STANISLAVSKY

My Life in Art. By Constantin Stanislaysky. Translated from the Russian by J. J. Robbins. (Godfrey Bles. 30s.

net.)

ST2LNISLAVSKY is the greatest name of the contemporary Russian stage. His place in its history is analogous to Tchekhov's in that of Russian literature : both were after a: period of decline the revivers of a great realistic tradition that had degenerated into a set of dead cliches. But Stan- isiaysky's direct link with the older tradition of realism is Much more immediately apparent than is the case with Tchekhov. He owed the best part of his stage education hi the excellent actress Glikeria Fedorova, herself a pupil of the greatest of Russian realistic actors, Michael Shehepkin. Stanislaysky's profound piety for the memory of that remark- able man is not the least attractive feature of Iris-eminently attractive book.

It is not as a work of literature that the book is attractive. It is written indifferently, in an unpretentious and unoriginal literary journalese. The non-theatrical chapters are un- interesting. It can have no claims to rank with the great autobiographies of Russian literature. It is 'attractive because the man who wrote it and his life story are attractive and even, I should say, edifying. It is the story of the com- plete sacrifice of a whole life to bne high purpose. There is in Stanislav-sky a tenacity, a fixity, a fierce insatiability otdesire for his unknown goal that is reminiscent of Browning's Girarrunarian. Stanislaysky is above all a wonderful worker-- Wonderful even when„ he did not know what.he was working at: For long periods 'at a time he-strove in the dark, having loft an old faith and not yet discovered a new one, but always confident of being ultimately destined to muddle through by dint of perseverance into a broad daylight of confident inspiration.

Born in 1863 of a wealthy family of Moscow merchants, Stanislaysky (whose real name is Alexeyev) from his earliest years was invincibly drawn to the stage. At school and in business he gave all his spare time and all his spare money to- amateur theatricals'. By the middle of the 'nineties he auCceeded in bringing, together a troup of amateurs that

was almost on a level with the best professional casts of Russia, and was united by a passionate research for " truth " and sincerity on the stage. He was profoundly impressed by the Me.ningen actors, who next to the Shchepkin tradition were -the most important influence in his making as an actor and a producer. In 1897 he met Vladimir Nemirovich- Danchenko, a dramatist and teacher of dramatic art of con- siderable repute. In the course of a first conversation which lasted about; seventeen hours they discovered that they had aiwayb been after -the same thing. - They decided to unite and to found an independent theatrical enter,. prise. This was the beginning of the Moscow A4 Theatre. The most striking and apparent characteristics% of the new theatre, were, in the first place, an iron discipline exercised by the director over the actors, who were left no liberty and ruthlessly compressed into a flawless ensemble ; in the second place (and this was what the general public noticed most and liked best), a rigorous realism of setting : all the objects used in the play were real, all the furniture de repoque, all the costumes true to life or to history. The very walls were square " like in real life," and of solid wood. The actors moved on the stage without taking any notice of the public, and often turning their backs to them. Stanislaysky confesses that this was all done to keep the attention of the audience away from the acting, in the adequacy of which during the first years of his enterprise he did not believe. Before long, from the average of excellently staged and rigorously realistic productions of the theatre there began to emerge something more rare—the plays of Tchekhov.

The Seagull, which had so pitifully failed in Petersburg only two years earlier was produced in December, 1898, and proved an unexpected triumph. It was followed by Uncle Vanya (1899), by Three Sisters (1901), and The Cherry Orchard (1904). To-day we are able to discern much to find fault with in Stanislaysky's conception of Tchekhov's plays. It was hardly a conscious conception at all, and Stanislaysky candidly con.; fesses to what an extent it was a chance product of his in- transigent realism and of intransigent discipline. To-day it is easy to see that a more economical productiOn would have been more in agreement with Tchekhov's own supreme economy of expressive means, but it was only owing to the Moscow Art Theatre that the plays left the Limbo of unacted drama and found a stage body to inhabit. Stanislaysky's Tchekhov im- pressed himself deeper on the Russian sensibility than the real Tchekhov. Theatrically speaking, Stanislaysky's Tchekhov is one of the most daring and original achievements of the world's. stage, an audacious bid for the impossible. In these produc- tions there is a wholeness, a consistent atmosphere, a cunningly conveyed Stimmung that was entirely beyond the reach of the pre-Stanislaysky theatre. But they were a no-thoroughfare,'

