The image of Charlotte in the play The Cherry Orchard. List of characters and character system of Chekhov's drama

The history of creation and time of action in the play. Subject. The main problem of the work

The play " The Cherry Orchard» written Chekhov in 1903 year, published and staged V 1904 year.

Chekhov wrote a work about his modernity. Some of the most important trends in Russian life found artistic embodiment in the play. the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries - a turning point in historical destinies countries. Chekhov reflected such a phenomenon as ruin of noble nests, extinction of the nobility. The playwright showed strengthening the new class of entrepreneurs who were gaining more and more power in society, as well as democratic intelligentsia.

In his latest play, the playwright seeks to understand the origins of spiritual crisis, which Russia experienced at the beginning of the 20th century and which, as is known, led the country to tragic revolutionary events, to the destruction of the entire old world. Question about the underlying causes of this crisis and forms the basis of the problematics of The Cherry Orchard. Understanding these reasons, Chekhov does not limit himself to analyzing the current state Russian society. His characters analyze the country's past and reflect on its future. Each of Chekhov's characters is connected in one way or another with the theme of the past, present and future of Russia.

Characters

Past Russia is personified above all old owners of the cherry orchard. This Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, her brother Leonid Andreevich Gaev, their neighbor Boris Borisovich Simeonov-Pishchik. Let us also remember the old servant of Firs, which reminds us of the times of serfdom.

The main feature of the previous owners of the cherry orchard, for all their attractiveness, was inability to work,to any activity. Their whole life passes in idleness,in empty dreams and conversations.

The reason for the vital passivity of the nobility is, according to the author, legacy of serfdom. This idea is expressed in the monologues of Petya Trofimov. So, Petya says at the end of the second act: “Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf owners who owned living souls, and aren’t human beings looking at you from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk? , don't you hear voices... To own living souls - after all, this reborn all of you who lived before and are now living, so your mother, you, and uncle no longer notice that you are living in debt, at someone else’s expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not allow beyond the front hall. We are at least two hundred years behind, we still have absolutely nothing, there is no definite attitude towards the past, we only philosophize, complain about melancholy or drink vodka. After all, it is so clear that in order to begin to live in the present, we must first atone for our past, put an end to it, and we can atone for it only through suffering, only through extraordinary, continuous labor. Understand this, Anya.”

Lyubov AndreevnaRanevskaya–bankrupt landowner.

On the one hand, the heroine is distinguished warmth, goodwill, gentleness of nature. “An easy, simple person,” Lopakhin says about her. On the other hand, it is characterized frivolity,carelessness, inability to see the real state of things.

Ranevskaya's youth, her family life, a blooming cherry orchard - all this is in the past. The most terrible loss in the life of Lyubov Andreevna - the death of her son. The horror of loss was combined in the heroine’s soul with a feeling of guilt: life with her lover alienated her from her son. In recent years, Ranevskaya lived far from home, abroad, she sought to escape from her past.

At the beginning of the play, Ranevskaya returns to the house where she is loved, expected and at the same time condemned - for her depravity, for her frivolity. And Ranevskaya herself understands the justice of the reproaches and constantly feels guilty. Ranevskaya loves her cherry orchard, but cannot preserve it. All Ranevskaya's life becomes symbol of the past- her own past, the past of the cherry orchard, the past of noble Russia.

Leonid AndreevichGaev Also bankrupt landowner, a representative of the fading noble class.

Gaev in his own way pleasant,charming. This is typical eccentric county landowner. The hero is absolutely unable to act rationally. Like Ranevskaya, he unable to work.

Although the hero is no longer very young, he behaves like a boy. Infancy Gaev manifests himself in his endless talkativeness. His main passion is billiards game.Billiard words(repeating part characteristics of Gaev) are found in many of the character’s remarks. In addition, Gaev is interested in conversations on abstract topics. At the same time, he himself does not notice how naive his judgments are. So, in the restaurant he talked a lot and all inappropriately - about the seventies, about the decadents. His monologue addressed to the closet, filled with pompous phrases.

Boris BorisovichSimeonov-Pishchik just like Ranevskaya and Gaev, she is the personification of Russia’s past. This a typical provincial landowner, stupid and funny. He is proud of the antiquity of his family and repeats the words of his father that the family of “Simeonov-Pishchikov allegedly descends from the very horse that Caligula planted in the Senate.”

Simeonov-Pishchik is trying to talk about something about which he actually has no idea. So, he says: “Nietzsche... philosopher... the greatest, most famous... man of enormous intelligence...” Along with such "philosophical" conversations Simeonov-Pishchik innocently admires Charlotte Ivanovna’s tricks.

Simeonov-Pishchik just like Ranevskaya and Gaev, completely incapable of work active work. He lives in debt, at the expense of others. His mind is exclusively occupied with thinking about money. Pishchik admits: “A hungry dog ​​believes only in meat... So I... can only talk about money.” Even when talking about that same ancient Roman horse, Pischik reduces everything to a question of material gain. He says: “Well... a horse is a good animal... a horse can be sold...”

Undershirt made of thin cloth, trousers- bright appearance details Pishika, emphasizing comic extravagance his figures.

Old servantFirs–“splinter” of feudal Russia. He cannot imagine his life without masters and calls the liberation of the peasants a “misfortune.” Firs talks about past and present times: “The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the men, but now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything.” Firs does not understand what is happening around him, but at the same time he tries to maintain an important appearance and significance. So, he meets Ranevskaya “in a jacket and a white vest”; During the evening at Ranevskaya’s, he “in a tailcoat” carries “seltzer water on a tray.” Firs seems to live in the past, not noticing the present.

Only at the end of the play, left alone, does Firs begin to realize that his life was in vain. He says: “Life has passed, as if he had never lived.”

Firs is sad not only because everyone left and left him alone, they forgot about him. Firs has no one else to look after. There are no more gentlemen, caring for whom was the meaning of his life. The image of Firs can be called tragicomic. Chekhov not only ridicules the hero’s slave psychology, but also deeply sympathizes with his fate.

Antique livery, tall hat, white gloves Firsa – details, emphasizing comic the external appearance of the hero, completely immersed in the past.

The present Russia is personified by a successful merchant-entrepreneur Ermolai AlekseevichLopakhin.Lopakhin's father was a serf peasant, became fist, then merchant. His son received a good education. He polite,brought up, has decent manners.

Chekhov considered the role of Lopakhin central in the play. In the image of Lopakhin, the playwright wanted to capture the features not of a dark, ignorant tyrant, but a new, intelligent merchant, an intelligent and honest entrepreneur. The playwright sought to capture in this image the combination merchant spirit, peasant simplicity and subtle artistic nature.

Lopakhin loves Ranevskaya, he loves her “like his own, more than his own.” This unrequited feeling, which remains unnoticed, turns out to be closely connected with the line of the dying cherry orchard.

Lopakhin, unlike the previous owners of the cherry orchard, has active nature, he is constantly works. The hero states: “You know, I get up at five o’clock in the morning, I work from morning to evening.” Lopakhin clearly understands which path to take to prosperity in the future. For example, the hero talks about dachas and summer residents: “Now he [the summer resident] only drinks tea on the balcony, but it may happen that on his one tithe he will take care of the farm, and then your cherry orchard will become happy, rich, luxurious!”

At the same time, Lopakhin’s activities contribute to the fact that material interests suppress the hero’s spirituality. The essence of Lopakhin’s nature and entrepreneurial activity is determined by Petya Trofimov: he compares Lopakhin with a beast of prey, which devours everything in its path. Lopakhin’s true essence is revealed in the monologue that he delivers after purchasing the cherry orchard: “Come everyone to watch how Ermolai 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 here new life" Lopakhin's monologue contains the revelations of a slave who has seized upon money and power. Let us also remember that the hero forgets about any delicacy towards the previous owners of the cherry orchard and gives the order to cut it down without even waiting for their departure.

Lopakhin's activities contradict the best that still remains in his character, in his soul. Petya Trofimov says goodbye to Lopakhin: “You know, we probably won’t see each other again, so let me give you one parting piece of advice: don't wave your arms! Get out of the habit of swinging. And, too, to build dachas, to count on the fact that the dacha owners will eventually emerge as individual owners, to count like this also means to wave... After all, I still love you. You have thin, gentle fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, gentle soul...” Tender soul Lopakhina and continuous, tireless entrepreneurial activity,which has become the meaning of his life, turn out to be incompatible.

It is clear that Lopakhin's ideal of the future of Russia could not satisfy Chekhov.

However, the playwright does not associate this ideal with such a character as Petya Trofimov.

Petya Trofimov–« eternal student» , former teacher of Grisha, the deceased son of Ranevskaya. Peter - representative of the democratic intelligentsia. He is actively preaches the idea of ​​honest work. However, the hero incapable of any serious activity. This a person without specific occupations, " shabby gentleman» , as Lopakhin teases him.

Petya's inner world is fulfilled deep ideas, grandiose plans, social and philosophical reflections. Among the hero's ideas there are some close to the author himself. This the idea of ​​free labor, the idea of ​​liberating man from spiritual slavery, from the power of money.

The hero’s reasoning about the serf past also largely coincides with the author’s view of this problem: “To own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living.” Thus, Petya plays the role of a kind of reasoner.

At the same time, some of Petya’s words sound pompously And ridiculous: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront!” Exorbitant pride,boasting united in the character of Petya with a complete inability to organize one’s own life.

Anya- Ranevskaya’s daughter, a young girl captivated by Petya’s ideas. This is the only inhabitant of the noble estate who decides change your life. She want go study, start working. Anya tells her mother: “I will prepare, pass the exam at the gymnasium and then I will work and help you.” Plans Ani are uncertain. Meanwhile, the playwright seeks to emphasize the very fact of the heroine’s aspiration to the future, her thirst for active activity, her ardent impulse for a new life. Balloon, on which Anya flew in Paris, - symbolic detail, emphasizing these aspirations of the heroine.

Related to the theme of the past, present and future of Russia is symbolic image of the cherry orchard. Ranevskaya's cherry orchard reminds of youth, of his deceased son. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!” – the heroine exclaims before leaving. Finding yourself in the power of Lopakhin, the cherry orchard is cut down; his fate is deplorable. Anya believes that the cherry orchard will be reborn. The heroine turns to her mother: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.”

Varya- adopted daughter of Ranevskaya. She appears before the reader modest, pious girl, but at the same time limited busy with petty economic calculations. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, Varya has a sober outlook on life: She understands well how bad things are going on the estate. She realizes that Ranevskaya is ruined. But Varya can't help her, she is unable to take any decisive steps.

Varya appears in the play as Lopakhin's potential bride. The heroine does not wonder whether she loves Lopakhin and whether he loves her. She sees in him a suitable match, wants to get married and is waiting for Lopakhin to declare his love and propose. Varya explains that Lopakhin does not dare to do this because he is constantly busy.

