https://helda.helsinki.

fi

Michael Chekhov, Spirituality, and the Soviet Theatre

Byckling, Liisa
2019-07-15

Byckling , L 2019 , ' Michael Chekhov, Spirituality, and the Soviet Theatre ' , Culture
Crossroads , vol. 14 , no. 1 , pp. 127 - 138 . < http://www.culturecrossroads.lv/journal/16 >

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/311382

publishedVersion

Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Please cite the original version.
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV,
SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE

PhD Liisa Byckling

Professor Adjunct, Aleksanteri Institute,
University of Helsinki, Finland

Abstract
The present article discusses the work of Michael Chekhov, director of the
Second Moscow Art Theatre from 1922 to 1928. After the October revolution
Chekhov sought to withstand the threat from those ideological tendencies which led
away from the ideals and spiritual values of his teacher Konstantin Stanislavsky. The
reasons for Chekhov’s emigration were connected both with his opposition to Soviet
cultural policy and the repression of religious groups in Russia. Chekhov was the
most famous follower in the Russian theatre of the anthroposophist, Rudolf Steiner.
In his production of “Hamlet” Chekhov also followed the spiritual ideas of the Russian
symbolists while applying new methods of acting.

Keywords: Russian theatre, art of acting, spiritual philosophy, communism.

In a recent assessment of the October revolution James Ryan wrote of Lenin:

“His goal was not power for its own sake, but communism: a vision of a perfected
society, whereby people would live in complete social harmony. Communism, he
believed, would bring with it the comprehensive development and realisation of
each individual [..] For communism to exist, humanity would need to be improved
and transformed. The core of the October revolution, then, was a vision of cultural
revolution, that is, the creation of a new type of person, the so-called “new Soviet
person”. The October revolution represented the most ambitious and sustained
attempt at human transformation and liberation in modern European history. In
failing to realise its ambitions, however, the Soviet regime became the most violent
state in European history” [Ryan 2018: 46].
The way in which actors, directors and dramatists accepted or rejected the
Bolshevik revolution varied widely [Worrall 1989: 7]. Apart from Vsevolod Meyerhold,
128 LIISA BYCKLING

only Vladimir Mayakovsky and Aleksandr Blok, among major artistic figures of the
day, pledged total support to the Bolsheviks. For the rest, they tended to co-exist as
so-called “fellow-travellers”, were won over gradually (as were the directors Evgeny
Vakhtangov, Aleksandr Tairov and Konstantin Stanislavsky), or else they emigrated.
One of the most significant émigré artists was Michael Chekhov, an outstanding
actor and teacher of acting, who headed the Second Moscow Art Theatre. In 1928,
Pavel Markov, the distinguished Moscow theatre critic, in an article devoted to the
anniversary of the Second Moscow Art Theatre, described Chekhov as: “One of the
most remarkable actors of our time who is ardently and passionately seeking new
means of theatrical expression” [Chekhov 1986a: 429].
In the same year, Michael Chekhov emigrated from Russia for good. I will
discuss the complex reasons for his departure, which are connected both with his
search for new means of expression and the “taming of the arts” policy of the Stalin
period, as well as the repression of religious groups in Soviet Russia. The basis of this
searching was prompted in part by the ideas of the anthroposophist, Rudolf Steiner,
whose most famous follower in Russian theatre Michael Chekhov became.
Michael (Mikhail) Alexandrovich Chekhov (b. St Petersburg 1891 – d. Los
Angeles 1955) was a nephew of Anton Chekhov and the most brilliant student of
Konstantin Stanislavsky. He acted at the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre
(MAT) from 1912 onwards, was its director from 1922 onwards and was the director
of the Second Moscow Art Theatre from 1924 to 1928. In Russia, Chekhov is recalled
as the most original actor of the last century. His major roles in the Moscow Art Theatre
and its Studio included: Caleb in Dickens’ “The Cricket on the Hearth”, Malvolio in
Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night”, the title role in Strindberg’s “Erik XIV” (directed by
Evgeny Vakhtangov), Khlestakov in Gogol’s “The Government Inspector” (directed
by Stanislavsky), the title role in “Hamlet”, and Muromsky in Sukhovo-Kobylin’s “The
Process”. After leaving Russia in 1928, Chekhov underwent three separate stages of
development: a period of directing, acting and teaching in Berlin, Paris, Riga and Kaunas
(1928–1934); a period in England and America of the Anglo-American Theatre Studio
(1936–1942); and, finally, his Hollywood career, working in cinema and teaching film
actors in Los Angeles (1943–1955). Chekhov developed his projects in European and
American theatres and acting studios, with tremendous vigour [Byckling 2000].
At the time of his death in 1955, Chekhov’s name in Soviet Russia had been erased
from the history of Russian theatre. In the 1980s, with “glasnost” and the return of
the émigré legacy, Chekhov was rehabilitated, his books republished, and he has, once
again, become a legendary figure in his native country.
Chekhov the actor applied Stanislavsky’s “system” of actor training, which was
practised in the First Studio from 1912 onwards. In Stanislavsky’s method of acting
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV, SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE 129