and all Stanislaysky's attempts to continue this line of develop- ment, whether by attempting to produce more mystical

atmospheric effects in the plays of Maeterlinck or to repeat the realistic effects on a different material (Gorky) turned out to be patent failures. In 1905, after the successive failure of his Maeterlinck productions and of Gorky's The Children of the Sun came the crisis of the M.A.T. Stanislaysky practically, gave up all his positions and began groping once more for the unknown. The principal outcome of the crisis was the greater liberty given to individual actors and the displacement in: Stanislaysky himself of the Producer by the actor. The.most notable achievement of the second period of the life of the M.A.T.were the productions of Dostoevsky's dramatized novels, in all of 'which realistic setting was whole-heartedly and corn- pletdly abandoned, as well as the disciplined ensemble, and , which were, above all, triumphs of individual, intensely psycho- logical, acting. It is notable that Stanislaysky himself scored - no optstanding success in Dostoevsky. His forte lies in an entirely different field—he is above all a great actor of high; comity, and his best parts are all of this description.

In his own opinion Stanislaysky's greatest achievement during this period, was the creation of " Stanislaysky's

System." This is a mental technique evolved by Stanislaysky,

from personal experience and with the aid of scientific psychology to help the actor to become the character whose, part he is playing. It is an old maxim of the Russian stage, going back to Shchepkin that the actor must not only feel•

but live his -part. " Stanislaysky's System " (the details of which he has unfortunately never committed to writing_ —and does not descrlle in the present book, but they are universally known through oral transmission) is the triumph of psychological realism on the stage and the, realization of the favourite mottoes of Russian realism—truth and sincerity. It is also a triumph of conscious technique, and a satis- factory solution of what Stanislaysky considers the main

problem, and the one which makes the actor's art unlike all others : he cannot wait for inspiration, but must at all costs command it at the hour announced on the bill. " Stanis-

laysky's System " was universally accepted by Russian actors and dramatic studios, but it has not led to the revival of Russian acting. On the contrary, gradually but irresist- ably the Russian actor is being ground down to nothingness,

and has become (as. he was in Stanislaysky's early days)

a mere tool in the hands of the producer. " Psychological acting " .is dying out in Russia, and does not seem to be

destined to outlive the members of the M.A.T. All that is young and active on the Russian stage is after ideals that are not Stanislaysky's—after conscious conventionality, pure action, pure movement, after le spectacle pure that would bring dramatic art back to its native soil—the ballet and the circus. .

But whatever the future of the Russian stage, Stanislaysky will remain one of its greatest and purest glories. Sincerity and work are the outstanding features of his life—features that cannot fail to make everything he does infinitely attrac- tive. This is a book of good faith and high sineerity,therecord of an intense and fruitful " life in art." It should be read not only by thoie who are interested in the theatre and in Russia, but by everyone who wants to have a glimpse into the mysterious processes that make an artist :_ the chapters of the book where Stanislaysky relates how he grew into an actor contain an infinite wealth of concrete indications about the way it is done. The excellent portrait of the frontispiece will give the reader a slight idea of the wonderful personal charm of the man, and the numerous portraits in his various parts will reveal the extraordinary " Protean " qualities of the actor.

Unfortunately the translation is unsatisfactory. Every Russian word is translated by its most ordinary dictionary equivalent. Hence the abuse of such words as " spiritual " " creative," soul," all of which have quite a different meaning in English from the Russian words they are made to represent. Hence the almost complete obscurity of many sentences. Russian colloquialisms are especially badly rendered : Tchekhov is made to begin every sentence with a ridiculous listen." And even the time-honoured " little father " whom I had believed to be dead and buried is revived by the industry of Mr. J. J. Robbins. D. S. MIRSKY.