Play "The Cherry Orchard". Character system
A.P. Chekhov, as a Russian writer and Russian intellectual, was concerned about the fate of the Motherland on the eve of social changes felt by society. The figurative system of the play “The Cherry Orchard” reflects the writer’s view of the past, present and future of Russia.
Figurative system “The Cherry Orchard”— author's features
It is, in particular, that in his works it is practically impossible to single out one main character. is important for understanding the issues that the playwright raises in the play.
Thus, the images of the heroes in “The Cherry Orchard” represent
- on the one hand, the social strata of Russia on the eve of the turning point (nobility, merchants, common intelligentsia, partly peasantry),
- on the other hand, these groups uniquely reflect the past, present and future of the country.
Russia itself is represented by the image of a large garden, which all the heroes treat with tender love.
Images of heroes of the past
The personifications of the past are the heroes of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This is the past of noble nests leaving the historical arena. There is no selfish calculation in Gaev and Ranevskaya: the idea of selling a cherry orchard for land to summer residents is completely alien to them. They subtly sense the beauty of nature
(“To the right, at the turn of the gazebo, a white tree bent over, looking like a woman”...).
They are characterized by a certain childishness of perception: Ranevskaya has a childish attitude towards money, does not count it. But this is not only childishness, but also the habit of living without regard to expenses. Both Gaev and Ranevskaya are kind. Lopakhin remembers how in ancient times Ranevskaya took pity on him. Ranevskaya also feels sorry for Petya Trofimov with his instability, and Anya, who was left without a dowry, and the passerby.
But the time of the Gaevs and Ranevskys has passed. Their intelligence, inability to live, carelessness turn into callousness and selfishness.
Ranevskaya squanders her fortune, leaving her daughter in the care of her adopted daughter Varya, leaves for Paris with her lover, having received money from her Yaroslavl grandmother intended for Anya, she decides to return to Paris to the man who practically robbed her, while she does not think about how things will turn out Anya's life further. She shows concern for the sick Firs, asking if he was sent to the hospital, but she cannot and does not want to check this (Ranevskaya is a man of word, but not of action) - Firs remains in the boarded up house.
The result of the life of the nobles is the consequence of a life in debt, a life based on the oppression of others.
Images of the future
New Russia is Ermolai Lopakhin, merchant. In it, the author emphasizes the active principle: he gets up at five o’clock in the morning and works until the evening; work brings him not capital, but also joy. Ermolai Lopakhin is a self-made man (his grandfather was a serf, his father a shopkeeper). A practical calculation is visible in Lopakhin’s activities: he sowed the fields with poppy seeds - both profitable and beautiful. Lopakhin proposes a way to save the cherry orchard, which should bring benefits. Lopakhin appreciates and remembers goodness, such is his touching attitude towards Ranevskaya. He has a “subtle, gentle soul,” according to Petya Trofimov. But the subtlety of his feelings is combined with the benefit of the owner. Lopakhin could not resist and bought a cherry orchard at auction. He repents to Ranevskaya, consoles her and immediately declares:
“The new owner of the cherry orchard is coming!”
But there is some kind of anguish in Lopakhin, otherwise where would the longing for another life come from? At the end of the play he says:
“If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!”
Images of the future - Petya Trofimov and Anya. Petya Trofimov is an eternal student, he is full of optimism, in his speeches there is a conviction that he, he is the one who knows how to make life wonderful
(Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront! ").
It is he who says to Anya:
“All of Russia is our garden!”
But his image is ambiguous. Petya Trofimov in the play is also more likely a man of words rather than deeds. In practical life, he is a klutz, like the rest of the characters in the play. The image of Anya is perhaps the only image in the play in which there is a lot of feeling of light. Anya is similar to Turgenev’s girls who are ready to go into a new life and give it all of themselves, so Anya has no regret about the loss of the cherry orchard.
Secondary images
The secondary characters of the play highlight the fates of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Simeono-Pishchik is a landowner who is ready to adapt to life, which makes him different from Ranevskaya and Gaev. But he also lives practically on debt. The image of Charlotte emphasizes the disorder and practical homelessness of Ranevskaya.
The patriarchal peasantry is represented by images of servants. This is Firs, in whom the main feature of the old servants has been preserved - devotion to the master. How Firs looks after Gaev for a small child. His fate is tragic and symbolic: he is forgotten, in general abandoned by those who spoke so much about loving him and did so little for him. Dunyasha and Yasha are servants of the new generation. Dunyasha repeats “subtlety of feelings”, exaggerating his mistress. Yasha absorbed the egoism of the masters.
Image of a cherry orchard
As already mentioned, the role of the cherry orchard in the figurative system of the play is enormous. It is around the cherry orchard that an external conflict arises; all the characters in the play express their attitude towards the orchard. Therefore, the viewer and reader feel his fate in a humanly tragic way:
“... and you can only hear how far away in the garden an ax is being knocked on a tree.”
Chekhov and the writer are characterized by sensitive listening to the beat of everyday life, the ability to find the most important social problems in this life and build his work so that these problems become the property of his compatriots.
Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share itComedy "The Cherry Orchard" Character system The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is inherent in the very structure of the play. Each character is absorbed in his own truth,” immersed in his experiences and does not notice those around him: their pain, their melancholy, their joys and hopes. Each of the characters is, as it were, playing his own one-man show. These one-man shows make up the action, which is so complex in sound. This is at the same time and polyphony (polyphony, a specially organized choir of independent voices), and dissonance, an uncoordinated, discordant sound, where each voice strives to be the only one.Where does this self-absorption of the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard" come from? What prevents them from hearing each other: after all, they are all close people, trying to help, support and receive support from each other? Let us pay attention: each of the characters confesses, but in the end all these confessions turn out to be addressed to the audience, and not to their partners on stage.
At some point, the confessor realizes that he cannot explain the most important thing. So, Anya will never understand her mother’s drama, and Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. What “doesn’t allow” the characters in the play to see each other? The fact is that, according to the author’s plan, each of them is not only a person, but also a performer of a certain socio-historical role: what can be called a “hostage of History.” A person can, to a certain extent, adjust his personality and his relationships with others. But he cannot change his role, no matter how alien it may be to him.
The discrepancy between the hero’s inner essence and the socio-historical role that he is forced to play is the dramatic essence of “The Cherry Orchard.” “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letters to Stanislavsky, who staged the play. .
What's in her past? Her youth, family life, blooming and fruit-bearing cherry orchard - all this ended several years ago, ended tragically. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose.
And then the irreparable happened: Grisha died - drowned in the river. The death of a son is the worst tragedy. For Ranevskaya, the horror of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt: infatuation with her lover, absorption in love, it seems to her, alienated her from her son.
Perhaps the absurd death could have been prevented? Perhaps Grisha's death is a punishment for her, her mother, for her inadmissible passion? And Ranevskaya runs away from home - from the cherry orchard, from her daughters, from her brother, from that river where her son drowned - from her entire previous life, from her past, which turned into an irreparable disaster. She runs so as never to return, she runs in order to end her sinful and absurd life somewhere - after the death of the boy. Ranevskaya ends up in Paris. The acute pain dulled, the first wave of despair subsided. Ranevskaya was saved by love.
Feelings for a person unworthy of her, for a scoundrel... But is it really given to us to choose whom to love? Yes, he is a scoundrel, her last lover, he robbed and abandoned her, and then returned again - again a beggar. And Lyubov Andreevna knows everything about him, understands everything - and does not want to know or remember it. For the feeling itself is valuable, because for her there is nothing in life higher than love.
