Ksenia GUSAROVA,
11th grade
gymnasium No. 1514(52)
(teacher - M.M. Belfer)

Outline of the essay

Cherry Orchard - image, symbol, character

Chekhov is the creator of the so-called “new drama”, characterized by the novelty of the conflict, the rejection of external intrigue, the combination of dramatic, comic and lyrical principles, the great role of subtext created by the author’s remarks, pauses, pictures of nature - “undercurrent”. Although the writer himself, obviously, sought to achieve maximum realism in his plays (“Let everything be the same on stage ... as in life”), there is an opinion that it was through Chekhov that Meyerhold came to his conditional theater.

As you know, “The Cherry Orchard” is the result of Chekhov’s creative path, his last word addressed to the reader, a word about how imperceptibly for anyone the inner drama of a person who is unable to “fit in” in life is being accomplished. The main problem raised in The Cherry Orchard is the problem of duty, responsibility, the question of the fate of the Motherland.

The characters in Chekhov's plays are not just heroes, but heroes in time and space.

The cherry orchard, which is at the same time the background of the action, and the protagonist, and a comprehensive symbol, can be considered in three main aspects: the garden is an image and character, the garden is time and the garden is symbolic spaces.

Animated and spiritualized (poeticized by Chekhov and idealized by the characters associated with him), the garden, no doubt, is one of the characters in the play. It takes its place in the system of images.

The garden is given simultaneously as an accusation (emphasizes irresponsibility, unkindness) and justification (a sense of beauty, keeping traditions, memory) of all other heroes.

The garden plays a passive role. Let us recall Chekhov's judgment: "It is better to be a victim than an executioner." Obviously, the victim garden is the only positive character in the play.

The garden sets the upper moral plane (what is the norm for Chekhov, but for his heroes, due to the distortion of the world order and their own inferiority, becomes the ideal), just as Yasha, a complete boor, sets the lower one. There is no vertical line that should connect them. Therefore, all other actors are in between, in the middle (“average” people), as if frozen in free fall, not touching any of the planes (they deviated from the norm, but did not sink completely), but reflecting them and being reflected in them - hence the ambiguity , versatility of images.

Gaev is inextricably linked with the garden. But the nature of this connection cannot be unequivocally interpreted. On the one hand, Gaev is one of the most irresponsible heroes of the play, he “ate all his fortune on candies”, and to a greater extent, the blame for the death of the garden lies with him. On the other hand, to the last, in a quixotic naivete and to no avail, he tries to save the garden.

Ranevskaya is connected with the garden by a kind of “multiple mutual belonging effect”: Ranevskaya is the protagonist of Chekhov’s play The Cherry Orchard, that is, she belongs to The Cherry Orchard; the cherry orchard is located on the estate of Ranevskaya, therefore, belongs to her; Ranevskaya is in captivity at the image of the garden she created and thus belongs to him; the garden, as an image and symbol of the “sweet past”, exists in the imagination of Ranevskaya, which means it belongs to her ...

You can interpret Ranevskaya as the soul of the garden. This idea is suggested, in particular, by observations of temperature in its direct and figurative-artistic meaning - before the arrival of Ranevskaya, the theme of cold is repeated many times (in Chekhov's remarks and replicas of the heroes): “it's cold in the garden”, “it's a matinee now, frost is three degrees ”, “everything went cold” and so on; with the arrival of Ranevskaya, the cherry orchard and the house warm up, and after the sale of the garden it gets cold again: “just now it’s cold”, again “three degrees below zero”. In addition, the motif of the “broken thermometer” appears (a sign of the lack of a sense of proportion and the impossibility of returning to the old life).

For Lopakhin, the garden is a double symbol. This is an attribute of the nobility, where the road is blocked for him, the peasant, “with a pig's snout” (the social subtext is far from being the main thing in the play, but it is important), and the spiritual elite, where he is also hopelessly striving (“read a book and fell asleep”).

The dual nature of Lopakhin - a merchant-artist - gives rise to a complex, a feeling of his own incompleteness (Lopakhin is far from Trofimov’s cold philosophizing: “your father was a peasant, mine is a pharmacist, and absolutely nothing follows from this”), which in turn gives rise to a subconscious desire for owning a cherry orchard.

Everyone noted a paradox: in an effort to make the garden “rich, luxurious, happy”, Lopakhin cuts it down.

Conclusion: Lopakhin, having bought a garden, believes that he “conquered” it; intoxicated with the consciousness of victory, he does not understand that he himself is subdued (this idea is partly confirmed by what happened to Lopakhin at the auction: “it got muddled in the head”; excitement is an instinct, that is, an animal, natural). Consequently, the garden puts pressure on Lopakhin, determines his life.

The garden is a symbol of the happiness of future generations: “our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here”, but at the same time it is an obstacle to this (the garden ties all its “inhabitants” to one place, serves as a kind of pretext for their doing nothing).

The garden can be regarded as Lopakhin's curse: the repeated mention of fathers and grandfathers is generic; the theme of serfdom associated with the garden; already mentioned motive of spontaneity, fatality.

For Varya, saving the garden is the only goal that has turned into an obsession. She sacrificed her personal life, "private secret" to the garden. She has an authoritarian mind. Its sacrifice is useless (parallel: Sonya in “War and Peace”: “it will be taken away from the poor”). The epithet “poor” applied to her has a triple meaning: poor, unhappy, not rich spiritually. Working for the sake of the garden, Varya gradually changes the goal and the means in places (shifting the emphasis from the word “garden” to the word “work”). She works out of habit - without meaning and purpose. Work fills the spiritual void. Varya is deprived of the garden for excessive devotion to him.

