Cherry orchard symbolism. The symbol of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard"

In Chekhov's work "The Cherry Orchard" I would like to note one feature of his heroes: they are all ordinary people, and not one of them can be called a hero of his time, although almost every one of them is a symbol of the time. The landowner Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik and Firs can be called a symbol of the past. They are weighed down by the legacy of serfdom, in which they grew up and were brought up, these are the types of the outgoing Russia. They cannot imagine any other life, just like Firs, who cannot imagine life without masters. Firs considers the liberation of the peasants a misfortune - "the peasants are with the masters, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is scattered, you will not understand anything." The symbol of the present is associated with the image of Lopakhin, in which two principles are fighting. On the one hand, he is a man of action, his ideal is to make the earth rich and happy. On the other hand, there is no spirituality in it, and in the end the thirst for profit takes over. The symbols of the future are Anya, the daughter of Ranevskaya, and the eternal student Trofimov. They are young and the future belongs to them. They are obsessed with the idea of ​​creative work and liberation from slavery. Petya calls to quit everything and be free as the wind.

The main symbol in the play is the cherry orchard. Trofimov's monologue reveals the symbolism of the garden: “All of Russia is our garden. The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it. Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were feudal lords who owned living souls, and do not human beings look at you from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, do you really not hear voices? .. Own living souls, because it has reborn all of you who lived before and are living now, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you live on credit at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let further than the front ... » All the action takes place around the garden, the characters of the heroes and their fates are highlighted on its problems. It is also symbolic that the ax brought over the garden caused a conflict between the heroes and in the souls of most heroes the conflict is not resolved, just as the problem is not solved after cutting down the garden.

The Cherry Orchard is on stage for about three hours. The characters live for five months during this time. And the action of the play covers a more significant period of time, which includes the past, present and future of Russia.

The action in the play "The Cherry Orchard" takes place in Ukraine, not far from Kharkov. Cherry orchards are quite common here, they give rise to the image of something bright, poetic, homely in the soul (“Kolo hati cherry garden”).

The cherry orchard is also a symbol of home. Respect for the shrines of the past, for one's home, for one's own memory is the most important indicator of the level of culture. Everyone should know their roots, without this there is no man and there is no humanity. How bitter are the words of Charlotte in the play: “Where am I from and who I am, I don’t know…”

The image of the cherry orchard in Chekhov is more important than the symbol of his native home. It is a symbol of all Russia. This is not just about protecting nature, although this is very important. We are talking about moral and aesthetic values. It is inhumane, unnatural to destroy the memory of the past, beauty, ideals and traditions. No amount of money can compensate moral losses, moral losses. Sold not just a cherry orchard. All the best in the life of Ranevskaya and Gaev has been destroyed. That's why they cry, that's where the feeling of life's impasse and catastrophe comes from.

In a letter to his wife, Chekhov wrote: “There is not a single shot in the whole play ...” There is no shot, but there is a murder. Killed cherry orchard.

Yermolai Lopakhin, the only one in the play busy with business, leaves for his merchant needs. In one of the conversations about this, you can hear: “I have to go to Kharkov now, at five o’clock in the morning.” He differs from others in his vitality, diligence, optimism, assertiveness, practicality. Alone, he proposes a real plan to save the estate.

Lopakhin may seem like a clear contrast to the old masters of the cherry orchard. After all, he is a direct descendant of those whose faces "look from every cherry tree in the garden." Yes, and how can he triumph after buying a cherry orchard: “If my father and grandfather got up from their graves and looked at the whole incident, like their Yermolai, beaten, illiterate Yermolai, who ran barefoot in winter, how this same Yermolai bought the estate where grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. I'm sleeping, it only seems to me, it only seems... Hey, musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Everyone come and watch how Yermolai Lopakhin will hit the cherry orchard with an ax, how the trees will fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here... Music, play!” But this is not so, because in the place of something ruined it is impossible to build something beautiful, joyful and happy. And here Chekhov also discovers the negative qualities of the bourgeois Lopakhin: his desire to get rich, not to miss his profit. He still buys Ranevskaya's estate himself and puts into practice his idea of ​​organizing dachas. Anton Pavlovich showed how acquisitiveness gradually cripples a person, becoming his second nature. “Just as in the sense of metabolism, a predatory beast is needed, which eats everything that comes in its way, so you are needed,” - this is how Petya Trofimov explains to the merchant about his role in society. And yet Ermolai Alekseevich is simple and kind, sincerely offering help to the “eternal student”. It is not for nothing that Petya likes Lopakhin - for his thin, gentle, like an artist's fingers, for his "thin, tender soul." But it is he who advises him “not to wave his arms”, not to be carried away, imagining that everything can be bought and sold. And Ermolai Lopakhin further, the more he learns the habit of “waving his arms”. At the beginning of the play, this is not yet so pronounced, but at the end it becomes quite noticeable. His confidence that everything can be considered in terms of money increases and becomes more and more his feature.

The story of Lopakhin's relationship with Varya does not evoke sympathy. Varya loves him. And he seems to like her, Lopakhin understands that his proposal will be her salvation, otherwise she will go to the housekeeper. Ermolai Alekseevich is going to take a decisive step and does not take it. It is not entirely clear what prevents him from proposing to Varya. Either this is the lack of true love, or it is his excessive practicality, or maybe something else, but in this situation he does not cause sympathy for himself.

Another feature of him does not make a good impression. First of all, this is his indelicateness, the desire for the fastest profit. He starts cutting trees even before the former owners have left. No wonder Petya Trofimov says to him: “Really, is there really not enough tact ...” The felling of the cherry orchard is stopped. But as soon as the former owners left the estate, the axes clattered again. The new owner is in a hurry to turn his idea into action.

Representatives of the future of Russia are Trofimov and Anya. Pyotr Trofimov correctly looks at many life phenomena, is able to captivate with figurative, deep thought, and under his influence Anya quickly grows spiritually. But Petya's words about the future, his calls to work, to be free as the wind, to go forward are vague, they are too general, dreamy. Petya believes in “higher happiness”, but he does not know how to achieve it.

At the end of the play, the sound of an ax sounds. It seems to be a death bell.

And under this sound appears Firs. He touches the handle of the locked door and says, “Locked. Have left. They forgot about me." It's a cruel scene, but it's written with good intentions. With this scene, Chekhov wanted to remind us of the enormous responsibility of people for everything that happens on earth: for the fate of a beautiful garden, and for the fate of every person.

The final chord of the outgoing era

The symbol of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" occupies one of the central places. This work drew a line under all the work of A.P. Chekhov. It is with the garden that the author compares Russia, putting this comparison into the mouth of Petya Trofimov: “All of Russia is our garden.” But why is the orchard cherry, and not apple, for example? It is noteworthy that Chekhov made a special emphasis on the pronunciation of the name of the garden precisely through the letter “Yo”, and for Stanislavsky, with whom this play was discussed, the difference between the “cherry” and “cherry” garden did not immediately become clear. And the difference, according to him, was that cherry is a garden that can make a profit, and it is always needed, and cherry is the guardian of the outgoing aristocratic life, blooming and growing to delight the aesthetic tastes of its owners.

Chekhov's dramaturgy tends to involve not only the characters, but also the environment around them: he believed that only through the description of daily life and routine affairs it is possible to fully reveal the characters' characters. It was in Chekhov's plays that "undercurrents" appeared, giving movement to everything that happens. Another feature of Chekhov's plays was the use of symbols. Moreover, these symbols had two directions - one side was real, and had a very substantive outline, and the second side was elusive, it can only be felt at the subconscious level. This is what happened in The Cherry Orchard.

The symbolism of the play lies in the garden, and in the sounds heard behind the stage, and even in Epikhodov's broken billiard cue, and in the fall of Petya Trofimov from the stairs. But of particular importance in Chekhov's dramaturgy are the symbols of nature, which include manifestations of the surrounding world.

The semantics of the play and the attitude of the characters to the garden

The meaning of the cherry orchard symbol in the play is by no means accidental. In many nations, flowering cherry trees symbolize purity and youth. For example, in China, spring flowering, in addition to the above meanings, correlates with courage and female beauty, and the tree itself is a symbol of good luck and spring. In Japan, the cherry blossom is the emblem of the country and the samurai, and signifies prosperity and wealth. And for Ukraine, cherry is the second symbol after viburnum, denoting the feminine. Cherry is associated with a beautiful young girl, and the cherry garden in songwriting is a favorite place for walking. The symbolism of the cherry orchard near the house in Ukraine is huge, it is he who drives away the evil force from the house, playing the role of a talisman. There was even a belief: if there is no garden near the hut, then devils gather around it. When moving, the garden remained untouched, as a reminder of the origins of its kind. For Ukraine, cherry is a divine tree. But at the end of the play, a beautiful cherry orchard goes under the axe. Isn't this a warning that great trials lie ahead not only for the heroes, but for the entire Russian Empire?

Not without reason, after all, Russia is compared with this garden.

For each character, the symbol of the garden in the comedy The Cherry Orchard has its own meaning. The action of the play begins in May, when the cherry orchard, whose fate is to be decided by the owners, blooms, and ends in late autumn, when all nature freezes. Flowering reminds Ranevskaya and Gaev of their childhood and youth, this garden has been with them all their lives, and they simply cannot imagine how it can not be. They love it, they admire and are proud of it, saying that their garden is listed in the book of sights of the area. They understand that they are capable of losing their estate, but in their heads they cannot figure out how it is possible to cut down a beautiful garden and set up some summer cottages in its place. And Lopakhin sees the profit that he can bring, but this is only a superficial attitude towards the garden. After all, having bought it for a lot of money, leaving no chance for competitors at the auction to take possession of it, it is recognized that this cherry orchard is the best that he has ever seen. The triumph of the purchase is connected, first of all, with his pride, because the illiterate man, as Lopakhin considered himself, became the master where his grandfather and father "were slaves."

Petya Trofimov is most indifferent to the garden. He admits that the garden is beautiful, it delights the eye, attaches some importance to the life of its owners, but every twig and leaf tells him about hundreds of serfs who worked to make the garden flourish and that this garden is a relic of serfdom that needs to be done away with. . He is trying to convey the same to Anya, who loves the garden, but not as much as her parent, ready to hold on to him to the last. And Anya understands that it is impossible to start a new life by preserving this garden. It is she who calls on the mother to leave in order to lay a new garden, implying that it is necessary to start another life that will fit into the realities of the time.

Firs is also closely connected with the fate of the estate and the garden, having served in it all his life. He is too old to start something anew, and he had such an opportunity when serfdom was abolished and they wanted to marry him, but getting freedom for him would be a misfortune, and he speaks directly about it. He is deeply attached to the garden, to the house, to the owners. He is not even offended when he finds that he was forgotten in an empty house, either because he no longer has the strength and is indifferent to him, or because he understands that the old existence has ended, and in the future there is nothing for him. And how symbolic the death of Firs looks to the sounds of a garden being cut down, this is due to the fact that in the final scene the role of symbols is intertwined - the sound of a broken string drowns in the sounds of ax blows, showing that the past has irretrievably gone.

