An analysis of the comedy The Cherry Orchard briefly. The main character of "The Cherry Orchard": analysis, characteristics and features

A.P. Chekhov wrote his famous play "The Cherry Orchard" in 1903. In this play, the central place is occupied not so much by the personal experiences of the characters as by an allegorical vision of the fate of Russia. Some characters personify the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs, Varya), others - the future (Lopakhin, Trofimov, Anya). The heroes of Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" serve as a reflection of the society of that time.

Main characters

The heroes of Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" are lyrical characters with special features. For example, Epikhodov, who was constantly unlucky, or Trofimov, the "eternal student." Below will be presented all the heroes of the play "The Cherry Orchard":

• Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, mistress of the estate.
• Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. Not indifferent to Trofimov.
• Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. In love with Lopakhin.
• Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
• Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, a native of peasants, now a merchant. He likes Varya.
• Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, eternal student. Sympathizes with Anya, but he is above love.
• Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, a landowner who constantly has no money, but he believes in the possibility of unexpected enrichment.
• Charlotte Ivanovna, the maid, loves to perform tricks.
• Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk, unlucky person. Wants to marry Dunyasha.
• Dunyasha, the maid, considers herself like a lady. In love with Yasha.
• Firs, an old footman, constantly takes care of Gaev.
• Yasha, Ranevskaya's spoiled lackey.

The characters of the play

A.P. Chekhov always very accurately and subtly noticed in each character his features, whether it be appearance or character. This Chekhovian feature is also supported by the play "The Cherry Orchard" - the images of the characters here are lyrical and even a little touching. Each has its own unique features. Characteristics of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" can be divided into groups for convenience.

old generation

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna appears as a very frivolous, but kind woman who cannot fully understand that all her money has run out. She's in love with some scoundrel who left her penniless. And then Ranevskaya returns with Anya to Russia. They can be compared with people who left Russia: no matter how good it is abroad, they still continue to yearn for their homeland. The image chosen by Chekhov for his homeland will be written below.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the personification of the nobility, the wealth of past years, which at the time of the author began to decline. Both brother and sister may not be fully aware of this, but nevertheless they feel that something is happening. And by the way they begin to act, one can see the reaction of Chekhov's contemporaries - it was either a move abroad, or an attempt to adapt to new conditions.

Firs is the image of a servant who was always faithful to her masters and did not want any change in order, because they did not need it. If with the first main characters of The Cherry Orchard it is clear why they are considered in this group, then why can Varya be included here?

Because Varya occupies a passive position: she humbly accepts the emerging position, but her dream is the opportunity to go to holy places, and strong faith was characteristic of people of the older generation. And Varya, despite his seemingly stormy activity, does not take an active part in talking about the fate of the cherry orchard and does not offer any solutions, which shows the passivity of the rich class of that time.

Younger generation

Here the representatives of the future of Russia will be considered - these are educated young people who put themselves above any feelings, which was fashionable in the early 1900s. At that time, public duty and the desire to develop science were put in the first place. But one should not assume that Anton Pavlovich portrayed revolutionary-minded youth - it is rather an image of most of the intelligentsia of that time, which was engaged only in talking on high topics, putting itself above human needs, but was not adapted to anything.

All this was embodied in Trofimov - "an eternal student" and "a shabby gentleman", who could not finish anything, had no profession. Throughout the play, he only talked about various matters and despised Lopakhin and Varia, who was able to admit the thought of his possible romance with Anya - he is "above love."

Anya is a kind, sweet, still quite inexperienced girl who admires Trofimov and listens carefully to everything he says. She personifies the youth, who have always been interested in the ideas of the intelligentsia.

But one of the most striking and characteristic images of that era turned out to be Lopakhin - a native of peasants who managed to make a fortune for himself. But, despite the wealth, remained essentially a simple man. This is an active person, a representative of the so-called class of "kulaks" - wealthy peasants. Yermolai Alekseevich respected work, and work was always in the first place for him, so he kept postponing the explanation with Varya.

It was during that period that the hero of Lopakhin could have appeared - then this "risen" peasantry, proud of the realization that they were no longer slaves, showed a higher adaptability to life than the nobles, which is proved by the fact that it was Lopakhin who bought Ranevskaya's estate.

Why was the characterization of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" chosen specifically for these characters? Because it is on the characteristics of the characters that their internal conflicts will be built.

Internal conflicts in the play

The play shows not only the personal experiences of the heroes, but also the confrontation between them, which makes it possible to make the images of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" brighter and deeper. Let's consider them in more detail.

Ranevskaya - Lopakhin

The main conflict is in the pair Ranevskaya - Lopakhin. And it is due to several reasons:

• belonging to different generations;
• opposition of characters.

Lopakhin is trying to help Ranevskaya save the estate by cutting down a cherry orchard and building dachas in its place. But for Raevskaya, this is impossible - after all, she grew up in this house, and "dachas - it's so common." And in the fact that it was Ermolai Alekseevich who bought the estate, she sees in this a betrayal on his part. For him, buying a cherry orchard is a solution to his personal conflict: he, a simple man whose ancestors could not go beyond the kitchen, has now become the owner. And therein lies its main triumph.

Lopakhin - Trofimov

The conflict in a pair of these people is due to the fact that they have opposing views. Trofimov considers Lopakhin an ordinary peasant, rude, limited, who is not interested in anything but work. The same one believes that Pyotr Sergeevich is simply wasting his mental abilities, does not understand how one can live without money, and does not accept the ideology that a person is above everything earthly.

Trofimov - Varya

The confrontation is built, most likely, on personal rejection. Varya despises Peter because he is not busy with anything, and fears that with the help of his smart speeches, Anya will fall in love with him. Therefore, Varya tries in every possible way to prevent them. Trofimov, on the other hand, teases the girl "Madame Lopakhina", knowing that everyone has been waiting for this event for a long time. But he despises her because she equated him and Anya with herself and Lopakhin, because they are above all earthly passions.

So, the above was briefly written about the characters of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekhov. We have described only the most significant characters. Now we can move on to the most interesting - the image of the protagonist of the play.

The protagonist of The Cherry Orchard

The attentive reader has already guessed (or guesses) that this is a cherry orchard. In the play, he personifies Russia itself: its past, present and future. Why is the garden itself the main character of The Cherry Orchard?

Because it is to this estate that Ranevskaya returns after all the misadventures abroad, because it is because of him that the heroine’s internal conflict escalates (fear of losing the garden, awareness of her helplessness, unwillingness to part with it), and a confrontation arises between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin.

The Cherry Orchard also helps to resolve Lopakhin's internal conflict: he reminded him that he was a peasant, an ordinary peasant who surprisingly managed to get rich. And the opportunity to cut down this garden, which appeared with the purchase of the estate, meant that now nothing else in those parts could remind him of his origin.

What did the garden mean for heroes

For convenience, you can write the ratio of the characters to the cherry orchard in the table.

Ranevskaya	Gaev	Anya	Varya	Lopakhin	Trofimov
The garden is a symbol of prosperity, well-being. The happiest childhood memories are associated with it. Characterizes her attachment to the past, so it is difficult for her to part with it	Same attitude as sister	The garden for her is an association with sometimes childhood, but due to her youth she is not so attached to it, and still there are hopes for a brighter future	The same association with childhood as Anya. At the same time, she is not upset about his sale, as now she can live the way she wants.	The garden reminds him of his peasant origins. Knocking him out, he says goodbye to the past, at the same time hoping for a happy future	Cherry trees are for him a symbol of serfdom. And he believes that it would even be right to abandon them in order to free themselves from the old way of life.

The symbolism of the cherry orchard in the play

But how then is the image of the protagonist of "The Cherry Orchard" connected with the image of the Motherland? Through this garden, Anton Chekhov showed the past: when the country was rich, the estate of the nobility was in its prime, no one thought about the abolition of serfdom. In the present, a decline in society is already outlined: it is divided, landmarks are changing. Russia already then stood on the threshold of a new era, the nobility became smaller, and the peasants gained strength. And the future is shown in Lopakhin's dreams: the country will be ruled by those who are not afraid to work - only those people can lead the country to prosperity.