Varya seeks to escape from the problems surrounding her. It is no coincidence that her main desire is to leave her old life and go on a pilgrimage to holy places, to go to a monastery.

Bunch of keys on Varya’s belt - detail, emphasizing the homeliness of the heroine, the economic spirit in her nature.

Epikhodov– personification awkwardness,unsettled conditions life, that same “unhappy life” that Lopakhin speaks of. Not by chance nickname Epikhodova – "twenty-two misfortunes". The hero constantly talks about his difficult fate. He notes: “As a matter of fact, without touching on other subjects, I must express myself, among other things, that fate treats me without regret, like a storm treats a small ship.” Epikhodov loves Dunyasha, and loves her selflessly, devotedly and hopelessly. Dunyasha does not reciprocate his feelings; she is captivated by Yasha, shrouded in the halo of Parisian life. Such detail Epikhodov's appearance, like brightly polished boots, enhances the comedy of his appearance.

Charlotte Ivanovna–former governess in Ranevskaya's house. Like Epikhodova, she can be called “twenty-two misfortunes.” She feels like a stranger in Ranevskaya's house. Charlotte's story about her childhood is filled with sadness. She doesn't know how old she is, doesn't know who her parents are. Charlotte constantly repeats that she “want to talk so much, but there’s no one to talk to.” Tricks become more than just entertainment for her - they are a way to escape from reality, from real life, a way to forget about your misfortunes.

Charlotte is pleased that Simeonov-Pishchik admires her tricks. She enjoys feeling needed and loved. This helps her forget about her loneliness for a while. Charlotte evokes the reader's sympathy. It is precisely because of her misfortunes that Charlotte understands Epikhodov so well, even praises him. These two characters are close to each other. Both of them are lonely, both have unsettled lives, both cannot find support from others.

Dog on a chain–detail, emphasizing comic Charlotte's image.

Dunyasha– simple housemaid, but she, like Yasha, considers herself a subtle and spiritual nature. Dunyasha says about herself: “I was taken to the masters as a girl, I have now lost the habit of simple life, and my hands are white and white, like a young lady’s. She has become tender, so delicate, noble, I’m afraid of everything...” Dunyasha can no longer do menial work - after all, she has lost the habit of simple life. But she also cannot provide herself with a better fate.

Dunyasha fell passionately in love with Yasha, considering him an educated man, capable of reasoning about everything. But Yasha deceived her, and the girl was also left completely alone.

Yasha–servant Ranevskoy, type "a modern footman." This simple peasant guy talks about his past with disdain. He lived in Paris and now considers Russian life unworthy and base. Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him back to Paris. He exclaims: “Vive la France!.. It’s not for me here, I can’t live... nothing can be done. I’ve seen enough of ignorance – that’s enough for me.”

Despite the fact that Yasha thinks of himself as a subtle, sublime nature, in essence he remains lackey. Yasha is distinguished rudeness, rudeness, spiritual callousness, outright meanness. He does not want to see his mother, who is waiting for him at the threshold of the kitchen. Yasha mocks Firs and finally tells him: “I’m tired of you, grandfather... I wish you would die soon.” Yasha deceives Dunyasha and then leaves her.

The play also contains several occasional persons.

So, beggar passerby in a shabby white cap symbolizes Russia degenerate, drunk, unclean, which Petya Trofimov talks about with pain in the previous monologue.

postal official, postal station manager, reading “The Sinner” by A. Tolstoy, personify vulgar surroundings of heroes plays, general impoverishment their lives. No wonder Firs notes: “Before, generals, barons, and admirals danced at our balls, but now we send for the postal official and the station master, and even they are not willing to go.”

Let's also name a few off-stage characters.

Yaroslavl aunt Ranevskaya and Gaeva (aka Ani’s grandmother) are the personification unrealistic hopes owners of the cherry orchard. Although the aunt sent the promised money, it was not even enough to pay the interest. Having received the money, Ranevskaya plans to live on it in Paris.

Grisha, deceased son of Ranevskaya, her deceased husband, her deceased mother symbolize irretrievably gone past, a life to which the heroine is never destined to return.

Image Parisian lover Ranevskaya emphasizes the weak will and everyday impracticality of the heroine. Ranevskaya spends her last money on this man, as if she does not understand that he is simply taking advantage of her affection and ruining her. In the same time love for him becomes the only meaning of life Ranevskaya. Firsttelegram from him Ranevskaya tears apart,secondhides in his pocket, A calmly reads the third, ready to go to Paris again.

Lopakhin's father, a simple peasant, is the personification of the hero’s past. This character emphasizes the contrast between Lopakhin's social background and his current position as a successful entrepreneur.

Yasha's mother- a symbol of human suffering generated by cruelty and heartlessness. Mother's love pushes her to humiliate herself in front of her scoundrel son.

Old servants of Ranevskaya (Efimyushka, Polya, Evstigney, Karp) symbolize former times, the serfdom era, which, although a thing of the past, continues to influence the present.

Charlotte Ivanovna's parents- the personification of an unsettled, nomadic life.

Merchant Deriganov, Lopakhin’s main rival at the auction, - symbol of the new world, where only money and material gain, commercial calculation rule.

Dashenka, daughter of Simeonov-Pishchik, is the embodiment of the good, joyful beginning in this hero. Clever Dashenka with her modern views belongs to the same generation as Anya.

Znoykov, Cardamonov- neighboring landowners who lent money to Pischik. Ragulins- landowners to whom Varya becomes housekeeper. The mention of these persons allows Chekhov to expand the picture of the life of landowners.

The system of characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” reflects the most important trends in the social and spiritual life of Russia at the turn of the century. This is the fading, dying of noble nests, the destruction of previous human connections, the search for new forms of life, new spiritual guidelines.

The artistic originality of the play.

Genre. Combination of comedy and drama

"The Cherry Orchard" connects features in myself dramas And comedy. Myself Chekhov insisted that his play was comedy. “I’ll call the play a comedy,” wrote playwright V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. In one of his other letters, Chekhov noted: “I left not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.”. Indeed, the writer recreates in his work picture of morals provincial nobility, filled humor, often acquiring satirical coloring

At the same time, in Chekhov’s work there is also hidden drama. To identify it, it is necessary to analyze the features of the conflict and stage action in the work.

Conflict between “given” and “desired”

Based on the plot Chekhov's works lie history of the sale of a noble estate. In connection with this event, the interests of the old owners of the cherry orchard - landowners Ranevskaya and Gaev - and the merchant Lopakhin, who eventually buys the estate and begins to cut down the cherry orchard in order to give the land for dachas, collide. But the originality of Chekhov’s work lies in the fact that there is no conflict as such between the characters. The Cherry Orchard is already doomed. Ranevskaya and Gaev are unable to hold him back. If Lopakhin had not bought it, it would have fallen into the hands of the merchant Deriganov or another wealthy businessman.

In addition, until the very moment of bidding, Lopakhin does everything to help Ranevskaya find a way out of the situation. They simply don’t hear him or understand him. After Lopakhin acquired the estate, despite all Ranevskaya’s suffering, friendly relations remain between the characters. No one accuses Lopakhin of being the one who bought the garden (only Varya throws the keys to the house in Lopakhin’s direction with annoyance). Everyone understands that the sale of the garden for debts had to happen one way or another.

There is no pronounced conflict between the other characters in the play. For example, Petya Trofimov, denouncing Lopakhin, does not lose his friendly feelings towards him.

All this allows us to conclude that the main conflict in Chekhov's play is not related to the clash of characters. This is the playwright's innovation. The main conflict should be sought not in opposition to social interests, A in the spiritual and moral sphere.

The famous researcher of Chekhov’s work A.P. Skaftymov identified the main conflict in the playwright’s plays as conflict between “given” and “desired”, that is between the life that Chekhov's heroes lead and their idea of ​​the proper existence of man. Chekhov's heroes are unhappy. happy life they see in the past, in the future, but not in the present. Even the successful Lopakhin does not feel completely happy. Having bought a cherry orchard, triumphantly, he nevertheless says to Ranevskaya: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” Thus, behind the fate of the estate lies a feeling general unsettled life.

Features of stage action

Already Chekhov's contemporaries noted some unusual features of his plays. This lack of dynamism in stage action, confusion of dialogue; in addition, this is the presence in the play of the so-called "undercurrent", that is lyrical subtext hidden behind external details.

In fact, Chekhov's stage action is literally “dissolves” in everyday details. It must be said that everyday details also played an important role in pre-Chekhov drama (for example, in Ostrovsky). However, for Ostrovsky, everyday life plays the role of a background against which dramatic events and clashes between heroes unfold. In Chekhov, such events are not so significant.

In the "Cherry Orchard" events related to the sale of the garden, they only externally organize the stage action. The fact is that Chekhov saw the drama not in some turning point event, but in the everyday flow of life. Therefore, the events in Chekhov are a short-term particularity. Drama takes place at every step, in the soul of every hero. Chekhov has no main or secondary characters. Every hero(with few exceptions) experiences internal drama.

Love stories in Chekhov's play do not create intrigue. Each of them is important in its own right. It characterizes this particular character and is important for understanding him state of mind, his worldview.

So, it runs through the whole play the theme of Ranevskaya’s relationship with her Parisian lover. The viewer develops a firm conviction that Ranevskaya’s chosen one is an insignificant, unworthy person. Apparently, the heroine herself understands this. It is no coincidence that throughout the entire action she tears up telegrams received from Paris. And yet, in the end, Ranevskaya returns to Paris. This story emphasizes the heroine’s mental weakness, her dependence on current life circumstances.

Epikhodov experiences a “fatal passion” for Dunyasha, suffers greatly because of his love; Dunyasha is indifferent to Epikhodov; she turns out victim of the heartless and vile Yasha.

Throughout the entire action, the viewer feels touching love Lopakhina to Ranevskaya. The hero has been in love with her since childhood; he is ready to help her, support her; it is clear that the feeling for Ranevskaya reveals the bright, noble sides of the hero’s soul. But Lopakhin cannot do anything about his nature as an acquirer: with all his love for Ranevskaya, he lacks the delicacy to hide his joy in connection with the purchase of the estate; he cannot resist and wait to cut down the garden until its former owners leave.

It is difficult to say whether Varya truly loves Lopakhin; in any case, she feels sympathy for him; she would like to marry him; everyone is constantly talking about their supposed engagement. Lopakhin, too, it would seem, would not mind marrying Varya. However, the prospect of their marriage turns out to be illusory. Lopakhin still does not dare to propose to Varya.

Anya, apparently passionate about Petya. But it is clear to everyone that he is not a serious groom. AND their future happiness, the “expectation of happiness” that they talk so much about, it seems ephemeral.

Love in the play it is not shown as a deep feeling that personifies strong spiritual connections between people. This feeling is often sublime, spiritual, bright, Sometimes sad, but almost always fragile, fickle, detached from real life .