The future of Russia: a contemporary view

Throughout the play, it is clear that the characters are connected with the cherry orchard, some more, some less, but it is through their attitude to him that the author tried to reveal their meaning in the temporary space of the past, present and future. The symbol of the cherry orchard in Chekhov's play is a symbol of Russia, which is at the crossroads of its development, when ideologies and social strata are mixed up and many people simply have no idea what will happen next. But this is so unobtrusively shown in the play that even M. Gorky, in whom the production did not arouse high appreciation, admitted that it awakened in him a deep and inexplicable longing.

An analysis of the symbolism, a description of the role and meaning of the main symbol of the play, which were performed in this article, will help 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic "The symbol of the garden in the comedy" The Cherry Orchard "".

Artwork test

State budgetary professional educational institution

Kizelovsky Polytechnic College

METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

open lesson on academic discipline

Russian language and literature

Symbols in comedy

A.P. Chekhov. "The Cherry Orchard"

Developer:

Zueva N.A.

teacher

Russian language and literature

2016

Content:

Explanatory note.

This lesson is a study on the topic “Symbols in A.P. Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard should be carried out at the final stage of studying A.P. Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard.

Classical literature is, at first glance, the most studied branch of literary criticism. However, a number of works, including "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov, remain unsolved and relevant to this day. Despite the many literary works that reveal different points of view on this play, unresolved issues remain, in particular, there is no clear classification of the symbols of The Cherry Orchard. Therefore, the advantage of the presented lesson is the meticulous selection by students of the dominant groups of symbols, their classification and the table compiled at the end of the lesson, which gives a clear interpretation of each symbol found in the work.

In this lesson, students are actively involved in research activities, which allows them to most effectively and consistently make a turn from the traditional approach to teaching to a new one, aimed at developing such universal learning activities as:

Ability for self-development;

Development of orientation skills in information flows;

Developing problem solving and problem solving skills.

This allows you to develop the intellectual potential of the individual: from the accumulation of knowledge and skills to self-expression in creativity and science.

Technological map of the lesson

Topic. Symbols in comedy by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"

Chapter.Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century

Discipline. Russian language and literature.

Group.CCI-16

Well. The first

Educational: get acquainted with the concept of a symbol, comedy; make a table of symbols based on the play "The Cherry Orchard"

Developing: improving the skills of analysis and interpretation of a literary work;

Educational: create conditions for research activities of students.

Predicted result.

Formed universal learning activities:

Personal: readiness and ability for education, including self-education, throughout life; conscious attitude to continuous education as a condition for successful professional and social activities;

Meta-subject: possession of the skills of cognitive, educational and research activities, the ability and willingness to independently search for methods for solving practical problems, the use of various methods of cognition.

Subject:

the formation of skills of various types of analysis of literary works;

possession of the ability to analyze the text in terms of the presence in it of explicit and hidden, main and secondary information;

the ability to identify images, themes and problems in literary texts and express one's attitude towards them in detailed, reasoned oral and written statements;

possession of the skills of analyzing works of art, taking into account their genre and generic specificity.

Lesson type: combined.

Methods of organizing educational activities: information, research.

Forms of organization of educational activities: frontal, steam room, individual.

Teaching aids:text of the play, video lecture by Dmitry Bykov, excerpt from the television play "The Cherry Orchard" 1976, presentation, dictionaries, student's worksheet.

Interdisciplinary connections:history, social science.

Internet resources:

TV show "The Cherry Orchard". ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsigUjw68CA)

One hundred lectures with Dmitry Bykov. The Cherry Orchard ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ4YQg71txk)

During the classes

Attachment 1.

Text cards:

Appendix 2

Student Worksheet

The symbol is ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Comedy is ___________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table

Appendix 3

Symbol in a work of art.

A symbol is a multi-valued allegorical image based on the similarity, similarity or commonality of objects and phenomena of life. A symbol can express a system of correspondences between different aspects of reality (the world of nature and human life, society and the individual, real and unreal, earthly and heavenly, external and internal). In a symbol, identity or similarity with another object or phenomenon is not obvious, not fixed verbally or syntactically.

The image-symbol is multi-valued. He admits that the reader may have a variety of associations. In addition, the meaning of the symbol most often does not coincide with the meaning of the word - metaphor. The understanding and interpretation of a symbol is always wider than the similitudes or metaphorical allegories from which it is composed.

The correct interpretation of symbols contributes to a deep and correct reading of literary texts. Symbols always expand the semantic perspective of the work, allow the reader, based on the author's hints, to build a chain of associations that connects various phenomena of life. Writers use symbolization in order to destroy the illusion of lifelikeness that often arises among readers, to emphasize the ambiguity, the great semantic depth of the images they create.

In addition, the symbols in the work create more accurate, capacious characteristics and descriptions; make the text deeper and more multifaceted; allow you to touch on important issues without advertising it; evoke individual associations in each reader.

The role of a symbol in a literary text cannot be overestimated.

MEEE

1 group. Real symbols .

Real symbols include everyday details, which, repeated many times, acquire the character of symbols.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" it is a symbol of the keys. So, in the first act, the author points to a seemingly insignificant detail in the image of Varya: “Varya enters, she has a bunch of keys on her belt.” In the above remark, Chekhov emphasizes the role of the housekeeper, housekeeper, mistress of the house, chosen by Varya. She feels accountable for everything that happens on the estate.

It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov, calling Anya to action, tells her to throw away the keys: “If you have the keys to the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind” (second act).

Chekhov skillfully uses the symbolism of the keys in the third act, when Varya, having heard about the sale of the estate, throws the keys on the floor. Lopakhin explains this gesture of hers: “She threw the keys, she wants to show that she is no longer the mistress here ...” According to T. G. Ivleva, Lopakhin, who bought the estate, took it from the housekeeper.

There is another real symbol of the owner in the Cherry Orchard. Throughout the play, the author mentions Ranevskaya's purse, for example, "Looks in the purse" (second act). Seeing that there is little money left, she accidentally drops it and scatters the gold. In the last act, Ranevskaya gives her wallet to the peasants: “Gaev. You gave them your wallet, Lyuba! You can not do it this way! Lyubov Andreevna. I could not! I could not!" In the same act, the wallet appears in Lopakhin's hands, although the reader knows from the very beginning of the play that he does not need money.

In the artistic world of Chekhov's dramaturgy, a number of images-symbols can be distinguished that are inextricably linked with the idea of ​​home, these symbols begin to perform not the function of unification, but separation, disintegration, break with the family, with the house.

Real symbols.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" to increase the ideological and semantic significance, artistic persuasiveness and emotional and psychological tension, real symbolism is also widely used. It lurks both in the title and in the setting. The blooming garden of the first act is not only the poetry of noble nests, but also the beauty of all life. In the second act, a chapel surrounded by large stones, which were apparently once gravestones, and the distant outlines of a large city, which "visible only in very good, clear weather"symbolize the past and the future, respectively. The ball on the day of the auction (third act) indicates the frivolity and impracticality of the owners of the garden. The circumstances of the departure, the emptiness of the house, the remnants of the furniture, which “is stacked in one corner, as if for sale”, the suitcases and bundles of the former owners characterize the liquidation of the noble nest, the final death of the obsolete nobility-serf system.

2 group. Word symbols.

Revealing the socio-psychological essence of the characters, showing their internal relations, Chekhov often turns to the means of the indirect meaning of the word, to its ambiguity, ambiguity. While honing his deeply realistic images into symbols, the writer often uses the methods of verbal symbolism.

For example, in the first act, Anya and Varya are talking about selling the estate, and at this time Lopakhin looks in the door, mumbles("me-e-e")and right thereleaves. This appearance of Lopakhin and his playful mockingly mocking lowing is clearly significant. It, in fact, anticipates all the future behavior of Lopakhin: after all, it was he who bought the cherry orchard, became its sovereign owner and rudely refused Varya, who was patiently waiting for his offer. Somewhat later, Ranevskaya, having taken telegrams from Paris from Varya, tears them up without reading them, and says: “It’s over with Paris ...” With these words, Lyubov Andreevna says that she decided to end her nomadic life outside her native land, and that she irrevocably broke with his "keeper". These words are a kind of result of Anya's story about the bohemian lifestyle of her mother in Paris. They demonstrate the joy with which Ranevskaya returns home. The same Lopakhin, after Gaev’s speech addressed to the closet, says only “Yes ...” But in this word there is both surprise at Gaev’s naive childishness, and contemptuous condemnation of his frivolity, stupidity.

In the second act, Anya and her mother thoughtfully repeat one phrase: "Epikhodov is coming," but each puts into it a completely different, meaningful meaning associated with their understanding of life and thoughts about it. Trofimov's words are clearly significant, really symbolic: “Yes, the moon is rising.(Pausea.) Here it is, happiness, here it comes, coming closer and closer, I can already hear its steps. Trofimov does not mean here his personal happiness, but the approaching happiness of the whole people, he expresses faith in the imminent triumph of truth. But the appearance of the changeable moon, which has always been a symbol of deception, leads him to think about the well-being of the people. This shows the unfulfillment of the student's hopes. Such words as "bright star", "duty" also have a real-symbolic meaning in his mouth. Trofimov puts a particularly deep meaning into his statement: “All Russia is our garden” (second act). These words revealed his fiery love for the Motherland, his admiration for everything that is great and beautiful in it, the desire to change it for the better and devotion to it.

Trofimov’s statement is clearly echoed by Anya’s words in the third act: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.” With these words, the heroine speaks of creating life on a completely new basis, where there will be no selfish struggle for one's personal, where all people will be equal and happy, enjoying a common garden that will bloom and bear fruit for the joy of every person.

Sound symbols.

In the works of A.P. Chekhov, not only things, objects and phenomena of the surrounding world acquire symbolic overtones, but also audio and visual range. Due to sound and color symbols, the writer achieves the most complete understanding of his works by the reader.

So, the cry of an owl in the second act carries a real threat. An illustration of this can be the words of the old footman Firs: “Before the misfortune, it was also: the owl screamed, and the samovar buzzed endlessly.”

A large place in Chekhov's dramaturgy is occupied by the sounds of music. Such, for example, is the sound that completes the first act: “Far beyond the garden, a shepherd is playing the flute. Trofimov walks across the stage and, seeing Varya and Anya, stops.<…>Trofimov (in emotion). Sweetheart! Spring is mine! The high, clear and gentle sound of the flute is here, first of all, the background design of the tender feelings experienced by the character.