the foundation for the future concept of Chekhov’s method was laid and put into
practice after the October revolution of 1917. In the First Studio, Chekhov’s work
in productions by the brilliant director Evgeny Vakhtangov shaped the actor’s con-
cept of the theatre. Vakhtangov believed that the theatre must create forms from its
imagination which he called imaginative realism. In his productions and theoretical
articles, Chekhov expressed the spirit of turn-of-the-century Russian culture, sym-
bolist poetry and non-naturalistic theatre. His sources of inspiration derived from
legends and fairy-tales, and above all, from religious philosophy.
From early on, Chekhov read extensively in the work of all Western philoso-
phers as part of an effort to define the meaning of life and the purpose of artistic
endeavour. Chekhov’s interest in yoga began in the First Studio under the
guidance of Stanislavsky, the philosophy of which seemed to offer him the creative
possibilities of life itself. Those spheres of creativity began to extend from the
theatre to the possibilities of creativity within the bounds of his own personality.
Yoga led Chekhov to the teachings of theosophy, whilst he also became interested
in other mystical currents and frequented the occult societies of revolutionary
Moscow.
Chekhov searched everywhere for his ideal spiritual teacher until he found
him in the person of the Austrian philosopher and occultist Rudolf Steiner (1861–
1925). Steiner was the founder of the Anthroposophical Society, a Russian branch
of which was founded in 1913. Anthroposophy represented a modern gnosis; it
sought to overcome materialism, to restore a spiritual dimension to human life, and
to heal the rift between religion and science. Many famous Russian intellectuals
were interested in Anthroposophy, for example the writer Andrei Bely and the
painter Vasily Kandinsky. J. D. Elsworth writes: “It is not hard to understand the
appeal of anthroposophy to those who had responded to Vl. Solovyov’s [the XIX
century Russian philosopher’s] idea of creating an integrated culture. It is a uniquely
comprehensive doctrine that proposes to reconcile the spiritual and material, to
answer all questions and resolve all contradictions. Without rejecting scientific
thought, it overcomes materialism and re-asserts, on a rational footing, the spiritual
nature of man and the universe” [Elsworth 1982: 37; see also: Fedjuschin 1988].
Chekhov came to Steiner during a period of nervous illness when he left the
theatre for a whole year. He wrote that his soul was so weary of the hopeless severity
of his own world view, a weariness caused by materialism. In his autobiography “The
Path of the Actor” (Put aktyora, 1928), which Chekhov wrote in Moscow under
conditions of Soviet censorship, Steiner could not be mentioned [Chekhov 1986a].
However, notes concerning his spiritual beliefs were published twenty years later
in his autobiographical memoirs “Life and Encounters” (Zhizn i vstrechi) (Novyi
130 LIISA BYCKLING

