SOURCE: Rozik, Eli. “The Interpretative Function of the ‘Seagull’ Motif in The Seagull.” Assaph: Studies in the Theatre, no. 4 (1988): 55-81

[In the following essay, Rozik examines the use of the seagull as a symbol in Chekhov's play.]

INTRODUCTION

The ‘seagull’ metaphor is a focal point within a comprehensive and complex motif which fulfils a crucial role in the structure of the fictional world of The Seagull by Anton Chekhov. Therefore, although additional constituent motifs are involved, I shall refer to the entire network in terms of the ‘seagull’ motif.

A thorough analysis of this motif should fully account for the following phenomena:

1. The synthesis of local metaphors into a structural motif affecting the fictional world as a whole;
2. Its interpretative function with respect to this fictional world;
3. Its mixed-media character (verbal and iconic);
4. Justification of this mixed character in terms of the norms of Naturalism.

It is not my intention, however, to suggest a purely theoretical account of all these features, nor to produce a hermeneutic piece of work in the vein of Slavic studies. My aim is rather to examine the joint application of several structural principles, regarding the relationship between single expressions and the fictional world as a whole. In order to do so, we are in need of at least three theoretical models: 1) a model of metaphor; 2) a model of motif; 3) a model of the structure of the fictional world. Since models of metaphor and fictional world are available in abundance—including my own¹—only a model for the formation and functioning of motifs will be suggested below.

A MODEL OF MOTIF

Motif is one of the structural principles underlying the creation of a fictional world as a whole out of a set of many partial constituents. This principle is most conspicuous in types of discourse, such as theatrical ones, that are organized on the time axis.²

The following description derives from the traditional definition of ‘motif’, which views reiteration of words or other semantic units as its most prominent feature.³ Such recurrence, in order to be meaningful, presupposes a definite context. According to the traditional view, its scope may vary from single texts to entire sets of texts, such as the works of an author, an artistic trend, a culture, etc. I have confined myself to a single text, and in the following paragraphs I suggest five rules which, as a set, define ‘motif’ as understood in this paper.

Reiteration: I assume that this is the most basic rule, since it is somewhat difficult to grasp the effective inclusion of a semantic unit within a long discourse, without some measure of reiteration. Furthermore, recurrence of expressions becomes a meaningful phenomenon only if we assume that it happens within well organized contexts, such as theatrical discourses.

The simplest form of reiteration is the recurrence of the same word, i.e. tokens of the same type, during various parts of a discourse. this principle extends to reiteration of given semantic units in any possible form, such as morphological variants, ellipsis, hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, etc.⁴ (i.e., from the viewpoint of reiteration the overall motif includes all the occurrences of the same semantic unit. For example, the seagull motif includes all occurrences of ‘seagull’, ‘bird’ and ‘stuffed bird’).

‘Motif’ thus presupposes the existence of a human faculty, not only to construe a given expression in its immediate context but also to connect it to other tokens of the motif in other passages of the text, a faculty which also includes expectation of further occurrences, up to the very end of the play. The rhythmical recurrence of motifs in time-organized discourses demands from the audience a particular type of attention and organization of meanings in order for communication on this level to be completely accomplished.

Expansion: Motifs expand beyond the principle of reiteration of a given semantic unit, by means of additional types of associative processes such as paradigmatic associativeness beyond synonymy, syntagmatic associativeness, and synonymy and antonymy between motifs. As will be shown below, the ‘seagull’ motif also expands along these parameters. Reiteration and its psychological counterpart, motif attention, also apply to these additional constituents of the overall motif.

Accumulation: I assume that each token of a motif is conducive to recollections of previous occurrences and their contextual associations. These connotations, definite or vague in various degrees, naturally attach to every sign within any given context. In time-organized discourses tokens of motifs recur under changing conditions, i.e. changing situations and characters' attitudes, and these are reflected in the motif as a whole.

Since the decoding of theatrical texts is a time-bound process, I assume that spectators start off with minimal contextual associativeness, with the first occurrences of a motif, and end up with the associative load at its maximum. The mechanism of accumulation thus explains how a partial and local expression grows into a complex and comprehensive unit capable of functioning within the structure of the whole play.

Obviously, it is accumulation which mostly demands the assumption of motif-attention. We cannot realize the effect of an accumulation process without postulating a mind which is able to spot recurrence, accumulate meanings, and connect them in a meaningful way. We should keep in mind that this process is usually carried out for a set of motifs which unfold in parallel and synchronously, without being confused. Accumulation also explains the extreme importance usually attached to the last scene of a play: only by the end have motifs been fully presented and their load fully activated, and only then can they produce their fullest effect, in synchronic conjunction with all other motifs, in a rich and powerful final accord.

In fact, the principle of accumulation suggests that ‘motif’ is a subspecies of ‘symbol’. For the purposes of this paper, ‘symbol’ is defined as a sign, whether verbal or iconic, when deliberately used for its contextual associative meaning, in addition to its basic signification.⁵

Spatiality: focusing on recurrent tokens of a motif functions in a way contrary to the temporal unfolding of theatrical texts. In fact, it introduces a spatial dimension in our ‘reading’ of texts, since each token focuses our attention on both previous and expected occurrences, as if they were synchronously present.

Motifs are not introduced with a proper exposition, that explicitly presents their full meaning and dramatic function. Usually, they are introduced in media res. Although accumulation of meaning is a temporal process, we feel, however, that motifs have meaning and function independently of the temporal nature of texts, and that the use of meaning disclosed at later occurrences for interpretation of earlier ones is the right procedure; i.e. that we are entitled to apply our full knowledge of meaning and function of a motif to any token of it, even if it precedes the actual disclosure, provided that we do not totally disregard its textual location.

The spatial dimension of motifs thus introduces an alternative perspective, which encompasses the totality of fictional worlds at any given moment, synchronously, as if they were spatial works of art. Such an alternative equally applies to the final accord of a play. Furthermore, accumulation presupposes spatiality since it is made possible by continuous reference to previous and future occurrences of motifs. Spatiality and accumulation are thus two aspects of the same process. In conjunction they explain the synthesis of local and partial expressions into complex and coherent unities which fulfil definite functions on the level of the fictional world as a whole.