T. G. Ivleva notes that "the semantic significance of the sound remark in Chekhov's last comedy becomes, perhaps, the highest." The drama is filled with sounds. A flute, a guitar, a Jewish orchestra, the sound of an ax, the sound of a broken string accompany almost every significant event or image of a character.

In the second act, the heroes are alarmed by an unexpected sound - "as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string." Each of the characters in their own way tries to determine its source. Lopakhin believes that it was far away in the mines that the tub broke off. Gaev thinks it's

cry of a heron, Trofimov - an owl. Ranevskaya felt uncomfortable, and this sound reminded Firs of the times “before misfortune”.

But the strange sound is mentioned a second time in the final note to the play. It obscures the sound of an ax, symbolizing the death of old Russia.

Thus, the sound of a broken string and the sound of an ax serve as the embodiment of impending disaster and the inevitability of death and play an important role in Chekhov's play. With the help of sounds, those facets of stage action that cannot be conveyed verbally are revealed.

3rd group. Color symbols.

Of all the variety of colors in the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov uses only one - white, applying it in different ways throughout the first act.

“Gaev (opens another window). The garden is all white.

At the same time, the garden in the play has only just been named, it is shown only outside the windows, as the potential possibility of its death is outlined, but not specified. White color is a premonition of a visual image. The heroes of the work repeatedly talk about him: “Lyubov Andreevna. All, all white! O my garden! To the right, at the turn to the gazebo, a white tree leaned over, like a woman... What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers.

Despite the fact that the garden itself is practically hidden from us, its white color appears throughout the first act in the form of color spots - details of the characters' costumes that are directly connected with it and whose fate completely depends on the fate of the garden: “Lopakhin. True, my father was a peasant, but here I am in a white vest”; Firs enters; he is in a jacket and a white waistcoat”; "Firs puts on white gloves"; “Charlotte Ivanovna, in a white dress, very thin, pulled together, with a lorgnette on her belt, passes through the stage.”

T.G. Ivlev, referring to the letters of the writer K.S. Stanislavsky, comes to the conclusion that "This feature of the stage realization of the image of the garden - the play of colors - was probably assumed by Chekhov himself." Through color spots, the unity of the characters with the garden and dependence on it is shown.

Title symbolism.

The very title of the work is symbolic. Initially, Chekhov wanted to name the play "Inand shnevy garden", but then rearranged the accent. K. S. Stanislavsky, recalling this episode, told how Chekhov, having announced to him about the change of the title, savored it, “pressing on the gentle sound ё in the word“ cherry ”, as if trying with its help to caress the former beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he tearfully destroyed in his play. This time I understood the subtlety: "Inand shnevy garden" is a business, commercial garden that generates income. Such a garden is needed now. But the "Cherry Orchard" does not bring income, it keeps in itself and in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former aristocratic life. Such a garden grows and blooms for a whim, for the eyes of spoiled aesthetes.

But why is the symbol of the outgoing, obsolete - the cherry orchard - the personification of poetry and beauty? Why is the new generation called upon to destroy rather than use the beauty of the past? Why is this beauty associated with "klutzes" - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik? The title "The Cherry Orchard" refers to the useless beauty of the obsolete, as well as the narrowly possessive, selfish aspirations of its owners. The garden, which previously brought a huge income, has degenerated. Anya overcomes this selfishness in herself: "I no longer love the cherry orchard, as before." But the future also takes on the image of a garden, only more luxurious, capable of bringing joy to all people, and not just the chosen ones. The title contains both concrete and generalized poetic content. The Cherry Orchard is not only a characteristic affiliation of a noble estate, but also the personification of the Motherland, Russia, its wealth, beauty, and poetry. The motive for the death of the garden is the leitmotif of the play: “Your cherry orchard is being sold for debts” (first act), “August 22, the cherry orchard will be sold” (second act), “The cherry orchard is sold”, “Come, everyone, watch how Yermolai Lopakhin will grab an ax at cherry orchard" (third act). The garden is always in the center of attention, most of the images in the play are revealed through the attitude towards it. For the old Firs, he symbolizes the lordly expanse, wealth. In his fragmentary reminiscences of the time when the cherry orchard gave income (“There was money”) (first act), when they knew how to pickle, dry, boil cherries, there is a slavish regret about the loss of the master's well-being. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden is also the personification of the past, as well as the subject of noble pride (and this garden is mentioned in the “encyclopedic dictionary”) (first act), contemplative admiration, a reminder of bygone youth, lost carefree happiness. For Lopakhin, in the garden “it is wonderful ... only that it is very large”, “in capable hands” will be able to generate a huge income. The Cherry Orchard also evokes memories of the past in this hero: here his grandfather and father were slaves. But Lopakhin also has plans for the future connected with him: to break the garden into plots, to rent it out as summer cottages. The garden is now becoming for Lopakhin, as before for the nobles, a source of pride, the personification of his strength, his dominance. The nobility is being squeezed out by the bourgeoisie, it is being replaced by democrats (Anya and Trofimov), this is the movement of life. For a student, the cherry orchard is a symbol of the serf way of life. The hero does not allow himself to admire the beauty of the garden, parted with it without regret and inspires young Anya with the same feelings. His words “All Russia is our garden” (second act) speak of the hero’s concern for the fate of his country, Trofimov’s attitude to its history. The Cherry Orchard is to some extent symbolic for each of the characters, and this is an important characteristic point.

Content
Introduction ................................................ ................................................. ................3
1. Symbol as a literary phenomenon .............................................. .........................7
1.1 The concept of a symbol............................................... ...............................7
1.2 The formation of the concept of "symbol" .............................................. .................eight
1.3 Symbol concepts............................................................... ...............................ten
1.4 The study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov..............................14
2. Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" ..............................................16
2.1 Polysemy of the symbol of the garden in Chekhov's drama.................................................16
2.2 Symbolic details in Chekhov's drama……….................................................20
2.3 Sound Symbols in Drama............................................................... ......................22
Conclusion................................................. ................................................. ..........26
List of used literature .................................................................. ....................28

Introduction
Chekhov is one of the most amazing phenomena of our culture. The appearance of Chekhov the classic was unexpected and somehow, at first glance, at first glance, unusual: in any case, everything in him contradicted the entire experience of Russian classical literature.
The work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is devoted to many works of both domestic and Western dramaturgy. Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet Czech studies have accumulated extensive experience in research, textual and commentary work. Already in the pre-revolutionary years, articles appeared in which Chekhov's prose and dramaturgy received a deep interpretation (articles by M. Gorky, V.G. Korolenko, N.K. Mikhailovsky, F.D. Batyushkov).
In Soviet times, a huge work was launched to collect and publish the literary heritage of A.P. Chekhov, to study his life and work. Here we should mention the works of S.D. Balukhaty (Questions of Poetics. - L., 1990), which substantiates theoretical approaches to the analysis of a new psychological-realistic drama. Book G.P. Berdnikov “A.P. Chekhov: Ideological and Moral Quests" from the series "The Life of Remarkable People" is today considered one of the most authoritative biographies of Chekhov. In addition, here the works of Chekhov are revealed in the context of public life in 18980-1900. In his other book, Chekhov the Playwright: Traditions and Innovation in Chekhov's Drama, G.P. Berdnikov focuses his attention on the history of the formation of Chekhov's innovative dramaturgy, as well as on the most important features of Chekhov's innovative dramatic system as a whole. At the same time, the book makes an attempt to clarify the living connection between Chekhov's dramaturgy and the traditions of Russian realistic theater. Thus, the main issue in the work is the question of tradition and innovation in the Chekhov theater and its place in the history of Russian realistic drama, more broadly - in the history of Russian realistic theater. The study is carried out sequentially chronologically, and each play is considered as a new stage in the development of Chekhov's innovative dramatic system as a whole.
Articles by A.P. Skaftymov "On the unity of form and content in Chekhov's Cherry Orchard", "On the principles of the construction of Chekhov's plays" have already become classics. Here, as in his other works, the scientist recreates the personal creative truth and the spiritual, moral ideal of the artist through a holistic interpretation of the work of art. The above articles present a systematic analysis of the plot and compositional features of Chekhov's plays.
Z.S. Paperny, in his book “Against All Rules…”: Chekhov's Plays and Vaudevilles, speaks of the impossibility of saying everything about Chekhov's work. In the work of the Soviet literary critic, the artistic nature of Chekhov's plays and vaudevilles is studied in its connections with the contemporary reality of the writer.
Monographs A.P. Chudakov's "Chekhov's Poetics" and "Chekhov's World: Emergence and Approval" were a new word in Czech studies. And although the first work was published back in 1971, it already shows a break from the traditional formulations for Soviet literary criticism. The development of new approaches to the writer's work is developed in the next work of the researcher, in which the system-synchronous analysis of Chekhov's work was continued by the historical-genetic analysis.
In the book of V.I. Kamyanov "Time against timelessness: Chekhov and the present" contains a new approach to the analysis of the work of the Russian writer. The author proposes to consider Chekhov's works in an inseparable unity and, at the same time, from different points of view: the passage of time in stories, novels and plays, issues of religious faith in artistic coverage, the image of nature as the basis for the harmony of the world. At the same time, Kamyanov was one of the first to raise the question of the influence of Chekhov's work on Russian literature in the second half of the 20th century.
At present, the collections "Chekhov's Bulletin" and "Young Researchers of Chekhov" are regularly published, where articles by young Chekhov scholars are published. Mostly these studies of any individual aspects of the writer's work.
At the same time, there are no separate works devoted to the study of images-symbols in Chekhov's dramaturgy. At the same time, now in literary criticism much attention is paid to the study of unexplored levels of Chekhov's works. Therefore, we can talk about the relevance of this work.
The purpose of our study is to study the images-symbols in the dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov (on the example of the play "The Cherry Orchard"), their place and role in the artistic system of works.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
1. Define the concept of "symbol" and present its basic concepts;
2. Identify the symbols most characteristic of A.P. Chekhov;
3. Determine the place and role of symbols in the artistic system of Chekhov's dramaturgy.
The historical and cultural method is the most suitable for solving the set tasks.
This work consists of an Introduction, two chapters, a Conclusion and a List of References, consisting of 51 titles. The first chapter of the work "Symbol as a literary phenomenon" considers the formation of a symbol as a literary, art and philosophical term. The same chapter characterizes the main approaches to the study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov.
In the second chapter “Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"" shows the role and meaning of symbols in Chekhov's dramaturgy, using the play "The Cherry Orchard" as an example.
The source for this work was the Collected Works of A.P. Chekhov in 12 volumes:
Chekhov, A.P. Collected works in 12 volumes. Vol. 9: Plays 1880-1904 / A.P. Chekhov. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 712 p.

