Are Not For Sale: Theatre Under The
Soviets." Theatre Arts Magazine, July, 1921,
pp. 199-200.
The reader will find a listing account
of the offerings in the major theatres of
Moscow and Petrograd during the last ten days
of February, 1921.

 

346. Trilling, Ossia. "An East European Travel Journal:
New Trends in Production." World Theatre,
VII (Autumn, 1958), 191-215. Illus.

As the title makes clear, this article

is not devoted entirely to Russia, but pages
201-07 are most informative and quite explicit
about the types of stage conventions employed
in Soviet Russia at this time. In addition to
the text, there are a large number of excellent
photographs. Trilling's descriptions make cer-
tain that deSpite the common paying of "lip-
service to the aesthetic akase, there were a
great number of Meyerhold influenced and
generally non-socialist realism productions."
He gives examples from the director's works:
Zavadsky's Masquerade, Okhlopkov's Hamlet and
his Aristocrats, Simonov's Filumena Marturano,
Pluchék's mounting of three plays by Mayakov-
sky, and Tovstonogov's restaging of The 0 ti-
mistic Tragedy (originally done by Tairovi.

 

 

204

347. Trilling, Ossia. "Leningrad After 250 Years: Some
Healthy New Trends in the Russian Theatre."
Theatre World (January, 1958), 37-38.

This very brief review of the season's
highlights attempt to illustrate by describing
the work of such a man as Tovstonogov that there
is a return to freedom of style and method in
the theatre, and a "new tolerance of the
authorities towards experiment and heterodoxy
in stage production." The author comments
briefly on productions of the Cipy Of Glory,
The Fox and the Grapes, Sixth Floor, Dangerous
Corner, and City Of Dawn.

 

 

 

 

 

348. Trilling, Ossia. "New Directions in the Russian
Theatre." Contemporary Review, CCVII (October,
1965), 199-202.

The author is impressed with the trend
toward the young, in both personnel and ideas.
He notes some of the pre-Stalinist spirit in
the divergent elements whose Opinions of the
modern theatre strongly divide the Russians.
As examples of the mood and the movement, he
describes the thrust of Lyubimov's Theatre of
Drama and Comedy, Efros' Komsomol Theatre,
Yefremov's Sovremenik, and particularly, the
work Of Tovstonogov's Leningrad Gorky Theatre.
Tovstonogov is perhaps the motivation for this
article, as at the time of its writing, his
theatre was slated to appear at the Aldwych in
London during the following April. Trilling
is impressed by Tovstonogov's theatrical dar-
ing, outspokenness, and ingenious use of a
modern approach to the scenic and to the liter-
ature. In the usual Trilling manner, this
article presents a good deal of information
very clearly.

 

349. Tutaev, David. "In Search of Everyman." Theatre
Arts, XXXI (August, 1947), 35-37. Illus.

The critical views in this piece are
hit and miss, primarily because the scope of
the subject is too broad, while the space
devoted is too meager. The report centers
on the Soviet's difficulty in getting good
contemporary plays into the repertory. In
an effort to get closer collaboration between
playwrights and companies, the former were
appointed to various theatres as advisers.
Leonov, Vishnevsky, and Simonov were appointed
to the Maly, Kamerny, and Lenin Komsomol
theatres, respectively. Tutaev makes no

205

comment, however, on the relationship between
the quality Of the contemporary drama and the
difficulty of getting it produced.

Reports

350. The Soviet Theatre. Issued periodically by the
Theatre Committee of the National Council of
American-Soviet Friendship, 1946. (Mimeo-
graphed.)

The purpose of this mimeographed periodi-
cal was tO provide a bulletin of exchange on
American theatre practices for Russian col-
leagues and vice-versa. This issue, the only
one I could locate, contains four articles:
Organization of the Soviet Theatre by Thelma
Schnee; The Current Season in Moscow and
Leningrad--The Kamerny Theatre by Alexander
Tairov; The Russian Theatre in the War--The
Jolly Troupers by Vladimir Polyakov; and The
Moscow Puppet Theatre by Sergei Obratzov. The
Polyakov article is an interesting report on
a troupe that lived at the front during the
war and improvised sketches based on events
happening at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theopy and Criticism

 

Books

351. Brown, Benjamin W. Theatre at the Left. Providence:
Bear Press, 1938. pp. 105.
‘ See entry number lgl for complete
annotation.

 

352. Evreinoff, Nicolas. The Chief Thing: A Comedy For
Some, A Drama For Others in Four Acts. New
York: Published for The Theatre Guild by
Doubleday, Page and Company, 1926. pp. 226.

Although primarily a play script, this
volume is annotated here for its preface, which
briefly presents in Evreinov's words some of
his non-realistic thinking on the instinct of
transformation and the use of theatre in the
psychological pursuits of everyday life. For
example, he deals with role playing and
theatre for the disadvantaged--" . . . since
we are unable to give happiness to the un-
fortunate, we must at least give them the
illusion of happiness." For more material on

 

 

Il.lullls‘ all .i 1 All I'll. .lll. alllll '1'! I." Hi

 

353.

354.

206

his place in the pre-Revolutionary Russian
theatre and a fuller presentation Of his own
writings, see The Theatre in Life (entry
number 32;).

 

Evreinoff, Nicolas. The Theatre in Life. Trans-

 

lated and edited by Alexander I. Nazaroff.
New York: Brentano's, Inc., 1927. pp. 296.
Illus.

Nicolas Evreinov, Often called the Gordon
Craig of Russia, who, along with Meyerhold and
Tairov, developed the non-realistic theatre in
pre-Revolutionary Russia, had written some
seventy-five books and articles by 1924. In
1926, Evreinov emigrated to the United States
and personally supervised this volume, which is
an English condensation of the original Teatr
dlia sebia, published in three volumes in
Russia between 1915 and 1917. An editor's note
indicates that this text also contains chapters
reworked from other Evreinov writings, includ-
ing The Theatre As Such (1912), Theatrical
Novations (1922), and The Theatre in the Animal
Kingdom (1924).

Sayler, in his introduction, writes of
this book that it is "the first adequate state-
ment Of the psychological foundations Of the
revolt against dramatic realism." This volume
explains Evreinov's theories of theatricality
in life and of a pre-aesthetic instinctual
response as the satisfaction of a homeostatic
need. The text is divided into three sections:
theatrical, pragmatic, and practical. The last
section also contains three playlets from the
repertory Of The Theatre For Oneself. He
analyzes human habits and practices so as to
find parallels in the psyche to theatrical
conventions and illusions. Evreinov regarded
theatre as the stage management of life--the
changing of visible phenomena into controllable
and desirable images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flanagan, Hallie. Shifting Scenes of the Modern

 

Eurgpean Theatres. New York: Coward-McCann,
Inc., 1928. pp. 280. Illus.

See entry number l£§_for complete
annotation.

 

207

355. Roberts, S. Soviet Historical Drama: Its Role in
the Development of a National Mythology.
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965. pp. 218.

Although this excellent book deals pri-
marily with the literature and I have chosen
to exclude this area from the bibliography, it
is annotated here because the reading of
selected passages and chapters provides an
interesting insight into the thinking and
political goals of the Party from the Revo-
lution through the Krushchev years, and thus
offers a good background for understanding how
the theatre was used as a tool and a weapon.

"Historical drama in its role as a
vehicle for conveying the myth, as well as the
myth itself, will be the subject of this study.
We have already considered the reasons for the
pOpularity of the genre. Now the aim will be
to Observe how the playwrights coordinated
their artistic efforts with the ever-changing
party line on historiography. What was the
reaction of the critics and the public to the
writer's choice of material and reworking of
it? How closely did these critical demands
correspond to those of Western critics who
have written on the historical genre in belles-
lettres?"

The reader is specifically directed to
the Introduction and Conclusion, and to the
chapters entitled "Lunacharskii Versus The
Proletcult" and "Myth Serves The War Effort."

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

356. An-Yang; Christe-Bennet, Helene; Boll, Andre;
Durtain, Luc; Feldman, R.; Carnott, E. S.;
Masferer-i-Canto, S.; Priacel, Stefan; and
Salmoni, Andre. "Foreign Opinion on Soviet
Theatre." V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 6 (1934),
97-105.

See entry number 329 for complete
annotation.

 

357. Bakshy, Alexander. "Ten Years of a Revolutionary
Theatre." Theatre Arts Magazine, November,
1927, 867-875. Illus.
See entry number Tag for complete
annotation.

 

358.

359.

360.

361.

208

Carter, Huntly. "Spirit of Peace in Soviet

Theatre." Aryan Path, IX (1938), 189-93.