Function: I suggest that motifs, as overall units of meaning, may play a crucial role in the structure of the fictional world, such as in determining the points of view of the characters and the expected conception of this world by the audience. The former is reflected in the terms of reference used by the characters when they try to explain their own world. The latter is usually projected by functional characters or situations and it is this which fully accounts, in my view, for the function of the ‘seagull’ motif in Chekhov's play. I suggest that this motif fulfils a crucial structural role in conveying the point of view of the author, his concept of the fictional world, as he wishes the audience to experience it.

THE ‘SEAGULL’ MOTIF

‘Seagull’ is reiterated several times in the text, although, not always in the same capacity; some of the occurrences are literal and some metaphorical.⁶

In its literal capacity ‘seagull’ refers to the real seagull on stage, the one shot by Konstantin, and referred to by himself, Nina (p. 145) and Trigorin (p. 151).⁷ This literal use recurs when Shamrayev mentions the stuffed bird that he made at Trigorin's request (p. 176), a bird which is subsequently brought in on stage (p. 183). In all these cases ‘seagull’ refers to iconic representations of a real seagull, whatever the object enacting the bird: a real seagull, a puppet, or a ‘0’ sign.

In its metaphorical capacity ‘seagull’ is used only with reference to human characters. From the first act Nina uses it explicitly to describe herself: “and I am drawn to this place, to this lake, as if I were a seagull” (p. 125), Up to the end of the play she makes use of the metaphor several more times.⁸ In the fourth act we learn that she used to sign her letters by this name (p. 171). Trigorin too, when the theme for his short story first dawns on him, at the end of the second act, uses the very same metaphor for the heroine, and subsequently for Nina herself:

TRIGORIN:
An idea came into my head. A subject for a short story: a young girl, like you, has lived beside a lake from childhood. She loves the lake as a seagull does, and she's happy and free as a seagull. But a man chances to come along, sees her, and having nothing better to do, destroys her, just like this seagull here.”

(p. 151)

Although this metaphoric description is not made explicit, it is implied in the resemblance Trigorin finds between Nina and the girl of the story (“like you”). In the last act Trigorin's implied description recurs almost explicitly in Nina's own words:

NINA:
I am a seagull. No, that's not it again … Do you remember you shot a seagull? A man came along by chance, saw it and destroyed it, just to pass the time … A subject for a short story …”

(p. 181)

The recollection of the story in the context of Nina describing herself as a seagull gives final validation for the equation: Nina = young girl.

It would appear that the description of Nina as a seagull is mediated by the viewpoint of Trigorin, who suggests the likeness between the girls. In fact, as mentioned above, Nina uses this metaphor even before she meets Trigorin, when referring to herself at the very beginning of the play (p. 125).

The multiple use of ‘seagull’ in describing Nina might lead to the erroneous conclusion that she is the unique referent of this metaphor. Such an impression might be reinforced by the fact that it is also the name of the play, in accordance with theatrical tradition of naming a play after its main character. Nevertheless, Nina is not the only character described by this metaphor. When Konstantin kills the bird and leaves it at Nina's feet, he hints at a possible reference to himself: “I was despicable enough to kill this seagull today.—Soon I shall kill myself in the same way” (p. 145). Although in this case the metaphor apparently points at the way the seagull was killed—“with no other purpose”, we eventually understand that Konstantin will actually shoot himself as a seagull. This second reading will be reinforced below. There is also evidence for viewing Trigorin and Arkadina in terms of the same metaphor.

In addition, ‘seagull’ is associated with other words in the text in a way that matches the natural associativeness of the audience. These words also refer to objects within the stage reality, such as ‘lake’, ‘shores’, ‘fish’, ‘waves’, ‘storm’ and ‘moon’. This type of associativeness derives from actual experience with real lakes, and from familiarity with verbal descriptions in literary works, in which these expressions appear together (syntagmatic associativeness). These words also operate on a metaphorical level for the description of human characters and situations. The obviously metaphorical use of ‘seagull’ facilitates the extension of the metaphorical function to these expressions as well. For instance, the lake is presented as a gravitation point for Nina: “I am drawn to this place, to this lake” (p. 125). Although, the sentence appears to describe Nina's frequent visits to Konstantin's place, by the lake, this is not in fact the case. Nina is attracted by the atmosphere of the house—‘bohemian’ in her parents' pejorative terms (p. 125). Furthermore, when identification with the seagull is strongest she returns to the provincial cities, where she usually plays; thus in its metaphorical sense, the ‘lake’ might be quite far away from the actual lake on stage.

Konstantin is also attracted to the lake: “He spends day after day on the lake—” (p. 140). For him too such description makes sense only if we assume its metaphorical meaning. Even when he realizes his failure with Nina he returns to the same image: “your growing coldness towards me is frightening, it's incredible. It is as if I woke one day and saw this lake suddenly drying up, or draining away into the ground.” (p. 145); i.e., Konstantin feels like a seagull left with no lake. The lake is the universe of the seagull, both in its literal and metaphorical meanings.

Although for different reasons, Trigorin and Arkadina also gravitate towards the lake, in its metaphorical meaning (p. 151, 176). Indeed, all the characters, including the non-artists, in one way or another, relate to this all-embracing metaphor. For some of them it is like an existential yearning and for others—a kind of human reality one has to cope with. It is noteworthy that it is Dorn, a non-artist, who quite explicitly presents ‘lake’ as a metaphorical description of ‘life’:⁹ “How distraught they all are! How distraught! And what a quantity of love about! … It's the magic lake! …” (p. 137). Each in his own way is drawn to the lake, some like seagulls.

A. COMMON MODIFIERS

We assume that the existence of common modifiers, capable of modifying both seagulls and human characters, is a necessary condition for the metaphor to make sense, whether these modifiers are made explicit or not.¹⁰

In this play, in most cases, Chekhov focuses the audience's attention on such modifiers by emphasizing certain aspects in the characters' behaviour which evoke similar ones in seagulls. Such a procedure substantially expands the scope of the entire motif.

Before we embark on the analysis of these aspects, we should distinguish between ‘seagull’ as an animal species, on the purely zoological level of understanding, and ‘seagull’ as an idea, i.e. a set of properties usually attributed by people to these birds. Unless a particular effort is made to the contrary, only commonplace modifiers are activated by metaphor. The idea of ‘seagull’ thus incorporates its beauty, whiteness, and superb flight, which delight beholders and evoke the peaceful atmosphere of idyllic seascapes. The zoological realities of the seagull's life, such as its sullied plumage and its feeding on carrion tend to be ignored or suppressed. Curiously enough, in this play Chekhov tries very hard to de-idealize this metaphor and to reinforce associations related to real aspects in the seagull's life.