This is the only heroine of “The Cherry Orchard” who lives in an aura of love: it is no coincidence that her very name is Love. Past and present loves are intertwined in her soul, the ability to love unselfishly and recklessly, completely surrendering to feeling - this is the “key” to the image of Ranevskaya. “This is a stone around my neck, I am going to the bottom with it, but I love this stone and cannot live without it.” Which other Russian heroine was so frank?! Her current strange Parisian existence is, in essence, life after life.
Nothing of the past has been forgotten. The terrible wound has not healed and will never heal. The connection with one’s home and loved ones becomes more and more elusive. It is increasingly impossible to become “one of our own” in Paris, or to return to the cherry orchard... The illusory nature, the absurdity of existence, homesickness, the feeling of guilt in front of our daughter and stepdaughter - for leaving them, for wasting their fortune - Lyubov Andreevna is tormented. And now, before our eyes, a decisive step is taken: Ranevskaya returns home. She tears up telegrams from her lover, tears them up without reading: she’s finished with Paris!
She is happy: “I want to jump, wave my arms... God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying.” “If only I could take the heavy stone off my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!” Ranevskaya returns to the house where everyone loves her, where they are waiting for her - and have been faithfully waiting for her for five “Parisian” years. And where everyone condemns her for something: for “viciousness”, for frivolity...
No one wants to accept her as she is; they love her, condemning and laughing. And Ranevskaya herself acutely feels this, accepts the justice of the reproaches, and constantly feels guilty.
But along with the feeling of guilt, alienation grows in her: why does everyone demand from her something that she cannot give, why do they expect her to change, to become what others want her to be, to stop being herself?! The further we go, the clearer it becomes: she is a stranger here. Each of you, of course, has encountered funny situations and linguistic absurdities in various publications and in the speech of others. A section has been opened specifically for such language incidents. Send us your finds. We are waiting for your letters
Characters
“Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
Passerby.
Station manager.
Postal official.
Guests, servants" (13, 196).
As we can see, the social markers of each role are preserved in the list of characters in Chekhov’s last play, and just like in previous plays, they are of a formal nature, without predetermining either the character of the character or the logic of his behavior on stage.
Thus, the social status of landowner/landowner in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure of social relations. In this sense, Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik find themselves in the play persona non grata; their essence and purpose in it are not at all connected with the motive of owning souls, that is, other people, and in general, owning anything.
In turn, Lopakhin’s “thin, gentle fingers”, his “thin, gentle soul” (13, 244) are by no means predetermined by his first author’s characterization in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely thanks to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a very definite semantic aura in Russian literature. It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of characters. In the context of the characteristics given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters in Chekhov’s last play now becomes not the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, rush into the future.
Thus, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into dachas, they, in turn, do not understand how harmony can be sold, sell happiness:
“Lopakhin. Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people. They tell you in Russian, your estate is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What do we do? Teach what?
Lopakhin.<…>Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry.
Gaev. I completely agree with you.
Lopakhin. I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can not! You tortured me! (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action designated by the author in the stage directions (“a room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of the “nanny” Firs in relation to Gaev: “Firs (cleans Gaev with a brush , instructively). They put on the wrong pants again. And what should I do with you! (13, 209), but also by the natural appearance of the images of father and mother in the characters’ discourse. Ranevskaya sees “the late mother” in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); Gaev remembers his father going to church on Trinity Sunday in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of behavior of the characters is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in Ranevskaya’s speeches and actions a manifestation of an “ordinary person” who, “submitting to his not always beautiful desires and whims, deceives himself every time.” One can also see in her image “an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life.” However, it seems that it is precisely the unselfishness, lightness, immediacy of the attitude towards existence, very reminiscent of a child’s, the instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and absurd, from the point of view of the other characters and many comedy researchers, actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior established in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all of Gaev’s serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing at being an adult:
“Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny temporarily withdraws - T.I.). Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to a general who could give me a bill.
Lopakhin. Nothing will work out for you. And you won’t pay interest, rest assured.
Lyubov Andreevna. He's delusional. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the characters’ attitude towards each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, afraid that they will not be heard.
Gaev (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Lyubov Andreevna. Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!..” (13, 253).
Adjacent to this micro-group of characters is Firs, whose chronotope is also the past, but a past that has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the character’s speech:
“Firs. In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be…” (13, 206).
His past is the time before the misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. In this case, we have before us a version of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order established by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and does not always have a social connotation: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petit’s future, like Firs’s past, acquires the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want to for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront” (13, 244).
A premonition of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of a dream come true, also characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I’m dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-so-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, as she feels herself, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have specific, tangible outlines (the lackey Yasha and “love” for him are only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... and dancing makes me dizzy, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me something that took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to a funny and unreal, from his point of view, reality: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>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” (13, 247).
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in the conventional present, in momentary problems, and in this feeling of life she is close to Lopakhin: “Only I can’t do nothing, mommy. I need to do something every minute” (13, 233). That is why her role as housekeeper in her adoptive mother’s house naturally continues now with strangers:
“Lopakhin. Where are you going now, Varvara Mikhailovna?
Varya. I? To the Ragulins... I agreed to look after the housekeeping for them... as housekeepers, or something” (13, 250).
On the other hand, in her sense of self, the desired future is also constantly present as a consequence of dissatisfaction with the present: “If I had money, even a little, even a hundred rubles, I would give up everything, move away. I would have gone to a monastery” (13, 232).
The characters of the conditional present include Lopakhin, Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik. This characteristic of the present time is due to the fact that each of the named characters has his own image of the time in which he lives, and, therefore, there is no single concept of the present time, common to the entire play, as well as the time of the future. Thus, Lopakhin’s time is the present concrete time, representing an uninterrupted chain of daily “deeds” that give visible meaning to his life: “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I I exist" (13, 246). It is no coincidence that the character’s speech is replete with indications of the specific time of occurrence of certain events (it is curious that his future tense, as follows from the remarks given below, is a natural continuation of the present, essentially already realized): “I am now, at five o’clock in the morning, at Kharkov to go" (13, 204); “If we don’t come up with anything and come to nothing, then on the twenty-second of August both the cherry orchard and the entire estate will be sold at auction” (13, 205); “I’ll see you in three weeks” (13, 209).
Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik form an oppositional pair in this group of characters. For the first, life is a chain of misfortunes, and this character’s belief is confirmed (again from his point of view) by Buckle’s theory of geographical determinism:
“Epikhodov.<…>And you also take kvass to get drunk, and then, lo and behold, there is something extremely indecent, like a cockroach.
Pause.
Have you read Buckle? (13, 216).
For the second, on the contrary, life is a series of accidents, ultimately happy ones, which will always correct any current situation: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is lost, I’m dead, and lo and behold, the railroad passed through my land, and... they paid me. And then, look, something else will happen not today or tomorrow” (13, 209).
The image of Charlotte is the most mysterious image in Chekhov's last comedy. The character, episodic in its place in the list of characters, nevertheless acquires extraordinary importance for the author. “Oh, if only you played a governess in my play,” writes Chekhov O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. “This is the best role, but I don’t like the rest” (P 11, 259). A little later, the question about the actress playing this role will be repeated by the author three times: “Who, who will play my governess?” (P 11, 268); “Also write who will play Charlotte. Is it really Raevskaya? (P 11, 279); "Who plays Charlotte?" (P 11, 280). Finally, in a letter to Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, commenting on the final distribution of roles and, undoubtedly, knowing who will play Ranevskaya, Chekhov still counts on his wife’s understanding of the importance of this particular role for him: “Charlotte is a question mark<…>this is the role of Mrs. Knipper” (P 11, 293).