It would seem that Huntly Carter must
have had his own religious experience immedi-
ately prior to writing this piece. The spirit
Of peace is in religion and the author sees
religion in the Soviet dedication to science;
in constructivism; in the spiritual harmony Of
mass spectacles; in mass audiences; and in the
national minority theatres. Unfortunately, the
author greatly overestimated the value and
philosophy of Soviet drama; underestimated the
potential for armed conflict in the world liber-
ation of the proletariat; and seemingly mis-
understood the Soviet purpose in the promotion
Of the arts.

 

Carter, Huntly. "The Theatre and Class War in Soviet

Russia." Labour Monthly, III (December, 1922),
365-372.

The prolific Carter is here concerned
with identifying the characteristics of the
transitional theatre evolving during the first
years after the Revolution. He writes about
the mass audiences; Open-air spectacles; the
removal of the void between the actor and the
audience; and the lessening in the importance
of personalities and deputies in the drama of
the intelligensia. He compares the Soviet
technique of developing a people's theatre with
those Of ancient Greece and contemporary Ger-
many. With misguided spiritual fervor, Carter
employs religious metaphors to review various
stages Of the transition, involving romantic,
realistic, commedia, and symbolist influences.

 

Evreinov, Nicolas N. "New Ways In The Theatre."

Translated by Louis S. Friedland. Theatre
Arts Magazine, August, 1924, pp. 515-16.

These are a few notes illustrating only
minor aspects of Evreinov's philosophy. He
comments on the banality of a "mirror for life,"
calling instead for a crystallization of essen-
tial moments of life; and observes that people
want an idealized, theatricized image of them-
selves even in their own mirrors.

Field, Andrew. "The Theatre of Two Wills: Sologub's

Plays." The Slavonic and East European Review,
XXXXI (December, 1962), 80-88.

Although this bibliography is not aimed
at the drama, this article is included as it

209

deals primarily with Sologub as a theorist in
relation to Meyerhold and Evreinov. It is
therefore important to any study of the
symbolist movement in Russian theatre. The
text discusses Sologub's theories and plays as
they reflect his loosely related dramatic ideas.
Field analyzes the content and the staging of
such plays as Van'ka, Victory of Death (Meyer-
hold's last production at the Vera Kommissar-
shevskaya Theatre), Night Dances, and The Gift
of the Wise Bees. Sologub, opposed to any
attempts at a return to classicism, emphasized
the role of the playwright to the total exclu-
sion of the actor. He suggested that the
narrator or playwright himself read the play,
while performers mimed or indicated the
physicalization of the action.

 

 

362. Glagolin, Boris. "What is Constructivism in the
Russian Theatre?" Translated by Dr. William
Olen. The Drama, XX (1930), 242.

"The creation of a being--a Golem--a
human mechanism, penetrating the mysteries of
human life and victory over death; these are
the problems of constructivism in art."

In this romanticized account of the
evolution of constructivism, one is asked to
believe such things as the theory that the
associated development of Biomechanics was
linked to a "fear Of injury which taught the
actor to become skillful." The article does
not actually explain or describe constructivism
as much as it hypothesizes about why it exists.
The larger theme is a thorough denunciation of
all illusionistic and realistic theatre and
the suggestion "to live only for what can be
touched and handled." Ironically, the illus-
tration of a Glagolin production of The Dog in
the Manger which accompanies the text, while
certainly not realistic, is a far cry from
orthodox constructivism.

 

 

 

363. "In What Style Should Chekov Be Staged?" World

Theatre, IX (Summer, 1960), 111-48. Illus.
World Theatre selected the following

list of questiOns to amplify the title query:
(1) Is it necessary to produce Chekhov in the
traditional and in fact dazzling style Of the
Moscow Art Theatre, which was in his day an
experiment of the realistic movement? (2) If
so, how does the creative role of the designer
or producer express itself? (3) Is it possible

 

210

to present Chekhov in settings other than the
traditional ones? (4) If so, what liberties
can the designer or producer take? (5) What
have you found stirring and exciting when you
have had to put on a play by Chekov?

Twenty-two directors and designers from
all over the world (including the Soviet Union)
replied. The responses say more about realism
and psychological realism than about Chekhov
specifically, but in so doing indicate the con-
tinuing effects of the early work Of the Moscow
Art Theatre.

364. Korneitchouk, Alexander. "The Soviet Point of View."
World Theatre, IV (Autumn, 1955), 48-50.

The point of View concerns an author's
relation to his society. This document is a
series of extracts from a report made by the
dramatist to the Second Congress of Soviet
Authors, held in Moscow in 1954. An editor's
note calls attention to this as an important
session in the evolution of socialist realism.
Among other points, Korneitchouk spoke about
nationalism and formalism (finding both equally
alien to Soviet purposes); the positive hero
as best constructed when the bearer of human
weakness; and political theatre as best ex-
pressed in the form Of social and human con-
flict.

As part of this article, the editors of
WOrld Theatre also reproduced Rostovsky's piece
on the revival of Mayakovsky's The Bath, which
appeared originally in the March-April edition
of the V.O.K.S. Bulletin. In line with
Korneitchoukrs cautions and proposals, Rostov-
sky's Observations indicate the actuality of
the change in application of the idea of
socialist realism as it affected theatrical
style.

 

 

365. Lunacharsky, A. V. "Problems Of the Soviet Theatre."
lhternational Literature, III (July, 1933),
88-96.

This text is a transcript (complete with
parenthetical indications of laughter and
applause) of a speech made to the Second
Plenary Session of the Organization Committee
of the All-Russian Union Of Soviet Writers.
"Static realism," "negative realism," and
romanticism are compared with socialist real-
ism for relevancy to achieving the "triumph
of the classless society." The speaker cau-
tions régisseurs against forgetting that the

211

expression Of social content is more important
than experiments with form. The speech is
indicative of both the reigning dramatic theory
and the source Of Official displeasure with such
directors as Meyerhold and Tairov.

366. Sayler, Oliver M. "Theatre of Let's Pretend."
Century, CIV (June, 1922), 276-84.

Baliev's "Bat Cabaret" transferred from
Russia and named the "Chauve Souris" is the
focal point Of this discussion of the theatre
theatrical. There is more here on Baliev's
curtain speeches than on the actual productions.
His performances and the idea of his satirical
review simply serve as the springboard for the
article's main intent, which is the proposal
for the use of frank theatricality in America.

367. Sayler, Oliver M. "Theory and Practice in Russian
Theatres." Theatre Arts Magazine, July, 1920,
pp. 200-14. Illus.

Sayler regarded the prolific experimen-
tation in the modern Russian theatre as its
most important unifying element. In this
article, he attempts to provide an overview
Of the types of theories and methods of testing
characteristic of the period. He begins by try-
ing to establish that Russian art and theatre
specifically had long been "freer Of aesthetic
taboos" than that of any Occidental nation.

In 1920, the interplay between theory and prac-
tice in Russia was indeed very apparent but we
know that, unfortunately, in later years the
nature Of the eXperimentation narrowed con-
siderably. He illustrates the discussion by
tracing Stanislavsky's own periods of change
through to the work of the laboratories like
the Studio theatres. In dealing with Meyer-
hold, Sayler expresses the Opinion that Meyer-
hold's work would only develop and continue if
playwrights supplied him with contemporary
themes. Contrary to his predictions, the
Revolution did not provide the impetus for
such a body of "theatre theatrical" literature.
Also discussed in this article are Baliev,
Tairov, Kommissarzhevsky, and Evreinov. Once
again, Sayler concludes that the general Rus-
sian approach could serve as a model for a
developing American theatre.

 

212

368. "Theatre People Reply TO Our Inquiry." World Theatre,
XIV (January-February, 1965), 51-52.

As a kind of international status survey
on the influence of realism on the twentieth
century theatre, the editors of World Theatre
submitted the following series of questions to
theatre practitioners in many countries includ-
ing the U.S.S.R.: (1) Does your experience lead
you to think that the theatre of tomorrow is
tending toward a new realism? (2) DO the sub-
jects with which this New Realism is concerned
and the forms it assumes differ from those of
the Realism that made its appearance during the
second half Of the nineteenth century? (3) Can
you show us by means of concrete examples taken
from your own sphere Of activity, how this
quest for a New Realism is made manifest?