The love stories in Chekhov's play reinforce the impression of awkwardness and disorder in the characters' lives.

Let's consider highlights of the stage action.

The first action contains exposition. Ranevskaya and her daughter Anya arrive at their estate; they are met by other characters in the play, the reader gets to know their characters.

Arises theme of the inevitable sale of the cherry orchard. Varya opens this topic in a conversation with Anya, then Lopakhin persistently pursues it, informing the old owners of his own project in relation to their estate.

Here, in the first act, it is planned the topic of Lopakhin's alleged matchmaking with Varya- matchmaking, which was never destined to materialize in reality.

In the first act it is planned the theme of Lopakhin's unrequited love for Ranevskaya.

It is essential that None of these topics will be developed in real life. Neither Lopakhin's marriage to Vara, nor the preservation of the estate in the hands of the previous owners will come true. Everything will remain at the level of conversations.

Ranevskaya's return to her Parisian lover, which the heroine recalls with indignation in the first act, will turn out to be completely real at the end of the play.

In the second act The themes outlined at the beginning of the play continue to develop. Lopakhin unsuccessfully tries to convince Gaev and Ranevskaya to give up the cherry orchard for dachas. They also unsuccessfully try to marry Varya to Lopakhin. Epikhodov is still in love with Dunyasha and does not find mutual feelings in her. Behind external events, spiritual disunity is increasingly revealed characters, yearning,restlessness. It is clear to the viewer that Ranevskaya, Gaev, Epikhodov, and Charlotte are deeply unhappy. Their existence is meaningless. Even the successful Lopakhin calls his life stupid. Simultaneously the theme of new life is growing; Petya Trofimov preaches it in his enthusiastic monologues.

Climax falls on the third act. The ruined Ranevskaya is satisfied evening- a kind of “feast during the plague.” Lopakhin announces his purchase of a cherry orchard. This news amazes Ranevskaya. However, the emotional tension of the characters is not associated with the very fact of selling the estate, but with the feeling of general unsettledness, the “clumsiness” of their lives. The sounds of the Jewish orchestra enhance the feeling of anguish in the souls of the characters.

In the fourth act it happens denouement. The cherry orchard begins cut down, the old owners of the estate are ready to leave it. The emotional tension in the souls of the heroes decreases; they calm down, resign themselves to their fate. None of the characters are going to radically change their lives. Ranevskaya is leaving abroad again. Gaev gets a job at a bank. Varya, to whom Lopakhin never proposed, becomes housekeeper to the landowners Ragulin. Only Anya is ready to start living in a new way.

Thus, stage action in Chekhov's play determined not so much by events as by the emotional experiences of the characters, reflecting internal drama- in their hearts.

Internal conflict, conflict in the souls of heroes, is expressed in lyrical subtext, which Nemirovich-Danchenko defined as "undercurrent". Often in the characters' remarks it is not what they say that is significant, but what is hidden behind their words. The words of the characters create a certain mood in the play.

Role of the detail

A special role in Chekhov's play is played by details–landscape, sound; details describing appearance heroes, details speech characteristics characters.

Expanded remarks, preceding each action in the play, include details that help to understand the general meaning of the work, the mood of the characters, their attitude. Particularly important are landscape details.

Let's consider remark, describing scenery of the first act. Visible from the nursery window blossoming cherry trees. With the help of this detail, the author introduces into the play cherry orchard theme, and with it the theme of spring, the spring awakening of nature, new hopes and illusions of the characters in the play.

Decoration second action recreates South Russian steppe landscape: opens before the viewer's eyes picture of fields, abandoned chapel, poplars, big city on the horizon. The landscape enhances the lyrical subtext of the stage action; arises the image of Russia departing into the vast expanses.

Note also sound details in Chekhov's play. Sounds shepherd's pipe(end of the first act) recreate the atmosphere of the morning, and also introduce the theme into the play folk life, inseparable from the life of nature. Epikhodov playing guitar, performance by him romance "What do I care about the noisy light..." convey the poetry and at the same time the comic nature of the character. The sound of a broken string- a symbol of the spiritual anguish experienced by the heroes of Chekhov’s play. Sounds of a Jewish orchestra in the third act they enhance the feeling of anguish in the hearts of the characters. The sound of an ax- a symbol of the death of the former noble life.

Let's note some speech details. So, the word " klutz", often pronounced by Firs, emphasizes the restlessness of Chekhov's heroes, the awkwardness of their lives.

Expression “My cart is lost, all four wheels” in Pishchik’s speech, he reveals the good-natured comedy in the character’s character.

Details contained in stage directions, convey the peculiarities of the characters’ personalities, and also contribute to the creation of a general atmosphere of the unsettled life of Chekhov’s heroes.

Ranevskaya constantly crying, all the time in tears,laughs through tears; This is a sign of the heroine’s emotional nature. Telegrams from Paris–repeating part, running like a “dotted line” through the entire work and describing Ranevskaya’s growing passion for an insignificant, as Petya Trofimov put it, person.

Epikhodov’s clumsiness and awkwardness of character are emphasized by the fact that he drops a bouquet of flowers, intended by Ranevskaya, bumps into a chair,puts a suitcase on a box of hats; the hero finds himself in other comic situations.

Petya falls from the stairs- a comic detail that reveals eccentricity hero, his inability to live. The same can be said about the lost Petyas galoshes.

Gaev constantly sucks lollipops; this detail reminds the viewer of the character’s immaturity, childish naivety, frivolity, and his inability to look at life realistically.

Charlotte takes it out of her pocket and eats it cucumber- a comic detail that conveys the originality of the character and manners of the heroine. She's the same " puts on a gun"- another detail emphasizing the extravagance of Charlotte’s manners. Card tricks And the wonders of ventriloquism the heroines enhance the impression of the “theatricality” of what is happening.

Some details in Chekhov's work acquire symbolic meaning. So, image hot air balloon - a symbol of the inspiration of Anya’s soul, her aspiration for the future.

Questions and tasks

1. In what year did Chekhov write “The Cherry Orchard”? When was the play published and performed on stage? Briefly describe the era at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. What trends of this era are reflected in The Cherry Orchard? State the main problem of the play.

2. How does the system of characters in The Cherry Orchard relate to the theme of the past, present and future of Russia? Which character represents which era?

3. Describe the previous owners of the cherry orchard. Why do Ranevskaya, Gaev, and their neighbor Simeonov-Pishchik personify the past? Which of the characters can be called a “splinter” of feudal Russia and why?

4. Which of the heroes most clearly personifies the present? Describe in detail this character and his view regarding the path Russia should take. What contradiction in the worldview and activities of this hero does the author expose? Why do this character’s ideas about the future seem unconvincing to Chekhov?

5. What type of Russian life of that time does Petya Trofimov represent? Can this hero be called ideal? How is the author’s position expressed through the image of Petya? What is the paradox here?

6. What in Anya’s views distinguishes her from other representatives of the noble class? Can Anya’s position be called convincing?

7. Briefly describe others characters plays, identify the role of each of them in the ideological content and artistic structure of Chekhov’s work. Name the most striking off-stage characters and identify their role in the play.

10. What are the genre specifics of “The Cherry Orchard”? What genre definition of this work did Chekhov himself insist on? Does the play have features of drama?

11. What event underlies the plot of the play? Is this event the main factor determining the conflict in The Cherry Orchard? Is there any conflict between the characters in the play? Why did A.P. Skaftymov define the main conflict of “The Cherry Orchard” as a conflict between “given” and “desired”? What did he mean by this?

12. Tell us about the features of the stage action in “The Cherry Orchard”. What features of stage action in Chekhov's plays seemed unusual to the playwright's contemporaries? What is the relationship between the events and experiences of the characters in the play? What did Chekhov see as the drama of life?

13. What can you say about the features of love stories in “The Cherry Orchard”? What role do they play here? Comment on the most important of them.

14. Consider the exposition, plot, climax and denouement of Chekhov's play. What is their specificity in The Cherry Orchard? Which of Chekhov's heroes ultimately returns to old life, and who seeks to start a new life? What is the function of the “undercurrent” in the stage action of “The Cherry Orchard”?

15. Name the main types of details in “The Cherry Orchard.” Give examples of each of their varieties and comment on them.

16. Make a detailed outline plan

When first reading The Cherry Orchard, the reader, as a rule, rarely pays attention to Charlotte. At first it seems that this character simply complements the overall picture of comedy and misunderstanding. But meanwhile, it was Charlotte, with her special interesting statements, Chekhov considered one of the key figures in the drama, and insisted that only very talented actress, noting that “there should be an actress with humor here.”
Such famous literary scholars as A.P. Skaftmov and Z.S. Paperny wrote about Charlotte’s functions. In particular, they noted that Charlotte is far from one-sided comic character, but a truly deep psychological image. However, in my opinion, the original findings of literary scholars did not fully address the question of the role of the character in the work, as well as the question of how comedy and tragedy coexist in the image of Charlotte.
Taking into account the observations and conclusions of famous Czech scholars, I will conduct my own research to clarify the role of Charlotte in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.
What does the reader know about Charlotte? Charlotte is the governess of the Ranevskys, an orphan who did not know her parents, raised by “a German woman.”
For the first time we meet the name of Charlotte in the playbill of the drama, and even then it strikes us with its absurdity. Charlotte Ivanovna is a very strange combination French name and Russian patronymic. And the image of a comic character is immediately created in the reader’s imagination. But is Charlotte really like this? Let's try to figure this out.
Charlotte first appears in Act I:

Enter... Anya and Charlotte with a dog on a chain, dressed for travel.
Gaev: The train was two hours late. What's it like? What are the procedures?
Charlotte (to Pishchik). My dog ​​also eats nuts.
Pishchik (Surprised). Just think!

It seems that Charlotte does not participate in the characters’ dialogue and says her line “by the way,” as it might seem at first glance. Perhaps, throughout the previous dialogue, Charlotte has been talking with Pishchik, and it is this phrase, divorced from context, that the audience hears. But this is probably the answer to Gaev’s remark, allegorical and not addressed to him at all. “My dog ​​even eats nuts,” says Charlotte. “My dog ​​tolerates it, even eats nuts, and doesn’t complain, but you complain about the rules. You need to be patient,” this, it seems to me, is the subtext of this phrase. But her statement is addressed to Pishchik, most likely as a person who will pay attention to her, who will listen to her, and not ignore her, as Gaev most likely would have done.
The next scene of the first act, in which we again meet Charlotte Ivanovna, largely clarifies the attitude of the rest of the inhabitants of the Ranevsky house towards her.

Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitted, with a lorgnette on her belt, walks across the stage.
Lopakhin: (wants to kiss her) ...
Charlotte: If I let you kiss my hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...
Lopakhin: I'm unlucky today. ... Charlotte Ivanovna, show me your magic trick!
………
Charlotte: No need. I want to sleep.