Zhurnal 1944–1945, New York).1 Chekhov read Steiner’s books in Russian translation
and soon joined the Russian Anthroposophical Society, probably in 1919. Chekhov’s
meeting with Andrei Bely influenced his destiny in many respects. Bely, the famous
Russian symbolist writer and one of Steiner’s most gifted Russian followers, had been a
member of the Anthroposophical Society from the very start. Chekhov regarded Bely
as his “Teacher” and guide to the teachings of Steiner.
For Chekhov, anthroposophy was the revelation of a modern form of Christianity.
In it he found the meaning and goal of a life which provided him with mental health
and equilibrium. Chekhov’s crisis and his overcoming of it confirm the words of the
modern Russian philosopher Sergey Averintsev: “Genuine mental health for the
human being, as a being superior to the animal, is impossible if a person’s outlook on
life and aims are not put in order. [..] only the patient can complete the work of the
psychotherapist in that he acquires an orientation for his world outlook” [Averintsev
1981: 114]. Maria Knebel, Chekhov’s pupil, and later a distinguished Russian director
and teacher, wrote: “Chekhov strove towards harmony. As an actor, he sought after and
aimed for harmony on stage and in his roles. He was constantly in torment in that he
sensed the disharmony of affairs in the external world. Hence his fears and restlessness.
He believed that the truth that would reunite art and life, which he sought after, was
contained in these very anthroposophical theories” [Knebel 1986: 34]. The sought-after
harmony between mystical and scientific knowledge was attained in anthroposophy.
Inevitably, Chekhov stood in opposition to the new Communist regime.
According to Lenin, all religions and religious institutions were instruments of
bourgeois reaction serving to defend exploitation and as an opiate for the working
class. Nicolas Berdyaev described Communism as the new religion. “Because
Communism itself is itself a religion it persecutes all religions and will have no
religious toleration. [..] Communism creates a new morality which is neither
Christian nor humanitarian.” Regarding the untruth of Communism, Berdyaev
wrote: “What is false and terrible is the very spirit of Communism. Its spirit is the
negation of spirit, the negation of the spiritual principle in man. [..] Communism
is inhuman, for denial of God leads to denial of man” [Berdyaev 1966: 77].

1
Chekhov’s memoirs (1928) were republished in Moscow: Chekhov (1986a). Chekhov’s
second book of memoirs: M. Chekhov, Zhizn i vstrechi (“Life and Encounters”), (Novyi
Zhurnal, 1944–1945) was published in New York. Due to Soviet censorship the chapters on
anthroposophy and Chekhov’s religious searchings were omitted in the Moscow edition of
Literaturnoye nasledye (Literary heritage) (1986). These chapters were first published in Russia
by the present author in the appendix to her book in Russian [Bjukling (Byckling) 1994]. (The
Letters of Michael Chekhov to Mstislav Dobuzhinsky (the émigré years, 1938–1951). 2nd, compl.
ed. (St Petersburg: Vsemirnoye slovo, 1994). An abridged version of Chekhov’s memoirs has been
published in English [Chekhov 2005].
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV, SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE 131

In 1922, after the death of Vakhtangov, Chekhov became director of the First Stu-
dio of the Moscow Art Theatre which, in 1924, was renamed the Second Moscow Art
Theatre. As he commented twenty years later in his memoirs “Life and Encounters”,
after the October revolution Chekhov sought to withstand the threat of the “compre-
hensibility of popular materialism” and other tendencies that led away from the ideals
and spiritual values established by the founders of the First Studio, Konstantin Stan-
islavsky and Leopold Sulerzhitsky. Of the revolutionary theatre, Chekhov wrote: “The
quality of acting started to deteriorate, and the elements of creative imagination, theat-
rical invention and originality were relegated to a secondary role. The external influence
was strong.” As a theatre director, Chekhov wanted to preserve its artistic life. “First
and foremost, I prohibited anti-religious tendencies and the theatre of the streets and
decided to stage Hamlet as a counterbalance” [Chekhov 1944: 14–16].
No less important was the humanitarian reform of the Russian theatre. Under
the heading of anthroposophy, Chekhov brought about the emergence of a spiritual
component in Russian theatre based on his exploration of its inner workings.
“Hamlet” produced by Chekhov in 1924 with a team of directors (he acted the
role of the Danish Prince) had both experimental and spiritual objectives. Motifs
inherent in Russian symbolism and German anthroposophy became interwoven in
the course of rehearsals. Using the new methods, he announced the beginnings of
a search which “led further away from Stanislavsky”. “For the time being I can only
say that if Stanislavsky’s system is a grammar school, these exercises are a university
in terms of their importance.” Here the idea of “a path of initiation” was formulated.
“We approach the play as if it were hieroglyphs, signs, and through them we ourselves
must make the breakthrough upwards, into eternity [..] A new technique of acting
has to be found. As actors, we have been trained through emotions in the animal
sphere. Now what we need to achieve is not to act ourselves, but to let the forces
that are on a higher level than we are act through us; we in turn must offer ourselves
in sacrifice to those forces.” During rehearsals there was talk of music in the play:
“Hamlet is a myth in motion, a particular philosophy. That is why we talk about
the musical element and music, because music more powerfully than anything else
leads us into the sphere of the Spirit” [Chekhov 1975: 170–171]. The source of these
arguments is clearly the language of the symbolists, as conveyed by Bely.
The few productions staged at the Second Moscow Art Theatre between 1924
and 1928, under Chekhov’s management and in cooperation with assistant directors,
were meant to be definite landmarks in the mastering of new methods of acting. In
his earlier studio work (1918–1920) Chekhov had aimed at creating a feeling of
truth and inspiring the actor’s fantasy. Among the many resources utilized in the First
Studio led by Stanislavsky and Leopold Sulerzhitsky were those of Asian derivation.
132 LIISA BYCKLING