The importance of the image of Charlotte is emphasized by the author and in the text of the play. Each of the character’s few appearances on stage is accompanied by a detailed author’s commentary concerning both his appearance and his actions. This attentiveness (focus) of the author becomes all the more obvious since Charlotte’s remarks, as a rule, are kept to a minimum in the play, and the appearance of the more significant characters on stage (say, Lyubov Andreevna) is not commented on by the author at all: the stage directions give only numerous psychological details of her portrait.
What is the mystery of Charlotte's image? The first and rather unexpected observation worth making is that the character’s appearance emphasizes both feminine and masculine features at the same time. At the same time, the selection of portrait details itself can be called autoquoting. Thus, the author accompanies Charlotte’s first and last appearance on stage with a repeated remark: “Charlotte Ivanovna with a dog on a chain” (13, 199); “Yasha and Charlotte leave with the dog” (13, 253). It is obvious that in Chekhov’s artistic world the detail “with the dog” is significant. As is well known, it marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - a very rare poetic image of a woman capable of truly deep feeling in Chekhov’s prose. True, in the context of the stage action of the play, the detail receives a comic realization. “My dog even eats nuts,” Charlotte says to Simeonov-Pishchik (13, 200), immediately separating herself from Anna Sergeevna. In Chekhov's letters to his wife, the semantics of the dog are even more reduced, however, it is precisely this version of the stage embodiment that the author insists on: “... in the first act the dog is needed, shaggy, small, half-dead, with sour eyes” (P 11, 316); “Schnapp, I repeat, is no good. We need that shabby little dog you saw” (P 11, 317-318).
In the same first act there is another comic remark-quote containing a description of the character’s appearance: “Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitting, with a lorgnette on her belt, walks across the stage” (13, 208). Taken together, the three details mentioned by the author create an image that is very reminiscent of another governess - the daughter of Albion: “Beside him stood a tall, thin Englishwoman<…>She was dressed in a white muslin dress, through which her skinny yellow shoulders were clearly visible. A gold watch hung on a golden belt” (2, 195). The lorgnette instead of a watch on Charlotte’s belt will probably remain as a “memory” of Anna Sergeevna, because it is this detail that will be emphasized by the author in both the first and second parts of “The Lady with the Dog.”
Gryabov’s subsequent assessment of the Englishwoman’s appearance is also typical: “And the waist? This doll reminds me of a long nail” (2, 197). A very thin detail sounds like a sentence on a woman in Chekhov’s own epistolary text: “The Yartsevs say that you have lost weight, and I really don’t like that,” Chekhov writes to his wife and a few lines below, as if in passing, continues, “Sofya Petrovna Sredina she became very thin and very old” (P 11, 167). Such an explicit game with such multi-level quotes makes the character’s character vague, blurred, and lacking semantic unambiguity.
The remark preceding the second act of the play further complicates the image of Charlotte, because now, when describing her appearance, the author emphasizes the traditionally masculine attributes of the character’s clothing: “Charlotte is wearing an old cap; she took the gun off her shoulders and adjusted the buckle on her belt” (13, 215). This description can again be read as an autoquote, this time from the drama “Ivanov”. The remark preceding its first act ends with the significant appearance of Borkin: “Borkin in big boots, with a gun, appears in the depths of the garden; he is tipsy; seeing Ivanov, tiptoes towards him and, having caught up with him, takes aim at his face<…>takes off his cap" (12, 7). However, as in the previous case, the detail does not become characterizing, since, unlike the play “Ivanov,” in “The Cherry Orchard” neither Charlotte’s gun nor Epikhodov’s revolver will ever fire.
The remark included by the author in the third act of the comedy, on the contrary, completely neutralizes (or combines) both principles recorded in the appearance of Charlotte earlier; now the author simply calls her a figure: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat and checkered trousers waves his arms and jumps, shouting: “Bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!” (13, 237). It is noteworthy that this leveling - the game - with the masculine/feminine principle was quite consciously incorporated by the author into the semantic field of the character: “Charlotte speaks not broken, but pure Russian,” Chekhov writes to Nemirovich-Danchenko, “only occasionally she replaces b at the end of a word pronounces Kommersant and confuses adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders” (P 11, 294).
This game also explicates Charlotte’s dialogue with her inner voice, blurring the boundaries of the gender identification of its participants:
"Charlotte.<…>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” (13, 231).
The dialogue goes back to the model of small talk between a man and a woman; it is no coincidence that only one side of it is named madam, but the dialogue is carried out by two female voices.
Another very important observation concerns Charlotte's behavior on stage. All her remarks and actions seem unexpected and are not motivated by the external logic of a particular situation; They are not directly related to what is happening on stage. Thus, in the first act of the comedy, she denies Lopakhin the ritual kiss of her hand only on the grounds that later he may want something more:
“Charlotte (removing her hand). If I allow you to kiss my hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...” (13, 208).
In the most important for the author, the second act of the play, at the most pathetic moment of her own monologue, which we have yet to talk about, when the other characters are sitting, thoughtful, involuntarily immersed in the harmony of being, Charlotte “takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats it” (13, 215 ). Having completed this process, she makes a completely unexpected and not confirmed by the text of the comedy compliment to Epikhodov: “You, Epikhodov, are a very smart person and very scary; Women must love you madly” (13, 216) - and leaves the stage.
The third act includes Charlotte's card and ventriloquist tricks, as well as her illusionary experiments, when either Anya or Varya appear from under the blanket. It is noteworthy that this plot situation formally slows down the action, as if interrupting, dividing in half, Lyubov Andreevna’s single remark: “Why has Leonid been gone for so long? What is he doing in the city?<…>But Leonid is still missing. I don’t understand what he’s been doing in the city for so long!” (13; 231, 232).
And finally, in the fourth act of the comedy, during the touching farewell of the remaining characters to the house and garden
“Charlotte (takes a knot that looks like a curled up baby). My baby, bye, bye.<…>
Shut up, my good, my dear boy.<…>
I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the bundle into place)” (13, 248).
This mechanism for constructing a stage was known to the poetics of Chekhov's theater. Thus, the first act of “Uncle Vanya” includes Marina’s remarks: “Chick, chick, chick<…>Pestrushka left with the chickens... The crows wouldn’t drag them around...” (13, 71), which directly follow Voinitsky’s phrase: “In this weather it’s good to hang oneself...” (Ibid.). Marina, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in the system of characters in the play personifies a reminder to a person about the logic of events that is external to him. That is why she does not participate in the struggles of the other characters with circumstances and with each other.
Charlotte also occupies a special place among other comedy characters. This feature was not only noted by the author, as mentioned above; it is realized and felt by the character himself: “These people sing terribly” (13, 216), says Charlotte, and her remark perfectly correlates with the phrase of Dr. Dorn from the play “The Seagull”, also from the outside looking in at what is happening: “People are boring "(13, 25). Charlotte's monologue, which opens the second act of the comedy, explicates this feature, which is realized, first of all, in the absolute absence of social markers of her image. Her age is unknown: “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” (13, 215). Her nationality is also unknown: “And when dad and mom died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me.” Nothing is also known about the origin and family tree of the character: “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know” (13, 215). Charlotte’s profession also turns out to be random and unnecessary in the play, since the children in the comedy have formally grown up a long time ago.