The sale of Ranevskaya's cherry orchard for debts and the purchase by Lopakhin is a symbolic transfer of the country from the wealthy class to ordinary workers. By debt here is meant a debt for how the owners treated them for a long time, how they exploited the common people. And the fact that power in the country passes to the common people is a natural result of the path that Russia has taken. And the nobility had to do what Ranevskaya and Gaev did - go abroad or go to work. And the younger generation will try to fulfill the dreams of a brighter future.

Conclusion

After such a small analysis of the work, one can understand that the play "The Cherry Orchard" is a deeper creation than it might seem at first glance. Anton Pavlovich was able to masterfully convey the mood of the society of that time, the position in which it was. And the writer did this very gracefully and subtly, which allows this play to remain loved by readers for a long time.

Chekhov himself called "The Cherry Orchard" a comedy, although he later admitted that "I came up with ... a comedy, in some places even a farce." And the great director K. S. Stanislavsky called the work a tragedy: "This is a tragedy ..." The problem of the genre and the date itself is one of the most difficult when studying Chekhov's play, although there seems to be such a genre as a tragicomedy that combines the tragic and funny, only after all, there doesn’t seem to be anything tragic in The Cherry Orchard, so, the usual downfall of not very lucky people who continue to live on, not really looking back - which is why they forget old Firs in the abandoned house by everyone .. At the same time, this "comedy" shows the deepest inner tragedy of people who have outlived their time and are feverishly trying to somehow get settled in a new, so incomprehensible to them, even hostile to them, life, the departure of an entire historical era, to replace which came the era of major social and moral upheavals. Only now we understand what will happen “after” Ranevskaya and Gaev, what will replace the “cherry orchard”, and it was incredibly difficult for them, who lived then, to “guess” the future, which frankly frightened them, because it destroyed the life in which it was good for them and they would like to keep for themselves forever.

The peculiarity of the era determined the main external conflict of the play "The Cherry Orchard": it is a conflict between the past, present and future. However, he not only determines the plot and composition of the work, it is riddled with internal conflicts, almost each of the images-characters carries a duality, he not only opposes reality, but also painfully tries to reconcile himself with his own soul, which turns out to be the most difficult thing. Chekhov's characters cannot be divided into "positive" and "negative", they are living people, in whom there is a lot of good and not so good, who behave the way they think they need to behave in situations in which they find themselves - and it can be funny, and not very, and quite sad.

The image of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya is a pivotal image, all other characters are somehow connected with her. Ranevskaya combines sincerity and spiritual callousness, ardent love for the Motherland and complete indifference to her; they say about her that she is a “good”, “easy” person - and this is true, as well as the fact that it is unbearably difficult to live next to her ... First of all, it should be noted that the inconsistency of the image of Ranevskaya does not mean that she - some special, complex, incomprehensible person, rather, on the contrary: she is always the way she is, it’s just that those around her such behavior seems extravagant to some, and unusually attractive to others. The contradictory behavior of Lyubov Andreevna is explained by the fact that she really did not understand that life had changed, she continues to live in that life when it was not necessary to think about a piece of bread, when the cherry orchard provided an easy and carefree life for its owners. That's why she squanders money, repenting of it herself, that's why she doesn't think about the future ("everything will work out!"), that's why she is so cheerful. She spends money on her "fatal passion", realizing that by doing so she complicates the life of her daughters, and at the end of the play she returns to Paris, where she can live the way she used to. Ranevskaya is one of the best manifestations of the old life (it is no coincidence that Lopakhin idolizes her, who from childhood sees an unattainable ideal in her), however, like all this life, she must leave - and the viewer perceives her departure with sympathy and pity, because according to - Humanly she is so sweet and attractive.

Little can be said about Ranevskaya's brother, Gaev. He is very similar to his sister, but he does not have her lightness and charm, he is simply ridiculous in his unwillingness and inability to look into the eyes of life and "grow up" - Chekhov emphasizes that lackey Firs still perceives him as a little boy, which, in essence, he is. Gaev's inappropriate, tearful monologues (addressing the closet!) Are not just funny, they take on a shade of tragedy, since such a blatant isolation from the life of an elderly person cannot but frighten.

Much attention in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is given to the problem of the future. Chekhov shows us, so to speak, two versions of the future: the future "according to Petya Trofimov" and the future "according to Yermolai Lopakhin." In different periods of history, each of these options for the future had its adherents and opponents.

Petya Trofimov, with his vague appeals, loud assurances that "All Russia is our garden", with his denunciation of modernity during the creation of the play, was perceived as a positive hero, his words "I foresee happiness, Anya, I already see it ..." were perceived auditorium with great enthusiasm. However, Chekhov himself was wary of this hero: we see Petya, who, a "shabby gentleman", does practically nothing. It is difficult to see truly real things behind his beautiful words; moreover, he constantly finds himself in a ridiculous position. Even when, at the beginning of Act IV, he loudly promises Lopakhin that he will reach "the highest truth, the highest happiness, which is possible on earth", because in this movement of mankind towards them he is "in the forefront!", he does not can find ... his own galoshes, and this makes his confidence ridiculous: he threatens such things, but cannot find galoshes! ..

The future "according to Yermolai Lopakhin" is drawn in a completely different way. A former serf who bought "an estate where grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen", who gets up "at five o'clock in the morning" and works day and night, who has made millions and knows what needs to be done with a cherry orchard ( "And the cherry orchard and the land must be rented out for summer cottages, do it now, as soon as possible"), in fact, he knows practically nothing about the relationship between people, he is tormented by the fact that wealth does not give him a sense of happiness. The image of Lopakhin is an image close to tragic, because for this person the meaning of life was the accumulation of money, he succeeded, but then why is he so desperately, “with tears”, exclaims at the end of the third act, when he has already become the owner of the estate , "more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world": "Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our clumsy, unhappy life would somehow change"? A millionaire - and an unhappy life? .. But in fact, he understands that he has remained a “man a peasant”, he loves Varya in his own way, but he still does not dare to explain himself to her, he is able to feel beauty (“I in the spring he sowed a thousand acres of poppy seeds and now earned forty thousand net. And when my poppy was in bloom, what a picture it was!"), he has a "thin, tender soul" (as Petya Trofimov says about him) - but he is really unhappy . What despair is heard in his words: "We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here ..."! Grandchildren and great-grandchildren - this is understandable, but what is left in life for yourself? ..

An interesting image is the old servant Firs, for whom the liberation of the serfs was a "misfortune". He cannot imagine a life other than life in slavery, and therefore remains in the house - to die along with the cherry orchard, which is not Yermolai Lopakhin "enough with an ax", but time itself. The image of the "cherry orchard" is a semi-symbolic image of the past, which is doomed and which must be got rid of for the sake of the future, but we have already seen what it can be, this future. The historical doom of the past is obvious, but it in no way explains how, in fact, this future, longed for by some and cursed by other heroes, can become, therefore the whole play of Chekhov is riddled with anxious expectations that make the life of the heroes even bleaker, and parting with "Cherry Orchard" is especially painful - is that why Lopakhin is in such a hurry, ordering to cut down trees when the old owners have not yet left the doomed estate?

The Cherry Orchard, which we analyzed, was created by Chekhov on the eve of dramatic changes in Russian life, and the author, welcoming them, ardently desiring a change in life for the better, could not help but see that any changes are always destruction, they bring with them someone then dramas and tragedies, "progress" necessarily denies something that was also progressive in its time. The realization of this determined the moral pathos of Chekhov's "comedy", his moral position: he welcomes the change in life and at the same time he is worried about what it can bring to people; he understands the historical doom of his heroes and humanly sympathizes with them, who find themselves "between the past and the future" and are trying to find their place in a new life that frightens them. As a matter of fact, Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is very relevant today, because now Russia is again "between the past and the future", and we really want us to be happier than the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard".

Chekhov's last play became an outstanding work of world drama of the 20th century.

Actors, directors, readers, spectators of all countries have turned and are turning to comprehend its meaning. Therefore, as in the case of Chekhov's stories, when we try to understand a play, we must keep in mind not only what it excited Chekhov's contemporaries, and not only what it is understandable and interesting to us, the playwright's compatriots, but also this universal , its all-human and all-time content.