Soviet individuals replying included
Mikhail Tsarev (President of the Soviet Center
of the I.T.I., and the Theatre Association of
the R.S.F.S.R.), Oleg Efremov (founder of the
Sovremenik Theatre), and Nikolai Cherkassov (a
famous stage and film actor). Tsarev views the
Soviet purpose as one of demonstrating "life in
the forms of life itself." He makes it clear
that the question is not one of a New Realism
but only Of Socialist Realism, in which yester-
day, today, and tomorrow are not fixed and thus
do not require revision. Efremov, on the other
hand, evades the questions and refers the
readers to the plays themselves. "The play
determines the style of production. The theatre
must be born again each time." With Cherkassov,
we return to the hard line. For him, the
theatre's only purpose is educating man, and
he finds realism the only apprOpriate method
for analyzing and understanding the world.

 

 

369. Vishnevsky, V.; Inber, Vera; Katayev, V.; Olesha, Y.;
Pogodin, N.; Romashov, B.; and Tolstoy, Alexei.
"Soviet Writers on the Soviet Theatre."
V.O.K.S. Bulletin, No. 6 (1934), 53-60.

This is a series Of predictable endorse-
ments of Soviet life and art. The praise en-
compasses the morality Of Soviet dramaturgy;
the value of the positive hero; the successful
staging of classics through the determination
of their social roots; the parallel develOp-
ment Of drama and theatre as achieved by the
force of the collective; and the emergence of
social tragedy.

 

Books

370.

371.

372.

213

Training The Professional Theatre Worker

Houghton, Norris. Moscow Rehearsals: An Account of
Methods Of Production in the Soviet Theatre.
New York: Harcourt, Brace andiCO., 1936. pp.
291. Illus.
See entry number The for complete
annotation.

Houghton, Norris. Return Engagement: A Postscripp
to "Moscow Rehearsals“. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1962. pp. 214. Illus.

See entry number gel for complete
annotation.

London, Kurt. The Seven Soviet Arts. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1938. pp. 381. Illus.
See entry number 221 for complete

annotation.

Articles and Periodicals

373.

Gorbunov, Matvei, and Gershkovich, A. "The Teach-
ing Of The Theatrical Arts." University Of
Torontogparterly, XXVIII (October, 1958),
65-75. Illus.

In a very impressive report, Gorbunov
and Gershkovich describe the philosophy,
organization, and methods of training for
actors, directors, and critics in the higher
theatrical schools. Although it could be
better organized, the article contains con-
siderable information on entrance requirements,

faculty, and the curricula for a variety of pro-

grams. Most of the material applies to the
extensive and intensive training of the direc-
tor, who in Russia is the ideological art in-
structor for his cast or company. All phases
of training from publicity to the choice of
repertory and from flat construction to actor
training, including all practical and appren-
tice work, are outlined by the authors. The
reader will find the professional instruction
given the critic in Russia thought-provoking

in relation to the haphazard pursuit of similar

skills in many other countries.

214

374. Kalantarov, D. "Theatrical Education." V.O.K.S.
Bulletin, No. 6 (1934), 89-94. Illus.

One of the advances and advantages of
the Soviet nationalization of the theatre has
been the network of professional training
institutions and the opportunity for great
numbers to be prepared for and employed by
companies all over Russia. This article dis-
cusses five kinds of training institutions
Operating in the 1930's. (For later develop-
ments in this same area, see entry number 31;.)
The institutions covered in this piece include
theatrical technicums, state institutes of
theatrical education, studios run by individual
theatres, in-service work for already estab-
lished theatre people in Soviet philosophy
and ideology, and correspondence institutes
utilized by outlying areas. Kalantarov com-
pares curricula, length and organization of
programs, and the primary characteristics that
differentiate the purposes and approaches of
the technicums, state institutes, and studios.

 

375. Knebel, Maria. "Becoming a Director in Five Years."
WOrld Theatre, XVI (January-February, 1967),
62.63.
See entry number 136 for complete
annotation.
Reports

376. Tsarev, Mikhail. "The Education Of Technicians in
the U.S.S.R." A Report on the AETA Conference
on Theatre Education and Development. Washing-
ton, June 14-18, 1967.

This, in the form of a postscript, is a
one-page outline of the technical departments
in the Nemirovich-Danchenko Moscow Art Theatre
Studio School and the Ostrovsky State Institute
of Stage Arts. Both of these are post-secondary
institutions Offering preparation in the areas
of stage settings, scenery, construction,
lighting, costuming, props, and makeup. Com-
plete with knowledge in related fields Of
mathematics and physics, the trainee emerges
as a "General Technical Engineer of Theatrical
Affairs."

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

As has been demonstrated in the opening chapter,
and as is illustrated by the content divisions of the
major historical entries of the bibliography, the develop-
ment of realism and the revolt against realism in the
Russian theatre Of the twentieth century has been such
that it provides a microcosm of the directions and types
of experiments indicative of all the theatres of our time.
A characteristic of this entire period is aptly captured
in Gorchakov's opening lines in the "Introduction" to The

Theater in Soviet Russia: "If the Soviet theater Of today

 

is examined only from the quantitative standpoint, its
state of well-being might seem unparalleled in the history

of mankind."1

The fury of activity and the national
devotion of wealth and human resources to the theatre
art is in part reflected by the great accumulation Of

written and graphic materials maintained and published in

 

1Nikolai A. Gorchakov, The Theater in Soviet
Russia, trans. by Edgar Lehrman (New York: Columbia Uni-
* . .
ver51ty Press, 1957), p. x11.

 

215

216

Russia. Although there has always been interest in the
Russian theatre among English-speaking peoples, a com-
parison Of this bibliography with the holdings Of any
major Slavonic collection or archive will readily demon-
strate the paucity Of materials available to the non-
Russian speaking scholar.

It would seem, however, that this condition may
be changing. Referring to entries number 115, 117, and
118, we find three very significant translations of works
by and about major Russian figures which were published in
1969. As has also been noted in the Introduction, the last
years Of the 1960's saw an increase in doctoral research
including James Symons' investigation of Meyerhold's pro-
ductions from 1920 to 1932, and Jonathan Mezz's critical
history Of the Leningrad Theatre Institute.2 In 1968-69,
under the guidance of Herbert Marshall, Southern Illinois
University established the Center For Soviet and East-
European Studies In The Performing Arts. In addition to
maintaining "a repository of information for interested
scholars on heretofore untouched areas Of Soviet and East-
European cultural life," the center, with the assistance
of various advisers and students, is directing its work

toward filling the gaps in the archives and providing new

 

2Albert E. Johnson, ed., "Doctoral Projects in
Progress in Theatre Arts, 1970," Educational Theatre
Journal, XXII (May, 1970), 204.

217

materials in English.3 In the area of new books and manu-
scripts, the 1970's will see, among other texts, a bio-
graphical study of Vsevolod Meyerhold by Marjorie Hoover;
a dissertation on the Soviet reactions to the plays of
Eugene O'Neill prepared by Harry Horner; a biography Of
Nikolai Evreinov by Helen P. Renick; another biography,

of Solomon Mikhoels, a noted actor and director of the
State Jewish Theatre, by Eileen Thalenberg; and a textbook
on the Stanislavsky method of theatre production, entitled

A Producer Prepares, written by Herbert Marshall.

 

While there is certainly no direct evidence of any
causal relationship, the resurgence of interest in the
Russian/Soviet theatre might well be linked to develop-
ments in Europe and America during the last two decades.
The great interest in Brecht, Artaud, and Grotowski centers
on principles and Objective questions posed by Meyerhold
as early as 1905. Investigations of architectural stage
space and actor-audience relationships were being con-
ducted by Tairov, Vakhtangov, and Okthpkov before 1920.
The development of resident repertory companies across the
United States and the general trend toward decentralization
could greatly benefit from a study Of the firmly estab-
lished Russian repertory system and the proliferation of

individual community-based theatres there. As for

 

3Herbert Marshall, ed., "Bulletin Of the Center
For Soviet & East-European Studies In The Performing Arts,"
NO. 1 (Spring, 1969), Southern Illinois University.

218

Stanislavsky, always very much a part Of the American
theatre scene in this century, it should be remembered
that Creating A Role was presented in this country in
1961. The study of "physical action" and the revised
ideas of Stanislavsky's last years have stimulated a
reevaluation of our own training methods and, in turn, a
new interest in the continued application of Stanislavsky's
teachings.