All the other characters in “The Cherry Orchard,” as noted above, are included in one or another conventional time; it is no coincidence that the motive of memories or hope for the future becomes the main one for most of them: Firs and Petya Trofimov represent the two poles of this self-perception of the characters. That is why “everyone else” in the play feels like they are in some kind of virtual rather than real chronotope (cherry orchard, new garden, Paris, dachas). Charlotte finds herself outside of all these traditional ideas a person has about himself. Its time is fundamentally non-linear: it has no past, and therefore no future. She is forced to feel herself only now and only in this specific space, that is, in a real unconditional chronotope. Thus, we have before us a personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, modeled by Chekhov, if we successively, layer by layer, remove absolutely all – both social and even physiological – parameters of his personality, free him from any determination by the surrounding world . In this case, Charlotte is left, firstly, with loneliness among other people with whom she does not and cannot coincide in space/time: “I really want to talk, but there is no one with whom... I have no one” (13, 215) . Secondly, absolute freedom from the conventions imposed on a person by society, subordination of behavior only to one’s 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)" (13, 208-209).
The consequence of these two circumstances is the character’s absolute peace. There is not a single psychological note in the play that would mark the deviation of Charlotte’s emotions from absolute zero, while other characters can speak through tears, indignant, joyful, scared, reproachful, embarrassed, etc. And, finally, this character’s perception of the world finds its logical conclusion in a certain model of behavior - in free circulation, play, with reality familiar and unchanged for all other characters. This attitude towards the world is explicated by her famous tricks.
“I’m doing salto mortale (like Charlotte - T.I.) on your bed,” Chekhov writes to his wife, for whom climbing to the third floor without a “car” was already an insurmountable obstacle, “I stand upside down and, picking you up, turn over several times and, throwing you up to the ceiling, I pick you up and kiss you” (P 11, 33).
Search materials:
Number of your materials: 0.
Add 1 material
Certificate
about creating an electronic portfolio
Add 5 material
Secret
present
Add 10 materials
Certificate for
informatization of education
Add 12 materials
Review
free for any material
Add 15 materials
Video lessons
for quickly creating effective presentations
Add 17 materials
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution
higher professional education
"Chechen State University"
Institute of Chechen and General Philology
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL AND WORLD LITERATURE
Course work
___________________on Russian literature
(discipline)
XIX
century____________________
__________The system of images in the play “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov._________
(subject)
_____________________________________________________________________________
4th year students of RVO_______
____________correspondence department
(full-time/correspondence)
__________________________________________________________________
_________________Sili Abdulkhamidovna Shikieva__________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
(FULL NAME)
Head: Ph.D., Associate Professor Kh.Sh. Yandarbiev___________________________
full name, position
(delivery date)
Head of department
(signature)
Grozny2014
Plan
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3
1. Artistic originality of the play……………………………7
2. Images of the characters in the play. Features of the image of heroes……..11
3. The image of the Cherry Orchard……………………………………………...23
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...26
List of references………………………………...28
Introduction.
The works of the great Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
dates back to the end of the 19th century. He was born in 1860, that is, his birth
practically coincided with the reform of 1861, and the formation of personality
the writer was already in post-reform Russia, the state of which he
beautifully depicted in his works.
Chekhov strove for life to dominate in his plays.
truth, unvarnished, in all its ordinaryness, everyday life.
Showing the natural course of everyday life of ordinary people, Chekhov
bases his plots not on one, but on several organically related ones,
intertwined conflicts. At the same time, the leading and
What unites is primarily the conflict between the characters and not
with each other, but with the entire social environment around them.
In the play "The Cherry Orchard" the main conflict, reflecting deep
social contradictions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries lies in
Ranevskaya’s desire to retain the cherry orchard and in her desire
Lopakhin to turn the cherry orchard into a capitalist enterprise.
But, emphasizing the individual positive characteristics of the nobles
characters, Chekhov convincingly shows that, being representatives
lyricism, desire for beauty. Is sympathy typical for a merchant?
Ranevskaya, the desire to help the landowner save the cherry orchard from sale and
the appearance of awkwardness because it was he who acquired the cherry orchard. Isn't it
This trait of Lopakhin is typical of the merchant class, which Trofimov talks about:
"subtle, gentle soul"? But Lopakhin’s actions are not determined by these
private, individual traits, but those that reflect social
the typical essence of his character.
4
Despite his characteristic sentimentality, Lopakhin bought the estate
Ranevskaya, to whom he owes a lot, he clearly tactlessly begins
cutting down a cherry orchard.
In my opinion, Lopakhin is a man of purpose, and how he behaves with Ranevskaya and
the rest, it doesn't really matter, the main thing is that it's a person
practical, vital and you can always rely on him, because this
a man of the present.
Responsibility for tomorrow in the play falls on the young
generation its representative is Petya Trofimov.
Trofimov is a democrat by origin, habits and beliefs.
Creating images of Trofimov, Chekhov expresses in this image such leading
traits such as dedication to public service, striving for the best
future and propaganda of the fight for it, patriotism, integrity,
courage, hard work. Trofimov, despite his 26 or 27 years, has
shoulders with a lot of hard life experience. He's been expelled twice already
university. He has no confidence that he will not be expelled a third time and that
he will not remain an “eternal student.”
Trofimov opposes the selfishness of landowners and merchants with his
devotion to public cause, one's patriotism.
Trofimov is a man of precisely this worldview, and this is
the reason for his abstract ideas about the future and ways to fight for
him. Chekhov's dramaturgy, responding to the pressing issues of his
time, addressing everyday interests, experiences and
the worries of ordinary people.
5
Therefore, she has always had a huge influence on readers and viewers.
6
CHAPTER 1
Chekhov's plays seemed unusual to his contemporaries. They are sharp
differed from the usual dramatic forms. There were no seeming
necessary plotting, climax and, strictly speaking, dramatic
action as such. Chekhov himself wrote about his plays: “People only
they dine, wear jackets, and at this time their destinies are decided, their
life." There is a subtext in Chekhov's plays that takes on a special
artistic significance. How is this transmitted to the reader, the viewer?
subtext? First of all, with the help of the author's remarks. Such a gain
the meaning of the stage directions and the expectation of reading the play lead to the fact that in the plays
Chekhov brings together the epic and dramatic principles. Even
The place where the action takes place sometimes has symbolic meaning.
“The Cherry Orchard” opens with an expressive and lengthy remark, in
in which we find the following remark: “The room that is still
It’s called a nursery.” It is impossible to realize this stage direction, but it
and is not intended for stage performance and does not serve as an indication
director of the play, but in itself has artistic meaning. U
the reader, it is the reader, who immediately gets the feeling that time is in this
the house is frozen, lingering in the past. The heroes have grown up, but the room is old
the house is still a “children’s room”. On stage this can only be conveyed by
creating a special atmosphere, a special mood, an atmosphere that
would accompany the entire action, creating a kind of semantic background. This
it is all the more important that later in the play it will appear several times
dramatic motif of the passing, slipping time that leaves
heroes overboard. Ranevskaya turns to her nursery, to her garden. For
This house, this garden is her precious, pure past, it seems to her that
Her late mother is walking in the garden.
7
But it is important for Chekhov to show the impossibility of returning to a happy past,
and the action of the fourth act of the play takes place in the same nursery where now
the curtains on the windows were removed, the paintings were removed from the walls, the furniture was placed in one corner, and
There are suitcases in the middle of the room. The heroes leave and the image of the past disappears,
the present.