The author of The Cherry Orchard (1903) sees life and human relationships differently and speaks about it differently than his predecessors. And we will understand the meaning of the play if we do not reduce it to sociological or historical explanations, but try to understand this way of depicting life in a dramatic work developed by Chekhov.

If we do not take into account the novelty of Chekhov's dramatic language, much in his play will seem strange, incomprehensible, overloaded with unnecessary things (from the point of view of the previous theatrical aesthetics).

But the main thing - let's not forget: behind the special Chekhov's form is a special concept of life and man. “Let everything on the stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life,” said Chekhov. “People dine, just dine, and at this time their happiness is added up and their lives are broken.”

FEATURE OF THE DRAMATURGICAL CONFLICT. Let's start with something that catches the eye: how are the dialogues in The Cherry Orchard structured? It is unconventional when the replica is a response to the previous one and requires a response in the next replica. Most often, the writer reproduces a disordered conversation (take, for example, a disorderly chorus of remarks and exclamations immediately after Ranevskaya's arrival from the station). The characters, as it were, do not hear each other, and if they listen, they answer at random (Dunyasha - Anya, Lopakhina - Ranevskaya and Gaev, Petya - everyone else, except Anya, and she obviously reacts not to the meaning, but to the sound of Petya's monologues: “ How well you speak! .. (In delight.) How well you said!”).

What is behind this structure of dialogues? Striving for greater credibility (to show how it happens in life)? Yes, but not only that. Disunity, self-absorption, inability to take the point of view of another - this is what Chekhov sees and shows in the communication of people.

Again, arguing with his predecessors, Chekhov the playwright completely abandons external intrigue, the struggle of a group of characters around something (for example, inheritance, transfer of money to someone, permission or prohibition of marriage or marriage, etc.).

The nature of the conflict, the arrangement of characters in her play are completely different, which will be discussed later. Each episode is not a step in the unfolding of intrigue; the episodes are filled with lunchtime, outwardly incoherent conversations, everyday trifles, insignificant details, but at the same time they are colored by a single mood, which then turns into another. Not from intrigue to intrigue, but rather from mood to mood, the play unfolds, and here the analogy with a plotless piece of music is appropriate.

There is no intrigue, but what then is the event - something without which there can be no dramatic work? The event that is most talked about - the sale of the estate at auction - does not take place on the stage. Starting with "The Seagull" and even earlier, with "Ivanov", Chekhov consistently uses this technique - to take the main "incident" off the stage, leaving only its reflections, echoes in the speeches of the characters. Invisible (to the viewer), off-stage events and characters (in The Cherry Orchard, this is the Yaroslavl aunt, the Parisian lover, Pishchik's daughter Dashenka, etc.) are important in the play in their own way. But their absence on the stage emphasizes that for the author they are only a background, an occasion, a concomitant circumstance of what is fundamental. With the apparent absence of the traditional external “action”, Chekhov, as always, has a rich, continuous and intense internal action.

The main events take place, as it were, in the minds of the characters: the discovery of something new or clinging to familiar stereotypes, understanding or misunderstanding - “movement and displacement of ideas”, if we use the formula of Osip Mandelstam. As a result of this movement and displacement of ideas (events invisible, but quite real), someone's destinies are broken or formed, hopes are lost or arise, love succeeds or fails...

These significant events in the life of every person are found not in spectacular gestures, deeds (Chekhov consistently portrays everything that has an effect in an ironic light), but in modest, everyday, everyday manifestations. There is no underlining, artificial drawing of attention to them, much of the text goes into subtext. "Undercurrent" - this is how the Artistic Theater called this development of action, characteristic of Chekhov's plays. For example, in the first act, Anya and Varya first talk about whether the estate has been paid for, then whether Lopakhin is going to propose to Varya, then about a brooch in the form of a bee. Anya replies sadly: “Mom bought it.” Sad - because both felt the hopelessness of the main thing on which their fate depends.

The line of behavior of each character, and especially the relationship between the characters, is not built in deliberate clarity. Rather, it is outlined in dotted lines (actors and directors should draw a solid line - this is the difficulty and at the same time the temptation of staging Chekhov's plays on stage). The playwright leaves a lot to the reader's imagination, giving in the text the main guidelines for correct understanding.

So, the main line of the play is connected with Lopakhin. His relationship with Varya results in his antics incomprehensible to her and others. But everything falls into place if the actors play the absolute incompatibility of these characters and at the same time Lopakhin's special feeling towards Lyubov Andreevna.

The famous scene of the failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act: the characters talk about the weather, about a broken thermometer - and not a word about the most obviously important thing at that moment. Why does the relationship between Lopakhin and Varya end in nothing, when the explanation did not take place, love did not take place, happiness did not take place? The point, of course, is not that Lopakhin is a businessman incapable of expressing feelings. Approximately this is how Varya explains their relationship to himself: “He has a lot to do, he is not up to me”; “He is either silent or joking. I understand that he is getting richer, busy with business, he is not up to me. But much closer to Chekhov’s subtext, to Chekhov’s technique of “undercurrent”, the actors will approach if, by the time of the explanation between these characters, they clearly let the viewer feel that Varya is really not a match for Lopakhin, she is not worth it. Lopakhin is a man of great scope, capable of mentally looking over, like an eagle, “huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons.” Varya, if we continue this comparison, is a gray jackdaw, whose horizons are limited by farming, economy, keys on her belt ... A gray jackdaw and an eagle - of course, an unconscious feeling of this prevents Lopakhin from taking the initiative where any merchant in his place saw would be the possibility of a “decent” marriage for himself.

In his position, Lopakhin can only count on Varya at best. And in the play, another line is clearly, although dottedly outlined: Lopakhin, “like his own, more than his own,” loves Ranevskaya. This would seem absurd, unthinkable to Ranevskaya and everyone around, and he himself, apparently, is not fully aware of his feelings. But it is enough to follow how Lopakhin behaves, say, in the second act, after Ranevskaya tells him to propose to Varya. It was after this that he spoke with irritation about how good it was before, when the peasants could be fought, and began to tactlessly tease Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood after he clearly sees that Ranevskaya does not even think of taking his feelings seriously. And further in the play, this unrequited tenderness of Lopakhin will break through several more times. During the monologues of the characters in The Cherry Orchard about a failed life, Lopakhin's unexpressed feeling can sound like one of the most poignant notes of the performance (by the way, this is how Lopakhin was played by the best performers of this family in performances of recent years - Vladimir Vysotsky and Andrei Mironov).

So, already all these external methods of organizing material (the nature of the dialogue, the event, the development of the action) Chekhov persistently repeats, plays with - and in them his idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife is manifested.

But even more distinguishes Chekhov's plays from the previous dramaturgy is the nature of the conflict.

So, in Ostrovsky's plays, the conflict stems mainly from differences in the class position of the heroes - rich and poor, tyrants and their victims, possessing power and dependent: Ostrovsky's first, initial engine of action is the difference between characters (class, money, family), from from which their conflicts and clashes arise. Instead of death in other plays, on the contrary, there may be a triumph over a tyrant, an oppressor, an intriguer, etc. The denouement can be arbitrarily different, but the opposition within the conflict of the victim and the oppressor, the side of the sufferer and the side that causes suffering, is invariable.

Not so with Chekhov. Not on opposition, but on unity, the commonality of all the characters, his plays are built.

Let us take a closer look at the text of The Cherry Orchard, at the author's persistent and clear indications of the meaning of what is happening in it. Chekhov consistently departs from the traditional formulation of the author's thought "through the mouth of a character". Indications of the author's meaning of the work, as usual with Chekhov, are expressed primarily in repetitions.

In the first act, there is a repetitive phrase that is attached in different ways to almost every character.