It’s strange, but this episode is not mentioned, even in passing, in the works of A.P. Skaftymov and Z.S. Paperny, but it is precisely this episode that makes it possible to understand exactly how the household treat Charlotte, that Charlotte is perceived as nothing other than a buffoon, ready to make your owners laugh whenever they want. And Charlotte absolutely disagrees with this position. She clearly considers herself “superior”, and when asked to amuse Lopakhin and Anna Andreevna, she responds quite sharply (“no need, I want to sleep”) - after that, the requests immediately subside, and Charlotte calmly leaves.
Almost no one notices Charlotte in the house, but they still respect her opinion and desire. She herself personifies a protest against the indifferent treatment of her as a person. She puts herself on an equal footing with the owners, and demands good service and expensive food, as Anya says at the beginning of the first act.
Outwardly, Charlotte is indeed comical, because this is what those around her expect from her, but in the soul of a person completely different feelings reign. And even her phrase “If I allow you to kiss my hand, then you will wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...” can be understood in two ways. Firstly, she, as it may seem, emphasizes the comicality of Charlotte, and secondly, she explains how Charlotte herself perceives this treatment of her: “As soon as I allowed you to see me as a buffoon, you tried me more and more persistently them to do, forgetting that I am first of all a human being, just like you,” she seems to be saying.
The next scene in which Charlotte appears is key to understanding this character. It is in this scene that Charlotte Ivanovna’s past is revealed to the viewer, and her loneliness is especially clearly emphasized.

Charlotte, Yasha and Dunyasha are sitting on a bench. Charlotte in an old cap; she took the gun off her shoulders and adjusted her belt buckle.

A comical image that does not match the words. Charlotte always looks quite comical, but she is comical only in the eyes of her owners, who perceive her as a “circus performer” and a “magician.” In such a strange outfit you can also see Charlotte’s pro-test “Did you want me to be a jester? Here, I’m a jester, in clown clothes...” - she seems to be saying with her appearance.
But as a person she is unhappy. And this “opposite” * (as Z. S. Paperny very wittily noted) is emphasized by the comedy that arises when the text of the play correlates the description of her appearance, costume and deep thoughts about her own fate.

Charlotte (thoughtfully) I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it still seems to me that I’m young. When I was a little girl, my father and mother went to fairs and gave performances, very good ones. And I jumped salto mortale and various things. And when my father and mother died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me. Fine. I grew up, then became a governess. But where I am from and who I am, I don’t know... Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know. (Takes a cucumber out of his pocket and eats it.) I don’t know anything. I really want to talk, but not with anyone... I don’t have anyone.

And the reaction from the listeners, or rather, the lack thereof, immediately attracts attention. Charlotte doesn't seem to be noticed at all. She suffers from loneliness and pours out her soul in this “confession,” but her words go unnoticed. Epikhodov continues to sing and Dunyasha begins an argument with him. And even Charlotte’s contemptuous remark does not attract the attention of others.

Epikhodov (plays guitar and sings). “What do I care about the noisy light, what are my friends and enemies...” How pleasant it is to play the mandolin!
Charlotte. These people sing terribly... ugh! Like jackals……………
Epikhodov... Abroad, everything has long been in full swing.
Yasha. By itself.
Epikhodov. I am a developed person, I read various wonderful books, but I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, whether I should live or shoot myself, strictly speaking, but, nevertheless, I always carry a revolver with me. Here it is... (Shows the revolver.)
Charlotte. I finished. Now I'll go. (Puts on a gun.) You, Epikhodov, are very clever man and very scary; Women should love you madly. Brrr! (Walks.) These smart guys are all so stupid, I have no one to talk to... All alone, alone, I have no one and... and who I am, why I am, it is unknown... (Leaves slowly.)

It seems that Charlotte is already accustomed to the fact that they do not pay attention to her, and calmly, without trying to attract anyone’s attention, accepts the fact that she is not noticed.
Charlotte is depicted at a turning point in her life, when a person wants to find his place in the world, to find loved ones, relatives and like-minded people, but Charlotte doesn’t have them, which causes the heroine’s deep emotional experiences. She is trying to find friends, or just people who could understand and support her. And not outstanding self-taught philosophers who are trying to impress a girl with their statements. This scene echoes the very first one, where Charlotte appears with the dog. No one else has an animal in the house, only Charlotte has a dog, perhaps her only friend. This fact only emphasizes the loneliness of the heroine.
What follows is the ball scene, the only action, where the image of Charlotte acquires liveliness and gaiety, primarily in the scene of the demonstration of tricks entertaining the guests. Here Charlotte forgets about her problems for a while, she finds herself in the “element” of her role, imposed on her by the world order, and does what she likes, what she knows how to do perfectly.

They go out into the living room: the first couple is Pishchik and Charlotte Ivanovna...

(I think it’s worth paying attention to the fact that Charlotte enters the room with Squeaky. Without this character in the play, Charlotte would have been left alone, and most likely would have appeared in the hall when all the guests had gathered, as a circus performer, who was invited for entertainment)

Charlotte (hands Pishchik a deck of cards). Here is a deck of cards, think of one card.
Pishchik. I thought about it.
Charlotte. Now shuffle the deck. Very good. Give it here, oh my dear Mr. Pishchik. Ein, zwei, drei! Now look, it's in your side pocket...
Pishchik (takes out a card from his side pocket). Eight of spades, absolutely right! (Surprised.) Just think!
Charlotte (holds a deck of cards in her palm, Trofimova). Tell me quickly, which card is on top?
Trofimov. Well? Well, queen of spades.
Charlotte. Eat! (To the squeaker.) Well? Which card is on top?
Pishchik. Ace of hearts.
Charlotte. Yes!.. (He hits his palm, the deck of cards disappears.) And what good weather today!
A mysterious female voice answers her, as if from under the floor: “Oh yes, the weather is magnificent, madam.”
You are so good, my ideal...
Voice: “I also really liked you, madam.”
Station Manager (applauds). Madam Ventriloquist, bravo!

In this episode, Charlotte fulfills the role assigned to her in this family - entertaining those around her. In an effort to entertain the guests, she parodies the accent in her speech, ?(STYLE!!!)? although in his notes for the actors, Chekhov notes: “Charlotte speaks not broken, but pure Russian.”

Pishchik (surprised). Just think! The most charming Charlotte Ivanovna... I'm just in love...
Charlotte. In love? (Shrugs.) Can you love? Guter Mensch, aber schlechter Musikant.

For the first time, excitement and gaiety appear in her speech, perhaps feigned, but one still feels the excitement. And during this revival, she “accidentally” rejects Pishchik’s confession, not taking him seriously. (Neither recognition, nor person) She is not interested in him as a person, but still he is the only one who sees Charlotte as a person behind the constant jokes. He is almost the only one in the whole house who ignores her.

Charlotte. Please pay attention, one more trick. (Takes a blanket from the chair.) Here is a very good blanket, I want to sell... (Shakes it.) Does anyone want to buy?
Pishchik (surprised). Just think!
Charlotte. Ein, zwei, drei! (Quickly picks up the lowered blanket.)
Anya is standing behind the blanket; she curtsies, runs to her mother, hugs her and runs back into the hall with general delight.
Lyubov Andreevna (applauds). Bravo, bravo!..
Charlotte. Now more! Ein, zwei, drei!
Raises the blanket; Varya stands behind the blanket and bows.
Pishchik (surprised). Just think!
Charlotte. End! (Throws the blanket on Pishchik, curtsies and runs into the hall.)
Pishchik (hurries after her). The villain... what? What? (Leaves.)

This is perhaps the first scene in the play where Charlotte comes to life. Playfulness and gaiety appear in her words and movements. And even the remark “he curtsies and runs into the hall” can be contrasted with another: “He goes... He leaves slowly.”...
And finally, the departure scene, which received a lot of attention in the studies of Paperny² and Skaftymov."
Lopakhin enters. Charlotte hums a song quietly. Gaev. Happy Charlotte: Singing! Charlotte (takes a knot that looks like a rolled up baby). My baby, bye, bye...
A child is heard crying: “Wa, wa!..” Shut up, my good, my dear boy.
“Wa!.. wa!..” I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the bundle into place.) So, please, find me a place. I can't do this.
Lopakhin. We'll find you, Charlotte Ivanovna, don't worry.
Gaev. Everyone leaves us, Varya leaves... suddenly we are no longer needed.
Charlotte. I have nowhere to live in the city. We have to leave... (Humming.) Anyway...

Here is what Paperny writes about this scene:

The sale of the cherry orchard is a disaster for her, she has lost her place, a corner in the house, fate has dealt her another salto-mortale. And the fact that she “quietly hums” in the fourth act, of course, cannot in any way mean that she is feeling good. And this whole scene is built on the transition of words and phenomena into their opposite. One of the knots moving away turns into a “baby”, you can even hear him shouting: “Waah!.. Wah!..”, and then the baby becomes a knot again, and Charlotte throws him back to his original place. So is Charlotte herself: either she sang, seemed “happy,” or she asks to find a “place” for her.

And Skaftymov:

In Act IV, the picture unfolds of the last farewell minutes before leaving the sold estate. Charlotte's homeless, lonely life is now burdened by a new and already complete homelessness. Nobody needs her now. At the moment of the lyrical farewell conversation between Anya and Lyubov Andreevna, Charlotte appears, “quietly humming a song.” Gaev remarks to this: “Happy Charlotte: she sings!” Charlotte, indeed, does not violate the tone of her usual playful fun, takes a knot that looks like a rolled up child, and gives a scene of “ventriloquism”: “my baby, bye, bye ... (the child’s cry is heard: wa, wa!), etc. . Then he throws the bundle and says: “So, please, find me a place. I can’t do this..." And this remark immediately makes her state of lonely, silent anxiety transparent to the viewer.

As you can see, both literary scholars pay great attention to this passage, considering it key in understanding the character of the hero. They both notice that Charlotte is singing. But is it because she’s just trying to seem cheerful? If so, then the question arises: Why? She will no longer remain the governess of the Ranevskys, no matter how she behaves. Moreover, against the backdrop of general sadness and despondency, her “gaiety” can only irritate. In my opinion, Charlotte is immersed in her thoughts and is not aware of what she is singing.
A. Skaftymov notes “Charlotte, indeed, does not violate the tone of her usual playful fun, takes a knot that looks like a curled up child, and gives a scene of “ghosting”.” I’ll try to disagree with him, and since I’ve already started looking for hidden meaning in all of Charlotte’s statements, I’ll probably continue this tradition.
As mentioned earlier, Charlotte is depicted at a turning point in her life, when the world around her is collapsing, and when she wants to find loved ones and family, to have her own family. Perhaps Charlotte imagines the bundle as a baby precisely because her previous thoughts were connected with the house, with the family, with children...
Charlotte in this scene is a deeply unhappy person. Nothing holds her back in this family... she is not valued here, she is disgusted by the tone in which they communicate with her, but still, at the expense of this family she existed for a long time, and now she has nowhere to go. That’s why she asks to “find a place for her.”
The image is created of a lonely woman going through a difficult period in her life, a little tired, smart, talented and proud.
Stanislavsky, telling the actors about the role of Charlotte, asked them not to limit themselves to words, he wanted the actors to first of all understand the heroine herself, and then they would already play her. I think that Stanislavsky wanted the actress to understand that behind Charlotte’s outward comic appearance there was hidden a completely different, far from comical image.