As for further research, there are still many
areas requiring close study, and existing documents re-
quiring translation. The list of topics includes the
activities Of the Proletkult theatres and the theory Of
the movement; children's theatre and art education; identi-
fication and preparation of production notes and prompt
book materials; translation of the writings of the
régisseurs; and the presentation of the histories of any
of a number of state theatres and national minority
theatres. As an example of the kinds of needs these
categories represent, the reader is directed to the
following statement taken from the Bulletin of the Center
For Soviet & East-European Studies In The Performing Arts:

It is not generally realized that, today, over 50%

of the population of the USSR are not Russians, but
minority peoples. Many of them have proud traditions,
Older far than the Russians; and they are now eager
more than ever that the outside world should learn

something of their part in the present century, as
well as the well-publicized Russians.4

 

4Ibid., No. 4 (Summer, 1970).

219

In addition to books and manuscripts, a widespread availa-
bility Of original and reproduced visual and recorded
materials would be a welcome addition to existing col-
lections. Finally, and Obviously, all theatre students
would benefit from more regular reporting on production
plans, repertories, and developments in theory and tech-
nique in the periodical literature. All of this is made
more difficult not just by the language barrier (which is
a given of any study Of world theatre and an Obstacle
necessary to overcome if any nation is to insure itself
against provincialism and narrowness of vision), but
moreso by the political and social strain that has con-
tinually surrounded cultural exchange. The road to an
appreciation of our fellow man's way of life is through

a knowledge of his culture. The road to the greatest
develOpment of variety and achievement in human culture

is through a sharing Of that way of life.

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES

a. Dossick, Jesse J. Doctoral Research On Russia And The
Soviet Union. New York: New York University
Press, 1960. pp. 248.

"The primary purpose of this monograph is
to list the dissertation with a brief accompany-
ing analysis of each classification. . . ." In
addition, the author provides a supplement of
bibliographical items and aids to further re-
search for each section. At the time of publi-
cation there were only eleven completed disser-
tations on the theatre that Dossick could list,
nine Of which had been written during the 1950's.

Dossick feels that Gorchakov's text, The
Theatre in Soviet Russia (see entry number lag)
and the bibliography therein have no comprehen-
sive competitor. He does, however, offer some
other sources, both in Russian and in English,
that are not identified by Gorchankov. As of
the writing Of this annotated bibliography,
Gorchakov's text is still unrivaled.

 

 

b. Ettlinger, Amrie, and Gladstone, Joan M. Russian
Literature, Theatre And Art: A Bibliography of
Works in English, Published 1900-45. London:
Hutchinson and CO., Ltd., 1947. pp. 96.

Part III of this bibliography is entitled
"Studies in Russian Theatre and Art" and begins
with a listing of fifty sources for drama,
theatre, and film. The listing is Obviously
limited, but does touch on the most important
sources and includes other books within which
there are sections dealing with the Russian
theatre. More than half of the references were
published in the 1930's.

220

221

c. Horecky, Paul L. Basic Russian Publications. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1962. pp. 313.

In total, this text is an annotated biblio-
graphy covering almost all Of the general areas
of interest in a cultural study as related to
Russia and the Soviet Union. The theatre section
also includes ballet, cinema, and circus. All of
the theater works are listed in Russian, with an
explanation in English of the title and the con-
tents. Where a book has also been published in
English, this is indicated in the annotation.
There are twenty-three listings for theatre, one
of which is the monthly periodical Teatr and one
of which is the Encyclgpedia of the Theatre.
Bertha Malnick, who has written extensively on
Soviet theatre, is responsible for the compi-
lation. Her list emphasizes books dealing with
historical development and the genesis and trends
of theory for specific periods.

 

 

d. Horecky, Paul L. Russia and the Soviet Union. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1965. pp. 473.

This is a companion to Basic Russian Publi-
cations. It acts as a bibliographic guide to
Western-language publications. The compiler Of
the section on "Theater and Cinema," Francois
de Liencourt, also authored the chapter in
Literature and Revolution in Soviet Rhesia en-
titled “The Repertoire of the Fifties." There
are thirty-three entries divided into the cate-
gories of General Reference Works and Bibli-
ographies, Surveys and Histories of the Theatre
(General, Pre-19l7), The Soviet Period, Eye-
witness Accounts, and Special Aspects Of the
Theater. Three of the listings are for Italian
texts, six for French, and all the rest are for
English sources.

 

 

 

SUBJECT INDEX

SUBJECT INDEX

Numerical Guide to Bibliographical Entries by Subject:

Acting and Actors. . .
Stanislavsky . . . .
Children's Theatre . .
Design and Technology .
Directing and Directors. .
National Republic and Minority
Theatres . . . . . . . .
Pre- and Post-Revolutionary
Russian Theatre History . . .
The Moscow Art Theatre . . . .
Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts
of Soviet Theatrical Productions
Theory and Criticism. . . . .
Training the Professional Theatre
Worker. . . . . . . . .

9:

Academic Theatres (196, 223)

Adelheim Brothers (335)

Adrienne Lecouvreur (82, 95, 213)

Afinogenov, A. (78, 231)

After the Ball (71)

Akhundov, M.i(l62)

Akhverdov, A. (162)

Akimov, N. (68, 71, 74, 84, 89, 92, 148, 153,
242, 301, 311, 313, 341)

Aldwych Theatre (348)

Aleko (269)

 

. 1-30
.31-45
.46-56
57-103
104-161

162-184

185-259
260-294

295-350
351-369

370-376

209, 224,

Alexandrinsky Imperial Theatre (27, 31, 209, 232)

Alexandrov, I. (264)

All God's Chillun Got Winge (213)

Ali My Sons (338)

Ali-Russian Theatrical Society (152)
All-Russian Union of Art Workers (190)
All-Trade Union Theatre (VZSPS) (194)
All-Union Theatrical Conference of 1927 (246)

 

222

223

h, Continued

 

Alman (182)

The Altai Robinson Crusoes (46)
Altman, N. (59, 68)

Amateur Theatres (296, 327)

Amid the External Icefields (46)
Andreyev, D. (96T

Anna Karenina (12, 28, 284, 293)
Annunciation (213)

Another Part Of the Forest (338)
Antarova, K. (45)

Anti one (Hansenclever) (13, 213)
AntOine, A. (264)

Antony and Cleopatra (217)
Anzor_(l72)

Appia, A. (160)

Arbuzov (330, 342)

Aristocrats (6, 91, 156, 224, 346)
Armenian Theatre (First State Theatre Of Armenia) (180, 209)
The Armoured Train 14-69 (76, 81, 187, 279)
Artaud, A. (115)

The Assasin (326)

As You Like It (212, 217)

At the Cove (50)

Aul Gidzhe (46)

Autumn Garden (295, 338)

Axer, E. (308)

Aydun (162)

Azerbaidzhan Theatre (209)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.

Bakhrushin Theatrical Museum (257)
Bakshev, P. (264)

Bakst (59)

Balda the Worker (46)

Baliev (211, 219, 304, 366)

Baltic Depupy (3)

Barrault, J. (331)

The Batallion Goes West (191)

The Bat Cabaret (Chauve Souris) (219, 304, 366)
The Bath (364)

The Battle Of Life (34)

The Battle on the Road (282)

Beat the War Drum (16)

Béiinsky (16)

Ben-Ari, R. (123)

Benois, A. (59, 89)

Be Ready (50)

Ber Ryback, S. (173)

 

 

 

 

224

h, Continued

 

Berthensson, S. (269)

Between Fires (174)

"BiOmechanics" (19, 20, 104, 115, 132, 135, 139, 224, 229,
362)

Birman, S. G. (224)

Black Ravine (50)

The Bluebird (286)

Blue Blouses (86)

Bogatyri (30)

Bohochkin (324)

Boleslavsky, R. (261)

Bolshoi Imperial Theatre (205, 235, 309)

Bolshoi Opera (45)

Boris Gudunov (3, 131)

Bossulayev (68)

Bread (187)

Brecht, B. (38, 115, 135, 241, 308)

Bride of Fire (182)

The Brother (46)

Brothers Karamazov (264)

Bryusov, V. (160)

Bubnov, A. S. (51)

Bubnov Central House of Children's Art Schools (51)

Bubus the Teacher (104)

Bulgakov, M. (6, 91, 203, 336)

Bulgarian Theatre (186)

The Byelorussian Travelling Theatre (166)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q

Capote, T. (205)

Carmen (168, 174, 179)

Carmencita and the Soldier (268, 269)

Central Children's Theatre (100, 201, 323)

Central Soviet Army Theatre (205, 330)

Central Theatre of the Red Army (208, 323)

Chauve Souris (see The Bat Cabaret)

Chekhov, A. (31, 35, 36, 43, 110, 211, 228, 266, 274, 276,
281, 286, 294, 303, 339, 363)

Chekhov, M. (265, 329)

Cherkassov, N. (368)