Not
With the help of stage directions, Chekhov conveys the semantic nuances of the dialogues
pretending
characters, even if the remark contains only one word:
"pause". Indeed, the conversations in the play are not animated, often
interrupted by pauses. These pauses give the characters' conversations
“The Cherry Orchard” is somehow chaotic, incoherent, as if the hero is not always
knows what he will say next minute. In general, the dialogues in the play are very
unusual compared to the plays of Chekhov's predecessors and
contemporaries: they rather resemble dialogues of the deaf. Everyone talks about
in his own way, as if not paying attention to what his interlocutor was saying. So,
Gaev's remark that the train was two hours late unexpectedly entails
is Charlotte's words that her dog eats nuts too. Everything is as if
developed throughout the world
contradicts the laws of dramaturgy,
dramatic realistic literature. But naturally, behind this
Chekhov has a deep artistic meaning. Conversations like this show
the originality of the relationships between the characters of the play, in general the originality of Chekhov's
images In my opinion, each character in “The Cherry Orchard” lives in his own
closed world, in its own system of values, and it is their discrepancy with each other
friend and comes to the fore in the play, the author emphasizes.
The fact that Lyubov Andreevna, who is threatened with the sale of her estate at auction,
gives out money to the first person he meets, is Chekhov only called upon to
demonstrate her extravagance as a character trait of an eccentric
ladies or testify to the moral correctness of the thrifty Varya?
8
From Varya's point of view, yes; from Ranevskaya’s point of view, no. And from the point of view
author - this is generally evidence of people’s inability to understand
each other. Lyubov Andreevna does not at all strive to be a good housewife, but
in any case, Chekhov does not portray this desire and for the absence of it
does not condemn the heroine. He generally talks about something else that lies beyond
economic practice and has nothing to do with it. So are the tips.
Lopakhina, smart and practical, are unacceptable for Ranevskaya. Is it right
Lopakhin? Undoubtedly. But Lyubov Andreevna is also right in her own way. Is Petya right?
Trofimov, when he tells Ranevskaya that her Parisian lover is
scoundrel? He’s right, but his words don’t make any sense to her. And Chekhov
does not at all set itself the goal of creating the image of a stubborn and headstrong woman,
listening to no one's advice and ruining her own home and family.
For this, the image of Ranevskaya is too poetic and charming. Apparently the reasons
disagreements between people in Chekhov's plays are not at all in the area
practical, but in some other area.
The change in conversation topics in the play could also cause confusion.
There seems to be no logical connection between successive
there are no talking groups. So, in the second act, instead of those talking about
meaning of Ranevskaya's life, Petya and Anya come to Gaev and Lopakhin, people
far from what the elders care about, worries them. Such a “mosaic” of scenes
due to the uniqueness of the system of images and dramatic conflict in
Chekhov. Strictly speaking, a dramatic conflict in the usual sense
absent from Chekhov's plays, the action was not based on confrontation
characters, and characters are no longer divided into “good” and “bad”,
“positive” and “negative”. In “The Cherry Orchard” is only Yasha
written out clearly ironically, the rest do not fit into
traditional categories of negative characters.
9
Rather, each hero is unhappy in his own way, even Simeonov Pishchik, but even those
characters whose author's sympathy is on their side still don't look
definitely “positive”. The appeal sounds genuinely sad
Ranevskaya to her children's room, rise to the truly tragic
Chekhov does not give it any sound, neutralizing the tragic beginning with the comic
Gaev's address to the closet. Gaev himself is funny in his pompous and
absurd monologues, but at the same time sincerely touching in barren
trying to save the cherry orchard. The same - “funny and touching” - you can
say about Pete Trofimov.
10
Chapter 2
The owners of the estate are Russian landowners Gaev and Ranevskaya. Both brother and
sister - educated, smart, sensitive people. They know how to appreciate beauty
they feel it subtly, but due to inertia they cannot do anything about it
salvation. With all their development and spiritual wealth, Gaev and Ranevskaya
deprived of a sense of reality, practicality and responsibility, and therefore not in
able to take care of yourself or loved ones. They can not
follow Lopakhin's advice and rent out the land, despite the fact that
would bring them a solid income: “Dachas and summer residents - it’s so vulgar,
Sorry". They are prevented from taking this measure by special feelings that bind
them with the estate. They treat the garden as a living person with whom they
connects a lot. The cherry orchard for them is the personification
a past life, a bygone youth. Looking out the window at the garden, Ranevskaya
exclaims: “Oh my childhood, my purity! In this nursery I slept, looked
from here to the garden, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then he
was exactly the same, nothing has changed.” And further: “Oh my garden! After dark
rainy autumn and cold winter, you are young again, full of happiness, angels
the heavenly ones have not abandoned you...” Ranevskaya speaks not only about the garden, but also about herself.
She seems to compare her life with a “dark stormy autumn” and
"cold winter" Returning to her native estate, she again felt
yourself young and happy.
Lopakhin does not share the feelings of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Their behavior seems to him
strange and illogical. He wonders why they are not so affected
obvious to him arguments for a prudent way out of a difficult situation
situations. Lopakhin knows how to appreciate beauty: he is delighted by the garden, “more beautiful
which there is nothing in the world.” But he is an active and practical person.
He can't just admire the garden and regret it without trying anything.
undertake to save him.
11
He sincerely tries to help Gaev and Ranevskaya, constantly convincing them: “And
cherry orchard, and the land needs to be rented out for dachas, do this
Now, hurry up - the auction is just around the corner! Understand!” But they don't want it
listen. Gaev is only capable of empty oaths: “With my honor, whatever you want,
I swear, the estate will not be sold!... I swear on my happiness!... call me
then a crappy, dishonest person if I allow it to go to auction! Everyone
I swear by my being!”
However, the auction took place, and Lopakhin bought the estate. This is an event for him
has a special meaning: “I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where there were no
They were even allowed into the kitchen. I'm dreaming, it's only imagining it, it's only
it seems...” Thus, for Lopakhin, the purchase of an estate becomes a kind of
a symbol of his success, a reward for many years of work. He would like
so that his father and grandfather would rise from the grave and rejoice at how their son and
grandson has succeeded in life. For Lopakhin, the cherry orchard is just land,
which can be sold, mortgaged or purchased. In his joy he doesn't even
considers it necessary to show an elementary sense of tact towards
to the former owners of the estate. He starts cutting down the garden without even waiting for them
departure. In some ways he is akin to the soulless lackey Yasha, in whom
there are no feelings such as kindness, love for mother, affection for
the place where he was born and raised. In this he is the direct opposite of Firs,
whom these qualities are unusually developed. Firs is the oldest person in
home. He has faithfully served his masters for many years and sincerely loves
I am ready to protect them from all troubles like a father. Perhaps Firs -
the only character in the play endowed with this quality - devotion.
Firs is a very integral nature, and this integrity is fully manifested
in his relation to the garden. For an old footman, a garden is a family nest, which
he strives to protect in the same way,
Petya Trofimov is a representative of the new generation.
as well as their masters.
12
He doesn't care about the fate of the cherry orchard at all. “We are above love,” declares
he, thereby admitting his inability to have serious feelings. Peter
looks at everything too superficially: not knowing true life, he tries
reorganize it based on far-fetched ideas. Outwardly, Petya and Anya are happy.
They want to move towards a new life, making a decisive break with the past. A garden for them -
“all of Russia,” and not just this cherry orchard. But is it possible without loving
home, to love the whole world? Both heroes rush to new
horizons, but lose their roots. Mutual understanding between Ranevskaya and
Trofimov is impossible. If for Petya there is no past and memories, then
Ranevskaya deeply grieves: “After all, I was born here, my father and
mother, my grandfather, I love this house, without the cherry orchard I don’t understand my
life..."
The image of Ranevskaya in the play "The Cherry Orchard"
Let's consider one of the main images of the play - the image of Ranevskaya. Cherry
the garden appears in the play as a symbolic image. It brings together very different
heroes, each of whom has their own idea of him. But the cherry orchard
will separate all the characters at the end of the play.
The Cherry Orchard as a wonderful home for Ranevskaya exists only in her
wonderful past. The memory of childhood and youth is associated with it.