Firs - ancient as a garden, warmed by the arrival of Ranevskaya, perishes under the sound of an ax. Firs is an integral part of the garden.

Anya's personality is formed under the influence of Ranevskaya and Trofimov, hence the ambivalent attitude towards the garden, approaching Trofimov's: "I no longer love the cherry orchard, as before." Loves the garden as a memory of childhood and as a hope for a new life, the theme “we will plant a new garden” is an attempt to combine these two “loves”.

Trofimov's denial, the rejection of the garden - an attempt at a sober assessment. This assessment has both pluses and minuses: on the one hand, Chekhov often trusts Petya to express his thoughts, on the other hand, Trofimov, a dependent reasoner, a comic figure, this reduces everything he says by an order of magnitude.

The garden is given in time and outside of time (metaphysical). In time, the garden exists in three time planes: past, present and future. The garden-past is a visible image of serfdom (“human beings look at you from every leaf”); the memory of youth, a better life and a hopeless desire to return them. The garden that connects memory and aspiration is a shaky bridge thrown over from the past to the future. The present tense of the garden is one with space (chronotope). The garden is also a symbol of the “Silver Age” as an era: prosperity and decline at the same time, characteristic colors. The image of a garden, in particular, a cherry one, is often found in the poetry of the “Silver Age” (literary critics especially often note Akhmatova). One can argue about the future of the garden. There is a “Lopakhinsky” option: to cut down a garden and build dachas, it is achievable, but, according to Chekhov, this is not the future. There is an idealized garden of Trofimov and Anya - good, but not available. And there is a future on an all-Russian scale, where a new garden will inevitably be planted, the only question is what it will be like.

Understanding the space of a garden is most simple (ordinary garden) and complex at the same time. The garden is also a space of mood (contributes to the creation of an “undercurrent”). The garden combines the lyrical and epic beginnings.

A garden, taken as a moral ideal, can also be taken as an ideal space. Thus, there is a symbolic parallel “Cherry Orchard-Eden” and the theme of expulsion from paradise. But the sins of Ranevskaya, in which she repents to Lopakhin, are not those sins.

Conclusion: not to do good, according to Chekhov, is almost more sinful than to do evil.

The space of the cherry orchard is universal, since it unites all the actors of the play (at least outwardly), Chekhov and all his readers, that is, a higher, metaphysical plane is created.

Finally, the metaphor “garden-Russia” is obvious.

Petya's mistake is that in his statement (“All Russia is our garden”) he focuses on the word “Russia”, thus Russia (if not the whole earth) is represented as an endless number of gardens (“The earth is great and beautiful, there is there are many wonderful places on it”), and the loss of one of them does not seem to be anything important - such negligence inevitably leads to the destruction of everything.

Chekhov, on the contrary, emphasizes the word "garden". This means that one specific garden is already Russia, and the responsibility for it should be the same as for the fate of the entire Motherland, and without the first there cannot be a second. With this understanding of the “garden-Russia”, the answer to the age-old question “what to do?” there could be a call going back to Goethe and Voltaire: “let everyone cultivate his own vineyard”, but in this context it would sound like a call not to the utmost individualization, but to selfless labor on one’s own piece of land, and labor should not be perceived as a way to fill the inner emptiness, but as a means to make (sya) better.

There is no hope for a “happy ending” within the play: Firs dies in a boarded-up house; the garden has been cut down or will be cut down, and dachas will be built in its place; a broken string cannot be tied.

Time, along with space, is one of the main conditions for the existence of both a work of art and life itself. In the play by A.P. Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, time is the key symbol that creates the plot and forms the problem.

The image of time allows you to separate the true from the false, connects and at the same time separates the characters of the play and turns out to be fatal on the personal, social and historical levels.

Three forms of time - past, present and future - divide the heroes of The Cherry Orchard into three ideological categories. So, Gaev and Ranevskaya relate to the past: despite their position as landowners, they do not farm, and therefore cannot save the cherry orchard. Ranevskaya lives only with memories and is a deeply feeling and loving nature, and Gaev is a still ungrown boy who eats candy and thinks only about playing billiards.

Lopakhin in the play is a representative of the present, who, in the conditions of the new time, becomes the owner of a garden and an estate. Anya and Petya are inactive heroes living in the future. Petya denounces old Russia, talks about new ways to improve society, but in reality he is an eternal student and a "shabby gentleman."

Heroes belonging to different times are not able to understand and hear each other. Ultimately, everyone is talking about their own. The forms of time have both their advantages and disadvantages, but together they form a single "life" plot of The Cherry Orchard.

The garden itself also represents time. This happens, firstly, because of the direct meaning of the image of the garden: in spring it blooms, in autumn it sheds leaves. In this sense, the garden means the annual cycle of time and nature. Secondly, the garden is a historical time: it is necessary to destroy the old ideas about the world so that new ones appear in their place; it is necessary to cut down a beautiful useless garden in order to give the land to summer residents and make a profit from it.

Finally, the turning point turns out to be connected with the historical fate of Russia and the author: the play was written in 1903, on the threshold of the revolution of 1905 and the revolution of 1917 following it. In this context, one can try to predict the fate of the characters: Gaev and Ranevskaya will not accept the revolution, they will go abroad where will be forgotten; Lopakhin will be dispossessed, the land of the garden will be collectivized; the followers of the revolutionary movement will be Petya and Anya, poor, "shabby", ready to work and sincerely believing in the possibility of building an ideal society.