The Cherry Orchard (264, 274, 281, 330)

Chinese Young Workers Theatre of the Far East (183)

Chronegk, L. (35)

Chronometrage (134)

Qhronomobile (46)

Circle-In-The-Square Theatre (14)

The Citizen of Leningrad (191)

City of Dawn (347)

 

 

 

 

225

9, Continued

 

City of Glory (347)

Cleopatra (269)

Cocu Magnifigue, Le (139, 334)

Colhoz Dramatic Circles (176)

The Colleagues (318)

Columbine's Scarf (160)

Comedy of Errors (212)

Consciencei(308)

TrConstructivism" (79, 86, 89, 92, 104, 122, 123, 132, 139,
200, 229, 337, 344, 358, 362)

The Contemporary Theatre (see Sovremenik Theatre)

Court Theatre (208, 220, 248)

Crackin (46, 50)

Craig, G. (156, 160, 263, 268, 285, 294)

The Cricket on the Hearth (150)

The Crimean State Tartar Theatre Studio (182)

The Crucible (338)

Czar FedOr Ivanovich (264, 273)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Dame aux Camélias, La (144, 296)
Dapgerous Corner (347)

Dark Genius (book) (115)

The Daughter of Alubek (177)

The Daughter Of Madame Angot (268, 269)
Dawn (104)

Dawn over Moscow (317)

Day and Night (213)

The Day Cannot be Stopped (325)
The Days of the Turbins (76, 187, 279, 337)
The DecembriSts (76)

The Delugeiil8l, 265)

Desire Under the Elms (122, 213)
The Destruction_of EurOpe (334)
Diaghilev, S. (79, 160)

Diky, A. (329)

Distant Point (78)

Dmitriév, V. (68)

Dobuzhinsky, M. (59)

"Doctor Dapertutto" (115, 160)

The Doginithe Man er (362)

Don Juan (Byron) 13)

Don Juan (Moliére) (115, 150, 160)
Don Quixote (322, 336)

Dorliac, D. (203)

Dorrer (68)

Dos Passos, J. (329)

Dramatic Herald (Journal) (247)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

226

h, Continued

 

Dramatis Personae (book) (115)
Duncan, I. (36)

The Dybbuk (117, 161, 163, 181)
Dzhabarly, D. (162)

Dzuba (46)

 

 

E

Earth (209)

Efremov, O. (368)

Efros, A. (216)

(Y)Egor Bulychev (187, 209, 293)
Egyptian Nights (30, 213, 224, 296)
Eisenstein, S. (3, 59)

Ekster, A. (59, 70)

Electra (160, 314)

Electricity (46)

Eric XIV (265)

Ethnological Studies (179)
Evreinov, N. (T22, 160, 185, 211, 219, 220, 275)
The Ex-Urchins (323)

The Eyes of the Village (332)

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

Falk, M. (59, 173)

"Fantastic Realism" (117, 137, 154, 155, 161)

Favorski (68, 89, 199)

Fear (78, 81, 187)

A Fellow from Our Town (336)

Ferdinandov (213)

The Fight is On (46)

de Filippo, E. (318, 331)

Filumena Marturano (238, 346)

The First Byelorussian State Theatre (166, 183)

The First Experiments of the Conventional Theatre (article)
(143i

First Five Year Plan (50)

Five Evenings (301)

Fletcher, J. (91)

Florentine Tra ed (250)

Fomifia, A. (86;

Fonvizin, D. (225)

The Forest (104)

Fortune Heights (30, 329)

The Fountain of Bakchi:§arai (269)

Four Million Authorsi(50)

Fourth World Theatre Day (299)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

T, Continued

 

The Fox and the Grapes (347)
Freud, S. (38)

Fritz Bauer (50)

The Front (191)

Fuchs, G. (160)

Fuente Ovejuna (87)

 

 

 

9

Galileo (241)

Gamrekeli (68)

Gémier, F. (213)

Georgian State Theatre (see Rustavelli Theatre)

Gielgud, J. (36)

The Gift of the Wise Bees (361)

Girlfriendsi(7li

Girl From Moscow (191)

The Girlsi(50)

Giroflé-Girofla (82, 213)

Glebov, V. (125)

Gogol, N. (16, 17, 23, 225, 232)

The Golden Key (52)

Golovin, A. (89, 150, 199)

Good Woman Of Setzuan (241)

Gorky, M. (35, 266, 276)

The Gorky-Bolshoi Drama Theatre (217)

The A. M. Gorky Drama Theatre (74, 130, 151, 242, 348)

The Gostim Museum (251)

The Government Inspector (The Inspector General) (17, 41,
115, 139, 232, 296, 333, 334)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gozzi, C. (110)

Grand Drama Theatre of Leningrad (318, 319)

Granovski (189)

Gregory, J. (248)

Griboyedov, A. (17, 41, 225, 335)

Grikura, I. (14)

Grotowski, J. (115)

The Group Theatre (26)

The Gymnasium_Students (50)

The gypsies (71, 168)

The Gypsy Theatre (Moscow State Gypsy Theatre) (168, 171,
174, 179, 183, 187, 209)

E
Habima Theatre (117, 123, 163, 173, 178, 181, 183, 187,

196, 237, 337)
Halubak, U. (166)

228

h, Continued

 

Hamlet (18, 71, 84, 187, 212, 217, 224, 263, 285, 294, 311,
321, 341, 346)

Hands Off China (253)

Hansenclever (l3)

Harlequin as King (King Harlequin) (101, 213)

The Haul (300)

Hauptman, G. (211)

Hayat (162)

Hedda Gabbler (160)

Hellman, L. (191, 314)

Herzen, A. (16)

Hessner, L. (213)

Hiawatha (46, 296)

Hikhmet (331, 342)

Historical Drama (355)

The House on the Hill (191)

 

 

 

 

1

Ibrahimov, M. (162)

Ibsen, H. (211)

Icon Painting (240)

Illinsky (325)

Inga (187)

The Inspector General (see The Government Inspector)
"Instinct of Transformationwii352, 353)
Intervention (296, 320)

In the Sands of the Karakum (182)

It Happened In Irkutsk (230, 324, 342)
Ivan the Terrible (3)

Ivanov (160)

I Want to GO Home (50)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Jacob's Dream (163)

Jacouloff (59)

Jankus (68)

Jewish State Theatre Of the Ukraine (173)
Jewish State Theatre of White Russia (173)
Julius Caesar (217)

E.

Kamerny Theatre (13, 59, 82, 95, 101, 118, 120, 131, 186,
188, 194, 195, 199, 200, 211, 213, 216,
224, 227, 237, 275, 297, 305, 320, 349)
Karatygin, V. (17, 18)

229

h, Continued

Kahya Maloletka Travels Around the Big Piatiletka (46)
Kazakstan Theatre (187, 209i

Kedrov, M. (26, 36, 288)

Khamsa Theatre (184)

Kharkov Opera House (100)

Kipg Lear (7, 91, 212, 217, 221)

The Kirghiz Dramatic Theatre (177, 209)
Kiseler, V. (86)

Knipper-Chekhovna, O. (264)

Knoblock (68, 71)

Kochalov, V. (264)

Komisarzhevskaya, V. (27, 206)
Komisarzhevskaya Theatre (150, 211, 219)
Komissarjevski (331)

Komodie Theatre (289)

Komsomol Theatre (205, 317, 328, 330, 336, 348, 349)
Korneichuk, A. (191, 325, 364)
Korostelev (322)

Korovin, C. (93)

Kourilko (68)

Kovalenko (68)

KrasnOi-Presny Theatre (320)

Kremlin Theatre (309)

Krivosheina (68)

Kronegk, L. (see Chronegk, L.)
Krushchev, N. (204)

Kuznetsov (213)

Kynozhin (225)

 

P.