First of all, live the image without touching or trivializing the words of the role. Sit down and play whatever comes to mind. Imagine this scene: Pishchik proposes to Charlotte, and she is the bride... How will she behave. Or Charlotte was driven away, and she again joined a circus or a café. How she does gymnastics, or how she sings a chansonette. Hair yourself in different styles and look for something in yourself that will remind you of Charlotte... Don't forget to play Charlotte at a dramatic moment in her life. Get her to sincerely cry over herself.

So, as I tried to tell in this work, Charlotte is far from a minor character in the play, who serves only to create the background of the comedy and introduce additional comic episodes into the play. Charlotte is an independent character, living her own life. Charlotte adds to the drama new conflict, a conflict between external comedy and deep emotional experiences, which complements the already multifaceted general conflict in the soul of each of the characters.
In the person of Charlotte, Chekhov creates a deep image of a person, reveals his character, shows his problems and introduces him to the story of his life. (But Charlotte is almost the only character whose past is told in the drama).

"Skaftymov A. On the unity of form and content in “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov // Skaftymov A. Moral quest Russian writers. M.: Ho-dozhestven. Literat., 1972. P. 366.

² Paperny Z. “Contrary to all the rules...”. Plays and vaudevilles of Chekhov. M.: Art, 1982. P.221-222.
* Therefore, Gaev’s remark: “Happy Charlotte: sings!” - hits the heart with its “opposite” nature. Gaev’s phrase means one thing, but evokes in the viewer something completely different, a different, directly opposite reaction. (full quote)

In Chekhov's work “The Cherry Orchard” many interesting characters are presented, who in one way or another create in the work the atmosphere that the author of this work, that is, Chekhov, intended. Among these characters, Charlotte Ivanovna should be highlighted.

Charlotte Ivanovna is a middle-aged woman of rather pleasant appearance, whom the author presents as a rather pleasant image. She looks neat enough to be described as a noble woman from a wealthy family, which she is.

In her image, the author tried to clarify the subtleties that he would like to convey in order to describe with completeness and clarity. That feminine arrogance and noble appearance make her image even more sophisticated than it already is.

In character, the woman is very extraordinary, which contrasts with her seemingly light and easy-to-perceive image. This woman is a mystery that not everyone can solve. There is that mysterious mystery in her character that makes people follow her and treat her with warmth and love.

Also, the author added a feature to her image that has always attracted and will continue to attract people to such a person. She is very independent and very free-thinking, regardless of anyone or anything outside. Nothing can change her mind, and no one can convince her of anything, which makes her a very interesting person, with her own unique opinion on everything that surrounds her. It is in this way that Chekhov draws attention to her uniqueness throughout the work, while all the others are simply the same type and not very interesting personalities to get acquainted with, Charlotte Ivanovna creates a unique contrast in which she stands out very much from the crowd.

But even with such a seemingly arrogant and arrogant character, she is not alien to kindness and mercy, which she shows throughout the entire work. Thus, we see that the author made it this way in order to make the reader understand that even people who at first glance seem very aloof and uninterested in the lives of others, in fact have very strong empathy, which allows them to effectively help others. Charlotte Ivanovna perfectly understands the feelings of her interlocutor, which allows him to win over her.

Image 2

One of the strangest and initially incomprehensible heroes " Cherry Orchard» Chekhov is served by Charlotte Ivanovna, governess of the Ranevsky family. I like some roles in the play, some disgust me, but the role of Charlotte has always been neutral in my mind and has little influence on anything. For me, this is just the most mysterious character in the entire play.

Its mystery lies in several aspects: firstly, it is difficult for the reader to understand why this image is needed, what it brings to the play, what its tasks are and what the reader should see in it. Secondly, Charlotte has no passport, no parents, no family, no husband, she does not know her origins and simply lives to live. And thirdly, Charlotte Ivanovna has no contact with the main event of the play - the sale of the estate.

What is known is that Charlotte can perform magic tricks and speaks German and sometimes spews out phrases that are illogical and inappropriate at first glance. And even greater mystery arises when you find out that for Chekhov it was best role throughout the play. The role is secondary, not possessing any character traits, why could Chekhov like it so much? It was this question that began to torment me when I learned about Anton Pavlovich’s words. After all, if the author himself singles out a certain role, especially since it is not the main role plays, then I always want to understand: what did he see in it, why can’t I see what he saw and put into it?

This answer is hidden on the surface: if you judge, then all the characters in the play depend on their status, origin and fashion, then dominant in society. Charlotte Ivanovna is, as it were, an observer of everything that happens, she is not in a close relationship with anyone, she does not want to be a follower of fashion, like the lackey Yashka was, she has absolutely detached thoughts and remarks. I think that Chekhov wanted to put into this role the image of a person who rises above all the local problems in the play, Charlotte is above all these problems and worries, in her, at first glance, thoughtless remarks, there is the whole essence, the whole truth, because truth is born in the judgments of someone who is not dependent on or interested in any side of the discussion. Charlotte Ivanovna, in my humble opinion, is the image of a seed that sprouts in Ranevskaya’s house, a seed whose name is truth.

Several interesting essays

All people living on earth know about wars. They always talk about them, remember them, and of course they are afraid of a repetition of these terrible events in our time. Parents and teachers at school constantly remind and talk about all the horrors of wartime

• Essay Ecology of my area 5th grade

  There are few cars, there is parking. We have clean air and birds sing... I like it! However, there are no buses going here yet. Not all taxi drivers know where our block is.

• Analysis of the story Three Meetings of Turgenev

  The work belongs to the work of a writer distinguished by personal, confessional reflections. The main character of the story is the hunter Lukyanych, on whose behalf the story is narrated in the work

• Female characters in the novel Fathers and Sons of Turgenev 10th grade essay

  The great Russian writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev created a large number of wonderful images of Russian women. The writer’s attitude towards the fair half of humanity was special

The play “The Cherry Orchard” became A.P.’s swan song. Chekhov, taking on long years the stage of world theaters. The success of this work was due not only to its themes, which are controversial to this day, but also to the images that Chekhov created. For him, the presence of women in his works was very important: “Without a woman, a story is like a car without steam,” he wrote to one of his friends. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the role of women in society began to change. The image of Ranevskaya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” became a vivid caricature of Anton Pavlovich’s emancipated contemporaries, whom he observed in large quantities in Monte Carlo.

Chekhov carefully worked out each female image: facial expressions, gestures, manners, speech, because through them he conveyed an idea of ​​the character and feelings possessing the heroines. Appearance and the name also contributed to this.

The image of Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna has become one of the most controversial, and this was largely thanks to the actresses playing this role. Chekhov himself wrote that: “It’s not difficult to play Ranevskaya, you just need to take the right tone from the very beginning...”. Her image is complex, but there are no contradictions in it, since she is faithful to her internal logic of behavior.

Ranevskaya's life story

The description and characterization of Ranevskaya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is given through her story about herself, from the words of other characters and the author’s remarks. Acquaintance with the central female character begins literally from the first lines, and Ranevskaya’s life story is revealed in the very first act. Lyubov Andreevna returned from Paris, where she lived for five years, and this return was caused by the urgent need to resolve the issue of the fate of the estate, which was put up for auction for debts.

Lyubov Andreevna married “a lawyer at law, a non-nobleman...”, “who only made debts,” and also “drank terribly” and “died from champagne.” Was she happy in this marriage? Unlikely. After the death of her husband, Ranevskaya “unfortunately” fell in love with another. But her passionate romance did not last long. Her young son died tragically, and feeling guilty, Lyubov Andreevna goes abroad forever. However, her lover followed her “ruthlessly, rudely,” and after several years of painful passions, “he robbed... abandoned, got in touch with someone else,” and she, in turn, tries to poison herself. Seventeen-year-old daughter Anya comes to Paris to pick up her mother. Oddly enough, this young girl partially understands her mother and feels sorry for her. Throughout the play, the daughter's sincere love and affection is visible. Having stayed in Russia for only five months, Ranevskaya, immediately after selling the estate, taking the money intended for Anya, returns to Paris to her lover.

Characteristics of Ranevskaya

On the one hand, Ranevskaya is beautiful woman, educated, with a subtle sense of beauty, kind and generous, who is loved by those around her, but her shortcomings border on vice and therefore are so noticeable. “She's a good person. Easy, simple,” says Lopakhin. He sincerely loves her, but his love is so unobtrusive that no one knows about it. Her brother says almost the same thing: “She is good, kind, nice...” but she is “vicious. You can feel it in her slightest movement.” Absolutely all the characters speak about her inability to manage money, and she herself understands this very well: “I have always wasted money without restraint, like crazy...”; “...she has nothing left. And mom doesn’t understand!” says Anya. “My sister is still used to wasting money,” Gaev echoes her. Ranevskaya is used to living without denying herself pleasures, and if her family is trying to reduce their expenses, then Lyubov Andreevna simply cannot do it, she is ready to give her last money to a random passer-by, although Varya has nothing to feed her household.

At first glance, Ranevskaya’s experiences are very deep, but if you pay attention to the author’s remarks, it becomes clear that this is only an appearance. For example, while excitedly waiting for her brother to return from the auction, she hums a lezginka song. And this shining example her entire being. She seems to distance herself from unpleasant moments, trying to fill them with actions that can bring positive emotions. The phrase characterizing Ranevskaya from “The Cherry Orchard”: “You shouldn’t deceive yourself, you need to look the truth straight in the eye at least once in your life,” suggests that Lyubov Andreevna is divorced from reality, stuck in her own world.

“Oh, my garden! After a dark, stormy autumn and a cold winter, you are young again, full of happiness, the heavenly angels have not abandoned you...” - with these words Ranevskaya greets the garden after a long separation, the garden without which she “does not understand her life,” with which she is inextricably her childhood and youth are connected. And it seems that Lyubov Andreevna loves her estate and cannot live without it, but she does not try to make any attempts to save it, thereby betraying him. Most In the play, Ranevskaya hopes that the issue with the estate will be resolved by itself, without her participation, although it is her decision that is the main one. Although Lopakhin's proposal is the most realistic way to save him. The merchant has a presentiment of the future, saying that it is quite possible that “the summer resident ... will take up farming, and then your cherry orchard will become happy, rich, luxurious,” because on this moment The garden is in a neglected state, and does not bring any benefit or benefit to its owners.