Thus, we can conclude that time is not only an integral part of the play "The Cherry Orchard", but also an active figure. Thanks to the many faces of time, the events of The Cherry Orchard are harmonious and logically interact. However, despite the power of time, the ability of the characters to act independently and independently choose the reality in which they have to live is much more important.

Crazy years faded fun
It's hard for me, like a vague hangover.
But, like wine, the sadness of bygone days
In my soul, the older, the stronger.
A.S. Pushkin

In the works of literary critics, the interpretation of The Cherry Orchard is most often presented from a historical or social point of view. The theme of the play is defined as follows: Chekhov shows the past, present and future of Russia. In accordance with these eras, there are owners of the estate in the play (they go bankrupt, while demonstrating complete helplessness), there is a new owner of life (an energetic, enterprising merchant), there are representatives of the younger generation (noble dreamers looking to the future). The idea of ​​the play is in the author's assessment of the current state of Russia. It is obvious that Chekhov understands the inevitability of the end of the local nobility (Gaev and Ranevskaya), sadly follows the activities of bourgeois businessmen (Lopakhin), but looks with hope to the future of Russia, which he connects with new people (Petya Trofimov and Anya), who are different from the previous ones, and from the real owners of the cherry orchard. These young people dream of planting a new garden in place of the old one, destroyed by Lopakhin for the sake of profits. So in the last comedy of Chekhov, historical optimism is manifested, which was not in his previous plays ("The Seagull", "Ivanov", "Uncle Vanya").

Such a definition of the theme and idea of ​​The Cherry Orchard is quite possible, but it would be wrong to say that Chekhov only laughs at the nobility leaving the public stage, condemns the modern “masters of life” and sympathizes with the younger generation, which hastens the arrival of a new life. It seems that the attitude of the playwright towards his characters is more complex than unequivocal condemnation or sympathy.

Take, for example, the image of the valet Firs. This hero, of course, refers to the outgoing Russia, since for more than fifty years he has been faithfully serving the owners of the cherry orchard, he also remembers the grandfather of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Not only by age, but also by conviction, he is an adherent of the old order, the old way of life. It is remarkable that a hero similar to Firs has already been portrayed in Russian literature - this is the courtyard Ipat, the lackey of Prince Utyatin from N.A. Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Russia” (ch. “Last Child”). Ipat, after the announcement of the Manifesto, renounced personal freedom and wished, as before, to serve his masters-princes. Firs calls the abolition of serfdom "a misfortune" and says that in 1861 he "did not agree to freedom, remained with the masters" (II). Ipat, with tears of emotion, recalls the habits of a serf master: how the young prince Utyatin harnessed Ipat to his cart instead of a horse or bathed him in a winter river. And Firs fondly recalls the tyranny of the late gentleman, who imagined himself a doctor and treated all patients with sealing wax. The old servant firmly believes in this medicine and believes that it is thanks to the sealing wax that he lives so long (III). However, the servility of Ipat causes satirical ridicule in the Nekrasov poem, and the behavior of Firs - the author's calm understanding in the Chekhov play.

Slave psychology is combined in the old man with a touching attachment to the masters. Firs sincerely cries at a meeting with Ranevskaya (I), whom he has not seen for five years, diligently continues to serve the fifty-year-old "child" Gaev. The old man ruefully remarks to him: “Again, they put on the wrong trousers. And what am I to do with you!” (I). Even when they forget him and he remains to die in a house locked for the winter, he worries about the owner: “But Leonid Andreevich, I suppose, didn’t put on a fur coat, he went in a coat ... I didn’t look ... Young and green!” (IV).

Having lived all his life on the estate, he cares about the prestige of the house and the good reputation of the owners. At the ridiculous ball, started by Ranevskaya on the day of the auction, he does his best, but serves the guests as expected. When Ranevskaya sends him to rest, Firs replies with a grin: “I’ll go to sleep, but without me, who will give, who will order? One for the whole house" (III). And he is right, since Yasha carelessly walks around the rooms, and Dunyasha dances with the guests. The old servant is even offended for his current masters, who are not like the former ones: “In the past, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, and now we send for the postal official and the head of the station, and even they do not go hunting” (III).

Next to Firs, the play shows a servant of modern times - Yasha, a stupid and self-satisfied guy. He visited Paris and, having tasted the charms of European civilization, began to despise his fatherland and is ashamed of his peasant origin. Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him back to Paris with her, and complains: “It’s positively impossible for me to stay here. What can I say, you yourself are miles away, the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, moreover, boredom, the food is ugly in the kitchen ... ”(III). Yasha himself is an insignificant person and a loose servant, which is proved by his behavior at the ball. He never took Firs to the hospital, because the unlucky lady Ranevskaya has a non-executive lackey. But in the last act, showing his "knowledge and skills", he declares to Lopakhin that the champagne is not real, and he drinks the whole bottle alone. At the beginning and at the end of the play, Chekhov shows Yasha's attitude towards his mother, who comes to see him on the day of his arrival and departure. The reminder of the mother waiting in the kitchen causes only annoyance in the lover of Parisian life. Firs, in comparison with this lackey, looks like a conscientious, devoted servant, a wise man.