1. Symbol as a literary phenomenon
1.1 Symbol concept
The concept of a symbol is multifaceted. It is no coincidence that M.Yu. Lotman defined it as "one of the most ambiguous in the system of semiotic sciences", and A.F. Losev noted: "The concept of a symbol both in literature and in art is one of the most vague, confused and contradictory concepts." This is explained, first of all, by the fact that the symbol is one of the central categories of philosophy, aesthetics, cultural studies, and literary criticism.
A symbol (Greek symbolon - a sign, an identifying sign) is a universal aesthetic category, revealed through comparison, on the one hand, with related categories of an artistic image, on the other hand, a sign and an allegory. In a broad sense, we can say that a symbol is an image taken in the aspect of its symbolism, and that it is a sign endowed with all the organicity and inexhaustible ambiguity of the image. S.S. Averintsev writes: “The objective image and deep meaning also act as two poles in the structure of the symbol, unthinkable one without the other, but also divorced from each other and generating a symbol. Turning into a symbol, the image becomes “transparent”: the meaning “shines through” through it, being given precisely as a semantic depth, a semantic perspective.
The authors of the Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary see the fundamental difference between a symbol and an allegory in the fact that “the meaning of a symbol cannot be deciphered by a simple effort of reason, it is inseparable from the structure of the image, does not exist as some kind of rational formula that can be “inserted” into the image and then extracted from it” . Here one has to look for the specifics of the symbol in relation to the category of the sign. If for a purely utilitarian sign system polysemy is only a hindrance that harms the rational functioning of the sign, then the symbol is the more meaningful, the more it is polysemantic. The very structure of the symbol is aimed at giving a holistic image of the world through each particular phenomenon. Objects, animals, known phenomena, signs of objects, actions can serve as a symbol.
The semantic structure of the symbol is multi-layered and is designed for the active internal work of the perceiver. The meaning of a symbol objectively realizes itself not as a presence, but as a dynamic tendency; it is not given, but given. This meaning, strictly speaking, cannot be explained by reducing it to an unambiguous logical formula, but can only be explained by correlating it with further symbolic chains, which will lead to greater rational clarity, but will not reach pure concepts.
The interpretation of a symbol is dialogically a form of knowledge: the meaning of a symbol really exists only within human communication, outside of which only the empty form of the symbol can be observed. The "dialogue" in which the comprehension of the symbol is carried out can be broken as a result of the false position of the interpreter.
I. Mashbits-Verov notes that "the origin of the symbol is very ancient, although under specific historical conditions new symbols appear or the meaning of old ones changes (for example, the swastika is an ancient symbol of the tree of life, now it is a symbol of fascism)" .
1.2 The formation of the concept of "symbol"
Although the symbol is as ancient as human consciousness, philosophical and aesthetic understanding comes relatively late. The mythological worldview presupposes an undivided identity of the symbolic form and its meaning, excluding any reflection of the symbol, therefore, any view that comprehends the nature of the symbol is excluded.
A new situation arises in ancient culture after Plato's experiments in constructing a secondary, i.e. "symbolic" in the proper sense, philosophical mythology. It was important for Plato to limit, first of all, the symbol from the pre-philosophical myth. Despite the fact that Hellenistic thinking constantly mixes symbol with allegory, Aristotle created a classification of symbols: he divides them into conditional (“names”) and natural (“signs”).
In the Middle Ages, this symbolism coexisted with didactic allegorism. The Renaissance sharpened intuitive perception in its open polysemy, but did not create a new theory of the symbol, and the revival of the taste for learned book allegory was picked up by the Baroque and Classicism.
The separation of allegory and symbol finally took shape only in the era of romanticism. During periods of actualization of the opposition of allegory and symbol, and this is mainly romanticism and symbolism, the symbol is given the place of an artistic ideal. Significant observations on the nature of the symbol are found in the writings of Carl Philipp Moritz. He owns the idea that beauty cannot be translated into another form: “We ourselves exist - this is our most sublime and noblest thought.” All the characteristic features of the manifestation of art are concentrated in a single concept, which the romantics later designated by the word symbol.
In the multi-volume work of F. Kreutzer "Symbolism and mythology of ancient peoples ..." (1810-12), a classification of types of symbols was given ("a mystical symbol", which explodes the closedness of the form for the direct expression of infinity, and a "plastic symbol", striving to contain semantic infinity in closed form). For A.V. Schlegel’s poetic creativity is “eternal symbolization”, the German romantics relied on the mature I.W. Goethe in understanding the symbol, who understood all forms of natural human creativity as meaningful and speaking symbols of living eternal becoming. Unlike the romantics, Goethe connects the elusiveness and indivisibility of the symbol not with mystical otherworldliness, but with the vital organicity of the beginnings expressed through the symbol. G.W.F. Hegel, (opposing the romantics, emphasized in the structure of the symbol a more rationalistic, symbolic side (“a symbol is, first of all, a certain sign”), based on “conventionality”.
Understanding the symbol acquires a special role in symbolism. The Symbolists considered synthesis and suggestion to be one of the most important principles of symbolic poetry; a symbol should have these qualities. It seems paradoxical that, despite the absolutization of the concept of a symbol, symbolism did not give a clear idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe difference between a symbol and other categories. In the symbolist environment, the word "symbol" had many meanings. In particular, it has been confused many times with allegory and myth. The era of symbolism also gave impetus to the "academic", strictly scientific study of the symbol. To one degree or another, the scientific consciousness of the twentieth century develops the ideas of the symbol, reflected in the aesthetics of the symbolists.
1.3 Symbol concepts
The systematic study of symbolism, carried out by the direct successors of that era - the philologists of the next generation, can be considered the beginning of a proper scientific approach to the symbol. Here, first of all, we should mention the works of V.M. Zhirmunsky and other scientists of the St. Petersburg school.
V.M. Zhirmunsky defined a symbol in his work “Metaphor in the Poetics of Russian Symbolists” (June 1921) as follows: “A symbol is a special case of metaphor - an object or action (that is, usually a noun or verb) taken to denote emotional experience.” Later, he reproduced this formulation almost literally in the article “The Poetry of Alexander Blok”: “We call a symbol in poetry a special type of metaphor - an object or action of the external world, denoting the phenomenon of the spiritual or spiritual world according to the principle of similarity.” There is no doubt that V.M. Zhirmunsky was well aware that “a special kind of metaphor” is far from all that a symbol carries. The limitations of his formulation made themselves felt from the very beginning. And first of all stylistically. According to Zhirmunsky, the symbol is actually a pre-symbolist symbol that has existed for centuries both in folk song and in religious literature (liturgical poetry and even mystical lyrics).
One of the most detailed and generalizing concepts of the symbol in terms of its role and significance in human life, created largely under the influence of Russian symbolists, belongs to the German philosopher of the first half of the 20th century, E. Cassirer. In his work "Experience about man: An introduction to the philosophy of human culture. What is a man? (1945) he wrote: “In man, between the system of receptors and effectors that all animal species have, there is a third link, which can be called a symbolic system.” According to Cassirer, the symbolic space of human life unfolds and expands in connection with the progress of the race, with the development of civilization: “All human progress in thinking and experience refines and at the same time strengthens this network.”
As K.A. Svasyan, “the question of whether there is a reality apart from the symbol is characterized by Cassirer (as philosophically irrelevant and mystical.<...>Cassirer does not deny the intentional nature of the symbol as pointing to "something". However, by this “something” he means the unity of the function of the formation itself, that is, the rules of symbolic functioning. As if continuing the thoughts of Cassirer, a prominent linguist of the twentieth century, E. Sapir wrote in 1934: “... The individual and society, in an endless mutual exchange of symbolic gestures, build a pyramidal structure called civilization. There are very few “bricks” that underlie this structure.
A.F. Losev distinguishes between a symbol and other categories close to it. Let us dwell on the difference between a symbol and a sign and from an allegory. The symbol, according to Losev, is an infinite sign, i.e. a sign with an infinite number of meanings.
A.F. Losev believes that one of the main characteristics of a symbol is the identity of the signified and the signifier. The symbol is the arena of the meeting of the signifier and the signified, which have nothing in common with each other. The presence of the symbolized in the symbol at one time became one of the central ideas of P. Florensky's philosophy of the word. “The meaning transferred from one object to another merges so deeply and comprehensively with this object that it is no longer possible to distinguish them from one another. The symbol in this case is the complete interpenetration of the ideological imagery of the thing with the thing itself. In the symbol we necessarily find the identity, the mutual permeability of the signified thing and its signifying ideological imagery.
According to Losev, the symbol as an artistic image strives for realism. However, if we assume realism as the only criterion for a symbol, the line between the symbol and the artistic image will be erased. In fact, any image is symbolic.
Lotman's theory of the symbol organically complements Losev's theory. According to Lotman, "as an important mechanism of cultural memory, symbols transfer texts, plot schemes and other semiotic formations from one layer of culture to another" . A symbol can belong not only to individual creativity. This property of the symbol determines its proximity to the myth.
E.K. Sozina considers “the most perfect and at the same time generalizing that line of symbolology that, through Plato, stretches from ancient times to the present day”, the concept of M.K. Mamardashvili and A.M. Pyatigorsky, proposed by them in their 1982 work “Symbol and Consciousness. Metaphysical reflections on consciousness, symbolism and language". The authors seek to interpret the symbol "in the sense of consciousness." They understand a symbol as a thing, “which with one end “protrudes” in the world of things, and with the other end “is buried” in the reality of consciousness” . At the same time, the symbol in their understanding is practically pointless: “any meaningfulness of the symbol acts as a completely empty shell, within which only one content is constituted and structured, which we call “the content of consciousness” ”. Due to the content of consciousness that fills the symbol, it is a thing. In addition, Mamardashvili and Pyatigorsky distinguish 2 main types of symbols: primary and secondary. The primary symbols (and the primary myths correlated with them) “lie at the level of the spontaneous life of consciousness and the spontaneous relation of individual psychic mechanisms to the contents of consciousness”, i.e. they correspond with the cosmic consciousness and do not have an adequate human expression. Secondary symbols “figure at the level of the mythological system, which, as a system itself, is the result of ideological (scientific, cultural, etc.) study, interpretation”, they arise in language, culture, and society. Mamardashvili and Pyatigorsky paid great attention to the problem of multiple interpretation of a symbol, related to the problem of "understanding - knowledge": "multiplicity of interpretations is a way of being (and not expressing!) The content that is symbolized" .
1.4 The study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov
For the first time, the problem of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov was posed by A. Bely in the article "Chekhov" (1907). He notes that, despite the continuation of the traditions of Russian realists, in Chekhov's work "the dynamite of true symbolism is laid, which is capable of blowing up many intermediate currents of Russian literature" . Speaking about the pseudo-realistic and pseudo-symbolic tendencies of Russian literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Bely calls Chekhov's creative method "transparent" realism, involuntarily fused with symbolism.
Continues the assertion of Chekhov as a realist-symbolist A. Bely in the collection of essays "Green Meadow" (1910). Here, the main attention of the Russian symbolist is drawn to identifying common features in the work of Chekhov and Maurice Maeterlinck, but at the same time, Chekhov's symbols are “thinner, more transparent, less deliberate. They have grown into life, without a trace embodied in the real. In the same article, A. Bely proves that true symbolism coincides with true realism, because "a symbol is only an expression of experience, and experience (personal, collective) is the only reality."
D.P. also speaks about the closeness of Chekhov’s creative method to Maeterlinck. Mirsky. He also notes that all the works of the Russian writer "are symbolic, but in most of them the symbolism is expressed not so concretely, bewitchingly vague<…>But Chekhov's symbolism reached its greatest development in his plays, starting with The Seagull.
A.P. Chudakov is probably one of the few in Soviet literary criticism who directly declared the symbolism of Chekhov's details. He also gives a brief description of these details-symbols: “It is not some “special” objects that serve as symbols for him, which can be a sign of a hidden “second plan” already by their fixed or easily guessed meaning. In this capacity, ordinary objects of the everyday environment act. Chudakov also noted another important detail of the symbols: “Chekhov's symbolic object belongs to two spheres at once - the “real” and the symbolic - and neither of them is more than the other. It does not burn with one even light, but flickers - sometimes with a symbolic light, sometimes with a “real” one.
In modern literary criticism, the presence of symbols in the works of A.P. Chekhov is no longer disputed. At present, Chekhov scholars are interested in certain issues of symbolism in the writer's work.
Thus, the symbol is one of the oldest phenomena in culture and literature. Since ancient times, it has attracted the attention of both writers and researchers. The difficulty in studying the concept of "symbol" is caused by its ambiguity and multiple classifications. According to literary critics, in Russian realistic literature, with their emphasis on symbolic details, the works of A.P. Chekhov.

2. Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
2.1 Polysemy of the garden symbol in Chekhov's drama
The main character of the play A.P. Chekhov is not a person, but a garden, and not just any, but the most beautiful garden on Earth, which is even mentioned in the Encyclopedic Dictionary. The visual symbolism of the garden determines the structure of the play, its plot, but the symbol of the garden itself cannot be interpreted unambiguously. The central core of the work is a cherry orchard - from the time of flowering to being sold by auction: “the plot covers about half a year from a long biography of the garden, mentioned even in an encyclopedia, - the last six months expiring along the course of the plot,” writes V.I. Kamyanov. The image of the cherry orchard is comprehensive; the plot, characters, and relationships are focused on it. The image of the cherry orchard is comprehensive; the plot, characters, and relationships are focused on it.
In Chekhov's last play, all elements of the plot are concentrated on this symbol: the plot ("... your cherry orchard is being sold for debts, auctions are scheduled for August 22nd ..."), the culmination (Lopakhin's message about the sale of the cherry orchard) and, finally, denouement (“Oh, my dear, my gentle, beautiful garden! .. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! ..”).
In The Cherry Orchard, the symbol is constantly expanding its semantics. He appears already on the first pages of the play, and, according to V.A. Koshelev, “the symbolic features of this image are initially presented in a “worldly” guise” . For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden is their past:
“Lyubov Andreevna (looks out the window at the garden). Oh, my childhood, my purity! I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then it was exactly like that, nothing has changed. (Laughs with joy.) All, all white! Oh my garden! After a dark, rainy autumn and a cold winter, you are young again, full of happiness, the angels of heaven have not left you ... ".
The Cherry Orchard for Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev is a family nest, a symbol of youth, prosperity and former elegant life. The owners of the garden love it, although they do not know how to save or save it. For them, the cherry orchard is a symbol of the past.
In the first act, it is mentioned that Gaev is fifty-one years old. That is, during his youth, the garden had already lost its economic significance, and Gaev and Ranevskaya got used to appreciating it, first of all, for its unique beauty. The symbol of this generous natural beauty, which cannot be perceived in terms of profitability, is a bouquet of flowers, in the first act brought from the garden into the house in anticipation of the arrival of the owners. I.V. Gracheva recalls that Chekhov considered harmonious unity with nature "one of the necessary conditions for human happiness."
Ranevskaya, looking at the garden, comes into joyful admiration: “What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers, blue sky ... ". Anya, tired from a long journey, dreams before going to bed: “Tomorrow morning I will get up, run to the garden ...”. Even businesslike, always preoccupied with something, Varya for a moment succumbs to the charm of the spring renewal of nature: “... What wonderful trees! My God, air! The starlings sing!” . Nature appears in the play not only as a landscape, but as a socialized symbol of nature.
The cherry orchard is not only a symbol of perfect happiness, childhood and innocence, but also a symbol of fall, loss and death. A river flows through the cherry orchard, in which the seven-year-old son of Ranevskaya drowned:
Anna (thoughtfully). Six years ago my father died, and a month later my brother Grisha, a pretty seven-year-old boy, drowned in the river. Mom couldn’t bear it, she left, left without looking back ... ".
Lopakhin has a completely different attitude to the garden, whose father was a serf for his grandfather and father Gaev. The garden for him is a source of profit: “Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, there is a railway nearby, and if you break the cherry orchard and the land along the river into summer cottages and then rent it out for summer cottages, then you will have the least twenty thousand a year income. He evaluates this garden only from a practical point of view:
"Lopakhin. The only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large. Cherry is born every two years, and there is nowhere to put it, no one buys it.
The poetry of the cherry orchard is not interesting for Lopakhin. V.A. Koshelev believes that “he is attracted by something new and colossal, like “thousand acres” of the income-generating poppy.<…>The flowering of the traditional “garden” is not interesting for him precisely because it is “traditional”: the new owner of life is accustomed to looking for new twists and turns in everything - including aesthetic ones.
In the very construction of the play, the garden - the recognized sign of this "poetic" beginning of being - thus becomes an inevitable symbol associated with tradition. And as such, it appears throughout the rest of the play. Here Lopakhin once again recalls the sale of the estate: “I remind you, gentlemen: on August 22, the cherry orchard will be sold.”
He recently argued the unprofitability of this garden and the need to destroy it. The garden is doomed to destruction - and in this sense it also becomes a symbol, because the result of this destruction is nothing more than providing a better life for posterity: “We will set up summer cottages, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here ... ". At the same time, for Lopakhin, the purchase of the estate and the cherry orchard becomes a symbol of his success, a reward for many years of work: “The cherry orchard is mine now! My! (Laughs.) My God, Lord, my cherry orchard! Tell me that I'm drunk, out of my mind, that all this seems to me ... (Stomps his feet.)<…>I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. I sleep, it only seems to me, it only seems to me ... ".
Another meaning of the symbolic image of the garden is introduced in the play by student Petya Trofimov:
"Trofimov. All Russia is our garden. The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it. Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf-owners who owned living souls, and is it possible that from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, human beings do not look at you, do you really not hear voices ... Own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you who lived before and are living now, so that your mother, you, uncle, no longer notice that you live in debt, at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let further than the front. .." .
Z.S. Paperny notes that “where Ranevskaya sees her dead mother, Petya sees and hears tortured serf souls;<…>So why pity such a garden, this feudal vale, this realm of injustice, the lives of some at the expense of others, the destitute. From this point of view, the fate of the whole of Russia, its future, can be seen in the fate of Chekhov's cherry orchard. In a state where there is no serfdom, there are traditions and remnants of serfdom. Petya, as it were, is ashamed of the country's past, he calls "first to redeem our past, to end it, and it can only be redeemed by suffering" in order to go towards the future. In this context, the death of the cherry orchard can be perceived as the death of Russia's past and movement towards its future.
The garden is an ideal symbol of the characters' feelings; external reality corresponding to their internal essence. A blossoming cherry orchard is a symbol of a pure, immaculate life, and cutting down a garden means departure and the end of life. The garden stands at the center of the collision of various mental warehouses and public interests.
The symbolism of the garden is due to its tangible embodiment, and it disappears after the garden is cut down. People are deprived not only of the garden, but also through it - of the past. The cherry orchard is dying, and its symbolism is dying, linking reality with eternity. The last sound is the sound of a breaking string. The image of the garden and its death is symbolically ambiguous, not reducible to visible reality, but there is no mystical or unreal content here.
2.2 Symbolic details in Chekhov's drama
In Chekhov's last comedy, a detail clearly comes to the fore - the dominant of the character's external appearance. Particularly important is the detail that accompanies his first appearance, since it is precisely this detail that becomes an ideological sign, a kind of allegory of the character's attitude to the world. E.S. Dobin believes that "the detail becomes the core of the psychological characteristics and even the course of events." Being plot significant, everyday details become symbolic.
So, at the beginning of the play, Chekhov points to a seemingly insignificant detail in the image of Varya: “Varya enters, she has a bunch of keys on her belt.” In the above remark, Chekhov emphasizes the role of the housekeeper, housekeeper, mistress of the house, chosen by Varya. At the same time, it is through the symbol of the keys that the connection between Vari and the house is transmitted. She feels herself accountable for everything that happens on the estate, but her dreams are not connected with the cherry orchard: “I would go to the desert, then to Kyiv ... to Moscow, and so I would go to holy places ... I would go would have walked. Grace! .. ".
It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov, calling Anya to action, tells her to throw away the keys: “If you have from the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind."
Chekhov skillfully uses the symbolism of the keys in the third act, when Varya, having heard about the sale of the estate, throws the keys on the floor. Lopakhin explains this gesture of hers: “She threw the keys, she wants to show that she is no longer the mistress here ...”. According to T.G. Ivleva, Lopakhin, who bought the estate, took away her housekeepers.
There is another symbol of the owner in the drama. Throughout the play, the author mentions Ranevskaya's purse, for example, "looks in the purse." Seeing that there is little money left, she accidentally drops it and scatters the gold. In the last act, Ranevskaya gives her wallet to the peasants who came to say goodbye:
"Gaev. You gave them your wallet, Lyuba. You can not do it this way! You can not do it this way!
Lyubov Andreevna. I could not! I could not!" .
At the same time, only in the fourth act does the wallet appear in Lopakhin's hands, although the reader knows from the very beginning of the play that he does not need money.
Another important detail characterizes the image of Lopakhin - a watch. Lopakhin is the only character in the play whose time is scheduled by the minute; it is fundamentally specific, linear and, at the same time, continuous. His speech is constantly accompanied by the author's remarks: "looking at the clock". T.G. Ivleva believes that “The situational - psychological - meaning of the remark is due to the imminent departure of the character, his natural desire not to miss the train; this meaning is explicated in Lopakhin's remarks. The ideological semantics of the remark is largely predetermined by the specifics of the very image of the watch as an allegory established in the human mind. It is noteworthy that it is Lopakhin who tells Ranevskaya the date of the sale of the estate - the twenty-second of August. Thus, Lopakhin's watch becomes not just a detail of his costume, but a symbol of time.
In general, time is constantly present in Chekhov's drama. The perspective from the present to the past is opened by almost every actor, although to different depths. Firs has been muttering for three years now. Six years ago, her husband died and Lyubov Andreevna's son drowned. Forty or fifty years ago, they still remembered how to process cherries. The closet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And the stones, which were once gravestones, are quite reminiscent of the gray-haired antiquity. Petya Trofimov, on the contrary, constantly talks about the future, the past is of little interest to him.
Insignificant details in the artistic world of Chekhov, being repeatedly repeated, acquire the character of symbols. Combining with other images in the work, they go beyond the scope of a specific play and rise to the universal level.
2.3 Sound symbols in drama
A play by A.P. Chekhov is filled with sounds. A flute, a guitar, a Jewish orchestra, the sound of an axe, the sound of a broken string - sound effects accompany almost every significant event or image of a character, becoming a symbolic echo in the reader's memory.
According to E.A. Polotskaya, sound in Chekhov's drama is "a continuation of poetic images that have been realized more than once" . At the same time, T.G. Ivleva notes that "the semantic significance of the sound remark in Chekhov's last comedy becomes, perhaps, the highest" .
The sound creates the general mood, the atmosphere of any particular scene or action as a whole. Such, for example, is the sound that ends the first act of the piece:
“Far beyond the garden, a shepherd is playing his flute. Trofimov walks across the stage and, seeing Varya and Anya, stops.<…>
Trofimov (in emotion). Sweetheart! Spring is mine! .
The high, clear and gentle sound of the flute is here, first of all, the background design of the tender feelings experienced by the character.
In the second act, the sound of the guitar becomes the leitmotif, and the mood is created by the sad song played and sung by Epikhodov.
An unexpected sound also serves to build up the atmosphere - “as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string”. Each of the characters in their own way tries to determine its source. Lopakhin, whose mind is occupied with some things, believes that it was far away in the mines that a tub broke off. Gaev thinks that this is the cry of a heron, Trofimov - an owl. The author’s calculation is clear: it doesn’t matter what kind of sound it was, it is important that Ranevskaya became unpleasant, and he reminded Firs of the times before the “misfortune”, when the owl also screamed, and the samovar screamed endlessly. For the South Russian flavor of the area in which the action of The Cherry Orchard takes place, the episode with the torn off bucket is quite appropriate. And Chekhov introduced it, but deprived it of everyday certainty.
And the sad nature of the sound, and the uncertainty of its origin - all this creates some kind of mystery around it, which translates a specific phenomenon into the rank of symbolic images.
But the strange sound appears more than once in the play. The second time "the sound of a broken string" is mentioned in the final remark to the play. Two strong positions assigned to this image: the center and the final - speak of its special significance for understanding the work. In addition, the repetition of the image turns it into a leitmotif - according to the meaning of the term: a leitmotif (a repeated image that “serves as a key to revealing the writer’s intention”).
The repetition of the sound at the end of the piece in the same expressions frees it even from the supposed everyday interpretation. For the first time, the remark corrects the versions of the characters, but so far it itself appears only as a version. The second time, in the finale, in the remark about the “distant sound”, all earthly motivations are eliminated: there can be no even an assumption about any fallen “tub” or the cry of a bird. "The author's voice in this case does not specify, but cancels all other positions, except for its own, final one: the sound seems to come from unearthly spheres and goes there too" .
A broken string acquires an ambiguous meaning in the play, which cannot be reduced to the clarity of any abstract concept or fixed in one, precisely defined word. A bad omen heralds a sad end, which the actors - contrary to their intentions - cannot prevent. Chekhov shows how little opportunity for action remains for a person in a historical situation, when external determining forces are so crushing that internal urges can hardly be taken into account.
The changing meaning of the sound of a broken string in The Cherry Orchard, its ability to do without everyday motivation, separate it from the real sound that Chekhov could hear. The variety of meanings turns the sound in the play into a symbol.
At the very end of the play, the sound of a broken string obscures the sound of an ax, symbolizing the death of noble estates, the death of old Russia. The old Russia was replaced by an active, dynamic Russia.
Next to the real blows of an ax on cherry trees, the symbolic sound “as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, dying, sad” crowns the end of life on the estate and the end of a whole strip of Russian life. Both the harbinger of trouble and the assessment of the historical moment merged into one in The Cherry Orchard - in the distant sound of a broken string and the sound of an ax.