Lado Ketskhoveli (50)

Lansere (68)

Lanura (172)

The Last Decisive Combat (300)

Lapghter and Tears (50)

Laxness, H. (338)

Leningrad Central Theatre (209)

Leningrad Comedy Theatre (74, 209, 242, 319)
Leningrad Music Hall (319)

Leningrad State Dramatic Theatre (3, 193, 319)
Leningrad Theatre for the Young Spectator (55, 319)
Lenin in 1918 (3)

Lentulov (213)

Leonov, L. (349)

Lermontov, M. (225)

Lev Gurytch_Sinitchkin (34)

Levin, M. (71, 89)

The Life of Man (160)

 

 

 

230

h, Continued

 

Life on Wheels (174, 179)

The Little Communist (46)

The Little Foxes (338)

The Little Student Girl (325)

Little Theatre Ofithe Palace of Culture (100)
Living Death (238)

Living Newspapers (3, 189, 233, 239, 253, 337)
Lizzie MacKay (La Putain Respecteuse) (338)
Loujsky, V. (264)

Love and Death (268, 269)

Love for Three Oranges (Journal) (133, 150, 160)
The Lower Depths (264, 273)

The Lucrative Place (81)

A Lullaby Sold (338)

Lunacharsky, A. V. (189, 190, 236, 259, 273, 279, 365)
Lunacharsky Institute of Dramatic Art (136, 207)
Lyric Drama (268, 269)

hysistrata (268, 269)

Lyubimov, Y. (216, 241, 242, 306, 348)

hyubov Yarovaya (187)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L4

Macbeth (212, 217)

Machinal (81, 213)

Maeterlinck, M. (36, 228)

Maly Theatre (186, 196, 200, 205, 209, 219, 224, 242, 250,
252, 297, 305, 309, 317, 318, 331, 335, 349)

Mardjanov, K. A. (167)

The Marriage of Figaro (76, 296)

Marshak (212) '

Mashenka (336)

The Masquerade (115, 160, 297, 318, 326, 346)

Mass Theatre (189, 190, 194, 210, 236, 358)

Matriculation Certificate (50)

The Matryoshki (46)

The V. V. Mayakovski Theatre (74, 205, 217, 309, 323, 324,

325)

 

 

 

Mayakovsky, V. V. (115, 364)

Medea (313, 318)

Meiningen Company (35)

Merchant of Venice (217)

Merchants of Glory (34)

The Merry Wives of Windsor (213, 217)
Meschersky, Prince (17)

The Mexican (95)

 

M, Continued

Meyerhold, V. E.

(6.
110,
129,
142,
160,
194,
209,
228,
300,

The Meyerhold Theatre (59, 135,

19,

231

20,

35,
115, 117,
130, 131,
143,
161,
196,
210,
229,
332,

144,
163,
198,
211,
237,
334,

A Midsummer Night's Dream (217)

Mik (50)

Mikhoels, S. (7)

The Miracle of St. Anthony (117,

WMir Iskusstva" (79, 86, 89)
Mister Bubble and Chervyak (46)

Mochalov, P. (17,

18)

The Moldavian Theatre (186)

Moliére (l7)
Moliére (34)

"Monodrama" (211,

219)

Monsieur de Pourceaugnac (71)

Moscow Art Theatre (8, ll, 12,
104,

MOS COW

MOSCOW

Moscow Nights (191)

76,

187,
205,
224,
276,
286,
297,
339,

188,
207,
228,
277,
287,
302,
344,

Central Theatre (209)

26,

117 p

190,
209,
242,
279,
288,
305,
367)

59,
118,
132,
148,
185,
199,
216,
251,
337)
199,

34,
265,

137)

31,

125,

191,
210,
261,
280,
289,
309,

Art Theatre Musical Studio (268,
Moscow Art Theatre Studios (26,
237,

37,

75,
122,
133,
150,
187,
200,
219,
281,

33,
131,

State Jewish Theatre (7,
305,

MOSCOW

The Moscow Theatre for Children (46,

Moscow Theatrical University (26)
Moscow Time (301)

Moscow Trade Union Theatre (196,
Mosel (268)

Moskvin, I. (264)

Mossoviet Theatre (205, 252,
Mother Courage (241, 309)
Much Ado About Nothing (212, 217)
My Crime (717

My Elder Sister (318)

Mngeart is in the Highlands (331)

 

309,

 

180,

320)

199)

314,

188,

52,

79,

275)

194,
211,
263,
281,
291,
317,

269)
117,

199,

317,

123,
135,
154,
188,
201,
220,
296,

42,
148,

190,

100,

196,
219,
268,
282,
292,
322,

150,

340, 367)

209)

336)

124,
137,
155,
189,
203,
222,
297,

43,

209,

104,

44,

185,

199,
220,
273,
283,
293,
325,

190,

109,

127,
139,
159,
190,
206,
224,
298,

59,

186,

201,
221,
275,
284,
295,
335,

195,

298,

232

M, Continued

 

My Ironic Feeling (322)
My Poor Marat (330)
Mystery-Bouffe (115)

 

 

 

E

Nabiy the Brigand (162)

The Naked King (301)

The Naturalistic Theatre and the Theatre of Mood (article)
(143)

Naumov (213)

Navicks (68)

Nazimova, A. (8)

The Negro Boy and the Monkey (46, 296)

Naif, A. s. (296)

Nemirovitch-Danchenko, V. (11, 35, 125, 160, 187, 201, 211,

221, 268, 269, 274, 280, 293,
305)

Nemirovitch-Danchenko Moscow Art Theatre Studio School
(201, 376)

The New Joys (177)

New York Theatre Guild (191, 221)

Nietszche, F. (268)

Night Dances (361)

A Night in the Old Market Place (173)

Nikolev (225)

Nivinsky, I. (59)

North Ossetia Theatre (343)

NO Surrender (213)

Nothing But Truth (338)

Novosibirsk Theatre (343)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

Obraztsov (224)

The Ocean (323)

Odets, C. (191, 221)

Oedipus Rex (314)

Okhlopkov, N. (6, 14, 36, 74, 148, 153, 187, 200, 201, 209,
217, 224, 298, 313, 314, 318, 321, 324, 325,
326, 346)

O'Neill, E. (191, 213)

On the Confeseional Chain (173)

On the Eve (231)

Optimistic Tragedy (30, 130, 131, 187, 231, 261, 296, 346)

An Ordinar Stor (322)
Orestes (326)

Orlenev, P. (8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

233

9, Continued

 

Qrpheo et Euridice (160)

Orpheus Descending (326)

Ostrovsky, A. (17, 23, 91, 160, 219, 225, 286, 335)
Ostrovsky State Institute of Stage Arts (376)
Ostuzhev, A. (217)

Othello (41, 71, 182, 212, 217)

Our Moscow (191)

Our Weapon (50)

 

 

 

 

E

Pan-Russian Association Of Theatrical Artists (86)
Pasternak, B. (212)

Peasant Theatre (196)

People's Commissariat of Education (210)
Perichole, La (268, 269)

Petritzki (68)

Petrov, N. V. (169)

Petrovsky, A. I. (169)

The Petrovsky Theatre (235)

Pharoah's Tribe (174)

PhédreSYBZ, 95, 213)

Piccolo Teatro de Milan (343)

The Pickwick Club (91)

The Pigis Tail (323)

Pimenov (68)

Pinocchio (46)

PiOneers (46)

Piscator, E. (115)

Platon Krechet (191)

Platonov (324)

The Play Of Adalmina (46)

Pluchek, V. (346)

Podgorny (26, 264)

Poem Of the Forge (300)

Pogodin, N. (6, 91)

The Poor Bride (71)

POpov, A. (68, 209, 217)

POpova (59)

Porgy and Bess (205)

Precious Grain (50)

Priestly, J. B. (314)

Princess Brambilla (82, 213)

Princess Turandot (19, 110, 117, 137, 161, 238, 313, 341)
Proletcult Theatre (59, 95, 190, 196)
Prolovorno, L. (213)

The Purim Play (173)

Pushkin, A. (71, 225)

Pushkin Dramatic Theatre of Moscow (120, 242, 317)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

234

9.