Chekhov trusts the old valet with several very important statements that clarify the author's intention of the play. Firstly, love for order in everything (in service and in life) is what distinguishes Firs. And in his old age, he sees senseless fuss around and remarkably characterizes the order both in the manor house and in the surrounding Russian life: before everything was right, “men with the masters, gentlemen with the peasants, and now everything is scattered, you won’t understand anything” (II) . This feeling of fragility, confusion is experienced not only by the old man, but also by Lopakhin, who has just fulfilled his dream (he bought a cherry orchard at auction) and already complains about his awkward, unhappy life.

Secondly, Firs calls all the heroes of the play and himself, in accordance with the author's intention, "stupid" (III), that is, fools who do not understand life. An example of the bad luck of all the characters is their attitude towards the cherry orchard. Firs sees the garden as it was in the irrevocable past; for Gaev, talking about a garden is an occasion for empty boasting; Lopakhin, thinking about saving the garden, cuts it down; Anya and Petya prefer to dream of new gardens rather than saving the old one.

Summing up, it should be said that Firs is an integral part of the noble estate where the play takes place. The old valet is a type of faithful servant who is very diversely represented in Russian literature: the nanny Eremeevna from The Undergrowth, the nanny Filipievna from Eugene Onegin, Savelich from The Captain's Daughter, Zakhar from Oblomov, etc. Firs is a servant of Gaev and at the same time an exponent of the author's idea. This hero is a man of old Russia, in which there was serfdom, but there was also a high spiritual culture. Therefore, the image of a faithful servant turned out to be multifaceted.

Chekhov was against the indiscriminate denial of the old life, and even more so its violent destruction, at the right time it itself will give way to new orders. This author's idea is proved by the last, poignant scene of the play: forgotten by everyone, the helpless old man dies in a locked house. At the same time, Firs does not reproach his careless masters, since he sincerely loves them. His death coincides with the death of the cherry orchard and symbolizes the end of the "noble nest", the end of an entire era, the guardian of which was an old servant.

K. S. Stanislavsky, the idea for the play arose already during the rehearsal of The Three Sisters, in 1901. Chekhov wrote it for a long time, the correspondence of the manuscript also took place slowly, much was altered. “I really don’t like some places, I write them again and rewrite again,” the writer told one of his acquaintances.

By the time The Cherry Orchard was staged, the Art Theater had developed its own method of staging based on Chekhov's lyrical dramas (The Seagull, Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters). That is why Chekhov's new play, conceived by the writer in different tones and performed in its predominant part in a comedic way, was interpreted on the stage by the leaders of the Art Theater largely in accordance with their previous principles.

On January 17, 1904, the premiere took place. The performance was prepared in the absence of the author and the production (judging by the numerous comments) did not satisfy him. “My play was on yesterday, so my mood is not very good,” he wrote to I. L. Shcheglov the day after the premiere. The game of actors seemed to him "confused and dim." Stanislavsky recalled that the performance was difficult to establish. Nemirovich-Danchenko also noted that the play did not reach the audience immediately. In the future, the force of tradition brought to our time precisely the original stage interpretation of The Cherry Orchard, which did not coincide with the author's intention.

Problems and ideological orientation of the play.

The play "" reflects the process of socio-historical development of Russia at the turn of the century and the changes taking place in society. The change of owners of the cherry orchard in the play symbolizes these changes: a huge era of Russian life is fading into the past along with the nobility, new times are coming in which other people feel like owners - prudent, businesslike, practical, but devoid of the former spirituality, the personification of which is a beautiful garden.

There is no development of action in the play in the usual sense. Chekhov is not interested in the clash between the old and new owners of the cherry orchard. In fact, he doesn't exist. The writer wants to tell about the clash of the past and the present of Russia, about the birth of its future. The assertion of the unviability of the noble way of life is the ideological core of the play.

The bourgeois masters of modern Russia, who are replacing the nobles, are undoubtedly more active and energetic and are capable of bringing practical benefits to society at the present moment. But it was not with them that Chekhov connected the coming changes, the anticipation of which was ripening in people, the expectation and feeling of which soared in Russian society. Who will be the renewing force for Russia? Anticipating the nearness and possibility of social change, Chekhov connected the dreams of a bright future for Russia with the new, young generation. With all the uncertainty of the future (“all Russia is our garden”), it belongs to him. The play contains reflections writer about people and time.

The plot of the play. The nature of the conflict and the originality of the stage action.

The plot of The Cherry Orchard is simple. The landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya arrives from Paris to her estate (the beginning of the first act) and after some time returns to France (the end of the fourth act). Between these events are episodes of ordinary domestic life in the mortgaged estate of Gaev and Ranevskaya. The characters of the play reluctantly gathered in the estate, in some vain, illusory hope to save the old garden, the old family estate, to preserve their past, which now seems so beautiful to them, themselves.

Meanwhile, the event that brought them together takes place behind the stage, and on the stage itself there is no action in the traditional sense of the word: everyone is in a state of expectation. There are ordinary, meaningless conversations. But the personal experiences of the characters, their feelings and aspirations make it possible to understand the spiritual processes of time. That is why it is so important to feel.

to understand the changing internal states of the characters from the initial to the last scene.

Behind everyday scenes and details, there is a continuously moving "inner", emotional plot - the "undercurrent" of the play. This lyrical plot is formed not by a sequence of events and not by the relationships of the characters (all this only determines it), but by “cross-cutting” themes, roll calls, poetic associations and symbols. What is important here is not the external plot, but the atmosphere that determines the meaning of the play. It is in The Cherry Orchard that this feature dramaturgy Chekhov is especially pronounced.