Conclusion
Chekhov is one of the most beloved and widely read classics of Russian literature. A writer who most closely matched the dynamism of his time. The appearance of Chekhov the classic was unexpected and somehow, at first glance, unusual; everything in him contradicted the entire experience of Russian literature.
Chekhov's dramaturgy was formed in an atmosphere of timelessness, when, together with the onset of reaction and the collapse of revolutionary populism, the intelligentsia found itself in a state of impassability. The public interests of this environment did not rise above the tasks of partial improvement of life and moral self-improvement. During this period of social stagnation, the worthlessness and hopelessness of existence was most clearly manifested.
Chekhov discovered this conflict in the lives of people in the environment known to him. Striving for the most correct expression of this conflict, the writer creates new forms of dramaturgy. He shows that not events, not exclusively prevailing circumstances, but the usual everyday everyday state of a person is internally conflicting.
The Cherry Orchard is one of the most harmonious, integral works of Chekhov, in the full sense of the final creation of the artist, the pinnacle of Chekhov's dramaturgy. And at the same time, this play is so ambiguous and even mysterious that from the first days of its existence to the present day, a well-established, generally accepted reading of this play does not exist.
However, in order to better understand the content of Chekhov's plays, it is not enough to confine ourselves to analyzing only its external plot. Details play a huge role in the artistic space of Chekhov's works. Repeatedly repeated in the text of the play, the details become leitmotifs. Repeated use of the same detail deprives it of everyday motivation, thereby turning it into a symbol. So, in Chekhov's last play, the sound of a broken string combined the symbolism of life and the motherland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and time flowing over it, of something familiar, eternally sounding over Russian expanses, accompanying countless comings and goings of new generations. .
The cherry orchard becomes the central image-symbol in the analyzed play by Chekhov. It is to him that all the plot threads are drawn. Moreover, in addition to the real meaning of the cherry orchard, this image has several more symbolic meanings: a symbol of the past and former prosperity for Gaev and Ranevskaya, a symbol of beautiful nature, a symbol of loss, for Lopakhin the garden is a source of profit. You can also talk about the cherry orchard as an image of Russia and its fate.
That is, in the play of the same name, the image of the cherry orchard rises to a poetic symbol of human life and is filled with a deep, symbolic meaning.
Thus, images-symbols play an important role in understanding the work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.

List of used literature
1. Bakhtin, M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity / M.M. Bakhtin. - M.: Art, 1979 p. – 424 p.
2. Bely, A. Symbolism as a worldview / A. Bely. - M.: Respublika, 1994. - 528 p.
3. Berdnikov, G.P. Chekhov the playwright: Traditions and innovation in Chekhov's dramaturgy / G.P. Berdnikov. - L.-M.: Art, 1957. - 246 p.
4. Introduction to literary criticism. Literary work: basic concepts and terms: textbook / L.V. Chernets, V.E. Khalizev: ed. L.V. Chernets. - M .: Higher school; publishing center "Academy", 2004. - 680 p.
5. Volchkevich, M. How to study Chekhov? Czech studies in questions, exclamations, conjunctions and prepositions… / M. Volchkevich. // Young researchers of Chekhov. 4: Proceedings of the international scientific conference (Moscow, May 14-18, 2001). - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. - P.4-12.
6. Hegel, G.W.F. Aesthetics: in 4 volumes. T. 2. / G.V.F. Hegel. - M.: Art, 1969. - 493 p.
7. Golovacheva, A.G. “What is that sound in the twilight of the evening? God knows…”: Image-symbol in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" / A.G. Golovachev. // Literature lessons. - 2007. - No. 10. - S. 1-5.
8. Gracheva, I.V. Man and nature in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" / I.V. Grachev. // Literature at school. - 2005. - No. 10. - S. 18-21.
9. Gusarova, K. "The Cherry Orchard" - images, symbols, characters ... / K. Gusarova. // Literature. - 2002. - No. 12. - P. 4-5.
10. Dobin E.S. Plot and reality. Art of detail / E.S. Dobin. - L .: Soviet writer, 1981. - 432 p.
11. Zhirmunsky, V.M. Poetics of Russian poetry / V.M. Zhirmunsky. - St. Petersburg: ABC-classics. - 2001. - 486 p.
12. Ivleva, T.G. Author in dramaturgy A.P. Chekhov / T.G. Ivlev. - Tver: Tver.gos.un-t, 2001. - 131 p.
13. Kamyanov, V.I. Time against timelessness: Chekhov and the present / V.I. Kamyanov. - M.: Soviet writer, 1989. - 384 p.
14. Kataev, V.B. Dispute about Chekhov: end or beginning? / V.B. Kataev. // Chekhoviana: Melikhovsky Works and Days. - M.: Nauka, 1995. - S. 3-9.
15. Kataev, V.B. Complexity of simplicity: Stories and plays by Chekhov / V.B. Kataev. - 2nd ed. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1999. - 108 p.
16. Cassirer, E. Experience about man: An introduction to the philosophy of human culture. What is a person? / E. Cassirer // The problem of man in Western philosophy: Sat. translations from English, German, French. / Comp. and last P.S. Gurevich. M.: Progress, 1988. - S. 3 - 30.
17. Koshelev, V.A. The mythology of the "garden" in Chekhov's last comedy / V.A. Koshelev. // Russian literature. - 2005. - No. 1. - S. 40-52.
18. Kuleshov, V.I. Life and work of A.P. Chekhov: Essay / V.I. Kuleshov. - M.: Children's literature, 1982. - 175 p.
19. Literary encyclopedia of terms and concepts / ed. A.N. Nikolyukin. - M .: NPK "Intelvak", 2003. - 1600 st.
20. Literary encyclopedic dictionary / ed. ed. V.M. Kozhevnikova, P.A. Nikolaev. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987. - 752 p.
21. Losev, A.F. Dictionary of ancient philosophy: selected articles / A.F. Losev. - M .: World of Ideas, 1995. - 232 p.
22. Losev, A.F. The problem of the symbol and realistic art / A.F. Losev. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M.: Art, 1995. - 320 p.
23. Lotman, Yu.M. Selected articles. In 3 volumes. Vol. 1: Articles on semiotics and typology of culture / Yu.M. Lotman. - Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. - 480 p.
24. Mamardashvili, M.K. Symbol and consciousness. Metaphysical reflections on consciousness, symbolism and language. / M.K. Mamardashvili, A.M. Pyatigorsky. - M .: School "Languages ​​of Russian Culture", 1999. - 224 p.
25. Minkin, A. Gentle soul / A. Minkin. // Russian art. - 2006. - No. 2. - S. 147-153.
26. Mirsky, D.P. Chekhov / D.P. Mirsky. // Mirsky D.P. History of Russian literature from ancient times to 1925 / Per. from English. R. Grain. - London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd, 1992. - S. 551-570.
27. Nichiporov, I. A.P. Chekhov in the assessment of Russian symbolists / I. Nichiporov. // Young researchers of Chekhov. 4: Proceedings of the international scientific conference (Moscow, May 14-18, 2001). - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. P. 40-54.
28. Paperny, Z.S. "Contrary to all the rules ...": Chekhov's plays and vaudevilles / Z.S. Paperny. - M.: Art, 1982. - 285 p.
29. Paperny, Z.S. A.P. Chekhov: essay on creativity / Z.S. Paperny. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 304 p.
30. Polotskaya, E.A. A.P. Chekhov: the movement of artistic thought / E.A. Polotsk. - M.: Soviet writer, 1979. - 340 p.
31. Journey to Chekhov: Tales. Stories. Piece / Intro. article, comp. V.B. Korobova. Moscow: School-press. 1996. - 672 p.
32. Revyakin, A.I. "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov: a guide for teachers / A.I. Revyakin. - M .: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1960. - 256 p.
33. Svasyan, K.A. The problem of the symbol in modern philosophy: Criticism and analysis / K.A. Svasyan. - Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR, 1980. - 226 p.
34. Semanova, M.L. "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov / M.L. Semanov. - L .: Society for the dissemination of political and scientific knowledge of the RSFSR, 1958. - 46 p.
35. Semanova, M.L. Chekhov the artist / M.L. Semanov. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976. - 196 p.
36. Senderovich, S. "The Cherry Orchard" - Chekhov's last joke / S. Senderovich. // Questions of Literature. - 2007. - No. 1. – S. 290-317.
37. Sapir, E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies: Per. from English. / E. Sapir. – M.: Progress, 1993. – 656 p.
38. Skaftymov, A.P. Moral searches of Russian writers: Articles and research on Russian classics / A.P. Skaftymov. - M.: Art literature, 1972. - 544 p.
39. Dictionary of literary terms / ed. - comp. L.I. Timofeev, S.V. Turaev. – M.: Enlightenment, 1974. – 509 p.
40. Sozina, E.K. Theory of the symbol and the practice of artistic analysis: A textbook for a special course. - Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 1998. - 128 p.
41. Sukhikh, I.N. Problems of poetics of A.P. Chekhov / I.N. Dry. - L .: Leningrad Publishing House. state. un-ta, 1987. - 180, p.
42. Tamarchenko, N.D. Theoretical poetics: Introduction to the course / N.D. Tamarchenko. – M.: RGGU, 2006. – 212 p.
43. Todorov, Ts. Theory of the symbol. Per. from fr. B. Narumova / Ts. Todorov. – M.: House of Intellectual Books, 1998. – 408 p.
44. Fadeeva, I.E. Artistic text as a phenomenon of culture. Introduction to literary criticism: textbook. - Syktyvkar: Publishing house of Komi ped. in-ta, 2006. - 164 p.
45. Fesenko, E.Ya. Theory of literature: textbook for universities. - M.: Academic project; Fund "Mir", 2008. - 780 p.
46. ​​Hainadi, Z. Archetypal topos / Z. Hainadi. // Literature. - 2004. - No. 29. - P. 7-13.
47. Khalizev, V.E. Theory of Literature: A Textbook for University Students / V.E. Khalizev. - M.: Higher school, 2005. - 405 p.
48. Chekhov, A.P. Collected works in 12 volumes. Vol. 9: Plays 1880-1904 / A.P. Chekhov. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 712 p.
49. A.P. Chekhov: pro et contra: A.P. Chekhov's work in Russian. thoughts of the late XIX - early. XX century: Anthology / Comp., foreword, total. ed. Sukhikh I.N. - St. Petersburg: RKHGI, 2002. - 1072 p.
50. Chudakov, A.P. Poetics of Chekhov / A.P. Chudakov. – M.: Nauka, 1971. – 292 p.
51. Chudakov, A.P. Chekhov's World: Emergence and Approval / A.P. Chekhov. - M.: Soviet writer, 1986. - 354 p.