Lyubov Andreevna, who has not seen her adopted daughter for five years, when she hears how she manages the house, says: “You are still the same, Varya.” And even before that, he notices: “But Varya is still the same, she looks like a nun.” Varya, in turn, sadly states: “Mommy is the same as she was, she has not changed at all. If she had the will, she would give everything away.” At the very beginning of the action, Lopakhin asks the question: “Lyubov Andreevna lived abroad for five years, I don’t know what she has become now.” And after some two hours, she is convinced: “You are still just as gorgeous.” Ranevskaya herself, entering the nursery, defines her permanent feature differently: “I slept here when I was little ... And now I am like a little ...” - but this is the same confession: I am the same.

“You are still the same, Lenya”; “And you, Leonid Andreevich, are still the same as you were”; “You again, uncle!” - this is Lyubov Andreevna, Yasha, Anya are talking about Gaev's invariable grandiosity. And Firs laments, pointing to the constant trait of his master's behavior: “Again, they put on the wrong trousers. And what am I to do with you!”

“You (you, she) are all the same (same)”. This is a constant indicated by the author at the very beginning of the play. This is a property of all actors, in this they vyingly assure themselves, each other.

“And this one is all his own,” Gaev says about Pishchik, when he once again asks for a loan. “You are all about one thing ...” - sleepy Anya answers Dunyashino's news about her next boyfriend. “He's been mumbling for three years now. We are used to it” is about Firs. “Charlotte talks all the way, presents tricks ...”, “Every day some kind of misfortune happens to me” - this is Epikhodov.

Each hero leads his own theme (sometimes with variations): Epikhodov talks about his misfortunes, Pishchik - about debts, Varya - about the economy, Gaev inappropriately falls into pathos, Petya - into denunciations, etc. The constancy, immutability of some characters is enshrined in their nicknames: “twenty-two misfortunes”, “eternal student”. And the most common, Firsovo: "Klut".

When repetition (endowing everyone with the same attribute) so many times, as in the first act of The Cherry Orchard, that it cannot but catch the eye, this is the strongest means of expressing the author's thought.

Parallel to this recurring motif, inseparably from it, persistently and just as applied to everyone, another one, as if opposite, is repeated. As if frozen in their immutability, the characters now and then talk about how much has changed, how time flies.

“When you left here, I was sort of ...” - Dunyasha indicates with a gesture the distance between the past and the present. She, as it were, echoes Ranevskaya's recollection of when she "was small." Lopakhin, in his very first monologue, compares what happened (“I remember when I was a boy of about fifteen ... Lyubov Andreevna, as I remember now, still young ...”) and what has happened now (“I’m just rich, there’s a lot of money , but if you think and figure it out ...”). “Once...” - Gaev begins to remember, also about childhood, and concludes: “... and now I am already fifty-one years old, oddly enough ...” The theme of childhood (irretrievably gone) or parents (deceased or forgotten) is also repeated in different ways by Charlotte, and Yasha, and Pishchik, and Trofimov, and Firs. Ancient Firs, like a living historical calendar, now and then from what is, returns to what “had happened”, what was done “once”, “before”.

A retrospective - from the present to the past - is opened by almost every actor, although at different depths. Firs has been muttering for three years now. Six years ago, her husband died and Lyubov Andreevna's son drowned. About forty-fifty years ago, they still remembered how to process cherries. The closet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And stones that were once gravestones remind of completely gray-haired antiquity ... On the other side, from the present to the future, a perspective opens up, but also at a different distance for different characters: for Yasha, for Anya, for Vari, for Lopakhin, for Petya, for Ranevskaya, even for Firs, who was boarded up and forgotten in the house.

“Yes, time is ticking,” Lopakhin remarks. And this feeling is familiar to everyone in the play; this is also a constant, a constant circumstance on which each of the characters depends, no matter what he thinks and says about himself and others, no matter how he defines himself and his path. Everyone is destined to be grains of sand, chips in the stream of time.

And one more recurring motif covering all the characters. This is a theme of confusion, misunderstanding in the face of relentlessly running time.

In the first act, these are Ranevskaya's bewildered questions. What is death for? Why are we getting old? Why does everything disappear without a trace? Why is everything forgotten? Why does time lie like a stone on the chest and shoulders like a burden of mistakes and misfortunes? Further on in the course of the play, everyone else echoes it. Confused in rare moments of reflection, although Gaev is incorrigibly careless. “Who I am, why I am, is unknown,” Charlotte says in bewilderment. Epikhodov has his own bewilderment: “... I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, should I live or shoot myself ...” For Firs, the former order was understandable, “and now everything is scattered, you won’t understand anything.” It would seem that for Lopakhin it is clearer than for others the course and state of things, but he also admits that he only sometimes “seems” that he understands why he exists in the world. They close their eyes to their situation, Ranevskaya, Gaev, Dunyasha do not want to understand it.

It seems that many characters still oppose each other and one can distinguish somewhat contrasting pairs. “I am below love” by Ranevskaya and “we are above love” by Petya Trofimov. Firs has all the best in the past, Anya is recklessly directed to the future. Varya has an old woman’s refusal of herself for the sake of her relatives, she keeps the estate, Gaev has purely childish egoism, he “ate” the estate on candy”. The complex of a loser in Epikhodov and a brazen conqueror in Yasha. The heroes of The Cherry Orchard often oppose themselves to each other.

Charlotte: "These smart guys are all so stupid, I have no one to talk to." Gaev is arrogant towards Lopakhin, towards Yasha. Firs teaches Dunyasha. Yasha, in turn, fancies himself higher and more enlightened than the rest. And how much exorbitant pride in Petya’s words: “And everything that you all, rich and poor, value so highly, has not the slightest power over me ...” Lopakhin correctly comments on this endlessly repeating situation: “We are shitting each other’s noses, and life, you know, goes by.”

The heroes are convinced of the absolute opposite of their “truths”. The author, however, each time points to a commonality between them, to a hidden similarity, which they do not notice or reject with indignation.

Doesn't Anya repeat Ranevskaya in many ways, and Trofimov often reminds the fool of Epikhodov, and Lopakhin's confusion does not echo Charlotte's bewilderment? In Chekhov's play, the principle of repetition and mutual reflection of characters is not selective, directed against one group, but total, all-encompassing. To stand firm, to be absorbed in one's own "truth", not noticing the similarities with the rest - in Chekhov this looks like a common lot, an indispensable feature of human existence. This in itself is neither good nor bad: it is natural. What is obtained from the addition, the interaction of various truths, ideas, modes of action - this is what Chekhov studies.

All relationships between the characters are illuminated by the light of a common understanding. It is not simply a matter of new, increasingly complex accents in an old conflict. The conflict itself is new: a visible opposite with a hidden similarity.

People who do not change (each holding on to his own) against the background of time absorbing everything and everyone, confused and not understanding the course of life ... This misunderstanding is revealed in relation to the garden. Everyone contributes to his ultimate destiny.

A beautiful garden, against which the heroes are shown who do not understand the course of things or understand it in a limited way, is connected with the fate of several of their generations - past, present and future. The situation in the life of individual people is internally correlated in the play with the situation in the life of the country. The multifaceted symbolic content of the image of the garden: beauty, past culture, finally, all of Russia ... Some see the garden as it was in the irretrievable past, for others, talking about the garden is just a reason for fanabery, and others, thinking about saving the garden, in fact destroy it, the fourth hail the death of this garden...

GENRE UNIQUENESS. COMIC IN THE PLAY. The perishing garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two cross-cutting, internally connected themes - give the play a sadly poetic character. However, Chekhov insisted that he did not create "a drama, but a comedy, in places even a farce." Remaining true to his principle of endowing the heroes with an equally passive position in relation to the life they do not understand, a hidden commonality (which does not exclude an amazing variety of external manifestations), Chekhov found in his last great play a completely special genre form adequate to this principle.

The play does not lend itself to an unambiguous genre reading - only sad or only comic. It is obvious that Chekhov realized in his "comedy" the special principles of combining the dramatic and the comic.

In The Cherry Orchard, it is not individual characters that are comical, such as Charlotte, Epikhodov, Varya. Misunderstanding of each other, inconsistency of opinions, illogical conclusions, replicas and answers out of place - all the heroes are endowed with similar imperfections in thinking and behavior, which make it possible for a comic performance.