When Stanislavsky sought means to control an actor’s moment of inspiration, he

became interested in the possibilities of Yoga and exercises based on the spiritual
disciplines of Hinduism and Buddhism directed towards a higher consciousness (“the
superconscious”). Not surprisingly, Chekhov later found similar ideas in Steiner’s
teaching and incorporated his concept of the “Higher Self ” into his acting method.
Anthroposophy was not only Chekhov’s private creed, it also provided him with
the art of movement and a mode speech called eurythmy or “visible speech”, which gave
new impetus to ways of refining non-verbal acting and developing the harmonious
function of the actor’s body. Chekhov adopted Steiner’s method of eurythmy in his
approach to speech and movement. This new art of movement envisaged that every
sound possessed an inherent gesture which could be reproduced by movements of
the human body. Eurythmy is interpreted, not as a means of communication, but as
sound and rhythm that can be expressed using the language of the body. Chekhov
wrote: “We studied the sound aspect of the word, as movement transformed into
sound” [Chekhov 1986: 119]. Chekhov decided to introduce the experience he had
gained through rhythmical exercises in his private Studio into the rehearsal process:
“During our work on Hamlet, we endeavoured to experience the gestures of words
in the way they sounded and to this end we selected the corresponding movements
to fit the words and phrases. We imbued them with the force we required, added
the particular emotional colouring and executed them until our inner feeling began
to respond to them fully” [Ibid.]. A trend of the times, mistrust of the word, was
manifest in Chekhov’s exercises. Averintsev formulated it thus: “at the beginning of
the century there was a diminishing of trust in the content of culture that is directly
“articulated”, in verbal formulations and consequently, literature with an ideological
content” [Averintsev 1981: 80]. The results of the experiments in the studio left
their mark on the production: in some scenes the pedagogical objectives of the
development of the actors’ movements and musicality were foregrounded.
Within the theatre, opinion about the production was sharply divided. At the
premiere, Stanislavsky did not accept the performance of Hamlet by his brilliant
pupil, whom he considered a tragi-comic, but not a tragic actor. A group of actors
who were opposed to Chekhov condemned the fact that the role smacked of his
enthusiasm for anthroposophy. However, audiences and certain objective critics,
Pavel Markov in the lead, were deeply moved by the play and Chekhov’s performance.
The content of his portrayal of Hamlet turned out to be much richer in meaning
than had been anticipated. Markov stated that the centre-point of the production
had been Chekhov. “The feeling of a world undergoing destruction was the keynote
of the performance. [..] Thus a character that is almost lyrical comes about, that stirs
the audience totally and is penetrating and moving” [Markov 1976: 194].
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV, SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE 133