Ranevskaya appears in her house, where she has not been for five years. And this is hers
last, farewell visit to the Motherland. The heroine comes from abroad,
from the man who stole from her, but whom she still loves very much.
At home, Ranevskaya thought to find peace.
13
Nature itself in the play seems to remind her of the need for spirituality.
renewal, about beauty, about the happiness of human life.
Ranevskaya, devastated by love, returns to her estate in the spring. IN
cherry orchard - “white masses of flowers”, starlings sing, glitters above the garden
sky. Nature is preparing for renewal - and Ranevskaya’s soul is awakening
hopes for a new, clean, bright life: “All, all white! O my garden!
After a dark, unhappy autumn and a cold winter, you are young again, full
happiness, the heavenly angels have not abandoned you. If removed from the chest and shoulders
my heavy stone, if only I could forget my past!
But the past does not allow itself to be forgotten, since Ranevskaya herself lives with a feeling
of the past. She is the creation of a noble culture, which is disappearing before our eyes.
the present remains only in memories. A new one takes its place
class, new people - emerging bourgeois, businessmen, ready to do anything for
money. Both Ranevskaya and the garden are defenseless against the threat of death and ruin.
When Lopakhin offers her the only real way to save the house,
Ranevskaya replies: “Dachas and summer residents - it’s so vulgar, I’m sorry.”
It turns out that, on the one hand, Ranevskaya does not want to cut down the garden, so
how this is a symbol of her happy youth, her aspirations, hopes. Yes, besides
the garden in the spring is simply magnificent in its bloom - it would be a pity to cut down such beauty
because of some dachas. But, on the other hand, the author shows us indifference
Ranevskaya and to the fate of the cherry orchard, and to the fate of loved ones. All of her
mental strength, energy was absorbed by love passion, which enslaved
gradually the will of this woman drowned out her natural responsiveness to
the joys and sorrows of the people around you.
14
Emphasizing Ranevskaya's sense of indifference, Chekhov shows us
the heroine’s attitude towards telegrams from Paris.
This ratio is directly dependent on the degree of threat looming
over the garden. In the first action, while they only talk about the possibility of sale,
Ranevskaya “tears up the telegram without reading it.” In the second act it is already known
buyer - Ranevskaya reads and tears up the telegram. In the third act
auction took place - she admits that she decided to go to Paris to the man
who robbed her and abandoned her. In Paris, Ranevskaya is going to live on
the money that my grandmother sent to buy the estate.
The heroine completely forgot all the insults caused to her by her ex.
beloved. In Russia, she leaves everyone to their fate. Varya,
Ranevskaya's adopted daughter is forced to become a housekeeper for the Ragulins. Love
Andreevna does not care at all about her fate, although she made an attempt
marry Varya to Lopakhin. But this attempt was unsuccessful.
Ranevskaya is impractical, selfish, careless. She forgets about Firs,
servant who worked for them all his life. She is not happy with her daughters' lives
- neither Ani nor Varya, forgetting about them in the heat of her passion. It is unknown for what
whim, Ranevskaya throws a ball while auctions are going on in the city, although
she herself understands the inappropriateness of what is happening: “And the musicians came
inopportunely, and we started the ball inopportunely... Well, nothing... (Sits down and quietly
crying)."
But, at the same time, the heroine is kind, responsive, and her feeling does not fade
beauty. She is ready to help everyone, ready to give her last money.
15
So, Ranevskaya gives the last gold piece to the drunkard. But hers is also visible in this
impracticality. She knows that at home Varya feeds everyone milk soup, and
servants - peas. But this is the nature of this heroine.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, as mentioned above, is bright
representative of the passing century. Landowner. Once accustomed to living on
wide leg, she is not able to realize and accept the fact that for her
there are no longer a couple of hundred serfs who were there before, and who
covered her expenses. During the years of living abroad, she never learned
practicality and rationality. Naive and kind, allows herself
to deceive everyone who is not too lazy, starting from her lover and ending with the lackey
Yasha. Sensitive and sentimental, she is completely unprepared for blows
fate, every time trying to run away from problems and troubles. When six years ago
her son drowned in the river, she could not recover from grief, and, leaving everything, left
abroad. The second time she will run away to Paris when her estate is bought up
Lopakhin.
The image of Ranevskaya is very contradictory, it is impossible to say whether she is good or
bad. In the play, this image is not assessed unambiguously, since it is alive,
complex and contradictory in nature.
Anya is one of the main characters of the play
Anya, Lyubov Andreevna’s own daughter, is still naive and stupid
A girl who can easily get her head turned. Still almost a child, she is now
crossroads. Brought up on romantic books surrounded by those who love her
people, Anya looks at the world through rose-colored glasses. Kind and sensitive, she
tries as best he can to take care of his mother, protects her from attacks
Gaeva. Everyone in the house loves this girl for the purity of her soul and spontaneity.
actions.
16
After the sale of the garden and the departure of her mother, an opening opens up before her.
the need to take care of yourself. In the final scene, Anya shares
with my plans to graduate from high school and go to work. Everyone in the house understands
that the money that the Yaroslavl aunt gave to Ranevskaya will not last long. But
Anya is excited about the prospects opening up to her.
Petya's image
Petya Trofimov is perhaps the only person in the play for whom
the future exists as a conscious reality, as what he lives for.
This hero realizes the beauty of the cherry orchard, apparently more deeply than anyone else in
play. But he also understands better than others that the garden bears the imprint
slave past. Trofimov sees that the garden is doomed by the present, in which
there is no place for beauty where the predation of the Lopakhins triumphs.
The future is depicted by this hero as a triumph not only of justice,
but also beauty. That's why, when Anya complains that she stops loving her
cherry orchard, Petya says: “All of Russia is our garden. The earth is big and
It’s beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it.” And after the sale of the estate,
Trying to console her mother and clearly echoing Petya, Anya says: “We will plant a new
a garden more luxurious than this, you will see it, you will understand...”
In addition, Petya Trofimov utters those words that express the whole
the truth about the cherry orchard, in the image of which the whole country is hidden. He voices
that thought, which is probably hidden in the rest of the heroes somewhere far away in
consciousness. Petya says, turning to Anya: “Think, Anya, your grandfather, great-grandfather
and all your ancestors were serf owners who owned living souls, and is it really possible
from every cherry tree in the garden, from every trunk, human beings do not look at you
creatures, don’t you hear voices..."
17
It seems to me that a “pure soul” is, of course, the most
a suitable description for Petya.
Of course, in Petya’s views, in his convictions that he and his comrades
should be “above love”, there was a lot of naivety. But it should be remembered that
Trofimov was not the only one to sin with naive maximalism. These kinds of views
were very widely represented among radical youth
that time. They also manifested themselves in their own way during the times described by I.S.
Turgenev, and in subsequent decades.
Thus, Petya’s renunciation of love is similar to his refusal of money,
which Lopakhin offers him. In one and the other case, Trofimov
comes from the conviction that he is a “free man”, since he has no control over him
not the slightest power, everything that is so highly valued by people who live like him
outdated concepts and traditions.
convinced
old,
The image of Petya Trofimov is of great importance in the play. He is not
ghostly, like Gaev or Ranevskaya, he is real and accepts life itself
really. It seems that Petya Trofimov is the only sane one, if that’s possible
say, of all the characters in the play. And then it seems that he is capable
turn things around with the cherry orchard in the other direction: help save. But
this doesn't happen.