The comic of resemblance, the comic of repetition is the basis of the comic in The Cherry Orchard. Everyone is funny in their own way, and everyone participates in a sad event, hastening its onset - this is what determines the ratio of the comic and the serious in Chekhov's play.

Chekhov puts all the heroes in a position of constant, continuous transition from drama to comedy, from tragedy to vaudeville, from pathos to farce. This position is not one group of heroes as opposed to another. The principle of such an uninterrupted genre transition has a comprehensive character in The Cherry Orchard. Every now and then in the play there is a deepening of the ridiculous (limited and relative) to sympathy for him and vice versa - simplification of the serious to the ridiculous.

The play, designed for a qualified, sophisticated spectator, able to catch its lyrical, symbolic subtext, Chekhov saturated with the techniques of the square theater, the booth: falling from stairs, gluttony, hitting the head with a stick, tricks, etc. After the pathetic, agitated monologues that almost every character in the play has - up to Gaev, Pishchik, Dunyasha, Firs - a farcical decline immediately follows, then a lyrical note reappears, allowing you to understand the subjective excitement of the hero, and again his self-absorption turns into a mockery over it (this is how Lopakhin's famous monologue in the third act is constructed: “I bought it! ..”).

To what conclusions does Chekhov lead in such unconventional ways?

A.P. Skaftymov in his works showed that the main object of the image in The Cherry Orchard is not one of the characters, but the device, the order of life. Unlike the works of previous dramaturgy, in Chekhov's play it is not the person himself who is responsible for his failures, and it is not the evil will of another person who is to blame. No one is to blame, "the source of sad ugliness and bitter dissatisfaction is the very composition of life."

But does Chekhov remove responsibility from the heroes and shift it to the "composition of life" that exists outside of their ideas, actions, relationships? Having taken a voluntary trip to the hard labor island of Sakhalin, he spoke about the responsibility of everyone for the existing order, for the general course of things: "We are all to blame." Not “no one is to blame”, but “we are all to blame”.

THE IMAGE OF LOPAKHIN. The persistence with which Chekhov pointed to the role of Lopakhin as the central one in the play is well known. He insisted that Stanislavsky play Lopakhin. He emphasized more than once that the role of Lopakhin is “central”, that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail”, that only a first-class actor, “only Konstantin Sergeyevich”, can play this role, but she is simply not suitable for a talented actor. force, he “will lead either very palely, or he will be acting out”, will make Lopakhin “a fist ... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, this must be understood.” Chekhov warned against a simplistic, petty understanding of this image, obviously dear to him.

Let's try to understand what in the play itself confirms the playwright's conviction in the central position of the role of Lopakhin among other roles.

The first, but not the only and not the most important thing, is the significance and extraordinaryness of Lopakhin's personality itself.

It is clear that Chekhov created an image of a merchant that is not traditional for Russian literature. A businessman, and very successful, Lopakhin is a man "with the soul of an artist." When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love for the motherland. His words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions in "Dead Souls", Chekhov's lyrical digressions in the story "Steppe" about the heroic scope of the Russian steppe road, which would have been "huge, wide-walking people." And the most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play - one should not lose sight of this - belong precisely to Lopakhin: "the estate, which is not more beautiful in the world."

In the image of this hero - a merchant and at the same time an artist at heart - Chekhov introduced features characteristic of a certain part of Russian entrepreneurs who left a noticeable mark in the history of Russian "culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. These are Stanislavsky himself (the owner of the factory Alekseev), and the millionaire Savva Morozov, who gave money for the construction of the Art Theater, and the creators of art galleries and theaters Tretyakov, Shchukin, Mamontov, and the publisher Sytin ... Artistic sensitivity, disinterested love for beauty were fancifully combined in the natures of many of these merchants with the characteristic features of businessmen and money-grubbers. Without making Lopakhin like any of them individually, Chekhov introduces into the character of his hero features that unite him with many of these entrepreneurs.

And the final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist (“After all, I still love you. You have thin, tender fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, tender soul ...”), finds a well-known parallel in Gorky’s review of Savva Morozov: “And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in dust and trembling for the success of the play, I am ready to forgive him all his factories, which, however, he does not need, I love him, because he disinterestedly loves art, which I can almost feel in his muzhik, merchant, acquisitive soul.” K.S. Stanislavsky bequeathed to the future performers of Lopakhin to give him the “scale of Chaliapin”.

Breaking up the garden into suburban areas - the idea that Lopakhin is obsessed with - is not just the destruction of the cherry orchard, but its reorganization, the device, so to speak, of a public cherry orchard. With that former, luxurious, which served only a few gardens, this new, thinned and accessible to anyone for a moderate fee, Lopakhinsky's garden correlates as a democratic urban culture of the Chekhov era with the marvelous manor culture of the past.

Chekhov proposed an image that is clearly unconventional, unexpected for the reader and viewer, breaking the established literary and theatrical canons.

The main storyline of The Cherry Orchard is also connected with Lopakhin. Something expected and prepared in the first act (saving the garden), as a result of a number of circumstances, turns into something directly opposite in the last act (the garden is cut down). Lopakhin at first sincerely strives to save the garden for Lyubov Andreevna, but in the end he “accidentally” takes possession of it himself.

But at the end of the play, Lopakhin, having achieved success, is shown by Chekhov by no means as a winner. The entire content of "The Cherry Orchard" reinforces the words of this hero about the "clumsy, unhappy life", which "know to yourself passes." In fact, a person who alone is able to truly appreciate what a cherry orchard is, must destroy it with his own hands (after all, there are no other ways out of this situation). With merciless sobriety Chekhov shows in The Cherry Orchard the fatal discrepancy between a person's personal good qualities, his subjectively good intentions and the results of his social activity. And Lopakhin is not given personal happiness.

The play begins with Lopakhin obsessed with the thought of saving the cherry orchard, but in the end everything turns out wrong: he did not save the garden for Ranevskaya as he wanted, and his luck turns into a mockery of the best hopes. Why this is so - the hero himself is unable to understand, none of those around him could explain this.

In a word, it is with Lopakhin that one of the long-standing and main themes of Chekhov's work enters the play - hostility, unbearable complexity, the incomprehensibility of life for an ordinary (“average”) Russian person, whoever he may be (remember Ionya). In the image of Lopakhin, Chekhov remained faithful to this theme of his to the end. This is one of the heroes standing on the main line of Chekhov's creativity, being related to many of the characters in the writer's previous works.

SYMBOLISM.“Remote, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad”, the sound of an ax announcing the death of the garden, like the image of the cherry orchard itself, were perceived by contemporaries as deep and capacious symbols.

Chekhov's symbolism differs from the concept of a symbol in works of art and theories of symbolism. He even has the most mysterious sound - not from the sky, but “as if from the sky”. The point is not only that Chekhov leaves the possibility of a real explanation (“... somewhere in the mines a bucket broke. But somewhere very far away”). The heroes explain the origin of sound, perhaps incorrectly, but the unreal, mystical is not required here. There is a mystery, but it is a mystery generated by an earthly cause, although unknown to the heroes or misunderstood by them, not fully realized.

The Cherry Orchard and its death are symbolically ambiguous, not reducible to visible reality, but there is no mystical or unreal content here. Chekhov's symbols expand the horizons, but do not lead away from the earthly. The very degree of assimilation, comprehension of everyday life in Chekhov's works is such that the existential, general and eternal shine through in them.

The mysterious sound, twice mentioned in The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov actually heard in childhood. But, in addition to the real predecessor, one can recall one literary predecessor. This is the sound that the boys heard in Turgenev's story "Bezhin Meadow". This parallel is reminiscent of the similarity of the environment in which an incomprehensible sound is heard, and the mood that it causes in the heroes of the story and the play: someone shudders and gets scared, someone thinks, someone reacts calmly and judiciously.

Turgenev's sound in The Cherry Orchard acquired new shades, became like the sound of a broken string. In Chekhov's last play, it combined the symbolism of life and homeland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and time passing over it, of something familiar, eternally sounding over the Russian expanses, accompanying countless comings and goings of new generations.