The next stage in Chekhov’s experimentation was work on the stage adaptation
of Bely’s novel “Petersburg” (1925), the independent interpretation of dramatic ma-
terial written by Bely himself. The part of the old Senator Ableukhov was brilliantly
acted by Chekhov, who concluded that circumstances were in his favour following
three years of his direction at the Second Moscow Art Theatre.
Chekhov was able to pursue his own artistic line even in a changing ideological
situation where mystical and occult groups had been officially liquidated in 1923. At
the same time, the Russian Anthroposophical Society was closed and all connections
with anthroposophy became potentially dangerous. However, anthroposophical
ideas were not immediately extinguished by the changed cultural environment in
Russia. This was largely due to the efforts and prestige of Bely and several Russian
artists interested in Steiner’s thought. The centre of Anthroposophical activity
shifted briefly to the Second Moscow Art Theatre, where anthroposophical ideas
managed to survive until 1928. Chekhov did not give up and his activities increased
from 1923 onwards, during which period he applied Steiner’s methods in practical
theatre work, his aim being the spiritualization of culture and all professions and
studies in the theatre. It became generally known, even outside theatrical circles,
that Chekhov derived his spiritual knowledge and, in particular, his technique for
applying it specifically to art, from the anthroposophy and eurythmy of Rudolf
Steiner and the latter’s teachings on artistic speech.
Later, Chekhov set out his method of acting in his two American books, one in
Russian, “On the Technique of Acting” (O tekhnike aktyora, 1946), the other in English
(“To the Actor”, 1953). One of the main professional requirements is the actor’s
complete command of both body and psychology. In Chapter One, Chekhov laid the
foundations for attaining the four basic requirements of acting technique. “By means
of the suggested psychophysical exercises the actor can increase his inner strength,
develop his abilities to radiate and receive, acquire a fine sense of form, enhance his
feelings of freedom, ease, calm and beauty, experience the significance of his inner
being, and learn to see things and processes in their entirety” [Chekhov 1953: 20].
Chekhov offers excellent exercises for awakening, opening and contracting
dormant muscles aimed at achieving sensations of freedom and intensified life. There
follow exercises with the imaginary centre as a source of power within the actor’s
body; exercises with different kinds of movements with the whole body directed at
creating strong forms; exercises in ray emission into the surrounding space; exercises
in four kinds of movement – moulding, floating, flying and radiating movements –
reproduced in the actor’s imagination only. Chekhov revealed clearly his emphasis
on the harmony of the actor’s body and psychology.
Chekhov writes about another rehearsal method, the working gesture or
psychological gesture (PG): “we cannot directly command our feelings, but we can
134 LIISA BYCKLING

provoke them by certain indirect means. The key to our will power will be found
in the movement (action, gesture). [..] The strength of the movement stirs our will
power in general; the kind of movement awakens in us a definite corresponding
desire, and the quality of the same movement conjures up our feelings” [Chekhov
1953: 63, 66]. PG is used for creating the character, in the sense that it offers a
condensed version of characterisation. Some principles of Chekhov’s rehearsal
methods anticipated Stanislavsky’s “method of physical actions” in the 1930s. It
was Chekhov’s aim that the actors should acquire a practical grasp of the profound
connection between movement and words on the one hand, and with the emotions
on the other. This exercise served as an expression of Stanislavsky’s demand that the
author’s words be not uttered until the inner stimulus to do so arises. Eugenio Barba,
head of the Odin Theatre and a theorist of modern theatre has this to say about
Chekhov’s method: “Michael Chekhov attaches great importance to the performer’s
interior life. His “first days” [first exercises] show, however, that everything he calls
“sensation”, “feeling”, or “psychological state” is innervated through precise physical
attitudes. For Chekhov as well, the work on the body-in-life and the thought-in-life
are two sides of the same coin” [Barba 1990: 78].
An important point of departure for Chekhov is the notion of “double
consciousness” and being present simultaneously “inside” and “outside of ” the
character. Chekhov asserted the theory of imitation, the law of the three states of
consciousness, objectivity vis-à-vis the character and self-observation during the
performance, all of which became the foundation for the actors’ work. Chekhov
propounded an understanding of acting that differed from Stanislavsky’s teaching
in many respects. In attempting to solve the basic problem of the actor, that of the
personality and the artist, whereby the actor is meant to be the creator of a certain
ideal and liberated life, Chekhov’s aim was to acquire a creative joy stripped of
personal imperfection. In the Second Moscow Art Theatre Chekhov was at odds at
one and the same time with Stanislavsky’s notion of character embodiment involving
complete transformation, and with those ideas promoted by Meyerhold and
Vakhtangov of a more detached “relationship to the image”. A subtext of Chekhov’s
tenet (of objectivity towards the image) is his dispute with what he regarded as the
tendentiousness of modern theatre.
As already stated, Chekhov was able to conclude that circumstances were
in his favour during the first three years of his direction at the Second MAT. He
succeeded in implementing his ideas and a new approach to aesthetics during those
first few years of his directorship: “spiritual insights were applied in a specific and
practical way in the form that I had succeeded in manifesting them in my exercises
and productions” [Chekhov 1986: 122]. Chekhov created his own theatre with its
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV, SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE 135

