The article is dedicated to the study of the worldview and theatrical-pedagogical foundations of the activity of L. A. Suleryzhitsky in the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre. The subject of analysis includes the ethical and philosophical sources of his directing and teaching method, as well as the mechanisms of their transformation into the practice of educating students. The relevance of the work is determined by the need to reconsider established views on the genesis of Russian studio pedagogy. In the context of theatrical studies of the studio movement at the beginning of the 20th century, the figure of Suleryzhitsky is traditionally seen as a conduit for the ideas of L. N. Tolstoy. Researchers often focus on the transmission of Tolstoy's ethics into theatrical practice, reducing his role to that of a moralizing practitioner. However, this approach does not account for the complexity of the intellectual environment in which the director was formed and overlooks the existential depth of his pursuits. The author posits that an equally significant interlocutor for Suleryzhitsky was F. M. Dostoevsky. Their dialogue developed not through direct acquaintance but through the cultural atmosphere of the era, saturated with the writer's images and ideas. The methodology of the research is based on historical-cultural and comparative-typological approaches, allowing for the reconstruction of the intellectual context of the time and revealing a synthesis of heterogeneous worldview influences. The novelty of the study lies in the identification of the ambivalent nature of Suleryzhitsky's worldview base. The article analyzes for the first time how two contradictory principles converged in the director's personality. On one hand, there is the Tolstoyan method, focused on practical goodness, "small deeds," community, and the harmonization of everyday life. On the other hand, there is the Dostoevskian problematic, which includes the tragedy of being, reflection on the boundaries of personality, and the search for the "positively beautiful person." The author demonstrates that it is this synthesis of approaches that determined the unique character of Suleryzhitsky's pedagogical system. The work analyzes concrete examples of how this worldview integration manifested in his daily work with students, in the methods of nurturing the actor-creator, rather than just an interpreter. The results of the study fit into a broader perspective of examining the ethical foundations of the Russian theatrical school. The author views this tradition as an independent phenomenon in the history of world theater, extending beyond professional training and shaping a particular type of artist responsible for the moral content of their art.
Dmitrii Vital'evich Morozov (Fri,) studied this question.