In his last play, Chekhov captured that state of Russian society, when there was only a step left from general disunity, listening only to themselves, to final disintegration and general enmity. He urged not to be deceived by one's own idea of ​​the truth, not to absolutize many "truths" that actually turn into "false ideas", to realize the guilt of everyone, everyone's responsibility for the general course of things. In Chekhov's depiction of Russian historical problems, humanity saw problems that concern all people at any time, in any society.

For the first time A.P. Chekhov announced the start of work on a new play in 1901 in a letter to his wife O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. Work on the play progressed very difficult, this was due to the serious illness of Anton Pavlovich. In 1903, it was completed and presented to the leaders of the Moscow Art Theater. The play premiered in 1904. And from that moment on, the play "The Cherry Orchard" has been analyzed and criticized for over a hundred years.

The play "The Cherry Orchard" became the swan song of A.P. Chekhov. It contains reflections on the future of Russia and its people, accumulated in his thoughts for years. And the very artistic originality of the play became the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright, showing once again why he is considered an innovator who breathed new life into the entire Russian theater.

Theme of the play

The theme of the play "The Cherry Orchard" was the situation of auctioning the family nest of impoverished nobles. By the early 20th century, such stories were not uncommon. A similar tragedy occurred in Chekhov's life, their house, together with his father's shop, was sold for debts back in the 80s of the nineteenth century, and this left an indelible mark on his memory. And already, being an accomplished writer, Anton Pavlovich tried to understand the psychological state of people who lost their homes.

Characters

When analyzing the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov's heroes are traditionally divided into three groups, based on their temporal affiliation. The first group, representing the past, includes the aristocrats Ranevskaya, Gaev and their old footman Firs. The second group is represented by the merchant Lopakhin, who has become a representative of the present. Well, the third group is Petya Trofimov and Anya, they are the future.
The playwright does not have a clear division of heroes into main and secondary ones, as well as into strictly negative or positive ones. It is this representation of characters that is one of the innovations and features of Chekhov's plays.

Conflict and plot development of the play

There is no open conflict in the play, and this is another feature of A.P. Chekhov. And on the surface there is a sale of the estate with a huge cherry orchard. And against the background of this event, one can discern the opposition of a bygone era to new phenomena in society. The ruined nobles stubbornly hold on to their property, unable to take real steps to save it, and the proposal to receive commercial profit by leasing land to summer residents is unacceptable for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Analyzing the work "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov, we can talk about a temporary conflict in which the past collides with the present, and the present with the future. In itself, the conflict of generations is by no means new to Russian literature, but never before has it been revealed at the level of a subconscious premonition of changes in historical time, so clearly felt by Anton Pavlovich. He wanted to make the viewer or reader think about their place and role in this life.

It is very difficult to divide Chekhov's plays into phases of the development of dramatic action, because he tried to bring the unfolding action closer to reality, showing the everyday life of his characters, of which most of life consists.

Lopakhin's conversation with Dunyasha, who are waiting for Ranevskaya's arrival, can be called an exposition, and almost immediately the plot of the play stands out, which consists in pronouncing the apparent conflict of the play - the sale of the estate at auction for debts. The twists and turns of the play are trying to convince the owners to rent out the land. The climax is the news of the purchase of the estate by Lopakhin, and the denouement is the departure of all the heroes from the empty house.

Composition of the play

The play "The Cherry Orchard" consists of four acts.

In the first act, you get to know all the characters in the play. Analyzing the first action of The Cherry Orchard, it is worth noting that the inner content of the characters is conveyed through their relationship to the old cherry orchard. And here one of the conflicts of the whole play begins - the confrontation between the past and the present. The past is represented by brother and sister Gaev and Ranevskaya. For them, the garden and the old house are a reminder and a living symbol of their former carefree life, in which they were rich aristocrats who owned a huge estate. For Lopakhin, who is opposed to them, owning a garden is, first of all, an opportunity to make a profit. Lopakhin makes an offer to Ranevskaya, by accepting which she can save the estate, and asks the impoverished landowners to think about it.

Analyzing the second act of The Cherry Orchard, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the masters and servants are walking not in a beautiful garden, but in a field. From this we can conclude that the garden is in an absolutely neglected state, and it is simply impossible to walk through it. This action perfectly reveals Petya Trofimov's idea of ​​what the future should be like.

In the third act of the play comes the climax. The estate is sold, and Lopakhin becomes the new owner. Despite being satisfied with the deal, Lopakhin is saddened that he must decide the fate of the garden. This means that the garden will be destroyed.

Fourth act: the family nest is empty, the once united family is falling apart. And just as a garden is cut down to its roots, so this surname remains without roots, without shelter.

Author's position in the play

Despite the seeming tragedy of what is happening, the characters of the author himself did not cause any sympathy. He considered them narrow-minded people, incapable of deep feelings. This play has become more of a philosophical reflection of the playwright about what awaits Russia in the near future.

The genre of the play is very peculiar. Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy. The first directors saw drama in it. And many critics agreed that The Cherry Orchard is a lyrical comedy.

Artwork test

No other plays sink so deeply into the soul as the works of A.P. Chekhov. His dramaturgy is truly unique and hardly has analogues in Russian literature. Chekhov's dramas, along with social problems, touch on the secrets of the human soul and the meaning of life. The play "The Cherry Orchard" is one of Chekhov's most recognizable creations. This book became an important stage in his work, glorifying the writer throughout Russia.

Chekhov began writing the play in 1901. The idea of ​​the play "The Cherry Orchard" was suggested to Chekhov by the reality surrounding him. In those days, the sale of noble estates for debts was a frequent occurrence. The personal experiences of the writer also contributed. Once his family was forced to sell the house because of debts and urgently move. So Chekhov knew firsthand how his characters felt.

Work on the play was very difficult. Chekhov was very hampered by illness. As in the case of his other creations, he sought to reveal the characters of his characters and the idea of ​​the work as accurately as possible, for which he wrote a huge number of letters to actors and directors.

The creative history of the play "The Cherry Orchard" began with the intention to create a fun work. After writing The Three Sisters, the author wanted to change the direction of his drama:

"The next play I write is sure to be funny, very funny, at least in concept." (from a letter to O. Knipper)

Despite feeling unwell, he nevertheless came to the premiere of the performance and was awarded with thunderous applause: the assembled audience fully appreciated the play.

Genre and Direction: Comedy or Drama?

"The Cherry Orchard" can be safely attributed to the literary direction of realism. The author strives to create the most authentic atmosphere possible. His characters are naturalistic and natural, the environment is presented mundane and everyday. The events described are typical and realistic. However, some features indicate that the play was written during the era of modernism. She belonged to a new phenomenon in the theater of that time - the theater of the absurd. That is why the characters do not speak to each other, there is almost no dialogue in the drama, and what they seem to be is more like jerky remarks thrown into the void. Many heroes talk to themselves, and this technique shows the vulgarity and futility of their lives. They are locked in themselves and lonely so much that they do not even hear each other. The existential meaning of many monologues also points to Chekhov's innovation.

The genre originality of the play "The Cherry Orchard" also points to the modernist nature. The author's definition of the genre is at odds with the generally accepted one. Chekhov himself defined his creation as a comedy. However, Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky, who read the work, did not find anything comical in the play, and even, on the contrary, attributed it to the genre of tragedy. To date, "The Cherry Orchard" is usually characterized as a tragicomedy. The story is based on a tense moment of life that generates conflict and reveals the character of the characters through actions, but the play is characterized by a combination of tragic and comical elements.

The comic and tragic beginnings are manifested in the details. So, along with the tragic heroine Ranevskaya, there is Yasha, a comedic character. This is a footman who, after several years of service in Paris, became arrogant and began to be considered a foreign gentleman. He stigmatizes Russia and the "ignorance" of the people to which he belongs. His remarks are always out of place. The play also has its antipode - a sad clerk clown who always slips and gets into ridiculous situations.