Methodical development of a lesson on the topic:

“Symbols in A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"

(literature, grade 10)

Compiled by:

Kireeva Irina Andreevna,

teacher of Russian language and literature

Volgograd 2014

Planned results:

subject: identify symbols in A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard", to determine their role in the text, to identify the reasons for their use.

metasubject: structure the material, select arguments to confirm their own position, highlight cause-and-effect relationships in oral statements, formulate conclusions.

Before the lesson, the students were divided into creative groups, received advanced tasks:

1. Find symbols in the play:

Group 1 - real and real;

Group 2 - verbal and sound;

Group 3 - color and titles

classify and organize them.

1. Prepare messages on key issues:

• What is the role of characters in text?

• What are the reasons for using them?

In the course of work and discussions of the main issues, a table is filled.

Equipment: multimedia.

During the classes:

I. Opening speech of the teacher.

The works of A.P. Chekhov is an extremely complex and interesting object for analysis. Chekhov sees their common meaning behind the little things in life, and behind the symbolic detail in the writer's artistic world lies a complex psychological, social and philosophical content. In his works, everything is significant, saturated with thought and feeling: from the title to the finale, from the author's intonations to "default figures". The audacity of Chekhov's innovation, the scale of his discoveries is sometimes difficult to fully understand and appreciate because Chekhov's skill is devoid of catchy and spectacular signs, its external manifestations are rather modest. Meanwhile, almost every innovative method of Chekhov underlies many remarkable traditions that have been continuing and successfully developing for a whole century in Russian and world literature. One such technique is the extensive use of symbolism, especially noticeable in the play The Cherry Orchard.

What is a symbol? What is its role in the work of art?

II. Prepared student's message.

Symbol in a work of art.

A symbol is a multi-valued allegorical image based on the similarity, similarity or commonality of objects and phenomena of life. A symbol can express a system of correspondences between different aspects of reality (the world of nature and human life, society and the individual, real and unreal, earthly and heavenly, external and internal). In a symbol, identity or similarity with another object or phenomenon is not obvious, not fixed verbally or syntactically.

The image-symbol is multi-valued. He admits that the reader may have a variety of associations. In addition, the meaning of the symbol most often does not coincide with the meaning of the word - metaphor. The understanding and interpretation of a symbol is always wider than the similitudes or metaphorical allegories from which it is composed.

A symbolic image can arise as a result of using a wide variety of figurative means.

There are two main types of characters. The former are supported by cultural tradition. They are part of the culture, for their construction writers use language that is understandable to a more or less knowledgeable reader. Of course, each such symbol acquires individual semantic shades that are close to the writer, important for him in a particular work: “sea”, “ship”, “sail”, “road”. The latter are created without relying on cultural tradition. Such symbols arose on the basis of semantic relationships within one literary work or a series of works (for example, the image of the Beautiful Lady in Blok's early poems).

The correct interpretation of symbols contributes to a deep and correct reading of literary texts. Symbols always expand the semantic perspective of the work, allow the reader, based on the author's hints, to build a chain of associations that connects various phenomena of life. Writers use symbolization in order to destroy the illusion of lifelikeness that often arises among readers, to emphasize the ambiguity, the great semantic depth of the images they create.

In addition, the symbols in the work create more accurate, capacious characteristics and descriptions; make the text deeper and more multifaceted; allow you to touch on important issues without advertising it; evoke individual associations in each reader.

The role of a symbol in a literary text cannot be overestimated.

III. Group performances.

1 group. Real symbols.

Real symbols include everyday details, which, repeated many times, acquire the character of symbols.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" it is a symbol of the keys. So, in the first act, the author points to a seemingly insignificant detail in the image of Varya: “Varya enters, she has a bunch of keys on her belt.” In the above remark, Chekhov emphasizes the role of the housekeeper, housekeeper, mistress of the house, chosen by Varya. She feels accountable for everything that happens on the estate.

It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov, calling Anya to action, tells her to throw away the keys: “If you have the keys to the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind” (second act).

Chekhov skillfully uses the symbolism of the keys in the third act, when Varya, having heard about the sale of the estate, throws the keys on the floor. Lopakhin explains this gesture of hers: “She threw the keys, she wants to show that she is no longer the mistress here ...” According to T. G. Ivleva, Lopakhin, who bought the estate, took it from the housekeeper.

There is another real symbol of the owner in the Cherry Orchard. Throughout the play, the author mentions Ranevskaya's purse, for example, "Looks in the purse" (second act). Seeing that there is little money left, she accidentally drops it and scatters the gold. In the last act, Ranevskaya gives her wallet to the peasants: “Gaev. You gave them your wallet, Lyuba! You can not do it this way! Lyubov Andreevna. I could not! I could not!" In the same act, the wallet appears in Lopakhin's hands, although the reader knows from the very beginning of the play that he does not need money.

In the artistic world of Chekhov's dramaturgy, a number of images-symbols can be distinguished that are inextricably linked with the idea of ​​home, these symbols begin to perform not the function of unification, but separation, disintegration, break with the family, with the house.

Real symbols.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" to increase the ideological and semantic significance, artistic persuasiveness and emotional and psychological tension, real symbolism is also widely used. It lurks both in the title and in the setting. The blooming garden of the first act is not only the poetry of noble nests, but also the beauty of all life. In the second act, a chapel surrounded by large stones, which were apparently once gravestones, and the distant outlines of a large city, which "visible only in very good, clear weather"symbolize the past and the future, respectively. The ball on the day of the auction (third act) indicates the frivolity and impracticality of the owners of the garden. The circumstances of the departure, the emptiness of the house, the remnants of the furniture, which “is stacked in one corner, as if for sale”, the suitcases and bundles of the former owners characterize the liquidation of the noble nest, the final death of the obsolete nobility-serf system.

2 group. Word symbols.

Revealing the socio-psychological essence of the characters, showing their internal relations, Chekhov often turns to the means of the indirect meaning of the word, to its ambiguity, ambiguity. While honing his deeply realistic images into symbols, the writer often uses the methods of verbal symbolism.

For example, in the first act, Anya and Varya are talking about selling the estate, and at this time Lopakhin looks in the door, mumbles(“me-e-e”) and immediately leaves. This appearance of Lopakhin and his playful mockingly mocking lowing is clearly significant. It, in fact, anticipates all the future behavior of Lopakhin: after all, it was he who bought the cherry orchard, became its sovereign owner and rudely refused Varya, who was patiently waiting for his offer. Somewhat later, Ranevskaya, having taken telegrams from Paris from Varya, tears them up without reading them, and says: “It’s over with Paris ...” With these words, Lyubov Andreevna says that she decided to end her nomadic life outside her native land, and that she irrevocably broke with his "keeper". These words are a kind of summary of Anya's story about the bohemian lifestyle of her mother in Paris. They demonstrate the joy with which Ranevskaya returns home. The same Lopakhin, after Gaev’s speech addressed to the closet, says only “Yes ...” But in this word there is both surprise at Gaev’s naive childishness, and contemptuous condemnation of his frivolity, stupidity.