new style of performing which gave the productions their distinct form. The style
can be defined as the psychological grotesque or the character-mask that comes into
being when the accentuation of the psychological portrayal of the character reaches
its height. However, the term Chekhov’s Theatre is ambiguous when applied to the
Second MAT, since there were opposing tendencies within the company.
In 1925, radical political changes took place with the opening of the 14th
Party Congress. Here a policy of rapid industrialization was first promulgated. The
Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP), also came into existence at this
time who strove for proletarian leadership in literature and who conducted a battle
with theatrical innovators, the so-called formalists, such as Meyerhold and Tairov.
Its methods were quite unprincipled and included political accusations against
artists at every level. Among its stated purposes was “to scourge and chastise” in the
name of the Party, i. e., effectively encouraging censorship of literature on ideological
grounds, supported by the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. Among its targets were
both pro- and anti-Bolshevik writers, including Mikhail Bulgakov, Maxim Gorky,
Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Evgeny Zamyatin.
The opposition to Chekhov was intensified by the harshening of the regime.
Simultaneously, conflicts arose within the theatre and the secret police stepped up its
activity. The People’s Commissariat of Education sent a letter to Chekhov informing
him that his activity as theatre director was deemed “not entirely satisfactory” and
that he should stop spreading the ideas of Steiner among the actors [Chekhov 1995a:
243]. As early as 1925, a serious conflict had arisen owing to the differing artistic and
ideological aspirations. The following year, a group of actors under the leadership of
the director Alexei Diky left the Second MAT, denouncing Chekhov as an idealist
and mystic. Following the split in the theatre the Moscow newspapers condemned
Chekhov as a “sick” artist and his productions were criticised as alien and reactionary
and he was under serious threat of being arrested. In 1928, he resigned from his theatre
and received official leave for one year to travel to Berlin with his wife Xenia. Chekhov
left Russia in the wake of accusations that he was using the theatre to disseminate
anthroposophical doctrines inconsistent with the Moscow Art Theatre’s world view.
His letter of conciliation to the Ministry of Culture in Moscow was left unanswered.
In Berlin from 1928 to 1930, Chekhov continued theatre work in parallel with
his unceasing anthroposophical contemplations while combining work in Max
Reinhardt’s theatres and silent cinema with private studio work. Chekhov had not
intended to leave Soviet Russia for good, but the situation changed dramatically
with the implementation of the First Five-Year Plan in 1929. In that year the
Bolsheviks, spurred on by Stalin, launched a new campaign against the “remnants of
the bourgeois intelligentsia”, actively hunting down and arresting members of occult
136 LIISA BYCKLING

groups on a large scale. After 1929, those anthroposophists and other occultists
who remained free went underground or ceased their activities altogether. In Paris,
Chekhov learned of the arrests. His feelings of guilt towards friends who had been
subjected to persecution is expressed in the Paris chapters of “Life and Encounters”.
Arrest for “occult propaganda” after 1933 inevitably meant exile and frequently
execution. However, the destruction of the occult societies by decree, arrest, exile,
and execution did not destroy the Russians’ interest in occultism.
It was clear that, for Chekhov, there could be no return to Soviet Russia. The years
of emigration in Europe and in the USA followed. Both Stanislavsky and Meyerhold
tried to convince him to return. Officially, Chekhov never broke contacts with Soviet
Russia and he remained a Soviet citizen until 1946 when he became an American
citizen. Chekhov was finally able to give one of his spiritual mentors his due in “Life
and Encounters”, in “On the Technique of Acting” (in Russian 1946) and “To the
Actor” (1953), all of them published in America. In “To the Actor” he wrote: “It was
my work over many years in the sphere of the Anthroposophy of Rudolf Steiner that
gave me the guiding idea for my entire work as a whole” [Chekhov 1953: X]. These
sentiments from the foreword were omitted from the 1986 Moscow edition of his
book “To the Actor”.
The American-English version has been republished and is widely used in
Western theatre schools. Eugenio Barba describes Chekhov’s book as one of the
best practical manuals for the training of the “realistic” actor [Barba 1995: 72] [See
also: Black 1987]. Other versions and new books of Chekhov’s classes have been
published in the United States [Chekhov 1963; Chekhov 1985]. New books
of Chekhov’s classes have been published by his American students and also the
second-generation teachers [Chekhov Master Class 1992; Merlin 2001; Petit 2010].
The Finnish translation from the Russian original was completed by the present
writer and published by the Finnish Theatre Academy in 2017 [Tšehov 2017].
Chekhov created and taught an acting system which has become increasingly
influential in both the West and the East. Until his final years in California, he
remained devoted to Rudolf Steiner’s system of belief, as well as to those ideals of
the Russian theatre expressed by Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov.