For Ranevskaya, the cherry orchard meant her inextricable connection with the past and her ancestral attachment to the Motherland. She is a part of him, just as he is a part of her. She realizes that selling the garden is an inevitable payment for past life, and this can be seen in her monologue about sins, in which she realizes them and takes them upon herself, asking the Lord not to send great trials, and the sale of the estate becomes their kind of atonement: “My nerves are better... I sleep well.”

Ranevskaya is an echo of a cultural past that is thinning literally before our eyes and disappearing from the present. Well aware of the destructiveness of her passion, realizing that this love is dragging her to the bottom, she returns to Paris, knowing that “this money will not last long.”

Against this background, love for daughters looks very strange. Stepdaughter, who dreams of joining a monastery, gets a job as a housekeeper for her neighbors, since she does not have at least a hundred rubles to donate, and her mother simply does not attach any importance to this. Her own daughter Anya, left at the age of twelve in the care of a careless uncle, is very worried about her mother’s future on the old estate and is saddened by the imminent separation. “...I will work, help you...” says a young girl who is not yet familiar with life.

The further fate of Ranevskaya is very unclear, although Chekhov himself said that: “Only death can calm down such a woman.”

To understand Chekhov’s perception of the nobility, it is necessary to consider the characterization of Gaev in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” brother main character, practically a double of Ranevskaya, but less significant. Therefore, in the list of characters he is designated “Ranevskaya’s brother,” although he is older than her and has the same rights to the estate as his sister.

Gaev Leonid Andreevich is a landowner, “who spent his fortune on candy,” leading an idle lifestyle, but it is strange to him that the garden is being sold for debts. He is already 51 years old, but he has neither a wife nor children. He lives in an old estate, which is being destroyed before his eyes, under the tutelage of the old lackey Firs. However, it is Gaev who is always trying to borrow money from someone in order to cover at least the interest on his and his sister’s debts. And his options for repaying all the loans are more like pipe dreams: “It would be nice to receive an inheritance from someone, it would be nice to marry our Anya to a very rich man, it would be nice to go to Yaroslavl and try your luck with the aunt countess...”

The image of Gaev in the play “The Cherry Orchard” became a caricature of the nobility as a whole. All negative sides Ranevskaya found an uglier attitude in her brother, thereby further emphasizing the comedy of what was happening. Unlike Ranevskaya, Gaev's description is mainly in stage directions, which reveal his character through actions, while the characters say very little about him.

Very little is said about Gaev's past. But it is clear that he is an educated man who knows how to express his thoughts in beautiful but empty speeches. He lived all his life on his estate, a regular at men's clubs, where he indulged in his favorite pastime, playing billiards. He brought all the news from there and there he received an offer to become a bank employee, with an annual salary of six thousand. However, for those around him it was very surprising, the sister says: “Where are you!” Sit already...” Lopakhin also expresses doubts: “But he won’t sit still, he’s very lazy...”. The only person who believes him is his niece Anya “I believe you uncle!”. What caused such distrust and, in some ways, even disdainful attitude on the part of others? After all, even the lackey Yasha shows his disrespect for him.

As has already been said, Gaev is an empty talker; at the most inopportune moments he can launch into a rant, so that everyone around him is simply lost and asks him to remain silent. Leonid Andreevich himself understands this, but it is part of his nature. He is also very infantile, unable to defend his point of view, and cannot really formulate it. He so often has nothing substantive to say that his favorite word “Whom” is constantly heard and completely inappropriate billiard terms appear. Firs still follows his master like a little child, either shaking off the dust from his trousers, or bringing him a warm coat, and for a fifty-year-old man there is nothing shameful in such care, he even goes to bed under the sensitive gaze of his lackey. Firs is sincerely attached to the owner, but even Gaev in the finale of the play “The Cherry Orchard” forgets about his devoted servant. He loves his nieces and his sister. But he was never able to become the head of a family in which he was the only man left, and he cannot help anyone, since it doesn’t even occur to him. All this shows how shallow the feelings of this hero are.

For Gaev, the cherry orchard means as much as it does for Ranevskaya, but, like her, she is not ready to accept Lopakhin’s offer. After all, dividing the estate into plots and renting them out is “off”, largely because it will bring them closer to such businessmen as Lopakhin, but for Leonid Andreevich this is unacceptable, since he considers himself a true aristocrat, looking down on such merchants. Having returned in a depressed state from the auction at which the estate was sold, Gaev has only tears in his eyes, and as soon as he hears the blows of the cue on the balls, they dry up, once again proving that deep emotions are simply not characteristic of him.

Gaev closed the chain consisting of images of nobles created by Chekhov throughout creative life. He created “heroes of his time,” aristocrats with an excellent education, unable to defend their ideals, and it was this weakness that allowed people like Lopakhin to occupy a dominant position. In order to show how small the nobles had become, Anton Pavlovich understated the image of Gaev as much as possible, bringing him to the point of caricature. Many representatives of the aristocracy were very critical of this depiction of their class, accusing the author of ignorance of their circle. But Chekhov didn’t even want to create a comedy, but a farce, and he succeeded.

The fate of Lopakhin, Ermolai Alekseevich from the very beginning is closely intertwined with the fate of the Ranevskaya family. His father was a serf to Ranevskaya’s father, and traded “in a shop in the village.” One day, Lopakhin recalls in the first act, his father drank and broke his face. Then young Ranevskaya took him to her place, washed him and consoled him: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding.” Lopakhin still remembers these words, and they resonate in him in two ways. On the one hand, he is pleased by Ranevskaya’s affection, on the other, the word “peasant” hurts his pride. It was his father who was a man, Lopakhin protests, and he himself “made it into the people” and became a merchant. He has a lot of money, “a white vest and yellow shoes” - and he achieved all this himself. His parents didn’t teach him anything, his father only beat him when he was drunk. Remembering this, the hero admits that, in essence, he remained a peasant: his handwriting is bad, and he doesn’t understand anything about books - “he read a book and fell asleep.”

Lopakhin's energy and hard work deserves undoubted respect. From five o'clock he is already on his feet, works from morning to evening and cannot imagine his life without work. Curious detail- due to his activities, he always lacks time; some business trips he goes on are constantly mentioned. This character in the play looks at his watch more often than others. In contrast to the amazingly impractical Ranevskaya family, he knows the score of both time and money.

At the same time, Lopakhin cannot be called a money-grubber or an unprincipled “grabber merchant”, like those merchants whose images Ostrovsky loved to paint. This can be evidenced at least by the ease with which he parted with his money. During the course of the play, Lopakhin will lend or offer money more than once (remember the dialogue with Petya Trofimov and the eternal debtor Simeonov-Pishchik). And most importantly, Lopakhin is sincerely worried about the fate of Ranevskaya and her estate. The merchants from Ostrovsky's plays would never do what comes to Lopakhin's mind - he himself offers Ranevskaya a way out of the situation. But the profit that can be made by renting out a cherry orchard for summer cottages is not small at all (Lopakhin calculates it himself). And it would be much more profitable to wait until the day of the auction and secretly buy a profitable estate. But no, the hero is not like that, he will more than once invite Ranevskaya to think about her fate. Lopakhin is not trying to buy a cherry orchard. “I teach you every day,” he says to Ranevskaya in despair shortly before the auction. And it’s not his fault that in response he will hear the following: dachas are “so cheesy”, Ranevskaya will never agree to this. But let him, Lopakhin, not leave, it’s “still more fun” with him...

Characteristics of Lopakhin through the eyes of other characters

So, before us appears an extraordinary character, in which business acumen and practical intelligence are combined with sincere affection for the Ranevsky family, and this attachment, in turn, contradicts his desire to profit from their estate. To get a more accurate idea of ​​the image of Lopakhin in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard,” let’s look at how the other characters speak about him. The range of these reviews will be wide - from “the enormous intelligence of a person” (Simeonov-Pishchik) to “ beast of prey, eating everything in its path” (Petya).

A striking negative description belongs to Ranevskaya’s brother, Gaev: “boorish, fist.” Lopakhin is somewhat beautified in Gaev’s eyes by the fact that he is “Varin’s fiancé,” and yet this does not prevent Gaev from considering the merchant a limited person. However, let's see from whose lips such a description of Lopakhin sounds in the play? Lopakhin himself repeats it, and repeats it without malice: “Let him speak.” For him, in his own words, only one thing is important - that Ranevskaya’s “amazing, touching eyes” look at him “as before.”

Ranevskaya herself treats Lopakhin with warmth. For her he is “good, interesting person" And yet, from every phrase of Ranevskaya it is clear that she and Lopakhin are people of different circles. Lopakhin sees in Ranevskaya something more than just an old acquaintance...

Test of love

Throughout the play, every now and then there is a conversation about the marriage of Lopakhin and Varya, this is spoken of as a matter already decided. In response to Ranevskaya’s direct proposal to take Varya as his wife, the hero replies: “I wouldn’t mind... She’s a good girl.” And yet the wedding never takes place. But why?

Of course, this can be explained by the practicality of Lopakhin the merchant, who does not want to take a dowry for himself. In addition, Varya has certain rights to the cherry orchard, and her soul cares for it. Cutting down the garden comes between them. Varya explains her love failure even more simply: in her opinion, Lopakhin simply does not have time for feelings, he is a businessman incapable of love. On the other hand, Varya herself does not suit Lopakhin. Her world is limited by housework, she is dry and “looks like a nun.” Lopakhin more than once demonstrates the breadth of his soul (let us remember his statement about the giants who are so lacking in Rus'). From Varya’s incoherent dialogues with Lopakhin, it becomes clear: they absolutely do not understand each other. And Lopakhin, deciding for himself Hamlet’s question “To be or not to be?”, acts honestly. Realizing that he will not find happiness with Varya, he, like the district Hamlet, says: “Okhmelia, go to the monastery”...

The point, however, is not only the incompatibility of Lopakhin and Varya, but the fact that the hero has another, unexpressed love. This is Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, whom he loves “more than his own.” Throughout the entire play, Lopakhin’s bright, reverent attitude toward Ranevskaya runs as the leitmotif. He decides to propose to Varya after a request from Ranevskaya, but here he cannot overcome himself.

Lopakhin’s tragedy lies in the fact that for Ranevskaya he remained the same little man whom she once carefully washed. And at that moment when he finally understands that the “dear” that he kept in his soul will not be understood, a turning point occurs. All the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” lose something of their own, cherished - Lopakhin is no exception. Only in the image of Lopakhin does his feeling for Ranevskaya appear as a cherry orchard.