In the second act, Anya and her mother thoughtfully repeat one phrase: "Epikhodov is coming," but each puts into it a completely different, meaningful meaning associated with their understanding of life and thoughts about it. Trofimov's words are clearly significant, really symbolic: “Yes, the moon is rising.(Pause a.) Here it is, happiness, here it comes, coming closer and closer, I can already hear its steps. Trofimov does not mean here his personal happiness, but the approaching happiness of the whole people, he expresses faith in the imminent triumph of truth. But the appearance of the changeable moon, which has always been a symbol of deception, leads him to think about the well-being of the people. This shows the unfulfillment of the student's hopes. Such words as "bright star", "duty" also have a real-symbolic meaning in his mouth. Trofimov puts a particularly deep meaning into his statement: “All of Russia is our garden” (second act). These words revealed his fiery love for the Motherland, his admiration for everything that is great and beautiful in it, the desire to change it for the better and devotion to it.

Trofimov’s statement is clearly echoed by Anya’s words in the third act: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.” With these words, the heroine speaks of creating life on a completely new basis, where there will be no selfish struggle for one's personal, where all people will be equal and happy, enjoying a common garden that will bloom and bear fruit for the joy of every person.

Sound symbols.

In the works of A.P. Chekhov, not only things, objects and phenomena of the surrounding world acquire symbolic overtones, but also audio and visual range. Due to sound and color symbols, the writer achieves the most complete understanding of his works by the reader.

So, the cry of an owl in the second act carries a real threat. An illustration of this can be the words of the old footman Firs: “Before the misfortune, it was also: the owl screamed, and the samovar buzzed endlessly.”

A large place in Chekhov's dramaturgy is occupied by the sounds of music. Such, for example, is the sound that completes the first act: “Far beyond the garden, a shepherd is playing the flute. Trofimov walks across the stage and, seeing Varya and Anya, stops. Trofimov (in emotion). Sweetheart! Spring is mine! The high, clear and gentle sound of the flute is here, first of all, the background design of the tender feelings experienced by the character.

T. G. Ivleva notes that "the semantic significance of the sound remark in Chekhov's last comedy becomes, perhaps, the highest." The drama is filled with sounds. A flute, a guitar, a Jewish orchestra, the sound of an ax, the sound of a broken string accompany almost every significant event or image of a character.

In the second act, the heroes are alarmed by an unexpected sound - "as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string." Each of the characters in their own way tries to determine its source. Lopakhin believes that it was far away in the mines that the tub broke off. Gaev thinks it's

the cry of a heron, Trofimov - an owl. Ranevskaya felt uncomfortable, and this sound reminded Firs of the times “before misfortune”.

But the strange sound is mentioned a second time in the final note to the play. It obscures the sound of an ax, symbolizing the death of old Russia.

Thus, the sound of a broken string and the sound of an ax serve as the embodiment of impending disaster and the inevitability of death and play an important role in Chekhov's play. With the help of sounds, those facets of stage action that cannot be conveyed verbally are revealed.

3rd group. Color symbols.

Of all the variety of colors in the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov uses only one - white, applying it in different ways throughout the first act.

“Gaev (opens another window). The garden is all white.

At the same time, the garden in the play has only just been named, it is shown only outside the windows, as the potential possibility of its death is outlined, but not specified. White color is a premonition of a visual image. The heroes of the work repeatedly talk about him: “Lyubov Andreevna. All, all white! O my garden! To the right, at the turn to the gazebo, a white tree leaned over, like a woman... What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers.

Despite the fact that the garden itself is practically hidden from us, its white color appears throughout the first act in the form of color spots - details of the costumes of characters that are directly connected with it and whose fate completely depends on the fate of the garden: “Lopakhin. True, my father was a peasant, but here I am in a white vest”; Firs enters; he is in a jacket and a white waistcoat”; "Firs puts on white gloves"; “Charlotte Ivanovna, in a white dress, very thin, pulled together, with a lorgnette on her belt, passes through the stage.”

T.G. Ivlev, referring to the letters of the writer K.S. Stanislavsky, comes to the conclusion that "This feature of the stage realization of the image of the garden - the color game - was probably assumed by Chekhov himself." Through color spots, the unity of the characters with the garden and dependence on it is shown.

Title symbolism.

The very title of the work is symbolic. Initially, Chekhov wanted to name the play "In and shnevy garden", but then rearranged the accent. K. S. Stanislavsky, recalling this episode, told how Chekhov, having announced to him about the change of the title, savored it, “pressing on the gentle sound ё in the word“ cherry ”, as if trying with its help to caress the former beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he tearfully destroyed in his play. This time I understood the subtlety: "In and shnevy garden" is a business, commercial garden that generates income. Such a garden is needed now. But the "Cherry Orchard" does not bring income, it keeps in itself and in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former aristocratic life. Such a garden grows and blooms for a whim, for the eyes of spoiled aesthetes.

But why is the symbol of the outgoing, obsolete - the cherry orchard - the personification of poetry and beauty? Why is the new generation called upon to destroy rather than use the beauty of the past? Why is this beauty associated with "klutzes" - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik? The title "The Cherry Orchard" refers to the useless beauty of the obsolete, as well as the narrowly possessive, selfish aspirations of its owners. The garden, which previously brought a huge income, has degenerated. Anya overcomes this selfishness in herself: "I no longer love the cherry orchard, as before." But the future also takes on the image of a garden, only more luxurious, capable of bringing joy to all people, and not just the chosen ones. The title contains both concrete and generalized poetic content. The Cherry Orchard is not only a characteristic affiliation of a noble estate, but also the personification of the Motherland, Russia, its wealth, beauty, and poetry. The motive for the death of the garden is the leitmotif of the play: “Your cherry orchard is being sold for debts” (first act), “August 22, the cherry orchard will be sold” (second act), “The cherry orchard is sold”, “Come, everyone, watch how Yermolai Lopakhin will grab an ax at cherry orchard" (third act). The garden is always in the center of attention, most of the images in the play are revealed through the attitude towards it. For the old Firs, he symbolizes the lordly expanse, wealth. In his fragmentary reminiscences of the time when the cherry orchard gave income (“There was money”) (first act), when they knew how to pickle, dry, boil cherries, there is a slavish regret about the loss of the master's well-being. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden is also the personification of the past, as well as the subject of noble pride (and this garden is mentioned in the “encyclopedic dictionary”) (first act), contemplative admiration, a reminder of bygone youth, lost carefree happiness. For Lopakhin, in the garden “it is wonderful ... only that it is very large”, “in capable hands” will be able to generate a huge income. The Cherry Orchard also evokes memories of the past in this hero: here his grandfather and father were slaves. But Lopakhin also has plans for the future connected with him: to break the garden into plots, to rent it out as summer cottages. The garden is now becoming for Lopakhin, as before for the nobles, a source of pride, the personification of his strength, his dominance. The nobility is being supplanted by the bourgeoisie, it is being replaced by democrats (Anya and Trofimov), this is the movement of life. For a student, the cherry orchard is a symbol of the serf way of life. The hero does not allow himself to admire the beauty of the garden, parted with it without regret and inspires young Anya with the same feelings. His words “All Russia is our garden” (second act) speak of the hero’s concern about the fate of his country, Trofimov’s attitude to its history. The Cherry Orchard is to some extent symbolic for each of the characters, and this is an important characteristic point.

IV. Filling in the table by students.

V. Conclusions:

Chekhov in the play "The Cherry Orchard" used almost the entire range of symbolic means of expression: sound, real, verbal symbolism. This helps him create a voluminous artistic canvas, bright and scenic, with its own “undercurrent”, depicting the death of noble nests.

The art of the writer, democratic in the highest sense of the word, was oriented towards the common man. The author trusts the mind, the subtlety of the reader, the ability to respond to poetry, to become a co-creator of the artist. Everyone finds something of their own in Chekhov's works. Therefore, he is read and loved so far.

VI. Homework:

Write an essay on the topic "Events in the play through the eyes of the garden."

Literature:

1. Semanova M.L. . Chekhov is an artist. Moscow: Education, 1976.
2. Revyakin A.I. "The Cherry Orchard" A.P. Chekhov. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1960.
3. Geydeko. V.A. A. Chekhov and Iv. Bunin. Moscow: Soviet Writer, 1976.
4. Tyupa V.I. The art of Chekhov's story. Moscow: Higher School, 1989.
5. Polotskaya E.A. Ways of Chekhov's heroes. Moscow: Education, 1983.
6. Chekhov A.P. Selected works, in 2 volumes, Berdnikov G., Notes by Peresypkina V. Moscow: Fiction, 1979.
7. New illustrated encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2000.
8. Averintsev S.S. Sofia Logos. Dictionary. Kyiv: Spirit i Litera, 2001.
9. Berdnikov G. Chekhov-playwright. Moscow: Art, 1957.
10. Ivleva T.G. Author in dramaturgy A.P. Chekhov. Tver: Tver State University, 2001

Preview:

Explanatory note.

This lesson is a study on the topic “Symbols in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" is focused on work on the textbook "Literature. Grade 10 "authors: V.I. Korovin, N.L. Vershinina, L.A. Kapitonov, edited by V.I. Korovin.

The proposed lesson - research in the 10th grade, it is advisable to conduct at the final stage of studying the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard". A month before the lesson, students receive advanced tasks:

1. Divide into creative groups, identify groups of characters based on the literary features of the play;
2. Prepare messages and presentations on the key points of the lesson: What is the role of symbols in the play? What are the reasons for using them?

In preparation for the lesson, students are encouraged to begin structuring the selected material in the form of a table. This work, designed to form a holistic perception of this topic, will be continued in the lesson.

Classical literature is, at first glance, the most studied branch of literary criticism. However, a number of works, including "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov, remain unsolved and relevant to this day. Despite the many literary works that reveal different points of view on this play, unresolved issues remain, in particular, there is no clear classification of the symbols of The Cherry Orchard. Therefore, the merit of the presented lesson is the scrupulous selection by students of the dominant groups of symbols, their classification and the table compiled at the end of the lesson, which gives a clear interpretation of each symbol found in the work.

In this lesson, students are actively involved in research activities, which allows the most effective and consistent turnaround from the traditional approach to teaching to a new one, aimed at developing such universal learning activities as

Ability for self-development;

Development of orientation skills in information flows;

Developing problem solving and problem solving skills.

This allows you to develop the intellectual potential of the individual: from the accumulation of knowledge and skills to self-expression in creativity and science.

Russian language and literature teacher I.A. Kireeva