Apparently, Chekhov did this intentionally to show the outcome of the case, the most
tragic, sad, but real. Chekhov did not come up with something miraculous
salvation to finally open people's eyes. For Petya everything
what happened to the garden is the beginning of a new life, in any case, he is very
I want to believe in it, the life for which he lives, for which he strives.
18
But why shouldn’t he grow new seeds on already prepared soil? Or
Is this soil not suitable for giving new life? Philosophical
questions in the play constantly arise before the reader. And they are not only
in the plot itself, they are in the characters themselves, who are in “The Cherry Orchard”
great semantic load. The image of Petya Trofimov is among them,
perhaps one of the main ones.
This hero, to the best of his ability, helps those who are at the head of the movement. IN
Chekhov's play needed a representative of such a trend. Among the passive
figures in The Cherry Orchard, Petya is the only effective character,
a thinking character who makes others think. It doesn't always work out
but the essence is in that impulse, in that great mission (and in comparison with the actions
other characters she is really great!), which she performs in
work by Petya Trofimov. I think this hero can be called
a bearer of the truth of life, not afraid to admit it and try to correct it.
Image of Gaev
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya, is also a typical representative
of a passing era. And not only because he is categorically against cutting down the garden.
Their sentimentality is understandable. My whole life was lived next to this
garden Both Leonid Andreevich and his sister are used to having everything decided for them
others: estate managers, peasants who paid rent. Therefore, they don't
they can offer nothing reasonable in the current situation, again
trying to shift their problems to Lopakhin, to the Yaroslavl aunt, to
anyone, but not themselves. Gaev is a player. He even thinks
card categories while away from the card table. After
sale of the estate, Leonid Andreevich was offered a place in a bank with a good
annual salary. But whether he will serve remains an open question.
19
Lopakhin as an image of the future drawn by Chekhov
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, a peasant son, and now, young and
successful merchant. He himself admits that he was and remains a man.
Of course, he has business acumen. But the educational and cultural
the level leaves much to be desired. He is well aware of this and it’s as if
is ashamed, admitting that he writes like a chicken with its paw. Lopakhin's proposal
cutting down a garden and handing over plots of land for the development of dachas is, in fact, not so
stupid in the light of new changes, but representatives of the outgoing century
they take him with hostility. Lopakhin is decisive and assertive. Can
achieve the goal. Can Lopakhin be called a predator?
The question is controversial. The predator would not offer his own option for obtaining
profit and saving the estate, but on the contrary, would do everything to get it
As soon as possible. But he patiently and persistently inspired Ranevskaya and Gaeva
way out of the current situation. And if the landowner's family accepted him
proposal, at best, Lopakhin would become a manager, and the main
Brother and sister would receive profits from the lands. Lopakhin, too, in his own way
tied to the estate. His ancestors lived on this land, this is his homeland, and
so he did everything possible to buy it, since the estate was all the same
was put up for sale. Don’t give up your homeland to Deriganov. His joy
can be understood. He, “that same Ermolai bought an estate, more beautiful than which
there is nothing in the world." He knows how to appreciate beauty. “And when my poppy bloomed, what
what a picture it was!” He also knows how to create this beauty.
Many literary critics believe that Petya Trofimov personifies
new Russia. I cannot agree with this point of view. It is Ermolai
Lopakhin is a peasant son and a merchant, working from morning till night, not this one
an eternal student, personifies the new Russia. Because when Petya
reasoned, criticizing others and calling on everyone to work, Lopakhin worked.
20
When Petya was talking about men whose lives were bad, Lopakhin gave
the opportunity for these men to earn their own bread when they planted poppies. AND
with a feeling of fulfillment, he can allow himself to admire the blooming
a field that gave him 40 thousand net profit. Exactly for such
people like Lopakhin are the future of Russia.
Features of the hero. The concept of “hero” does not apply to Chekhov’s characters.
in the traditional sense of the word (nothing “heroic” about them, of course,
no), that’s why in Chekhov studies they often use the term “Chekhovian”
character".
Memoirists testify that Chekhov was alien to pathos, external
manifestation of feelings, all sorts of theatrical effects. And his heroes are
"ordinary people. “Chekhov brought the ordinary to virtuosity, to genius
depiction of ordinary life. “Without a hero” - that’s how you can title everything
his writings and add to myself, not without sadness: “without heroism”” (V.V.
Rozanov).
In Chekhov's stories there is no division of heroes into positive and
negative. The author, as a rule, does not give preference to any of the
them. What is important for a writer is not to judge the characters, but to find out the reasons
misunderstandings between people.
Chekhov is a realistic author, and in the stories the character of the hero
is revealed in his relationships with other characters, in his
rootedness in everyday life circumstances, trifles, in his
depending on time. The heroes of Chekhov's stories are peasants, merchants,
landowners, high school students, doctors, officials... Moreover, the writer is not interested in
so much the social status of the characters as their behavior, psychology, their
human essence.
21
The formation of the so-called Chekhov hero (in contrast, for example, to
heroes N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy) ended at the beginning
1890s. This is an ordinary intellectual, an average person, educated,
often a talented, great worker who does his job without any
pathos (teaching, healing people, etc.), passed over during life
universal recognition, its value is more often recognized by others after
his death.
Chekhov's hero is most often lonely. He yearns for the lost meaning
life, about the lack of harmony, but believes in a wonderful life, in a free and
creative person.
22
Chapter 3
The image of the cherry orchard is the central image in Chekhov's comedy,
it is represented by the leitmotif of various time plans, involuntarily
connecting the past with the present. But the cherry orchard is not just a background
events taking place, he is a symbol of estate life. The fate of the estate
organizes the play plot-wise. Already in the first act, immediately after the meeting
Ranevskaya, a discussion begins on saving the mortgaged estate from auction. IN
in the third act the estate is sold, in the fourth - farewell to the estate and
past life.
The Cherry Orchard represents not only the estate: it is a beautiful creation
nature that man must preserve.
The author pays great attention to this image, which is confirmed
detailed remarks and replicas of the characters. The whole atmosphere that
connected in the play with the image of the cherry orchard, serves to confirm it
enduring aesthetic value, the loss of which cannot but impoverish
spiritual life of people. That is why the image of the garden is included in the title.
The Cherry Orchard acts as a kind of moral criterion, according to
Not only the characters in the play, but also us, are determined in relation to it.
“The Cherry Orchard” is a comedy about careless Russian people,” wrote Yu,
Sobolev. In this play it turns into sadness and turns into anxiety. Big
number of comic scenes - Charlotte's tricks, Epikhodov's mistakes, stupid ones
Gaev’s speeches only intensify sadness, “longing for the ideal.” In classical
In comedy, vice is usually punished, virtue triumphs.
23
There are no clearly negative characters in Chekhov's play, and positive
are missing. The conflict of the work is also unclear at first glance. The thing is,
that the subject of the image in the playwright’s plays is not actually
action, their reluctance and inability to perform an act. This is exactly what
ridiculed in the comedies of Chekhov K.S. Stanislavsky noted a special
the nature of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard”
The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is rooted in situations that reflect the comedy
the meaning of life itself. Chekhov interpreted this genre in a unique way. In his
comedy is a drama that, with subtle irony, ridicules
vulgarity. Traditional accusatory pathos, “laughter through tears”, according to
according to the apt remark of the writer Teffi, in Chekhov’s poetics it is replaced
"laughter instead of tears."
The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written by A.P. Chekhov in 1903, on
turn of the era. At this time, the author is full of the feeling that Russia is in
on the eve of huge changes. Like any person, Chekhov dreamed of the future,
about a new life that will bring people something bright, pure and beautiful.
It is this motive of waiting for a better life that sounds in the play “The Cherry Orchard.”