Lopakhin's celebration

And then it happened - Lopakhin acquired Ranevskaya’s estate at auction. Lopakhin - new owner cherry orchard! Now a predatory element really emerges in his character: “I can pay for anything!” The understanding that he bought an estate where once, “poor and illiterate,” did not dare to go beyond the kitchen, intoxicates him. But in his voice one can hear irony, self-mockery. Apparently, Lopakhin already understands that his triumph will not last long - he can buy a cherry orchard, “there is nothing more beautiful in the world,” but buying a dream is not in his power, it will dissipate like smoke. Ranevskaya can still be consoled, because she is, after all, leaving for Paris. And Lopakhin remains alone, understanding this very well. “Goodbye” - that’s all he can say to Ranevskaya, and this absurd word raises Lopakhin to the level of a tragic hero.

Characteristics of Anya and Petya Trofimov

In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected with the garden, like other characters, for them it does not play such a significant role, which is why they, in some way, fall out of the general system of characters. However, in the work of a playwright of Chekhov's stature there is no room for accidents; therefore, it is no coincidence that Petya and Anya are isolated. Let's take a closer look at these two heroes.

Among critics, there is a widespread interpretation of the images of Anya and Petya depicted in the play “The Cherry Orchard” as a symbol younger generation Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; generation, which is replacing the long-outdated “Ranevskys” and “Gayevs”, as well as the “Lopakhins”, creatures of a turning point. In Soviet criticism, this statement was considered undeniable, since the play itself was usually viewed in a strictly defined manner - based on the year of writing (1903), critics associated its creation with social changes and the brewing revolution of 1905. Accordingly, the understanding of the cherry orchard as a symbol of “old,” pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the “dying away” noble class, Lopakhin as images of the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov as images of the various intelligentsia, was affirmed. From this point of view, the play was seen as a work about the search for a “savior” for Russia, in which inevitable changes are brewing. Lopakhin, as the bourgeois master of the country, should be replaced by the commoner Petya, full of transformative ideas and aimed at a bright future; the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, will carry out a social revolution. Anya here symbolizes the “repentant” nobility, which takes an active part in these transformations.

Such a “class approach,” inherited from ancient times, reveals its inconsistency in the fact that many characters do not fit into this scheme: Varya, Charlotte, Epikhodov. We do not find any “class” subtext in their images. In addition, Chekhov was never known as a propagandist, and most likely would not have written such a clearly decipherable play. We should not forget that the author himself defined the genre of “The Cherry Orchard” as a comedy and even a farce - not the most successful form for demonstrating high ideals...

Based on all of the above, it is impossible to consider Anya and Petya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” solely as an image of the younger generation. Such an interpretation would be too superficial. Who are they for the author? What role do they play in his plan?

It can be assumed that the author deliberately brought out two characters not directly related to the main conflict as “outside observers.” They have no vested interest in the auction and the garden, and there is no clear symbolism associated with it. For Anya and Petya Trofimov, the cherry orchard is not a painful attachment. It is the lack of attachment that helps them survive in the general atmosphere of devastation, emptiness and meaninglessness, so subtly conveyed in the play.

The general characterization of Anya and Petya in The Cherry Orchard inevitably includes a love line between the two heroes. The author outlined it implicitly, half-hintly, and it is difficult to say for what purposes he needed this move. Perhaps this is a way to show the collision in the same situation of two qualitatively different characters. We see young, naive, enthusiastic Anya, who has not yet seen life and at the same time full of strength and readiness for any changes. And we see Petya, full of bold, revolutionary ideas, an inspired speaker, a sincere and enthusiastic person, moreover, absolutely inactive, full of internal contradictions, which is why he is absurd and sometimes funny. It can be said that love line brings two extremes together: Anya - a force without a vector, and Petya - a vector without a force. Anya's energy and determination are useless without a guide; Petya's passion and ideological spirit inner strength dead.

In conclusion, it can be noted that the images of these two heroes in the play today, unfortunately, are still viewed in a traditional “Soviet” way. There is reason to believe that a fundamentally different approach to the system of characters and Chekhov’s play as a whole will allow us to see many more shades of meaning and will reveal many interesting points. In the meantime, the images of Anya and Petya are waiting for their unbiased critic.

Characteristics of the image of Petya Trofimov

Pyotr Sergeevich Trofimov, or, as everyone calls him, Petya, appears for the first time in the play in a “worn student uniform and glasses.” And already from the hero’s first appearance on stage, two main features become visible in Trofimov’s characterization from The Cherry Orchard. The first is student life, because Petya is a so-called eternal student who has already been expelled from the university several times. And the second feature is his amazing ability to enter inopportunely and get into trouble: everyone rejoices at Petya’s arrival, fearing, however, that the sight of him might awaken painful memories in Ranevskaya. Trofimov was once the teacher of her little son, who soon drowned. Since then, Petya has settled down on the estate.

Hero-commoner

The image of Petya Trofimov in the play “The Cherry Orchard” was conceived as an image positive hero. A commoner, the son of a pharmacist, he is not bound by concerns about the estate or his business and is not attached to anything. Unlike the impractical Ranevskaya and Lopakhin, who is always busy with business, Petya has a unique chance to look at all events from the outside, assessing them impartially. According to Chekhov's original plan, it was Petya and Anya, inspired by his ideas, who should have indicated the resolution of the conflict of the play. Redemption of the past (in particular, the sin of owning living souls, which Trofimov condemns especially harshly) through “extraordinary, continuous labor” and faith in a bright future, in which all of Russia will turn into a blooming cherry orchard. This is Trofimov’s life credo. But Chekhov would not have been Chekhov if he had allowed himself to introduce such an unambiguously “correct” character into the narrative. No, life is much more complicated than any template, and the image of Trofimov in the play “The Cherry Orchard” once again testifies to this.

“Klutz”: the comic image of Petya Trofimov

It is difficult not to notice the somewhat ironic attitude towards Trofimov, both on the part of the author and on the part of the characters in the play. “Klutz” is what Ranevskaya, who is usually condescending to people, calls Petya, and Lopakhin mockingly adds: “Passion, how smart!” Other definitions applied to this hero further aggravate the picture: “funny freak”, “clean”, “shabby gentleman”... Petya is awkward, ugly (and, according to his own statement, does not want to appear so at all), he has “thin hair ", in addition, he is absent-minded. This description contrasts sharply with the romantic image that arises after reading his speeches. But these speeches, upon careful analysis, begin to confuse with their categoricalness, moralizing and at the same time - an absolute misunderstanding of the current life situation.

Let us pay attention to the fact that Trofimov’s pathetic speeches are constantly interrupted throughout the play. Either they will knock with an ax, then Epikhodov will play the guitar, then he will call out to Anya Varya, who has listened (this, by the way, will cause genuine indignation in Petya: “This Varya again!”) ... So Chekhov gradually conveys his attitude towards what Petya says: these are not viable things afraid of the manifestations of ordinary life.

Another unpleasant feature in Trofimov is his ability to see “only dirt, vulgarity, Asianness” in everything. Surprisingly, admiration for Russia, its “immense fields and deepest horizons” comes from the lips of the seemingly limited merchant Lopakhin. But Petya talks about “moral impurity”, about bedbugs and only dreams of a bright future, not wanting to see the present. The beauty of the main image-symbol in the play also leaves him indifferent. Trofimov doesn’t like the cherry orchard. Moreover, he does not allow young Anya, whose soul still responds very reverently to beauty, to love him. But for Petya, the garden is exclusively the embodiment of serfdom, which should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. It doesn’t even occur to him that Anya spent her childhood in this garden, that it might hurt her to lose him - no, Petya is completely captivated by his ideas and, as often happens with this kind of dreamer, he doesn’t see the living people behind them.

And what about Petya’s contemptuous statement that he is “above love.” This phrase, with which he wanted to show his superiority, perfectly reveals the opposite - the moral, spiritual underdevelopment of the hero. If he had been an internally holistic, formed personality, he would have been forgiven for his awkwardness and awkwardness, just as illiteracy is forgiven for Lopakhin with a “broad soul.” But Petya’s dryness betrays his moral inconsistency. “You are not above love, but simply, as our Firs says, you are a klutz,” Ranevskaya tells him, who, due to her sensitivity, immediately figured out Petya. It is curious that Petya, who protests against the old way of life and any forms of ownership, nevertheless does not hesitate to live at Ranevskaya’s estate and partly at her expense. He will leave the estate only with its sale, although at the beginning of the play he suggests to Anya to throw the keys to the farm into the well and leave. It turns out that even with his own example, Trofimov is not yet ready to confirm his ideas.

“I will show others the way”...

Of course, Pete also has some nice traits. He himself speaks bitterly about himself: “I’m not yet thirty, I’m young, I’m still a student, but I’ve already endured so much!<…>And yet... I have a presentiment of happiness, Anya, I already see it...” And at this moment, through the mask of the builder of a bright future, real man who wants a better life, who knows how to believe and dream. His undoubted diligence also deserves respect: Petya works, receives money for translations and consistently refuses the favor offered by Lopakhin: “I am a free man! And everything that you all value so highly and dearly, rich and poor, does not have the slightest power over me, it’s like fluff that floats through the air.” However, the pathetic nature of this statement is somewhat disturbed by the galoshes Varya threw onto the stage: Trofimov lost them and was quite worried about them... The characterization of Petya from “The Cherry Orchard” is essentially all concentrated in these galoshes - all the pettiness and absurdity of the hero is clearly manifested here.

Trofimov is a rather comic character. He himself understands that he is not created for happiness and it will not reach him. But it was he who was entrusted important role to show others “how to get there”, and this makes him indispensable - both in the play and in life.

Characteristics of Vari

In the three-part system of characters in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard,” Varya is one of the figures symbolizing the present time. Unlike Ranevskaya, her adoptive mother, who cannot break with her past, and stepsister Ani, who lives in the distant future, Varya is a person completely adequate to the times. This allows her to assess the current situation quite sensibly. Strict and rational, Varya strongly contrasts with most heroes, who are to one degree or another divorced from reality.

As is in principle characteristic of Chekhov’s dramaturgy, the image of Varya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is revealed in her speech. The heroine speaks simply, artlessly - unlike Ranevskaya, who often overloads her speech with complex phrases and metaphors; This is how the author emphasizes Varya’s rationality and pragmatism. An abundance of emotional exclamations and diminutive forms talk about sensitivity and naivety. But at the same time, Varya does not disdain colloquial and abusive expressions - and here we see folk rudeness, narrow-mindedness and some primitiveness, which reveals in her much more a peasant woman than a noble pupil... “Peasant” practicality, combined with intellectual limitations, can be called Varya’s leading characteristic from “The Cherry Orchard” by Chekhov.

However, she cannot be denied the ability to experience strong feelings. Varya is religious (her cherished dream is to go “to the desert”, to become a nun); she is sincerely attached to Ranevskaya and Anya, and the way she experiences her failure with Lopakhin clearly shows that she is not indifferent to her relationship with him. Behind in a dramatic way we see a living and original personality. Varya’s description in the play “The Cherry Orchard” cannot be reduced to a short set of epithets - like everyone else Chekhov's characters, even minor ones, it represents a complex and integral image.