Each action in the play has its own direction and structure. Chekhov refuses the traditional dramatic division into phenomena and scenes, the events taking place are delimited only by actions. The play begins with a kind of exposition - an introduction, from which we learn about the main characters.

AT first act one feels a very strange, exciting interweaving of refined, bright emotions (tender meetings, lyrical memories, words of love, hopes for salvation) with a feeling of some kind of internal instability, uncertainty of relations.
The heroes seem to feel the impossibility of returning to their former lives and foresee the impending parting with the garden, each other, their past.

Second act gives a new direction to the internal development of the play. Sobering up, nervousness arises, Ranevskaya's story about the passion for an unworthy person sounds, the words Lopakhin, reminiscent of the fact that the cherry orchard will be sold. Both Lopakhin and Trofimov, to whom Anya reaches out in a romantic impulse, chart their own path in life.

The plot development reaches its climax in third act . It contains the completion of the fate of the cherry orchard and the implementation of the moral choice by all the heroes of the play. Behind the scenes, the auction of the estate is going on, and in the estate itself they are giving a ball. Everything that happens is ridiculous and strange. Inappropriate entertainment on the day of the sale outwardly hides the excitement of the owners and at the same time enhances the feeling of inner unrest. Everyone is waiting for news from the city. And when Gaev and Lopakhin arrive, who announces that he is now the owner of the garden, there is silence. And only the ringing of the keys thrown by Varya is heard.

But the action doesn't end there. It is unlikely that the ending, showing only uncontrollably rejoicing in connection with the acquisition of the Lopakhin estate, would satisfy Chekhov. In the last, fourth, act - the parting of all the heroes with the past, departure, farewell. It is important for the author not to show the results, not to give specific answers to the questions posed, but to capture the process of life and make the reader think about it. Each character has their own perspective. For Petya and Anya, she is connected with the future Russia, with Lopakhin - with today's practical activities on the estate or in some other place, and for the former owners of the cherry orchard, everything is in the past, they just have to come to terms with what is happening. There is a roll call between those who leave and those who go forward.

The fate of the estate plot organizes the play. In the construction of a dramatic plot, Chekhov departs from the clear forms of the plot and denouement; the action develops slowly, without bright events, external catastrophes. At first, nothing seems to be happening on the stage, a feeling of “eventlessness” is created. The formal impetus for the development of the action is the conflict between Gaev and Ranevskaya and Lopakhin over the sale of the cherry orchard, but in the course of the action it becomes obvious that this collision is imaginary. The sale of the cherry orchard, while outwardly being the climax, in essence, does not change anything either in the balance of forces or in the future destinies of the heroes. Each character lives his own inner life, little dependent on plot twists.

The complexity of determining the conflict of the play is also connected with the originality of the stage action. It would be wrong to define it as a confrontation between social forces. Lopakhin is trying for a long time and very hard to save the estate for Ranevskaya and buys it only when he realizes that the owners of the estate will not be saved. They simply hand him over to Lopakhin without doing anything. Thus, there is no open clash between the outgoing generation and the coming one to replace it. How is the conflict expressed in Chekhov's play?

The state of anxious expectation does not leave Ranevskaya and Gaev throughout the whole action. Their mental discord is connected not only with the loss of the estate - it is deeper: people have lost their sense of time. They lagged behind him, and therefore everything happens somehow absurdly and awkwardly in their lives. Heroes are passive, their ideals and lofty dreams collapse in the face of life's obstacles. These are people who do not change, each holding on to his own against the backdrop of time moving forward. Confused and not understanding the course of life. The crisis state of the old owners of the estate is connected with the loss of their faith in life, the loss of the ground under their feet. But there are no culprits. Time moves forward and something goes into the past. The conflict of the play reflects the discrepancy between the characters' inner feeling of life laws and the dictates of the times.

Heroes of the Cherry Orchard.

It is important for the reader and viewer of The Cherry Orchard to feel that in his play Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives fell on a turning point, but captured time itself in its movement. The course of history is the main nerve comedy, its plot and content. The system of images in the play is represented by various social forces that connect their lives with a certain time: the local nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev live in memories of the past, the merchant Lopakhin is a person of the present, and the dreams of raznochinets Petya Trofimov and Ranevskaya's daughter Anya are turned to the future.

The characters of Chekhov's heroes are complex and ambiguous; drawing them, the writer shows the contradictory, changing spiritual image of a person. In the images of the main characters, even after the final curtain, something remains unsaid, which makes readers and viewers think and argue.

Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya is the owner of the estate. The very first remarks suggest a subtle and sensitive nature in the heroine. She is sweet and attractive, sincerely and directly expresses her feelings, benevolent and affable. According to others, she has a wonderful character.

There is no noble arrogance, arrogance in her: in her youth, she did not disdain to bring 15-year-old Lopakhin, who was beaten by her drunken father, into the house and tell him words of consolation. Ranevskaya is smart and able to truthfully judge herself and life.

But as the action develops, details appear that indicate the ambiguity and inconsistency of Ranevskaya's character. She easily gives money to peasants and a random passerby, while her relatives are in poverty. She returns to Paris to the man who robbed her, using the money sent by the Yaroslavl grandmother for Anya. Always gentle, she can shower Petya Trofimov with insults in response to the truth about her lover. Brought up, she can ask offhand questions. Throughout the action, Ranevskaya admires the cherry orchard, without which she "did not understand her life", but does nothing to save the estate. Life at the expense of others made her helpless, weak-willed, dependent on circumstances, confused in the face of time. She can't change anything. The mismanagement and frivolity of the heroine lead the beautiful estate to complete ruin, to sale for debts.