In the following paragraphs I shall analyse the literal modifiers capable of modifying both seagulls and characters.

Flying as a seagull: the idea of ‘seagull’ mainly refers to its fascinating flight. A sense of weightlessness and elegance are induced by it, and through this—idyllic peacefulness. Obviously, the ‘idea’ ignores the bird's clumsiness in walking.

The beauty of its flight is evoked by Dorn in his metaphoric description of himself: “if it had been my lot to experience the exaltation an artist feels at the moment of creative achievement, I believe I should have come to despise this material body of mine and all that goes with it and my soul would have taken wings and soared into the heights” (p. 136). Dorn portrays the unique experience of being an artist in terms of flight in contrast to his material body. These terms connote ‘defying gravity’, ‘release from immediate reality’, ‘widening horizons’, and the like, which easily apply to spiritual experiences. It should be noted that in the text ‘seagull’ is twice introduced on stage, iconically, in a less prepossessing shape: as a shot bird and as a stuffed bird.

White as a seagull: The idea of ‘seagull’ also bears reference to its immaculate white colour. The idea, obviously, totally disregards the facts: In reality the white colour becomes sullied. Seagulls are engaged in survival and do not keep their feathers clean for the sheer enjoyment of onlookers.

‘White’ is introduced as an iconic modifier by Nina's dress, when she enacts the ‘common soul of the world’ (p. 129). This ‘common soul’ is a personification of Idealism in its eternal struggle with the gods of matter. Therefore, if we assume that the white dress is an intentional piece of design, we may conclude that in his play Konstantin conceives Idealism in terms of the ‘seagull’ idea.

In subsequent scenes Nina wears a ‘light-coloured dress’ (p. 154) and so does Arkadina (p. 172). For Konstantin such light colours seem to symbolize ‘zest for life’: “She wants to live, to have love affairs, to wear light coloured blouses.” (p. 122). This clearly contrasts with Masha's attitude as reflected in her black outfit: “I am in mourning for my life.” (p. 119). Masha lacks the positive attitude to life which characterizes the other women. It is therefore reasonable to infer that these colours do belong to the overall ‘seagull’ motif. If that is the case, the same colours reflect different attitudes in Nina and Arkadina. Although both deviate from the ideal whiteness, the former would struggle for it whereas the latter has already compromised.

Beautiful as a seagull: The idea of ‘seagull’ is epitomized by ‘beauty’, which encompasses the amazing flight and appearance. “What a beautiful bird” (p. 151) says Trigorin when he sees the shot seagull in front of him, despite the fact that the bird is laying there in its gore. Implicitly, he expresses one of those commonplace ideas which condition his perception of the world. Accordingly, when Nina refers to Trigorin's life in terms of beauty (p. 147) she also reflects the idea of ‘artist’ rather than the actual artist in front of her. Nina returns to the same motif, in the fourth act, but then she describes the artist's life from her own experience in contrasting terms: “Life is coarse” (p. 179). ‘Beautiful’ is used both for the bird and for Trigorin. In contrast, the antonymic modifier ‘coarse’ is used only for human life, although there is no reason why it should not extend to a real seagull's life.

Attracted by the lake as a seagull: Real seagulls find their food in the waters of the lake. Ideal seagulls fly above and create idyllic pictures in the minds of their viewers. It is the idea which is reflected in the characters' attraction to the lake. Nina and Konstantin are attracted by ‘lake’ in its metaphoric sense, which has little to do with reality and lies in those enchanted lands where the characters try to realize their spiritual aspirations. ‘Art’ appears to be the key word. Some gravitate towards these lands because of spiritual forces, whereas for others, the attraction has already become tinted by worldly values, such as wealth and fame. In fact, both paths are compatible with the basic structure of the seagull motif: the former best suits the idea, whereas the latter suits reality.

At the mercy of the elements as a seagull: As mentioned above, the usual image of ‘lake-seagull’ is idyllic and romantic. In contrast, Chekhov tends to stress the opposite side of the coin, particularly in the fourth act which, in contrast to the first, takes place in the winter when the wind gusts and the “waves on the lake” become “enormous ones” (p. 165). Birds are then, like human beings, at the mercy of the world:

NINA:
Let us sit down and talk … It's nice here, warm and comfortable … Do you hear the wind? There's a passage in Turgenev: “Fortunate is he who on such a night has a roof over him, who has a warm corner of his own.” I am a seagull … No, that's not it, (rubs her forehead) What was I saying? Yes … Turgenev … “And heaven help the homeless wayfarers.” … Never mind (sobs).

(p. 179)

NINA:
I am so tired. Oh, I wish I could rest … Just rest! (raising her head) I am a seagull … No, that's not it. I'm an actress. Oh, well!—

(p. 180)

One might think that Nina is describing literally her own life. The very same description, however, is also well suited to the hypothetical viewpoint of a seagull in the storm: its tiredness, its nomadic life, with no roof and no warm corner to shelter in. The utter dependence of the seagull-human characters on the world is expressed with extreme bitterness, again by Nina: “We've been drawn into the whirlpool, too.” (p. 179). Eventually, Nina comes closer to Trigorin's feeling of agony and bondage to his art (p. 147). Perhaps there is no better expression of Nina's distress and her identification with the seagull than in her asking for water (p. 180) and food: “I am so tired and hungry.” (p. 181). She is still attracted to the lake, but her image of life now comprehends a strong awareness of reality, like the images of the older characters, it now includes ‘winter’.

Fishing as a seagull: Zoology teaches that seagulls feed on fish and carrion. The idea of ‘seagull’, however, does not contain this preying characteristic; but, in this case too, Chekhov stresses a discomforting side of seagull reality by means of a human character—Trigorin's devotion to fishing:

TRIGORIN:
I'm very fond of fishing. As far as I am concerned, there is no greater pleasure than to sit on the bank of a river in the late afternoon and watch the float …

(p. 133)

In fact, Trigorin draws a strong distinction between his love for fishing and his bondage to art (p. 148). Whereas art is mentioned in terms of obsession (p. 176), fishing is mentioned in terms of ‘delight’ (p. 176) and ‘pleasure’ (p. 133). In contrast, Nina uses such expressions only for human creativity: “I should have thought that for anyone who'd experienced the joy of doing creative work no other pleasure could exist.” (p. 133). Obviously, this is the Nina of the first act.