Sources
Averintsev, S. (1981). Religiya i kultura. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Barba, E. (1995). The Paper Canoe. A Guide to Theatre Anthropology. London and New
York: Routledge.
 MICHAEL CHEKHOV, SPIRITUALITY AND SOVIET THEATRE 137

Berdyaev, N. (1966). The Russian Revolution. (1931). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Bjukling [Byckling], L. (2000). Mikhail Chekhov v zapadnom teatre i kino. (Mikhail
Chekhov in Western Theatre and Cinema). Sankt-Peterburg: Akademicheskii
proyekt.
Bjukling [Byckling], L. (1994). Pisma Mikhaila Chekhova Mstislavu Dobuzhinskomu.
Gody emigratsii 1938–1951. (Mikhail Chekhov’s Letters to Mstislav Dobuzhinsky.
Emigré Years 1938– 1951). Appendix. Second, completed edition. Sankt-Peterburg:
Vsemirnoye slovo.
Black, L. C. (1987). Mikhail Chekhov as Actor, Director and Teacher. Theater and
dramatic studies 43. Michigan: UMI Research Press.
Chekhov, M. A. (1975). Minutes of rehearsals of Hamlet. Pervaya studia Moskovskogo
Khudozhestvennogo teatra. Vvedeniye, sostavleniye i primechaniya F. M. Mikhalovskogo
i E. S. Kapitaikina. Sovetskyi teatr: 1921–1926. Dokumenty i materialy. Moskva:
Iskusstvo.
Chekhov Master Class. (1992). Michael Chekhov on the Theatre and the Art of Acting. A
four-part tape series edited with a Guide to Discovery and exercises by Mala Powers.
Chekhov, M. A. (1986a). Literaturnoye nasledye v dvukh tomakh. Vol. 1. In: M. O. Knebel,
A. N. Krymova (eds.). Moskva: Iskusstvo.
Chekhov, M. A. (1995a). Literaturnoye nasledye v dvukh tomakh. Vol. 1. In: M. O. Knebel,
A. N. Krymova (eds.). Moskva: Iskusstvo.
Chekhov, M. (1953). To the Actor on the Technique of Acting. New York: Harper and Row.
Chekhov, M. (1963). Michael Chekhov’s To the Director and Playwright. Compiled and
written by Charles Leonard. New York: Limelight. 2nd ed. 1984.
Chekhov, M. (1983). Chekhov on acting: a collection of unpublished materials (1919–
1942). The Drama Review 27(3). Fall 1983 (T. 99).
Chekhov, M. (1985). Lessons for the Professional Actor. In: D. Hurst du Prey (ed.). New
York: Performing Arts Journal.
Chekhov, M. (1991). On the Technique of Acting. Ed. Mel Gordon. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Chekhov, M. (2002). To the Actor on the Technique of Acting. Revised and expanded
edition. London & New York: Routledge.
Chekhov, M. (2005). The Path of the Actor. In: A. Kirillov, B. Merlin (eds.). London &
New York: Routledge.
Chekhov, M. (1944). Zhizn i vstrechi (Life and Encounters). Novyj Zhurnal X. New
York.
138 LIISA BYCKLING

Elsworth, J. D. (1982). Andrei Bely. A Critical Study of the Novels. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fedjuschin, V. B. (1988). Russlands Sehnsucht nach Spiritualität. Theosophie, Anthropo-
sophie, Rudolf Steiner und die Russen. Schaffhausen: Novalis Verlag.
Knebel, M. O. (1986). O Mikhaile Chekhove i ego tvorcheskom nasledii. (Concerning
Michael Chekhov and his Creative Legacy). In: Chekhov 1986a.
Markov, P. A. (1976). Dnevnik teatralnogo kritika. O teatre. Vol. 3. Moskva: Iskusstvo.
Merlin, J. (2001). Auditioning. An Actor-friendly guide. New York: Vintage books.
Petit, L. (2010). The Michael Chekhov Handbook: For the Actor. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.
Ryan, J. (2018). A Centenary Perspective. Goodbye Lenin? In: P. Lay (ed.). History
Today. June 2018. Vol. 68. Issue 6.
Tšehov, M. (2017). Näyttelijän tekniikasta. (Finnish translation of O tekhnike aktyora
1946). Foreword, Commentaries and Article: Liisa Byckling. Helsinki: Finnish
Theatre Academy.
Worrall, N. (1989). Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage. Tairov–Vakhtangov–
Okhlopkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.