Much less significant is Ranevskaya's brother, Leonid Andreevich Gaev. His sister's shortcomings - impracticality, frivolity, lack of will - reached extraordinary proportions in him. But, besides this, he is also petty, vulgar, and sometimes even stupid. This is an aged capricious child who has eaten his fortune on candy. Symbolic details - sucking candies, playing billiards, as well as the nature of the relationship of 51-year-old Gaev with his old servant Firs emphasize the lack of independence and infantilism of his nature. Gaev is arrogant and arrogant, he considers Lopakhin a "boor" and a peasant. His speeches addressed to the closet, "billiard" remarks, inappropriate in conversation, empty phrases emphasize worthlessness, point to the spiritual impoverishment of the hero.

Ranevskaya and Gaev throughout the play experience the dramatic events that take place in their lives, the collapse of hopes, but are unable to influence the circumstances, to understand the essence of what is happening. They voluntarily or involuntarily betray everything that is dear to them: relatives, a garden, an old servant. People who have lost themselves in time, who have collapsed not only materially, but also spiritually - these are the representatives of the way of Russian life that is fading into the past.

Yermolai Lopakhin is the central character in the play, according to Chekhov. In his letters from Yalta to Moscow, the author insisted that K.S. Stanislavsky play Lopakhin, he believed that this role should be played by a first-class actor, but simply a talented one could not do it. “After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, this must be understood.” Chekhov warned against a simplistic understanding of this image, which was so important to him.

Lopakhin's personality is significant and unusual. He is a successful merchant in his business, energetic, hardworking, intelligent, knowing what he wants from life, firmly and confidently realizing the goal set for him. But at the same time, he is a person who has the soul of an artist, who knows how to appreciate beauty. Petya Trofimov, who looks at life in a completely different way than Lopakhin, tells him: “After all, I still love you. You have thin, tender fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, tender soul ... "

Lopakhin's thoughts about Russia are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions from Dead Souls: "Lord, you gave us vast forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should really be giants ..." He owns the most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard. Lopakhin treats Ranevskaya with tenderness, he is ready to help her despite his interests.

The main storyline of the play is connected with Lopakhin. The son of a serf, he is obsessed with the idea of ​​buying an estate where his father and grandfather were serfs. The hero, who at first tried to save the garden for Ranevskaya, at the end of the play becomes its owner and destroyer. But in the triumph of Lopakhin, who has achieved his goal, in his unbridled, unbridled joy, inability to wait with cutting down the garden until the former owners leave, there is something that involuntarily removes him from the reader.

In the last scenes, Lopakhin does not look like a winner, which is confirmed by his words about an “uncoordinated, unhappy life”, in which he and others like him will be the main force.

In the image of Lopakhin, the good personal qualities of a person, his good intentions and the results of his practical activities come into conflict. “As a person, Lopakhin is subtler and more humane than the role imposed on him by history” (G. Byaly). Chekhov created an unexpected image that did not fit into the usual literary and theatrical canons, in which he introduced features characteristic of a part of Russian entrepreneurs who left a noticeable mark on the history of Russian culture at the turn of the century - Stanislavsky (the owner of the Alekseev factory), Savva Morozov, who gave money for the construction of the Art Theatre, the creators of art galleries Tretyakov, Shchukin and others.

Chekhov associated dreams of a brighter future with the younger generation: Petya Trofimov and Anya, although Varya and even Yasha can be attributed to them by age.

From the first moment Anya appears on the stage, we immediately succumb to her charm. The remark that opens the first act corresponds to the image of the girl. "Sweetheart! My spring, ”Petya says about her. Concerning the issue of the stage embodiment of this image, Chekhov emphasized the need to take into account Anya's age. She is very young - she is 17 years old: "a child ... who does not know life", in the words of the author himself.

Anya wants to study and then work. She rejoices at parting with the past: “A new life begins, mother!” Anya understands her mother, pities and protects her, but does not want to live the way she does. Sincerity, naivete, directness, goodwill, joyful perception of life, faith in the future determine the appearance of the heroine.

Petya Trofimov, a former teacher of Ranevskaya's little son, is spiritually close to Anya. He is a raznochinets by origin (the son of a doctor), poor, deprived of the education available to the nobles, expelled from the university several times (“eternal student”), earns his livelihood through translations. A little eccentric, funny, awkward and awkward ("shabby master"). A detail that makes it possible to judge his financial situation is the old and dirty galoshes, the disappearance of which he is so worried about.

Petya is a man of democratic convictions, he proclaims democratic ideas, he is outraged by the position of the workers, by the difficult conditions of their life; he sees the reason for the spiritual degeneration of the nobility in serfdom. Petya is well versed in what is happening, accurately judges people. Ranevskaya admits: “You are bolder, more honest, deeper than us ...”

But Petya, like each of the heroes of the play, does not always match his words with his deeds. He often says that he needs to work, but he cannot graduate from the university; grandiloquently speaks of the road to a brighter future, while he himself regrets the loss of galoshes. Petya knows little about life, but sincerely wants to see a different Russia and is ready to dedicate his fate to a cause that will transform the world around him. Petya's words: "All Russia is our garden" - acquire a symbolic meaning.