Hunted like a seagull: Seagulls hunt and fish. They are not objects of hunting. There is nothing to be gained by killing them, unless it is done, as phrased by Trigorin, “having nothing better to do” (p. 151), out of sheer boredom. With no other gain, and probably because of its usual aesthetic associations, hurting a seagull becomes equated with impairing beauty. It is within such a frame of mind that Konstantin conceives his ‘despicable’ act (p. 145) and even his own death.

The subject of Trigorin's story, although formulated in terms of ‘seagull’, in fact relates to a girl living on the shores of a lake “a young girl, like you”. This story is clearly correlated with Trigorin's own intrusion and destruction of Nina's life: he is not interested in Nina herself, but as a model for female characters in his stories, as raw material for his art (p. 146). This correlation between the seagull's death and Nina's fate suggests that Trigorin, like Konstantin, has committed a despicable act.¹¹ However, Trigorin and Konstantin are not only hunters, but are also hunted themselves, “like a fox badgered by the hounds” (p. 150)—hunted and haunted.

Stuffed as a seagull: A stuffed bird combines two different impressions: amazement at the sight of a skillfully preserved image of a once living creature, and uneasiness at the sheer cruelty in the killing of such creatures and the dispassionate freezing of their life. Konstantin killed a seagull and Trigorin apparently, despite not remembering, asked Shamrayev to stuff it (p. 176). Moreover, although Trigorin did not kill a literal ‘seagull’, he undoubtedly killed a metaphorical one. In fact, Nina herself offers him her own life: “If ever you need my life, come and take it.” (p. 160). This quotation, taken from one of Trigorin's own stories, suggests a concept of life which is mediated by literature, in the fashion of Don Quijote and Madam Bovary. In contrast, Trigorin, taking a practical view, is honest enough to tell her in advance of his own narrow interest in their future relations: “just to find out what your thoughts are, and what kind of a pretty little thing you are in a general sort of way.” Because “the girls in my novels and stories are usually so artificial.” (p. 146). In other words, for him Nina is a possible source of raw material, for life interests Trigorin for the sake of preservation only. The metaphorical relationship between creativity and taxidermy becomes thus apparent.

In contrast to the previous motif which stressed the lack of purpose in the killing of a seagull, the present motif suggests an unexpected benefit: from such a carcass one can make a decorative stuffed bird, an object of admiration, which amazingly preserves an image of life and natural beauty.

B. SYNONYMOUS MOTIFS

The seagull motif also encompasses a set of collateral motifs, which do not appear to maintain any semantic relationship with the basic network. Further analysis reveals, however, that these secondary motifs fulfil a parallel and complementary function. While they also function on both the literal and metaphorical levels, it is on the metaphorical level that the link between the main and the collateral motifs can be established. In this case, the expansion of the overall motif is justified on the grounds of common semantic traits which obtain in synonymity, as in the following examples:

1. The ‘game’ conveys meaning similar to some aspects of the seagull motif. First, both purport to confront life with art. In Nina's eyes, ‘playing cards’ is a human phenomenon which, among others, characterizes life in its simplest and most unpretentious form: “But here they are, crying, fishing, playing cards, laughing and getting angry like anyone else.” (p. 145). From her viewpoint, regular people stand in stark contrast to artists, who endeavour to reach higher spheres of human experience. On this level ‘playing cards’ is used in a literal capacity, and the lotto game, which takes place on stage towards the end of the play, lends iconic form to it.

In contrast to ‘seagull’ there is no textual indication as to a possible metaphorical function of ‘game’. However, the moment the analogy between it and ‘fishing’ is detected it is easily disclosed: for Nina, both are indicative of ordinary life. Furthermore, in both the aim is to pull out desired objects in a mixture of skill and passive expectancy; i.e. both assume partial dependency on forces which are beyond human mastery. It is noteworthy that the players are Trigorin, Arkadina, Dorn, Sorin, Shamrayev and Polena and that among all of them Trigorin, the fisherman, is the only one who succeeds. Konstantin and Nina, the active characters, do not play.¹²

The metaphorical dimension of the motif is also hinted at in Arkadina's parallel remarks on the game: “It's a dull game, but it's not so bad when you get used to it,” (p. 174), and on fishing “Surprising he doesn't get bored with it.” (p. 140). Consequently, if we accept the metaphorical reading, it clearly becomes a modifier of human life and its dependency on forces beyond human mastery: mature people just play the game.

Lack of textual indication as to the metaphoric function of the motif is quite frequent in iconic communication: metaphoric relations are established simply by putting two textual objects in contiguity.

2. The ‘rats’ conveys a meaning diametrically opposed to certain aspects of the main motif. Both describe the status of artists in people's eyes. However, the idea of ‘seagull’ tends to a far reaching idealization, whereas the ‘rats’ motif presents them in terms of parasitism, waste of social wealth and human effort, to the point of suspicion and total negation. Even in its most realistic aspects the ‘seagull’ motif does not convey such a view.¹³

The ‘rats’ motif is introduced by reading a story by Guy de Maupassant: “And it goes without saying that it is as dangerous for society people to pamper and encourage writers of novels, as it is for corn merchants to breed rats in their granaries …” (p. 139). This passage explicitly states a metaphorical relationship. When Shamrayev refuses to tie up the dog, “I am afraid of thieves breaking into the barn, I have got millet there.” (p. 135), he suggests a variation on the same theme: thieves and rats are enemies to laborious folk. A second variation is found in the fourth act, when the watchman is heard tapping: “In former days it was usual for a man to go round an estate striking a wooden board with a stick to frighten away potential thieves.” (p. 165).