The meaning of the name

The symbolic title of the play "The Cherry Orchard" carries a special meaning. The Cherry Orchard in the play represents the passing era of the landed nobility. The title chosen by the author allows using the language of symbols to express the main idea of ​​the whole play in an original and not obvious way. The garden is Russia, which falls into the hands of a new ruling class - the merchants. The infantile and miserable nobility is losing the country and living out its life abroad. Thus, the title reflects the author's concern for the future of the country. The bourgeoisie does not take into account the nostalgia of the nobility and cuts down the old foundations in the bud, but what can it offer in return?

It is characteristic that Chekhov thought for a long time about stress. At first he called the play "The Cherry Orchard" with an emphasis on the letter "and", but then changed the name to "The Cherry Orchard". The writer associated the word "cherry" with agriculture, while the word "cherry", in his opinion, better reflected the poetry of the former aristocratic life.

Composition and conflict

The main conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is the opposition of the past, present and future. This is a war of eras, classes, worldviews, in which there is no victory and defeat, but there are inexorable laws: yesterday gives way to the present day, but its age is short.

The features of the conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard" lie in its ambiguity. The writer does not seek to take sides, the characters' conversations are devoid of expression and pretentiousness. Gradually, the personal conflict between the characters turns into their confrontation not with each other, but with time itself and the changing world. The internal conflict of each of them prevails over the external one. So, Lopakhin's joy is overshadowed by his narrow-mindedness and psychological slavery: he cannot propose to Varya and literally flees to Kharkov. Class barriers fell around him, but not inside. This is the originality of the conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard".

1. The first action is reserved for the exposition, in which the main characters are introduced to us.
2. In the second act, the plot starts - the main conflict is formed.
3. The third act ends with a climax.
4. The fourth act is the finale, which completes all storylines.

The main feature of the composition of The Cherry Orchard can be considered the absence of bright scenes and violent action in it. Even the most important events are presented relatively calmly and casually.

essence

A noblewoman, Lyubov Ranevskaya returns to her native estate after a long stay in France. Upon returning home, she learns that the estate with the cherry orchard dear to her will soon be sold for debts.

A young businessman, Lopakhin, proposes to Ranevskaya a plan to save the estate (to rent summer cottages), but she does not take what is happening seriously and is waiting for a miracle. Meanwhile, her brother is trying in vain to collect debts in order to buy the estate at auction. Varya, the adopted daughter of Ranevskaya, saves on everything and gradually turns into a hired worker in her own house. Anna, her own daughter, listens to the lofty speeches of Petya Trofimov and does not want to save the garden. Life in the house goes on as usual. Lopakhin is still ignored, Ranevskaya's brother, Gaev, promises to save the estate, but does nothing.

In the end, the house goes under the hammer, Lopakhin buys it. He plans to cut down the cherry orchard and demolish the manor. Gaev gets a job at a bank, Ranevskaya goes back to France, Anya enters a gymnasium, Varya works as a housekeeper for her neighbors, and only the old footman Firs, forgotten by everyone, remains in the abandoned estate.

Main characters and their characteristics

The system of images in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is divided into three types of heroes: people of the past, present and future. The Wise Litrecon wrote more about the division of characters into three generations in order not to overload the analysis. The images of the heroes are characterized in the table:

heroes	characteristic	relation to the cherry orchard
people of the past	educated, delicate, graceful, but inactive, infantile and selfish people. the only exception is the firs - he is just a devoted servant of his masters.	love but can't save
love andreevna ranevskaya	landowner. no longer a young woman. married a man of non-noble origin, who made a lot of debts and died of drunkenness. because of him, she quarreled with her family and lost their support. after the death of her husband, the son of Ranevskaya drowned in the river. later she got involved with another man who completely ruined her. she tried to poison herself because of disappointments. this is a sentimental, “vicious” and slow woman who always gives in to everyone and does not know how to refuse. tearful, infantile, vulnerable, sensitive and apathetic. does not know how to run a household and manage money. she litters them and does not see the full horror of her situation, and in the finale she returns to her lover altogether.	in the cherry orchard I saw my happy carefree childhood.
Leonid Andreevich Gaev	brother Ranevskoy. nobleman. lived all his life on the family estate. has no wife or children. does not work. lives in debt all the time. constantly dreams and plans something, but does nothing. able to speak beautiful, but empty speeches. gossip and intriguer. he secretly blames his sister for acting "not virtuous", which brought them the wrath of wealthy relatives. he does not blame himself for anything, because his laziness, infantility and desire to overspend were the norm for the noble environment. no one takes him seriously. in the finale, he simply accepts a position at the bank and resigns himself to his fate.	the cherry orchard meant as much to him as to Ranevskaya, but he also did almost nothing to save it.
firs	an old lackey on the Ranevskoy estate. took care of Gaev and his sister since childhood. kind and helpful towards his masters, he still runs after the Gaev in the hope of wrapping him up warmer. considers the abolition of serfdom the most terrible event in his life. in the finale, everyone forgets about him, the old man remains all alone in the house abandoned by everyone.	firs devoted his whole life to this estate and its masters, so he remains with the house to the end.
people of the present	the masters of life, the rich, who cannot get rid of the slave complex due to the low social status of their ancestors. they are rational, active, practical people, but they are still unhappy.	trying to profit at any cost
Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin	merchant. the son of a serf who served as a policeman. a smart, ironic, practical and efficient person, while not having an education. writes badly. hardworking and ambitious. favorably disposed towards Ranevskaya and her relatives. internally, he is clamped and not free, it constantly seems to him that he is not sufficiently educated and tactful. he is even embarrassed to propose to his daughter Ranevskaya, because he secretly does not consider himself equal to them. buys the estate at auction and destroys it. it is revenge for the slavery of his ancestors.	in his heart he hates the estate and the cherry orchard, as they remind him of his low origin.
people of the future	a new generation of people who want to plant a new garden and start an active and honest life away from the past. they anticipate happiness far away and want to learn, develop and work.	indifferent to the loss of the garden (everything except vari)
Anya	d och Ranevskoy. young, refined and beautiful girl, dreamy and naive. she loves her family and worries about her mother and her financial situation, but under the influence of petya, she reconsiders her attitude to the garden and the situation in general. she wants to work and achieve everything on her own. in the end, she leaves to study, so that later she can start working and provide for her mother. her purposefulness and purity become a symbol of the author's hope for a happy future for Russia.	Anya does not spare the estate and wants to plant her own garden, better than before.
petya trofimov	"eternal student". this is a smart and sensible young man, but at the same time he is very poor and does not even have a home. he speaks sharply, conceals nothing, but is offended by reciprocal reproaches. he is proud, honest, principled, but his actions do not show the work to which he so ardently calls everyone. all his speeches end with speeches, and even Ranevskaya notices that the student cannot even finish his studies, and he will soon be 30. he loves Anya, but at the same time says that they are "above love."	he is indifferent to the cherry orchard and wants to change the existing system, considering Ranevskaya's possessions an illegal consequence of the exploitation of the peasants.
Varya	adopted daughter of Ranevskaya. a hardworking, modest girl, but coarsened from an unhappy life. she is devout, but at the same time very dependent on money. in an attempt to save money, she feeds the old servants with only peas and constantly worries about the fact that her mother squanders every penny. she is in love with Lopakhin, but does not receive an offer from him, therefore she closes herself even more and tries to replace her family with housework. in the finale, she enters the service of other landowners as a housekeeper.	she wants to keep the cherry orchard and gives up the last to prevent it from being sold. she devoted her whole life to saving this house and the household.
off-stage characters	these characters do not appear on the stage, but their mention gives us additional details about the life of the main characters. so, Ranevskaya's lover and his attitude towards her is a demonstration of weak will, immorality, selfishness and the list of the nobility, which is mired in idleness and pleasure, forgetting about the price of these benefits. the Yaroslavl aunt sheds light on the biography of Ranevskaya: she thoughtlessly and frivolously handed over her fate to a drunkard and reveler against the will of her parents, for which she was punished by their distrust and contempt.

The images of the characters in the play "The Cherry Orchard" are symbolic, that is, each of them denotes and translates their era and their class.