Characteristics of Simeonov-Pishchik

At first glance, it seems that the characterization of Simeonov-Pishchik in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is quite unambiguous: “a klutz,” a comic character through and through. His money troubles, fussiness, and almost peasant simplicity allow us to see in him Lopakhin’s “reduced double.” The buffoonish nature of the image of Simeonov-Pishchik is also confirmed by the fact that he often appears at a tense, dramatic moment, and his ridiculous phrase or trick immediately takes the edge off the situation (see the scene of swallowing all of Ranevskaya’s pills at once and Firs’ subsequent phrase: “They were at we ate half a bucket of cucumbers...", emphasizing the comedy of the situation).

However, it is easy to notice another characteristic feature of this hero: his mobility. He is always on the move, in the literal (travels around friends, borrowing money) and figurative (undertakes various adventures in order to get money) senses. This movement is largely chaotic and irrational, and the hero’s optimism in his situation seems surprising: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is gone, I’m dead, and lo and behold, - Railway passed through my land, and... they paid me. And then, look, something else will happen today or tomorrow.” We can say that the fussy and purposeful Simeonov-Pishchik in The Cherry Orchard is needed precisely for movement, to enliven the scenes played out by the motionless and deeply confused protagonists.

Characteristics of Dunyasha

The characterization of Dunyasha in the play “The Cherry Orchard” can be defined as a mirror image of Ranevskaya, a “reduced double” of the main character - a naive, rustic maid, yesterday’s peasant, while speaking, dressing and behaving “like a young lady”, with a pretense of sophistication. “She became tender, so delicate, noble,” she says about herself. With her behavior and remarks, she creates a comic effect based on the discrepancy between her actions and the prescribed role (“I’m going to fall... Oh, I’m going to fall!”). And although this point is also important, the image of Dunyasha in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is not reduced solely to the comic component.

In the three-part system of characters in the work, Dunyasha refers to the heroes who are in a speculative future. However, her future is not determined as specifically as that of Anya or Trofimov; this is not the chronotope of the “new garden”, the monastery or Paris. Dunyasha’s “future” lies in her dreams; like many young ladies, among whom she counts herself, these are love dreams. Dunyasha lives in anticipation of the “prince,” and this expectation becomes almost an end in itself. When Epikhodov proposes to her, Dunyasha, despite the fact that she “seems to like him,” is in no hurry to agree. Much more important to her is the speculative space of “ideal,” fairy-tale love, a distant hint of which she finds in her “relationship” with the lackey Yasha. Attempts to realize these dreams will lead to their simplification, vulgarization, and will tear Dunyasha out of the sphere of dreams, in which she is most comfortable to be. Like almost all the characters in the play, she not only does not live in the present, but also desperately wants nothing to do with it - and in this she is also a “mirror” of Ranevskaya. By depicting the image of Dunyasha in “The Cherry Orchard,” the author even more clearly emphasized the typical painful gap between the worldview of the play’s heroes and the reality in which they are forced to act.

Characteristics of Charlotte Ivanovna

“This is the best role, I don’t like the rest” - this was the description of Charlotte in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” by the author in his letter. Why was this episodic heroine so important for Chekhov? It's not hard to say.

According to the text of the play, Charlotte does not have any social markers: neither her age, nor her nationality, nor her origin are known either to the viewer or to herself: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am...”; “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know.” It is practically not included in the system of social connections, as well as in the situation that determines main conflict- sale of the estate. In the same way, she is not included in any speculative chronotope of the play - the past in the estate, the present in the dachas, the future in the “beautiful new garden.” She is outside the space of the play and at the same time parallel to it. The position of an outsider also determines two fundamentally important features of Charlotte Ivanovna in The Cherry Orchard. - firstly, absolute loneliness (“I really want to talk, but there’s no one to talk to... I don’t have anyone”), and secondly, absolute freedom. Taking a closer look, you can see that Charlotte’s actions are not subject to any external conditions, but only to her own internal impulses:

“Lopakhin.<…>Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick!
Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me a trick!
Charlotte. No need. I want to sleep. (Leaves).”

The importance of the image of Charlotte in the play “The Cherry Orchard” lies, firstly, in her role as a free outside observer with the right to impartial judgment (Charlotte’s sudden and illogical remarks at first glance, not related to the immediate context) and disobedience to conventions. Secondly, in the depiction of a person whose behavior is not determined by the environment - the “essence” of human essence. And from this point of view, we cannot underestimate this, at first glance, episodic image in the play.

Characteristics of Yasha

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" Chekhov portrays traditional life noble estate. Along with the landowners, servants were also introduced there - a governess, a maid, a valet and a footman. Conventionally, they can be divided into two groups. Firs and Charlotte are more connected to the estate and are truly devoted to their owners. The meaning of their life is lost when the cherry orchard is cut down. But Dunyasha and Yasha represent the younger generation, whose life is just beginning. The thirst for new life emerges especially clearly in the image of Yasha in the play “The Cherry Orchard.”

Yasha is a young footman brought by Ranevskaya from Paris. His time abroad changed him. Now he dresses differently, knows how to speak “delicately” and present himself as a person who has seen a lot. “You are educated, you can talk about everything,” this is how Dunyasha, who fell in love with him, speaks enthusiastically about Yasha.

But behind the external gloss in the footman Yasha in the play “The Cherry Orchard” there are many vices hidden. Already from the first pages, his ignorance and blind admiration for everything foreign are noticeable (for example, he asks Ranevskaya to take him to Paris again, citing the fact that it is impossible to stay in Russia - “an uneducated country, an immoral people, and, moreover, boredom”).

There is one more, much more unpleasant trait in Yasha - spiritual callousness. He does not miss the opportunity to offend a person - he mocks Gaev, declares to Firs: “I'm tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die soon,” and when his mother comes from the village, he does not want to go to her. Yasha does not hesitate to steal money from his mistress and drink champagne at her expense, although he knows very well that the estate is ruined. Yasha even uses Dunyasha’s love in his own interests, and in response to the girl’s sincere confession he tells her: “If a girl loves someone, then she is immoral.”

“Immoral, ignorant” - this is Yashino’s favorite saying, which he applies to everyone. And these words can serve as the most accurate description of Yasha from Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard.”

Characteristics of Epikhodov

A clerk who is “offended by fate” is the main characteristic of Epikhodov in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard.” Most often in the work he is defined as an awkward, unlucky person, “twenty-two misfortunes.” Already in his first appearance, he shows this notorious clumsiness: “Epikhodov enters with a bouquet; ... upon entering, he drops the bouquet.”

At the same time, Epikhodov considers himself a “developed” person who reads “various wonderful books.” But he still finds it difficult to express his thoughts. Even the maid Dunyasha notices this: “... sometimes when you start talking, you won’t understand anything.” The solution is simple - in an effort to express himself “like a book,” Epikhodov builds his statements from “clever” ones. introductory words: “Of course, if you look at it from the point of view, then you, if I may put it this way, excuse the frankness, have completely brought me into a state of feeling.”

The image of Epikhodov in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is comical. But the comedy does not lie in the fact that ridiculous incidents happen to Epikhodov all the time. The main problem of the hero is that he constantly complains about fate, sincerely believing himself to be a loser and a victim. So, he envies even Firs, despite the fact that it is “time for him to go to his forefathers.” He came to terms with the order of things, bringing under this Buckle's philosophy of the predestination of life. And once again breaking something, he sighs: “Well, of course,” justifying himself. It turns out that Epikhodov in The Cherry Orchard, like all the other characters, does nothing to change his life. So in the play, with the help of grotesque and symbolism, the main storyline is emphasized.

Characteristics of Firs

The characterization of Firs in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard is not at all as clear as it might seem. According to the three-part scheme, he undoubtedly belongs to the heroes of the “past”, both in age (Firs is the oldest among the characters, he is eighty-seven years old), and in his views and worldview - he is a staunch supporter of serfdom, and this situation is in fact In fact, it is not as paradoxical as it seems at first glance. Serfdom with his close connection between a peasant and a gentleman, for Firs he embodies an ideal, harmonious system of society, sealed by mutual obligations and responsibility. Firs sees in her the embodiment of reliability and stability. Therefore, the abolition of serfdom becomes a “misfortune” for him: everything that held “his” world together, made it harmonious and integral, is destroyed, and Firs himself, having fallen out of this system, becomes an “extra” element in the new world, a living anachronism. “...everything is in pieces, you won’t understand anything” - with these words he describes the chaos and meaninglessness of what is happening around him that he feels.

Closely connected with this is also the peculiar role of Firs in “The Cherry Orchard” - at the same time the “spirit of the estate”, the keeper of traditions that have not been observed by anyone for a long time, the business manager and “nanny” for the “lordly children” who never grew up - Ranevskaya and Gaev. Thriftiness and “maturity” are emphasized by the very speech of the old servant: “Without me, who will serve here, who will give orders?” - he says with full awareness of the importance of his place in the house. “They put on the wrong trousers again,” he addresses the fifty-year-old “child” Gaev. For all his distance from real life with cultural and social circumstances changing long ago, Firs nevertheless gives the impression of one of the few characters in the play who are capable of thinking rationally.

The servant heroes in the image system of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” in addition to their own characteristic functions, are also “mirrors” of the masters. However, Firs in this case is rather an “anti-mirror”: if in the image of Dunyasha one can see an indirect parallel with Ranevskaya, and Yasha is a reflection of the nobility as a whole as a class, then in the image of Firs in the play “The Cherry Orchard” the author emphasizes those features that both Gaev and Ranevskaya are once again deprived of: thoroughness, thriftiness, emotional “adulthood”. Firs appears in the play as the personification of these qualities, which are lacking to varying degrees in almost all the characters.

Everyone in the play is in one way or another connected with the main object around which the conflict unfolds - the cherry orchard. What is the cherry orchard for Firs? For him, this is the same imaginary chronotope as for everyone else, but for the old servant it personifies the “old” life, the “old order” - synonyms of stability, orderliness, a “correctly” functioning world. How an integral part of of this world, Firs continues to live there in his memory; with the destruction of the previous system, the death of the old order, he himself, the “spirit of the estate,” dies along with it.

The image of a devoted servant in the play “The Cherry Orchard” differs from similar ones in other works of Russian classics. We can see similar characters, for example, in Pushkin - this is Savelich, an ingenuous, kind and devoted “uncle”, or in Nekrasov - Ipat, a “sensitive serf”. However, the hero of Chekhov's play is more symbolic and multifaceted, and therefore cannot be characterized solely as a “servant” happy with his position. In the play, he is a symbol of time, the keeper of a passing era with all its shortcomings, but also its virtues. As the “spirit of the estate”, he occupies a very important place in the work, which should not be underestimated.

Sources

http://all-biography.ru/books/chehov/vishnyovyj-sad