C. NON-VERBAL ASSOCIATION

The approach to metaphor, which underlies this analysis, accords particular importance to non-verbal association which is viewed as the crucial feature that distinguishes between literal and metaphorical modifications.¹⁴ In metaphor, non-verbal associations evoked by a deliberately improper modifier are preferred to those evoked by the subject of modification. Such associations relate to non-verbal aspects of the use of language, such as sensory and emotional aspects of experience with referents. In the case of this play, non-verbal association relates to two basic experiences: one conditioned by the idea of ‘seagull’, which makes us view these birds in terms of beauty and Idyll; and one conditioned by real experience, generally suppressed, and which the author tries very hard to reinforce, probably in order to counterbalance the positive associations that the mere presence of the ‘seagull’ motif automatically evokes. This principle is valid for audience and characters alike. Even Trigorin, who tries very hard to be fully aware of the ugly sides of ‘seagullness’, falls into this trap when he describes the girl of this story, as “happy and free as a seagull” (p. 151).

It is clear that one tends to view in these spontaneous associations a projection on this ‘innocent’ bird of an archetypal yearning for elegance and freedom, which the bird evokes by its amazing flight. Obviously, the presentation of negative associations aims at breaking this spell, at demythicization. The ultimate meaning of the overall metaphor is that people overlook the complexity of artists' lives as they do with seagulls.

The following table presents schematically the relationship between the semantic components of the overall motif:

literal use	metaphorical use	equivalent literal motifs	literal subject
	subject of modification	common literal modifiers	synonymous antonymous motifs
lake	lake				world
❙	❙				❙
seagull	seagull	soaring			artist
		white		dress
		beautiful
		attracted		journey
				suitcases
		at mercy
		fishing	game	notebook
		hunted	rats	duel
		stuffed		story

THE INTERPRETATIVE FUNCTION OF THE ‘SEAGULL’ MOTIF

In its metaphorical usage, in one way or another, the ‘seagull’ motif refers to all the characters of the play. Within this set of characters two subsets are clearly distinguished: those who are or strive to be artists, and those who are not. Trigorin, Arkadina, Konstantin and Nina belong in the former group and all the others in the latter. Furthermore, within the first group one can clearly distinguish between the older generation, who have realized, with some measure of compromise, their ambitions and the younger generation, who throughout the entire play are in the first stages of their self fulfilment. In both cases, becoming an artist involves change of self-image and eventually—compromise.

The seagull motif refers directly to the artists alone, and only by implication to the others. It describes them not as practising particular arts, but as artists in general. In fact, ‘art’ as such, excluding a few commonplaces, and apparently taken from the journalistic jargon of the time, is hardly a theme in the play. In contrast, ‘artist’ focuses a rich and complex network of modifiers, especially through the ‘seagull’ motif. The effect of the overall motif is so intense that the non-artists group becomes automatically modified by this motif through the mere fact of contrast.

The seagull motif as a whole organizes all the subsidiary motifs, and modifies the main subject of the play: the world of the artist. In all its complexity the overall motif cannot be identified with any individual point of view in the world of the dramatis personae, although it is used by all of them. It is self-evident, therefore, that it functions on the stage-audience axis of communication; i.e. it conveys to the audience the means for an alternative and better understanding of the fictional world than that reached by the characters.¹⁵

Within the tradition of Realistic drama, the interpretative function is not fulfilled as is customary in traditional drama by conventions such as the chorus, the ‘honnete homme’ and the ‘raisonneur’, but by means of the characters themselves. This method burdens the characters with a functional duplicity, since on the character-character axis they act in accordance with their own motives and characterization, and on the stage-audience axis in accordance with the intended overall effect of the fictional world; i.e. in some parts of the play these characters stop being themselves and start providing information and terms of reference, in service of the needs of the author rather than themselves. This duality impairs their verisimilitude.

We may assume that Chekhov was fully aware of this conflicting tendency and tried to enable the audience to spot the interpretative function while avoiding major damage to characters. He did so by clearly endowing them with a kind of ‘awareness of their own inconsistency’. This is particularly evident when Nina comments on Konstantin's remarks after killing the seagull:

You've grown so irritable lately, and most of the time you've been talking unintelligibly, in a sort of symbolic way. And now this seagull here is apparently another symbol, but—you must forgive me—I don't understand it … (Puts the seagull on the seat) I'm too simple minded to understand you.

(p. 145)

Nina in fact conveys to the audience a possible reading of ‘seagull’ as a symbol and by the same token stresses her own incapability to understand it, in order to preserve her own consistency—in spite of having used the same metaphor for herself in the first act (p. 125). Obviously, by means of Nina, Chekhov attempts to focus attention on ‘seagull’ as a crucial motif in the play.¹⁶ The use of ‘symbolic’ as equivalent to ‘figurative’, (including ‘metaphoric’), appears to have been the fashion in Chekhov's time.

Chekhov himself is not represented in the fictional world. Although Trigorin actually outlines Nina's story in his notebook, he should not be viewed as representing the author within the fictional world. Like any other character, he displays a definite characterization, and acts accordingly. In fact, the play is like a mirror house which as a whole reflects in infinite variation the author's complex image of the artist's world.

The ultimate question thus becomes: how is the fictional world actually modified by means of the overall motif? An answer to this is suggested below for three basic themes in the play: being an artist, creating art, and expressing the forces of creativity.

Being an artist: By means of various aspects of the seagull motif a fundamental shift from an external and shallow to an internal and profound view of the artist's world is suggested. The outward attitude is conveyed by the commonplace attributes of ‘seagull’, when applied to the human sphere. These metaphorical modifiers match a series of literal expressions which convey synonymous meanings, such as ‘radiant’ (p. 147), ‘beautiful’ (p. 147), ‘wonderful’ (p. 147), ‘happiness’ (p. 147) and ‘fame’ (p. 150). For Trigorin “all these fine words” of Nina “are just like so many delicious sweets which I never eat.” (p. 147). By means of ‘delicious sweets’ Trigorin expresses his distaste for the platitudes so deeply rooted in people's minds. In contrast, he suggests his own view of the artist, in terms of ‘bondage’, ‘obsession’ (p. 147) and ‘torment’ (p. 149). He confronts Nina's immature view with the authority of a writer who has already made it, whatever his achievements are. Eventually Nina herself, after having experienced a similar schooling, does in fact reconfirm Trigorin's view:

I think I know now, Kostia, that what matters in our work—whether you act on the stage or write stories—what really matters is not fame, or glamour, not the things I used to dream about—but knowing how to endure things. How to bear one's cross and have faith.