Themes

The theme of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is unique, because realistic plays do not usually use so many symbols. But modernism has done its job, and now everything in the drama is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

1. Happiness- Almost all the characters in the play strive to find happiness and harmony. However, in the end, none of them reach their goal. All of them remain unhappy suffering people. To some extent, the cherry orchard is to blame, because all the emotional ties of the characters with it inflame like nerves: Gaev and Ranevskaya are crying from his loss, Lopakhin is tormented by his acquisition, forever parting from Varya, Anya and Petya only foresee happiness, but so far even in their illusions it looks like a new cherry orchard.
2. Time Theme“The characters are not fighting against each other, but against time itself. Ranevskaya and Gaev are trying to resist the future, and Lopakhin wants to defeat the past. They all fail in the end. Ranevskaya and Gaev lose their estate, and Lopakhin cannot get rid of the burden of centuries of slavery.
3. Past– In the eyes of most of the characters, the past is like a beautiful distant dream, where everything was fine, and people lived in love and harmony. Even Lopakhin cannot resist the feeling of nostalgia for the past.
4. The present– By the time the story begins, almost all the characters are disappointed in life. The surrounding reality burdens them, and the future seems unclear and terrible. This also applies to the current master of life - Lopakhin, who is just as unhappy as everyone else.
5. Future- the young heroes hope for happiness in the future, they foresee it, and this foreboding expresses the author's belief in a better time that has not yet arrived.
6. Love- Love in Chekhov brings only troubles. Ranevskaya married for love, but she made a cruel mistake, destroying her life and losing her son. Having fallen in love for the second time, she fell under the influence of a scoundrel and finally let her life go downhill.
7. The role of the cherry orchard– The Cherry Orchard acts as a reminder of the bygone era of the landed nobility. For Ranevskaya, this is a symbol of a happy carefree childhood, and for Lopakhin, it is a reminder of the slavish position of his ancestors.
8. Nobility- In the play, Chekhov portrayed the representatives of the dying class of the nobility with all their advantages and disadvantages. They are educated, spiritually rich and sensitive, tactful and delicate, but their infantilism, irresponsibility and laziness amaze even them. They are not accustomed to work, but they are tormented by the habit of unjustified luxury. The depravity and selfishness of these people are also the consequences of their noble manners. A life of idleness cannot be moral.
9. Family Relations between relatives can hardly be called healthy. Lyubov Andreeva is sweet and courteous, while being absolutely indifferent to the financial well-being of her loved ones. No one takes Gaev seriously in the house, he is constantly asked to be silent. Behind external sincerity and benevolence there is only emptiness and indifference.

Problems

The problems of the play "The Cherry Orchard" are acute social and philosophical issues that have worried and are worrying every thinking person.

1. Future of Russia- The landed nobility finally fades into the background. Now life belongs to entrepreneurs from the common people. However, Chekhov apparently doubted that yesterday's serfs would be able to build a new just world. They are compared to predators who destroy but do not build. The future of the cherry orchard proves this: Lopakhin cuts it down.
2. Generation conflict– Ranevskaya and Lopakhin belong to completely different eras, but the classic conflict between “fathers and sons” does not occur in the play. Chekhov shows that in real life both the old and the new generation are equally unhappy.
3. Destruction of the noble nest- the estate and the garden were the value and pride of the whole province, and the Ranevsky and Gaev family always owned them. But time is merciless, and the reader involuntarily sympathizes not even with the former owners of the garden, but with the estate itself, because this beauty is destined to die forever.

The wise Litrekon knows many more problems from this play and can describe them if you need it. Write in the comments what this section lacked, and it will add.

Symbolism

What does the cherry orchard symbolize? For the characters, it is a reminder of the past, but the perception of the past is very different. Ranevskaya and Gaev remember their carefree lordly life, and Lopakhin remembers the injustice of serfdom. At the same time, the image-symbol of the cherry orchard in the mouth of Petya Trofimov acquires a different meaning - the whole of Russia. Therefore, young people want to plant a new garden - that is, to change the country for the better.

The symbolism of sound also plays an important role in the work. So, the sound of a broken string in the final symbolizes the final withering away of the old world. After him, all the heroes become sad, the conversation stops. This is mourning for the old world.

Other details in the play "The Cherry Orchard" also say more than replicas. Varya, indignantly, throws the keys to the house on the floor, and Lopakhin, without hesitation, picks them up and even notices the meaning of this gesture. This is exactly how Russia passed from hand to hand: proud and mannered nobles abandoned their fortune, and merchants simply did not disdain to pick it up from the ground. Excessive delicacy did not prevent them from working and making money.

When Lopakhin and Gaev returned from the auction, the latter brought with him anchovies and other delicacies. Even in grief over the loss of the garden, he could not change his habits, namely, wasting money.

Meaning

What is the main idea of ​​the play? The Cherry Orchard depicted the final collapse of the remnants of feudalism in Russia and the arrival of capitalist society. However, the viewer will hardly feel the jubilation. Chekhov always stood above social issues. He shows us that the era of Lopakhin, which follows the era of Ranevskaya, will for the most part be just as sad and meaningless.

However, the main idea of ​​the play "The Cherry Orchard" is not the hopelessness of life. It lies in the fact that there is still hope for a better future, and it will certainly come if people take the situation into their own hands. The problem of the nobles is that they did not multiply, but plundered the property of their ancestors. The problem of merchants is that they only made money, accumulated their fortune, but did not think about anything else. But the people of the future understand that it will be necessary to plant a garden anew, but only with their own, and not with the work of others.

“After summer, there should be winter, after youth, old age, after happiness, misfortune and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses always await him, he cannot protect himself from death, even if he were Alexander the Great - and you must be ready for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it may be. All you have to do is do your duty to the best of your ability, and nothing else.”

What does it teach?

The Cherry Orchard shows us what happens when a person turns away from life, plunges into himself, begins to ignore the present, fear the future and dream about the past. The moral of the play is that one must not only speak beautifully, but act beautifully. Chekhov sings of honest work, which gives meaning to human life.

The play tells us about the ambiguity of life, teaches us not to divide the world only into black and white. Chekhov's conclusion is the need for creativity and humanity for all classes. He doesn't have bad classes or people, he has unhappy people who just don't have enough joy in life.

Criticism

The play was generally enthusiastically received by contemporaries, but there is still no consensus on what Chekhov wanted to say, which is very typical for the writer's work.

The Russian playwright Vladimir Tikhonov, on the contrary, looked at the play more philosophically, noting the ambiguity of the new era that Lopakhin brings to Russia.

IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko generally called the plot of the play secondary and found in it a "second plan" or "undercurrent". Chekhov's characters didn't say what they felt, and a painful reticence acts and escalates the situation for them. We learn about their emotions not directly, but by chance and in passing. This is the artistic originality of the play "The Cherry Orchard".

The novelty of the play is emphasized by its indefinable genre, because many literary critics are still arguing about what is The Cherry Orchard - a drama or a comedy?

A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, Gaev and Ranevsky, as truly dramatic, capable of arousing deep sympathy and compassion for people who look not back, but forward, into the future. But this could not be and is not in the play ... The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations.

“This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy ... I cried like a woman ...” (K.S. Stanislavsky).

The value of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is difficult to overestimate. Despite the complexity of the drama, it immediately became a national treasure:

“I was recently on the Volkhov in a neglected old noble nest. The owners go bankrupt and make fun of themselves: “We have the Cherry Orchard!” ... ”(A.I. Kuprin - A.P. Chekhov, May 1904)

“Your play is doubly interesting for me, since I, who have rotated and rotated a lot in this environment, have to see the fall of landlord life, going crescendo for the worse or the good of the “village” - another big question ...” (V. A. Tikhonov (reader from Ryazan, doctor) - A.P. Chekhov, January 24, 1904)

The features of the play "The Cherry Orchard" consist in an ambiguous and complete description of each character. They are all people, and each has advantages and disadvantages, even beyond the scope of class:

Yu. I. Aikhenvald: “Only Chekhov could show in Yermolai Lopakhin not a simple fist, as other authors showed in him, only Chekhov could give him all the same ennobling features of reflection and moral anxiety ...”

So, Chekhov's last play became a wonderful, but tragic reflection of life, which did not leave anyone indifferent. Each reader saw himself in this mirror.