Quarterly Journal of Children's Plays Published in Russian
(296)

 

B

Rabinovich, I. (59, 68, 71, 88, 199, 268)

Radlov, S. (209, 319)

Raisin in the Sun (326)

RapOport, I. (32)

The Rapscallion (46)

Raspberry Jam (78)

Ravenskikh, B. (148, 330)

Rayevsky (324)

Realistic Theatre (71, 224)

Red Army Central Theatre (186, 217, 319)

Red Necktie (50)

Renaud‘(331)

The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui (241, 308)

Resurrection (187)

RiChard III (217, 221)

Rimsky-Korsakov (333)

Roar China (332, 334)

Robin Hood (296)

Romeo and Juliet (95, 212, 213, 217)

Rosmersholm (265)

Rostov Dramatic Theatre (159)

Rozov (342)

Rudynev, A. (86)

The Russian People (191, 221, 231)

Rustam, S. (162)

Rustavelli Theatre (Georgian State Theatre) (167, 180, 183,
187, 209, 343)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ruza Forest (191)
Ryndin, V. (68, 89, 199, 213, 224)

 

§

Sadko (333)

Saint Petersburg Players (8)
Sakhnovsky, Y. (28, 269)
Sakuntala (213)
Saloméi(82, 213, 250)
Salzmann (219)

Sambo Theatre (343)
Samoff (59)

Sapunov (59)

Saroyan, W. (331)

Saryan (68)

235

e, Continued

 

Saturday, Sunday, and Monday (331)

Satz, N. (30, 46, 54, 201, 207, 209, 296)

Savina, M. (23)

Schctoffer (71)

Schevchenko (l6)

Schiller, F. (18)

The Seagull (31, 44, 131, 324)

The Second Byelorussian State Theatre (166)

Second Shakespeare Conference (336)

Second State Georgian Theatre (167)

Senezha Strel'tsov (50)

Serf Theatre (208, 225, 249)

The Shadow (209)

Shah-Namé’(182)

Shakespeare, W. (18, 38, 191, 208, 209, 212, 217, 294, 295,
297, 311, 316)

Shakhovskoy, A. A. (247)

Sharifov, A. (162)

Shchepkin, M. (l6, 17, 22, 160, 225)

Shchepkina-Kupernik (212)

The Shchepkin School (201)

The Shchukin School (201)

Shebalin (144)

Sheremetev, N. (249)

Shervashidze (59)

Shifrin, I. (68)

Shlepyanov, I. (71)

Sholkov (330)

Shostakovich, D. (203)

The Show Booth (160)

Simonov, K. (191, 221, 349)

Simonov, R. (117, 153, 216, 238, 313, 324, 346)

Sirocco (213)

The Sisters Gerard (The Two Orphans) (34, 278)

Sixth Floorii347)

Skulme (68)

Sky of Moscow (191)

The Sleeping Beauty (71)

The Smoke of the Fatherland (191)

Smokturnovsky, I. (217)

Snowball (50)

"Socialist Realism" (321, 355, 364, 365, 368)

"Social Mask" (104, 115)

Soeur Béatrice (160)

The Soil Upturned (313, 330)

Sologub, F. (156, 160, 361)

Somebody Else's Child (320)

Sosnitsky, I. (17)

Soul of Moscow (191)

Soviet Architectural Institute (73)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

236

e, Continued

 

Soviet Committee for the Celebration of the Centenary of
Stanislavsky's Birth (302)

Sovremenik Theatre (242, 252, 301, 315, 322, 325, 328, 348)

The Spanish Curate (91, 224)

Speshnev (325)

Sguaring the Circle (187)

The Squealeri(46, 296)

Stalin, J. (204, 205, 207, 209, 220)

Stanislavsky, K. (3, 7, 19, 20, 22, 26, 32, 33, 34, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 76,
92, 110, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, 131,
133, 134, 137, 148, 152, 154, 155, 156,
159, 160, 161, 163, 178, 189, 190, 195,
198, 200, 210, 217, 219, 263, 264, 265,
273, 280, 285, 287, 288, 292, 294, 302,
305, 367)

Stanitsyn, V. (282)

The Stars Cannot Fade (191)

State Buriat-Mongolian Theatre (182)

State Dance Theatre (74)

State Institute Of Theatre Arts (201)

State Opera Theatre of Armenia (182)

Statutes of the Cooperative Society of the Moscow Art

Theatre (290, 291)

Steynberg Brothers (189, 213)

Storm (91, 213, 326)

The Storming Of thelWinter Palace (194)

Strasberg, L.i(36, 38, 288)

Straukh (241)

Stronger than Death (297)

Sfidakov, I. (26, 32)

Suicide (129)

Sullerzhitsky, L. (26, 35, 265)

Sumarokov (225)

Sumbatov, Prince (Youzhin) (219, 250)

Supunov*(88)

The Sword Of Damocles (342)

1'Synthetic Theatrer—(206)

 

 

 

I

Tadjikstan Theatre (209)

Taganka Theatre (242, 252, 306, 328, 348)

Tairov, A. (6, l3, 19, 30, 36, 75, 101, 117, 118, 120,
122, 131, 160, 187, 189, 194, 195, 198, 199,
200, 207, 209, 213, 216, 219, 220, 296, 329)

A Tale (50)

Tale of Truth (50)

Taminglof the Shreg (209, 212, 217)

Tarasova, A. K.'(28)

Tartuffe (209)

 

237

T, Continued

 

Tatlin, V. (213)

Ten Days that Shook the World (306)

Tetwald (172)

Tevyay_der Mikhiker (297)

The Theatre Department of the Peoples Commissariat Of

Education (TEO) (127)

Theatre for Young Workers (TRAM) (26, 86, 232, 239, 320)

Theatre of Improvisation (190)

Theatre of Nations (230, 331)

Theatre of Satire (315)

Theatre of the Red Army (188, 194, 317)

Theatre Of the Revolution (189, 194, 224, 320)

"Theatre of the Single Will" (361)

Theatre of the Young Spectator (320)

Theatre Studio Of Pantomime (74)

"Theatricality in Life" (353)

"The Theatrical October" (122)

The Third Pathétigue (325)

They DidnTt Bend Their Heads (323)

They Knew Mayakovsky (31)

A Thousand and One Nights (46)

The Three Sisters (ll,i38, 209, 283)

Timine (68)

Timoshka's Wife (50)

Timur and his Team (50)

TiShler, A. (68, 71, 87, 89, 199)

To Be Continued (50)

Tolstoy, L. (12, 23, 28, 52, 203, 266, 309)

Tovstonogov, G. (74, 148, 151, 152, 153, 216, 242, 323,
328, 346, 347, 348)

Trade Union Dramatic Theatre (189, 224)

Traviata, La (71)

Tristan and Isolde (160)

Tsarev, M. (368)

Turgeniev, I. (17, 23)

Turkish Art Theatre (182)

Turkemistan Theatre (209)

Turkoman State Theatre (182)

Twelfth Night (212, 217, 296, 340)

Two Gentlemen of Verona (217)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

Ukranian Theatre (186)

Ulanova, G. (217)

The Unequal Struggle (342)

The Unforgettable Year 1919 (333)
"Uslovnostfi (134)

Uzbek Academic Theatre (182, 183, 209)
Uzbek Dramatic Musical Theatre (180)

 

238

Z.

Vagif (162)

Vakhonim, I. (86)

Vakhtangov, E. (19, 26, 32, 36, 37, 110, 117, 118, 123, 137,
148, 154, 155, 156, 159, 161, 163, 178, 187,
188, 194, 196, 199, 200, 207, 208, 210, 222,
224, 225, 230, 265, 337, 341)

The Vakhtangov Theatre (6, 203, 205, 238, 252, 311, 314,

317, 320, 322, 324, 331, 336)

Vanity Fair (325)

Van'ka (361)

Vardaunis (68)

Vassiliev (68)

The Vast Steppe (333)

Vesnine (59, 213)

Vezirov, N. (162)

Victory Of Death (361)

Vieux Colombier Theatre (343)

Viks (68)

Viliams (68)

Vinnikov (333)

Virsaldze (68)

Vishnevsky (333, 349)

Volkov, F. (28)

Voltchek, G. (322)

Vorontsov (249)

Vurgun, S. (162)

 

 

H

Wagner, R. (268)

The Wandering Jew (181)

Wartime Theatre (191, 208, 221, 231, 350, 355)

We Are Strength (46)

The Wedding (71, 110, 117)

The Winter’s Tale (217)

Woe to Wit (Wit Works Woe, Woe from Wisdom) (6, 34, 41, 209,
250, 297, 326)

 

 

 

 

Women's Revolt (331)

The Wood Goblin (324)

WorkerTs Art Theatre (320)

World Congress on Peace and Disarmament (331)

 

.X

Yakulov, G. (213, 315)
Yashar (162)

Yefremov, O. (242, 325, 328)
Yelagin, Y. (215)

 

239

T, Continued

Yermolova Theatre (205, 317)
Yesterday and Today (179)
Young Spectators Theatres (51)
Yunovich (68)

 

Z.

Zavadsky, Y. (148, 159, 209, 314, 346)
Zaynulov (162)

Zemach (237)

Zhigden (182)

The Zinoviev Letter (253)

Zolotariev (68)

 

 

AUTHOR INDEX

AUTHOR INDEX

Numerical Guide tO Bibliographical Entries

Acting and Actors. . .
Stanislavsky . . . .
Children's Theatre . .
Design and Technology .
Directing and Directors. .
National Republic and Minority
Theatres . . . . . . .
Pre- and Post- Revolutionary
Russian Theatre History . . .
The Moscow Art Theatre . . . .
Surveys and Eyewitness Accounts of
Soviet Theatrical Productions .
Theory and Criticism. . . . .
Training the Professional Theatre
Worker. . . . . . . . .

