The Function of Repetition in the Plays of Chekhov

The Function of Repetition in the Plays of Chekhov CLAYTON A. HUBBS IN THREE SISTERS, Vershinin considers what it would be like to start life all over again: "If that happened, I think the thing you'd want most of all would be not to repeat yourself." Repetition is a central thematic and structural element in Chekhov's major plays, each of which repeats the other in general conception and in numerous detailsl His frustrated protagonists want to break out of the pattern of repetition and realize their desire for freedom in a new life. Time passes, they undergo "the suffering of change," and they are len to begin their old lives over again. Such is the familiar nature of Chekhov 's "actionless" plays. Although Chekhov was a masterful storyteller with an abundant supply of new situations and plots, each time we again encounter one of his plays we are reminded that we, like the characters, have experienced this before. All literature relies on repetition as a generator of meaning and deals with contradictions- in modern works often unresolved-between what is and what is desired; but repetition usually means "repetition with a difference": elements recur with important changes as the narrative advances. Chekhov's later plays are unique, before Beckett, in the extent to which it is the lack of change that is significant and in the extent to which the contradiction between what is and what is desired remains unresolved. In the context of the history of modern drama, Chekhov's departures from classical naturalism now appear inevitable and lead, in the postnaturalist plays of Pinter and Beckett, to an emphasis on the limita115 lib CLAYTON A. HUBBS tions of naturalistic dialogue- the formal and human limitations of dramatic speech' My purpose here is neither to show a continuity in modem drama nor to assert the permanence of a Chekhovian tradition , but rather to show how, despite its apparent disjointedness, its "series of erratic stabs at the spectator," a play by Chekhov produces a sense of order and wholeness which remains. The antagonist is the form itself,) and the form is an interlocked series of unincremental repetitions. The general question of repetition has preoccupied theoreticians and critics since Aristotle, and much of the best writing on Chekhov's drama has taken Aristotle's ideas as a starting point. Thus, it seems important to begin with a summary of Aristotle's thought on the subject of dramatic repetition and its later application to the analysis of Chekhov's plays: Aristotle defined tragedy as "an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude." What he meant by "action" and what makes the action "complete" are issues still debated. By "imitation" he must have meant repetition, since the dramatic action imitates or repeats a reality outside itself. Because Chekhov breaks the long dominance of the Aristotelian pattern and creates works in which the dramatic structures are nearly self-contained , he is called the rust fully modem playwright- comparable to Flaubert in fiction.' Nevertheless, the criticism of Chekhov's drama remains grounded in Aristotle's concept of action and imitation. Kenneth Burke in his formulation of the Aristotelian pattern divides what he calls the "tragic rhythm of action" into three "moments" (Poiema, Pathema, and Mathema) which Francis Fergusson calls purpose , passion, and perception: purpose (in Oedipus Rex, finding Laius's slayer) leads to the suffering of passion from which a new perception of the situation emerges on the basis of which "the purpose of the action is redefined, and a new movement starts. This movement, or tragic rhythm of action, constitutes the shape of the playas a whole; it is also the shape of each episode. ....., With this formulation in mind, Fergusson analyzes a scene from The Cherry Orchard and compares Chekhov's accomplishment with that of Sophocles: "We miss, in Chekhov's scene, any fixed points of human significance, and that is why compared with Sophocles, he seems limited and partial- a bit too pathetic even for our bewildered times.'" Tom F. Driver calls Chekhov's break with the Aristotelian tradition more radical than any other in modern times, yet he insists that "it is only...