(p. 181)

This new concept of her life as an artist is expressed towards the end of the play also by means of the ‘seagull’ motif in terms of ‘tiredness’, ‘thirst’, ‘hunger’ and longing for shelter (p. 179). Despite all differences, Nina and Trigorin agree at least on one thing: the unacceptability of the commonplace view of what being an artist means.¹⁷

Creating Art: Konstantin argues for the right of new art forms to exist. He attacks Trigorin on these grounds, although the latter cannot take up the challenge since in his view in any case “there's room enough for all, for new and old alike.” Thus Trigorin cannot understand “Why does he have to push and shove?” (p. 153). This one-sided struggle is also reflected in Konstantin's act of challenging Trigorin to a duel, an obvious metaphor for the same unwilling response: “First he shoots himself, and now they say he's going to challenge me to a duel.” (p. 153). The duel motif is thus connected to the killing of the seagull.

The new forms Konstantin strives for are well illustrated by his own play, and the old forms by Trigorin's notes, written in the vein of Naturalism. From these examples we may surmise that the controversy relates two diametrically opposed approaches to drama, the former characterized by a tendency to express abstract ideas by allegorical means, and the latter opting for Realistic conventions and aiming at a ‘true’ image of life. This latter attitude to art is reflected on the metaphorical level by the stuffing of the seagull which, as mentioned above, conveys the idea of preservation and freezing of life for the sake of aesthetic enjoyment.

Both writers are constantly compared, particularly in terms of the overall motif: what characterizes the successful writer is his power to create living characters, to preserve life. Trigorin's characters are thus described as “so alive” (p. 161), whereas in Konstantin's stories “There are no real living characters.” (p. 126; Cf. p. 175). Konstantin himself confirms this verdict; “everything I write turns out lifeless.” (p. 180). Metaphorically speaking, Konstantin does kill a seagull, but does not succeed in stuffing it.¹⁸

Apparently, Trigorin's professional secret resides in his notebook. He writes down whatever comes his way. The impression is that all his craft depends on these observations; and the right of real things to exist is determined by a simple criterion: are they worthy of entering the notebook or not? Masha qualifies because she “takes snuff and drinks vodka. Always dresses in black. A schoolmaster in love with her.” (p. 146). The sketch is not Masha the human being but, rather, a list of unusual traits. Nina qualifies too, again, not as a human soul, but because “Girls don't often come my way … That's why the girls in my novels and stories are usually so artificial.” (p. 146). ‘Artificial’ in terms of the play is ‘lifeless’, and what comes out of the notebook is ‘liveliness’.

Trigorin, as a professional creator of lifelike characters, is a slave to his notebook. In an obsessive manner he ‘hunts’ or ‘fishes’¹⁹ and accumulates raw material for his stories: “I snatch at every word and sentence I utter and every sentence you utter, too, and hurriedly lock them up in my literary pantry—in case they might come in useful!” (p. 148; Cf. p. 151) and p. 162). Apparently, Trigorin is incapable of love but wants Nina as a potential source of verisimilitude. He endeavours to keep her in his ‘literary pantry’ and eventually ‘stuff’ her. ‘Hunting/fishing’, keeping in the ‘pantry’ and ‘stuffing’, subsidiaries of the ‘seagull’ motif, exhaust the idea of an art, whose products claim to be, nevertheless, creative images of life, aesthetic objects.

Towards the end of the play Konstantin confirms Trigorin's view: “I'm becoming more and more convinced that it isn't a matter of old and new forms—one must write without thinking about forms, and just because it pours freely from one's soul.” (p. 178). Like Trigorin, he accepts that all forms have the right to exist. We may assume that the author's final verdict is suggested by the basically Realistic style of the play. However, substantial concessions have been made to Symbolism, as demonstrated by our treatment of the ‘seagull’ motif.²⁰

Expressing the sources of creativity: In Chekhov's view it would appear that life is the source out of which the artist's power of creativity springs. Spirituality and materiality are its primary forces. These are clearly contrasted in the play, at least on the characters' level of understanding. Konstantin, in his play, presents them as engaged in an eternal war which exceeds the limits of human existence.

Konstantin presents ‘Idealism’ as an allegorical character, i.e. as a substitutive stage metaphor. ‘Idealism’ dresses in white garments, which I assume to relate it to the ‘seagull’ motif. If so, it is Konstantin's intention to endow this personification with the dignified qualities associated with the idea of ‘seagull’ rather than with its reality. His intention is thus to embody humanity's basic yearning for freedom from the material self, and to soar towards the higher spheres of pure spirituality.

Materiality, in contrast, is presented in symbols of demonology. When Dorn speaks about Genoa in terms of “World soul”, in fact he suggests an ironic version of Konstantin's play (p. 170). Moreover, Dorn is characterized by Arkadina as a ‘believer’ in materiality: “The Doctor's taken his hat off to the Devil, the father of eternal matter.” (p. 130). Medviedenko is a caricature of a zealot of the same creed:

There's no ground for making a distinction between spirit and matter, because spirit might consist of a combination of material atoms. (with animation to Trigorin) But you know, someone ought to write a play describing how our sort of people live—I mean we teachers. …

(p. 132)

The fictional world of Chekhov's play suggests, however, a more complex view of life. On a basic level, the primary forces mentioned above are easily identified. For Sorin ‘I want to live’ means sheer material comfort: “That's why I drink sherry at dinner and smoke cigars and all that …” (p. 141).²¹ For Nina, at the beginning, a ‘happy’ life, ‘full of significance’ means to be an artist (p. 147). Curiously enough, Materialism and innocent Idealism have something in common: Hedonism.

On top of these elementary interpretations of ‘life’ another layer is superimposed: ‘materialistic’ characters reflect a forceful attraction to the spiritual pole: Shamrayev admires artists (p. 134) and Dorn wishes to despise his material body (p. 136); he views Shamrayev's feelings as “a sort of idealism” (p. 127). Similarly, the ‘spiritual’ characters show a parallel attraction towards the opposite pole: Trigorin prefers fishing to his spiritual life and indulges in playing cards. Fishing and playing cards are, in early Nina's eyes, the lowest common denominator of life (p. 145). Arkadina, the least spiritual among the four artists, “wants to live, to have love affairs, to wear light coloured blouses.” (p. 123). She wants to be famous and is obsessed by money (pp. 156, 159).