A

Abbott, Hazel (6)
Akimov, Nikolai (71, 153)
Alpers, Boris (104)
Altmann, Johann (297)
Amaglobeli, S. (167)
Andronikov, Iraki (7)
An-Yang (298)

Aronson, Gregor (120)
Ashby, Clifford (8)
Attoun, Lucien (299)
Ayvasian, Kourken (162)

E
Bakshy, Alexander (122, 185, 227, 228, 229)

Balukhaty, S. D. (31)
Barbisan, Gala (230)

240

by Author:

. .1-30
. 31-45
. 46-56
. 57-103
.104-161

.162-184

.185-259
.260-294

.295-350
.351-369

.370-376

241

h, Continued

 

Becker, John (300)

Beeson, Nora B. (160)
Beiswanger, George (231)
Ben-Ari, Raiken (123, 163)
Bertensson, Sergei (232)
Bogotyrev, S. (36)
Boleslavski, Richard (261)
Boll, Andre (298)

Botkin, Alex (72)

Botkin, Nada (72)

Bowers, Faubion (295)
Bradshaw, Martha (186)
Braun, Edward (115)

Brown, Benjamin W. (187)
Brumberg, Abraham (215)
Buchwald, Nathanial (233)
Burgess, Malcolm (235)
Bykov, V. (73, 74)

 

S

Campbell, A. J. (301)

Capon, Eric (188)

Carnott, E. S. (298)

Carter, Huntly (75, 76, 189, 190, 236, 273 , 358, 359)
Chalif, Louis H. (58)
Chekhov, Anton (274)
Cherkasov, Nikolai (3)
Cherniavskii, Lev N. (46)
Choumov, N. (302)

Chramoff, Alexander (275)
Christe-Bennet, Helene (298)
Clements, Colin C. (304)
Clurman, Harold (124)

Cole, Toby (32)

Craig, Gordon (305)

2

Dana, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (78, 191, 192, 276)
D'Auvergne, Jean (277)

Derjavine, Constantin (193)

Deutsch, Babette (237)

Dickinson, Thomas H. (194)

Dossick, Jesse J. (see Appendix)

Drew, George (282)

Durtain, Luc (298)

242

E

Edwards, Christine (33)

Efros, Abram (79)

Ehrenburg, Ilya (127)

Ettlinger, Amrie (see Appendix)
Evguenov, E. (306)

Evreinov, Nicholas (352, 353, 360)

E.

Fagin, Bryllion (129)
Feldman, R. (298)

Fernald, John (11)

Ferrer, Olga P. (307)
Fevralsky, A. (239)

Field, Andrew (361)
Flanagan, Hallie (169, 195, 240)
Fovitzky, Alexsiei L. (263)
Freeman, Joseph (196)
Frolov, V. (308)

Fuerst, Walter R. (59)
FfilOp-Miller, René (197)

E

Galenian, A. (309)

Gard, Robert E. (130)

Gat, John (72)

Gershkovich, A. (373)

Gilliam, Florence (82)

Glade, Henry (241)

Gladkov, A. K. (109, 131)
Gladstone, Joan M. (see Appendix)
Glagolin, Boris (362)

Glenny, Michael (242)

Gorbunov, Matvei (373)
Gorchakov, Nikolai A. (198)
Gorchakov, Nikolai M. (34, 110)
Gorelik, Mordecai (170, 311)
Graham, Kenneth L. (132)
Gregor, Joseph (197)

Griffith, Hubert (296, 312)
Grigoriev, Boris D. (264)

E.
Hainaux, René (313)

Hanoch, G. (178)
Hapgood, Elizabeth Reynolds (278)

 

243

h, Continued

 

Holme, Charles G. (199)

Hoover, Marjorie L. (133, 134)

Horecky, Paul L. (see Appendix)

Houghton, Norris (84, 135, 200, 201, 243, 314, 315)
Hume, Samuel J. (59)

.1.
Inber, v. (369)

Isaacs, Edith J. R. (244)
Ivanov, E. G. (202)

 

l.

Jelagin, Juri (203)
Johnson, Priscilla (204)

.5

Kalantarov, D. (374)

Kalintsev, V. (85)

Kalitine, Nikolai (316)
Karintzev, N. (317)

Karpova, Susan (245)

Katayev, V. (369)

Khmelyov, N. P. (12)

Khodunova, E. (318)

Kinsolving, William L. (242)
Knebel, Maria (136)
Komissarzhevskii, Viktor G. (205)
Kommissarzhevskii, Fedor (206)
Korneitchouk, Alexander (364)
Korolev, I. (86)

Kuhlke, William L. (118, 137, 161)
Kunitz, Joshua (196)

E.

Leonidov, I. (309)

Leyda, Jay (87, 172, 319, 320)

Litovsky, O. (246)

London, Kurt (207)

Lozowick, Louis (13, 108, 139, 173, 174, 175)
Lukeman, Gerald (l4)

Lunacharsky, A. V. (51, 279, 365)

244

L4

Macleod, Joseph (208, 209)

Magarshack, David (35)

Malnick, Bertha (l6, 17, 18, 247, 248, 249, 280, 321)
Margolin, S. (88)

Mariane, Marina (322, 323)

Markov, Pavel A. (19, 210, 265, 324, 325, 326)
Marshall, Norman (327)

Martin, John (20)

Masferer-i-Canto, S. (298)

de Mauny, Erik (328)

Melik-Zakhurov, S. (36)

Metten, Charles (22)

Meyerhold, Vsevolod (115, 142, 143, 144, 281)
Miller, Anna I. (211)

Mirsky, D. (329)

Mitchell, John D. (282)

Mitchell, Miriam (282)

Moore, Sonia (37)

Morozov, Mikhail (212)

Morozova, N. (330, 331)

Moskovin, I. (214)

Munk, Erika (38)

Murray, Ella Rush (332)

El

Nemirovitch-Danchenko, Vladimir (266, 284)
Nikolayev, V. (176)

Nikoyukin, Alexander (217)

Niyazova, Elvira (23)

9.

Okthpkov, N. (147, 153)
Olesha, Y. (369)

Osanai, Kaoru (285)
Osnos, Yuri (177)
Ostrovsky, N. (286)

2

Pierce, Lucy F. (287)
Pilcher, Velona (334)
Pogodin, N. (369)
Pojarskaia, Melitza (92)
Pollock, John (335)
Priacel, Stefan (298)

'8‘... :-.

245

B

Roberts, S. (355)

Rogoff, Gordon (288)
Romashov, B. (369)
Rowan-Hamilton, Nora (337)
Rudnitsky, K. (338)

Ruhle, Jurgen (215)

.5.

Saint-Denis, Michel (339)

Salmoni, André (298)

Samarin, Roman (217)

Sayler, Oliver M. (93, 150, 218, 219, 250, 268, 269, 289,
290, 291, 292, 340, 366, 367)

Schwartz, Sulamith (178)

Seduro, Vladimir (166)

Segedi, Irina (53)

Seton, Marie (179, 341)

Simonov, Reuben (117, 153)

Singermann, Boris (342, 343)

Slonim, Marc (220)

Sobolev, Y. (293, 344)

Solntsev, N. (36)

Sosin, Gene (50, 54, 56)

Stanislavski, Constantin (39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

Stepanov, Valerian (100, 251)

Strong, Anna L. (101, 180)

Sudakov, I. (26)

Sviatskaia, S. (27)

Svobodine, Alexander (252)

T.

Tairov, Alexander (118)
Tarasova, A. K. (28)
Tikhonovich, V. (183)

Tolstoy, Alexei (369)
Tovstonogov, G. (151, 152, 153)
Trilling, Ossia (346, 347, 348)
Tsarev, Mikhail (256, 376)
Turner, W. L. (154)

Turpin, F. (70)

Tutaev, David (294, 349)

9.

Ulovich, N. (257)

246

‘l

Vacquier, Tatiana (258)
Valot, Henriette (230)
Vakhtangov, E. (155)

Van Gyseghem, André (224)
Varneke, Boris (225)
Vishnevsky, A. (30, 156)
Vishnevsky, V. (369)

Von Szeliski, John J. (259)

E
Wolfson, Martin (55, 103)
Woodward, Helen (261)
X
Yazykova, Tatiana (184)
Yelagin, Yuri (see Jelagin, Juri)
E
Zakhava, B. E. (157, 158)

Zavadsky, Turi (159)
Zelikson, Mikhail A. (226)

 

"lilillfljllllflll'lllli