New principles for the construction of a dramatic work also led to a different vision of Chekhov's characters, different from traditional theatrical rules. The usual division of heroes into main and secondary becomes more relative. It is difficult to say who is more important for understanding the author's intention: Gaev or Fries? The playwright is interested not so much in characters or actions as in the manifestation of the mood of the characters, each of which participates in creating the general atmosphere of the play.

In the development of the plot, it is necessary to take into account off-stage characters. Many storylines of the play are drawn to them, and all of them participate in the development of the action: Ranevskaya's "Parisian lover", Anya's grandmother from Yaroslavl, etc.

Nevertheless, there is a central image in the play around which the main action is built - this is the image of a cherry orchard.

The role of images-symbols in the play. The meaning of the name.

Symbolism is an important element of Chekhov's dramaturgy. A symbol is a substantive image that replaces in artistic text multiple meanings. Separate motifs and images in Chekhov's plays often receive a symbolic meaning. Thus, the symbolic meaning acquires the image of a cherry orchard.

The Cherry Orchard is a wonderful creation of nature and human hands. This is not just a background against which the action develops, but the personification of the value and meaning of life on earth. The word garden in Chekhov means a long peaceful life, going from great-grandfathers to great-grandchildren, tireless creative work. The symbolic content of the image of the garden is multifaceted: beauty, past, culture, and finally, all of Russia.

The Cherry Orchard becomes a kind of touchstone in the play, which makes it possible to reveal the essential properties of the characters. It highlights the spiritual possibilities of each of the characters. The Cherry Orchard is both the sad past of Ranevskaya and Gaev, and the dull present of Lopakhin, and the joyful and at the same time uncertain future of Petya and Anya. But the garden is also the economic basis of the estate, inextricably linked with serfdom. Thus, reflections on the social structure of Russian life are connected with the image of the cherry orchard.

Lopakhin's period is coming, the cherry orchard is cracking under his axe, he is doomed, he is cut down for summer cottages. There is a certain historical pattern in Lopakhin's victory, but at the same time, his triumph will not bring decisive changes: the general structure of life will remain the same.

Petya and Anya live for the future. They understand the beauty of the cherry orchard. Petya feels that the garden is not only tainted by the past of serfdom, but is also doomed to the present, in which there is no place for beauty. The future is drawn to him as a triumph not only of justice, but also of beauty. Anya and Petya want all of Russia to be like a beautiful blooming garden.

The image of the cherry orchard is fanned with lyricism and at the same time is able to highlight the meaning of what is happening with the light of irony. Expressing his attitude to him in words and, most importantly, in deeds, each character more clearly reveals his moral basis. In a complex interweaving of diverse images, the problem of personality and its ideals is solved.

Reflections and disputes about the cherry orchard, about its past, near and distant future all the time result in judgments and discussions about the present, past and future of Russia. The whole emotional atmosphere, which is associated in the play with the image of the cherry orchard, serves to affirm its enduring aesthetic value, the loss of which cannot but impoverish the spiritual life of people. If the existing life dooms the garden to death, then it is natural to deny this life and strive for a new one, which will allow turning all of Russia into a flowering garden.

Such are the deep philosophical foundations of Chekhov's reflections on the cherry orchard and its fate. They lead to the main thing in the play - to the thought of people, their lives in the past and in the present, about their future.

In addition to the cherry orchard, there are other symbolic images and motifs in the play. The image and fate of Gayev's old servant, Firs, are symbolic. At the end of the play, all the characters leave, leaving him in a locked house to fend for himself. They leave their past in this house, the embodiment of which is an old servant. The word of the fool, uttered by Firs, can be attributed to each of the heroes. The problem of humanism is also connected with this image. Almost no one remembered the faithful servant, who even at such a moment thinks not of himself, but of his master, who has not put on a warm coat. The blame for the dramatic denouement of Firs' life is laid on all the main characters of The Cherry Orchard.

The traditional symbol of time - the clock - becomes the key to the play. Lopakhin is the only hero who looks at his watch all the time, the rest have lost their sense of time. The movement of the hands of the clock is symbolic, correlating with the life of the heroes: the action begins in spring and ends in late autumn, the May time of flowering is replaced by the October cold.

The gesture of Varya is symbolic, throwing the keys to the house on the floor after the news that the estate now has a new owner. The keys are perceived as a sign of attachment to the household, a symbol of power.

Money appears in the play as a symbol of wasted wealth and Ranevskaya's relaxed will. Gaev's lollipops and billiards - as a symbol of an absurd, empty life lived.

The sound background of the play is symbolic: the jingle of keys, the clatter of an ax on wood, the sound of a broken string, music, which contributes to the creation of a certain atmosphere of what is happening on the stage.

The genre of the play.

Shortly after the premiere of The Cherry Orchard on April 10, 1904, Chekhov, in a letter to O.L. Nemirovich and Alekseev (Stanislavsky. - Auth.) in my play see positively not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word that both of them have never read my play carefully. Many times in letters and conversations with different people, Chekhov stubbornly repeated: "The Cherry Orchard" is a comedy, in some places even a farce. Later, the genre of the work was defined by literary critics in greater accordance with the author's intention: The Cherry Orchard was called a lyrical comedy.

Researchers note the optimistic tone of the play as a whole. The impression of tragedy, characteristic of Chekhov's previous plays, is different in The Cherry Orchard. The play organically combined the laughter that sounded in Chekhov's stories and the sad reflections of his dramas, giving rise to laughter through tears, but tears not taken seriously.

The Cherry Orchard is the pinnacle of Russian drama at the beginning of the 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning of a new era in the development of the Russian theater.