In her maturity Nina reflects a new attitude:

What really matters is not fame, or glamour, but knowing how to endure things, how to bear one's cross and have faith. I have faith now and I'm not suffering quite so much, and when I think of my vocation I'm not afraid of life.

(p. 181)

The principle of pleasure has been superceded by the principle of agony; the commonplace ideas of artistic creativity have been replaced by a profound and complex view, which includes ugliness and disharmony. The dichotomy ‘Idealism—materialism’ has become superfluous, since they are two inseparable sides of reality, like the beautiful and ugly sides of the seagull.²²

To a certain extent Nina has come closer to Trigorin's view. Mutual reconfirmation, based on the personal experience of the characters, appears to be a basic principle in Chekhov's poetics.²³ However, they differ in that Nina will struggle and Trigorin—compromise; i.e. they remain two one-sided reflections of the complex whole. Despite the differences, the multifariousness of life as a source of creativity, and consequently of art itself, has been reaffirmed.

THE MIXED MEDIA CHARACTER OF THE ‘SEAGULL’ MOTIF

Most of the words which comprise the overall motif are used in both metaphorical and literal capacities. As literal expressions they refer to various components of stage reality, such as the dead seagull, the stuffed seagull, the lake and the storm. These fictional referents of verbal signs are present on stage, in iconic form. As metaphors the very same expressions refer to aspects of the human characters' world. Accordingly, we find in the play three types of formulation:

• 1. Iconic signs which literally represent their referents.
• 2. Verbal signs which literally refer to iconic signs as if they were real referents. There are also verbal signs which refer to offstage entities, in which case they function evocatively as in literature.
• 3. Verbal signs used metaphorically, particularly those of the lake-seagull complex when modifying the human world.

As opposed to verbal metaphors in a literary text, the iconic ‘reality’ of the lake-seagull motif conditions the quality of non-verbal association. For instance, the actual choice of the ‘actors’ to play the parts of the dead seagull, e.g. a stuffed bird, a doll, a picture, a 0 sign, a real dead seagull, and its blood, e.g. paint, fabric, real blood, will determine the quality of the audience response. In particular it will condition their disgust at the sight of a dead bird, that is usually associated with no other value than beauty. In other words, the existence of stage reality endows verbal metaphors with a very special quality. In literature verbal metaphors rely solely on the evocative faculties of the reader. When supported by stage reality, verbal metaphors are markedly conditioned by the material qualities.

In principle, Chekhov could have chosen two other ways, which obviously did not appeal to him:

• 1. Purely verbal metaphors, without iconic support. In such a case the ‘seagull’ motif would have behaved evocatively, as in literature.
• 2. Purely stage metaphors, in which case the result would have been more complex. This is because iconic metaphors tend to produce a grotesque effect, as we can learn from the so-called “Theatre of the Absurd”.²⁴ In principle, a stage metaphor is detected when a character presents a dual behaviour, which derives both from its literal and metaphoric modifiers. For instance, glide-like walking or prey-like eating in the fashion of seagulls would have counted as stage metaphors. In view of the number and diversity of metaphors in the play, such as ‘rat’, ‘fox’ and ‘fish’, the overall effect of the theatrical text, the performance, would have been utterly different, and probably alien to Chekhov's design. In addition, such a choice would have contradicted the rules of Naturalism.²⁵

Although more complex, Chekhov's method solves these problems, and is characterized by the following:

• 1. Literal description of all characters, including non-human characters, like the lake, the seagull, etc., On the verbal and iconic levels.
• 2. Use of certain of these verbal expressions in a metaphorical manner for characters in the human world, e.g. animal modifiers for human characters.
• 3. Stress on types of human behavior capable of evoking parallel qualities in seagulls, rats, etc., up to extreme similarity, as when Nina in the storm asks for water and food. It should be noted that the boundaries are never overstepped.
• 4. Use of direct experience with stage reality for the enrichment of verbal metaphors. In this way, verbal metaphors convey similar meanings to possible iconic metaphors, without producing undesired effects.²⁶

By means of all these Chekhov achieves two aims: first, he creates a complex network of metaphors, capable of functioning as an interpretative device on the discourse level; second, he avoids a conflict with Naturalism, within which he wished to create the fictional world of the play.

All these considerations assume that from a semantic point of view there is no substantial difference between verbal and iconic metaphors.²⁷ However, as mentioned above, differences obtain on the non-verbal associative level, which directly affect the aesthetic response of the audience.

In addition, Chekhov's use of the ‘seagull’ motif conforms with Naturalism in one more respect. As mentioned above, this motif functions as a comprehensive modifier on the level of the whole fictional world, i.e. as an interpretative convention on the author-audience axis. Within the tradition of European theatre until the Nineteenth century, this function was fulfilled by functional characters, such as the chorus, the honest man and the raisonneur. The main function of these conventions was to convey the point of view of the author directly to the audience by circumventing the characters of the fictional world. The expected categorization of the plot was always formulated in terms of current theologies or ideologies which, in fact, were part of the cultural background of the spectators.

In this play, Chekhov aims at a different type of categorization. Instead of conceptual categorization, a metaphorical motif is suggested; i.e. the human image of the play is interpreted by an additional image. The fictional world thus confines itself to figurative components, avoiding dependence on conceptual modes of thinking, assumedly alien to its nature. I have suggested elsewhere that within the framework of fictional worlds conceptual elements function metaphorically in any case.²⁸

The fact that the ‘seagull’ motif is conveyed by the characters themselves, without resorting to functional characters, would appear to suit Naturalism in its attempt to eliminate ‘artificial’ theatre conventions. In fact, Chekhov establishes a new convention, no less artificial than the previous ones, and compelling us to redefine Naturalism.

In this new convention, direct communication between author and audience has not been abolished, and characters are still circumvented; although they project the constituents of the motif, they do not share with the audience the knowledge of its full meaning. Eventually, the expected ironic relationship between the possessors of such knowledge and the characters, who just glimpse at tokens of the overall motif, is established. But the problem nonetheless remains: Chekhov puts his characters in an impossible situation in which they must function both as themselves and as functional characters. Attempts to disguise such duality, by means of the characters' awareness of their own inverisimilitude, so precious to Naturalism, do not work as expected. Apparently, the total disguise of conventions is not only impossible, but also affects the audience's orientation within the structure of the play. In my view, theatre conventions are a necessity and rather than impairing anything in the play, as a work of art, they make it possible.