Chekhov feels that the old life is gradually leaving, and the new one is only just
is emerging.
How did Chekhov see the future? What kind of future did he dream of?
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said.
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate,
he mentally imagined “all of Russia” at the turn of the era.
The Cherry Orchard is a complex and ambiguous image. It's not only
a specific garden, which is part of the estate of Gaev and Ranevskaya, but also the image
symbol.
It symbolizes not only the beauty of Russian nature, but, most importantly, the beauty
the lives of the people who grew this garden and admired it, the life that
24
garden
dies
The image of the cherry orchard unites all the characters in the play. On
death
With
together
at first glance, it seems that these are only relatives and old acquaintances,
by chance, those who gathered at the estate to solve their everyday problems
Problems. But that's not true. The writer connects characters of different ages and
social groups, and they will have to decide the fate of the garden one way or another, and
that means your destiny.
The cherry orchard is a symbol of beauty. But who will save beauty if people
who are able to appreciate it, are unable to fight for it, but people who are energetic and
do active people look at it only as a source of profit and gain?
The Cherry Orchard is a symbol of a past and home that is dear to the heart. But
Is it possible to move forward when the sound of an ax is heard behind you,
destroying everything that was previously sacred? The cherry orchard is a symbol of goodness, and
therefore, expressions such as “cut off the roots”, “trample the flower” or
“hitting a tree with an ax” sounds blasphemous and inhumane.
Reflecting on the characters and actions of the characters in the play, we think
over the fate of Russia, which is the “cherry orchard” for us.
25
Conclusion
A.P. Chekhov, as a Russian writer and Russian intellectual, was concerned
the fate of the Motherland on the eve of social changes felt by society.
The system of images of the play “The Cherry Orchard” reflects the writer’s view of
past, present and future of Russia.
The images of the play represent, on the one hand, the social strata of Russia
on the eve of the turning point (nobility, merchants, common intelligentsia,
partly also the peasantry). On the other hand, these groups peculiarly reflect
past, present and future of the country.
Russia itself is represented by the image of the Cherry Orchard, to which with tender
All the heroes are treated with love.
The personification of the past is the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This past,
leaving the historical arena of noble nests. In Gaev and Ranevskaya
there is no selfish calculation: the idea of selling is completely alien to them
underground cherry orchard for summer residents. They subtly sense the beauty of nature
(“To the right, at the turn of the gazebo, a white tree bent, looking like
woman "...). They are characterized by a certain childishness of perception: Ranevskaya
has a childish attitude towards money and does not count it. But this is not only childishness,
but also the habit of living regardless of expenses. Both Gaev and Ranevskaya are kind.
Lopakhin remembers how long ago Ranevskaya took pity on him. Regrets
Ranevskaya and Petya Trofimova with his disorder, and Anya, who
she was left without a dowry and a passerby.
But the time of the Gaevs and Ranevskys has passed. Their intelligence, inability to live,
carelessness turns into callousness and selfishness.
26
Ranevskaya squanders her fortune, leaving her daughter in the care of a foster child
daughter Varya, leaves for Paris with her lover, having received money from
Yaroslavl grandmother intended for Anya, she decides to return to
Paris to the man who practically robbed her, but she doesn’t think
How will Anya’s life turn out next? She takes care of the sick Firs,
asking if he was sent to the hospital, but she cannot check this and
doesn't want to. Ranevskaya is a man of words, but not of deeds. Firs remains in
boarded up house.
The result of the life of the nobles is the consequence of a life in debt, a life based on oppression
others.
As already mentioned, the role of the Cherry Orchard in the figurative system of the play is enormous.
It is around the cherry orchard that the external conflict begins, its
All the characters in the play express their attitude towards the garden. Therefore, humanly
the viewer and reader feel his fate tragically6 “... and you can only hear how
Far away in the garden they are knocking on a tree with an ax.”
Chekhov, both a writer and a playwright, is characterized by sensitive listening to
the beat of everyday life, the ability to find the most important social
problems and build your work so that these problems become
property of compatriots.
27
List of used literature
Chekhov A.P. The Cherry Orchard: Play/Preface. V. A. Bogdanova; Rice. V.P.
Panova.M.: Det. lit., 1980
Chekhov A.P. Collected works in 20 volumes. M., 1951
Bogdanov V. A. Premonition of the future Preface. K Cherry Orchard, M.:
Det. lit., 1980
Gromov M.P. Chekhov. M.. 1993
Ermilov V.V. Hello, new life! Introductory article to Chekhov
A.P. Cherry Orchard, M, Detgiz, 1963
Zakharkin D.F. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov Essay on life and work
M., Soviet Russia, 1961
Kapshev V.B. Chekhov's literary connections. M.. 1989
Kataev V.B. The complexity of simplicity: Stories and plays by Chekhov. 2nd ed.
M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1999
Paperiy Z.S. “Contrary to all the rules...” (Chekhov’s plays and vaudevilles).
M..1982.
Polotskikh E.A. The paths of Chekhov's heroes. M,. 1983.
Skaftymov A.P. On the unity of form and content in “Cherry Lard”
A.P. Chekhov. On the question of the principles of constructing plays by A.P. Chekhov //
Skaftymov A.P. Moral quests of Russian writers. M.. 1972.
Chekhov in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., Goslitizdat, 1952
Chekhov and the theater. Letters. Feuilletons. Contemporaries about the playwright Chekhoved.
M.. 1961.
Chudikov A.P. Chekhov's poetics. M.. 1971
Chukovsky K.I. About Chekhov. M., 1967.
28
A.P. Chekhov in his play “The Cherry Orchard” creates a complex system of images. The writer in the “new drama” refuses the established division of characters into positive and negative. He divides them in his own way, putting a special meaning into each image.
The play features characters representing three generations. Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, Leonid Andreevich Gaev, Ranevskaya's adopted daughter, Varya and the old footman Firs are representatives of a bygone era.
They are impractical people, unadapted to life, they are drawn headlong into memories of the past, so much so that they are unable to solve the serious problem facing them. Ranevskaya and Gaev do not want to lose the estate with the precious cherry orchard, but they do nothing to preserve it.
This attitude towards the family home causes misunderstanding and even some anger among the representative of the present, Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. As a true hero-activist, Lopakhin looks for ways to solve the problem, offers them to the owners of the estate, but receives only silence in response. Being a realist by nature, he understands what such sluggish behavior will lead to, so he decides to take the initiative into his own hands. The hero buys the estate to turn it into summer cottages, and orders the cherry orchard, which means so much to Ranevskaya, to be cut down. This act allows us to see another side of Yermolai. He is not able to understand what the value of the garden is, and therefore his act seems heartless, like a mockery of the overly sentimental Ranevskaya.
In addition to representatives of the past and present, Chekhov introduces characters who personify the future and express their position on the cherry orchard, a symbol of a bygone era. Such heroes include the “eternal student,” Petya Trofimov and Ranevskaya’s seventeen-year-old daughter, Anya. Petya expresses his position quite clearly when he says that we need to put an end to the past in order to start living in the present. This thought greatly influences Anya, and she admits that she does not feel as strong a love for the cherry orchard as before. It would seem that such heroes, personifying a bright future, should be positive and ideal. However, the author does not completely sympathize with any of his characters. Petya cannot apply his common sense thoughts and ideas in practice, and Anya, in love with the “eternal student,” does nothing. The heroes do nothing but rant about how great it would be to replace the “old” garden with a “new” one.
So why can’t we identify that there is no “ideal” hero in Chekhov’s play? Because every character has a weak point. None of them are able to think in different directions. Everyone is obsessed with their problems, dreams or memories. This hinders the development of heroes.