The main theme of the play is autobiographical - a bankrupt family of noblemen is selling their family estate at auction. The author, as a person who has gone through a similar life situation, describes with subtle psychologism the state of mind of people who are forced to leave their homes soon. The novelty of the play is the lack of division of heroes into positive and negative, into main and secondary. All of them fall into three categories:

• people of the past - aristocratic nobles (Ranevskaya, Gaev and their footman Firs);
• people of the present - their bright representative merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin;
• the people of the future are the progressive youth of that time (Pyotr Trofimov and Anya).

History of creation

Chekhov began work on the play in 1901. Due to serious health problems, the writing process was rather difficult, but nevertheless, in 1903 the work was completed. The first theatrical production of the play took place a year later on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, becoming the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright and a textbook classic of the theatrical repertoire.

Analysis of the play

Description of the artwork

The action takes place in the family estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who returned from France with her young daughter Anya. They are met at the railway station by Gaev (Ranevskaya's brother) and Varya (her adopted daughter).

The financial situation of the Ranevsky family is nearing complete collapse. Entrepreneur Lopakhin offers his own version of the solution to the problem - to divide the land into shares and give them for use to summer residents for a certain fee. The lady is weighed down by this proposal, because for this she will have to say goodbye to her beloved cherry orchard, with which many warm memories of her youth are associated. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that her beloved son Grisha died in this garden. Gaev, imbued with the experiences of his sister, reassures her with a promise that their family estate will not be put up for sale.

The action of the second part takes place on the street, in the courtyard of the estate. Lopakhin, with his characteristic pragmatism, continues to insist on his plan to save the estate, but no one pays attention to him. Everyone switches to the appeared teacher Peter Trofimov. He gives an excited speech dedicated to the fate of Russia, its future and touches on the topic of happiness in a philosophical context. The materialist Lopakhin is skeptical about the young teacher, and it turns out that only Anya is able to imbue his lofty ideas.

The third act begins with the fact that Ranevskaya invites an orchestra with the last money and arranges a dance evening. Gaev and Lopakhin are absent at the same time - they left for the city for auction, where the Ranevsky estate should go under the hammer. After a long wait, Lyubov Andreevna finds out that her estate was bought at the auction by Lopakhin, who does not hide his joy from his acquisition. The Ranevsky family is in despair.

The finale is entirely devoted to the departure of the Ranevsky family from their home. The parting scene is shown with all the deep psychologism inherent in Chekhov. The play ends with a remarkably profound monologue by Firs, which the hosts hastily forgot on the estate. The final chord is the sound of an axe. They cut down the cherry orchard.

main characters

Sentimental person, owner of the estate. Having lived abroad for several years, she has become accustomed to a luxurious life and, by inertia, continues to allow herself a lot that, in the deplorable state of her finances, according to the logic of common sense, should be inaccessible to her. Being a frivolous person, very helpless in everyday matters, Ranevskaya does not want to change anything in herself, while she is fully aware of her weaknesses and shortcomings.

A successful merchant, he owes a lot to the Ranevsky family. His image is ambiguous - it combines industriousness, prudence, enterprise and rudeness, a "muzhik" beginning. In the finale of the play, Lopakhin does not share the feelings of Ranevskaya, he is happy that, despite his peasant origin, he was able to afford to buy the estate of the owners of his late father.

Like his sister, he is very sensitive and sentimental. Being an idealist and a romantic, to console Ranevskaya, he comes up with fantastic plans to save the family estate. He is emotional, verbose, but completely inactive.

Petya Trofimov

Eternal student, nihilist, eloquent representative of the Russian intelligentsia, advocating for the development of Russia only in words. In pursuit of the "higher truth", he denies love, considering it a petty and illusory feeling, which greatly upsets his daughter Ranevskaya Anya, who is in love with him.

A romantic 17-year-old young lady who fell under the influence of the populist Peter Trofimov. Recklessly believing in a better life after the sale of her parental estate, Anya is ready for any difficulties for the sake of joint happiness next to her lover.

An 87-year-old man, a footman in the Ranevskys' house. Type of servant of the old time, surrounds with paternal care of his masters. He remained to serve his masters even after the abolition of serfdom.

A young footman, with contempt for Russia, dreaming of going abroad. A cynical and cruel person, rude to old Firs, disrespectful even to his own mother.

The structure of the work

The structure of the play is quite simple - 4 acts without division into separate scenes. The duration of action is several months, from late spring to mid-autumn. In the first act there is an exposition and a plot, in the second - an increase in tension, in the third - a climax (sale of the estate), in the fourth - a denouement. A characteristic feature of the play is the absence of genuine external conflict, dynamism, and unpredictable twists in the storyline. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. The artistic realism of the play is achieved through the alternation of dramatic and comic scenes.

(Scene from a contemporary production)

The play is dominated by the development of the emotional and psychological plan, the main engine of action is the inner experiences of the characters. The author expands the artistic space of the work by introducing a large number of characters who never appear on stage. Also, the effect of expanding the spatial boundaries is given by the symmetrically emerging theme of France, which gives arched form to the play.

Final conclusion

Chekhov's last play can be said to be his "swan song". The novelty of her dramatic language is a direct expression of a special Chekhovian life concept, which is characterized by extraordinary attention to small, at first glance, insignificant details, focusing on the inner experiences of the characters.

In the play The Cherry Orchard, the author captured the state of critical disunity of the Russian society of his time, this sad factor is often present in scenes where the characters hear only themselves, creating only the appearance of interaction.