It might be argued that the use of a metaphorical motif as an overall interpretative convention is better suited to Symbolism. This might be true. We must admit, however, that in this case Chekhov succeeded in subordinating this principle to the constraints of Naturalistic ideology.²⁹ That is perhaps the author's ultimate irony in this play, which now appears to be a play on writing a play, a work of art on creating art.³⁰ We should remember that style is not only an academic question, but defines the kind of mirror the author puts in front of his audience.

Notes

1. My approach to metaphor is based on M. C. Beardsley, who demonstrates that metaphor is a descriptive phenomenon, which also makes sense on the literal level: Aesthetics (New-York, Harcourt, 1958) p. 142 and also on P. Henle, who shows that in metaphor an additional type of meaning, basically non-verbal, is activated. This is demonstrated by the fact that, although there are common literal modifiers, metaphor cannot be reversed without changing their meaning: ‘metaphor’ in M. Margolis (ed.) Language, thought and Culture (Ann Harbor, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1951) p. 191. For my own approach Cf. Eli Rozik, Metaphor in theatre and poetry (Tel-Aviv, Dvir, 1981) (Hebrew. English translation available. For the structure of the fictional world Cf. Eli Rozik, ‘generic transformation in drama’ in Assaph C1 (1984).

2. I assume a basic distinction between text (theatrical performance) and fictional world instead of the traditional distinction verbal text-performance. In my view a fictional world is a fully structured entity which can be given formulation in various languages, whether verbal (literature) or iconic (theatre, cinema, T. V.) Such languages, which have their own rules, make possible the formulation of fictional worlds. On texts organized on the time axis Cf. J. Mukarovsky, Structure, sign and function (New Haven and London, Yale U.P., 1978) J. Burbank and P. Steiner (trs.) p. 191.

3. In principle there is no need to distinguish between motif, and leit motif, since both function on the discourse level.

4. On antonymy, as having a common semantic feature, see J. Lyons, Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Cambridge U.P., 1969) pp. 407 and 460. On hyponymy see p. 453.

5. Eli Rozik, ‘Symbol (2)’ in Essays in poetics (11, 2, 1986) pp. 34-54.

6. On the structure of metaphor see Eli Rozik, ibid. p. 22. The main components are: the synatactic pattern of modification; the literal subject of the metaphor (the artist's world); the alien modifier (the seagull); the common literal modifiers; the non-verbal associations; and the preference marker (of the alien associations).

7. Quotations from E. Fen's translation: Anton Chekhov, Plays (London, Penguin, 1960).

8. See also pp. 154, 171, 179, 180, 181.

9. Cf. Maurice Valency, The braking string (Oxford University Press, 1966) p. 146 on Dorn as a raisonneur.

10. Cf. M. C. Beardsley, ibid. ibid.

11. Nina as a wounded bird: Cf. Leonid Grossman, ‘The naturalism of Chekhov’ in R. L. Jackson (ed.), Chekhov, a collection of critical essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1967) pp. 34 & 35.

12. Konstantin tries to find out whether his mother loves him or not by “pulling off the petals of a flower one by one.” (p. 122) When she decides “irrevocably” that she goes on stage, Nina says: “the die is cast.” (p. 164). Cf. on Irena in The three sisters: “she reveals the character of her world view in her casual play with cards: “It's coming out, the patience, I see. We shall be in Moscow.” Fate, chance, luck, of course, is not going to bring the sisters to Moscow.” R. L. Jackson, ‘Chekhov's Seagull’ in R. L. Jackson, ibid. p. 105 Sf. A. P. Chudakov, Chekhov's poetics, E. J. Cruise & D. Drazt (trs.) (Ann Arbor, Ardis, 1983) on the ‘superfluity’ of the game, and Donald Rayfield, Chekhov (London, Paul Elek, 1975) p. 209.

13. Cf. Richard Peace, Chekhov (Yale University Press, 1983) p. 24.

14. Referential associations are created in connection with the objects words usually refer to. Each modifier evokes distinct associations with different modified subjects. Metaphor conventionally prefers the associations related to the alien source to those created in the context of the literal subject of modification.

15. In contrast to J. L. Styan's “inorganic” view in Chekhov in performance (Cambridge University Press, 1978 (1971)) p. 18. Styan's view obviously derives from his concept of the ‘seagull’ motif: “an image of human life destroyed by human indifference.

16. We may see it as metalinguistic metaphor: Cf. R. Jakobson, ‘Closing statement: Linguistics and Poetics’ in T. A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language (Indiana U.P., 1960) p. 350.

17. Cf. R. L. Jackson, ibid. p. 99

18. From a theoretical point of view there is no contradiction since living characters do bring the principle of personification to its utmost fulfillment.

19. Cf. Richard Peace, id. p. 36

20. Cf. A. P. Chudakov, id. p. 193 on the questioning of both methods of art.

21. Also in the materialistic interpretation of Shamrayev, who views work in the fields as more important than anything else. See also the contrast between the horses motif and ‘the rats’.

22. Nina as the character who is granted the tragic perception, the blinding vision, in the play: Cf. R. L. Jackson, ibid. p. 108.

23. Cf. J. L. Styan, id. pp. 15-17 on “complex seeing” and “juxtaposition of individual attitudes”.

24. Cf. ‘Metaphorical characterization in the Theatre of the Absurd’ in Eli Rozik, ibid. p. 110.

25. Obviously, that does not apply to metaphors of total substitution, such as allegorical characters.

26. The usage is similar to cases of revitalization of trite metaphors.

27. There is still a difference on the aesthetic level: both kinds of metaphor create aesthetic relations on the signifier's level. However, whereas the verbal kind creates relations of sound, the iconic also creates pictorial relations.

28. If we assume that fictional worlds function as metaphors for the audience, the additional metaphorical interpretation closes the play completely to any conceptual interference. Cf. ‘Theatrical experience as a metaphorical expression’ in Eli Rozik, ibid. p. 75. (English translation available).

29. Cf. Richard Peace, id. p. 19 and P. M. Bitsilli, Chekhov's art (Ann Arbor, Ardis, 1983) p. 118.

30. Cf. Richard Peace, id. p. 18.