The play “The Cherry Orchard” became A.P.’s swan song. Chekhov, occupying the stage of world theaters for many years. 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 numbers in Monte Carlo.
Chekhov carefully worked out each female character: facial expressions, gestures, manners, speech, because through them he conveyed an idea of the character and feelings possessing the heroines. The appearance and 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. Getting to know 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 is a vivid example of 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. For most of 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 the sale of the garden is an inevitable payment for her past life, and this is evident 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 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 pulling 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. An adopted daughter, 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. Native daughter Anya, left at the age of twelve in the care of a careless uncle, is very worried about the future of her mother 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 his 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 the negative aspects of 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 The one 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 he constantly sounds favorite word“Whom” and completely inappropriate billiard terms appear. Firs still follows his master like a little child, either shaking the dust off 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. An interesting detail is that because of 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 “merchant grabber,” 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 mind of a person” (Simeonov-Pishchik) to “a predatory beast that eats 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’m not averse... She 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 failure in love 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 towards Ranevskaya runs as a 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 is the new owner of the 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 the “old” was affirmed. pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the “dying away” noble class, Lopakhin - the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov - the common intelligentsia. 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 implement 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 general atmosphere 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 a 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 transformation. 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 a lot interesting moments. 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 complex 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 by 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 a builder of a bright future, a real person looks through, wanting 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 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 come to him. But it is he who is entrusted with the important role of showing 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 her half-sister Anya, 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 diminutives speak of 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 the dramatic image we see a living and original personality. The description of Varya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” cannot be reduced to a short set of epithets - like all Chekhov’s characters, even minor ones, she 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 On holy day, we ate half a bucket of cucumbers...", emphasizing the comedy of the situation).
However, it is not difficult 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, the railroad 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 best role, I don’t like the rest” - this is the characterization 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.” She is practically not included in the system of social connections, as well as in the situation that causes the main conflict - the 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 - trying to express himself “in a bookish way,” Epikhodov builds his statements from “clever” introductory words: “Of course, if you look from your point of view, then you, if I may put it this way, excuse my 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 him close connection For Firs, a peasant and a gentleman embodies an ideal, harmonious system of society, bound 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 pants 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. As an integral part 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 prominent position in the work. important place, which should not be underestimated.
Sources
http://all-biography.ru/books/chehov/vishnyovyj-sad
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 as 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.
So, social status landowner/landowner in Russia turn of XIX-XX centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure public 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.
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 of the latter Chekhov's play, it is now 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...
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.
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in the conditional 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, you see, there’s something in
highest degree
indecent, like a cockroach.
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 gone, 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. a woman capable of truly deep feeling. 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 lornet 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 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;
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, lost in thought, 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 very clever man 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.).
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.” About the origin and family tree
The character also knows nothing: “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 other characters in “The Cherry Orchard,” as noted above, are included in one or another conditional 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 themselves in some kind of virtual, and not 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 the personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, modeled by Chekhov, if we consistently, 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, and 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:<…>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).
"was created by Chekhov in 1903, staged in 1904, on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.
"The Cherry Orchard" is called a play about the decline of the life of the local nobility, but first of all, it is a play about the Motherland, about the imaginary and true owners of the Russian land, about the upcoming renewal of Russia.
Russia of the outdated past is represented in the play by the images of Ranevsky and Gaev. The cherry orchard is dear to these heroes as a memory, as a memory of childhood, youth, prosperity, of their easy and graceful life. In the noble estate presented by the author, we first of all see a cultural nest.
Now let's move on to the analysis of the heroes of Chekhov's play.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna is a landowner, the soul of a beautiful house, its mistress. I lived abroad for 5 years, in Paris. She spent a lot of money, led a lavish lifestyle, and did not deny herself anything. People are constantly drawn to her despite all her vices and frivolity. Ranevskaya is sentimental and easy to talk to. She is filled with feelings of joy when she returns home and cries at the sight of the nursery. For her, the word responsibility means nothing; when it was necessary to solve the problem with the Cherry Orchard, she naively thought that everything would go away by itself and work itself out. When Ranevskaya lost her estate, she does not experience any drama about this. She returns to Paris to her absurd love, to which, apparently, they would have returned anyway, despite all her loud words about the impossibility of living far from the homeland. The heroine does not experience any serious worries; she can easily move from a state of anxiety and preoccupation to a cheerful and carefree animation. That's what happened this time too. She quickly calmed down about the loss that befell her...
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich - merchant, son and grandson of a serf peasant. He owes a lot to Ranevskaya, as she helped him a lot, loves her like her own.
In the new conditions, Lopakhin became rich, but remained, in his own words, “a man, a man.” Lopakhin wants to help Ranevskaya, give the land for dachas, but for this it is necessary to cut down the garden, for him the Cherry Orchard is simply “big”. he suffers deeply from duality. He cuts down a cherry orchard, and it may seem that a rude, uneducated merchant has destroyed beauty, without thinking about what he is doing, just for the sake of his profit. But in fact, Lopakhin does this not only for profit and for her. There is another reason, much more important than one’s own enrichment - revenge for the past. He cuts down the garden, fully aware that this is “an estate better than which there is nothing in the world.” In this way, he tries to kill the memory, which, against his will, constantly reminds him that he is a “man”, and the bankrupt owners of the cherry orchard are “gentlemen”. By any means, with all his might, he wants to erase this line separating him from the “masters.” In Lopakhin one can see the features of a predatory beast. Money and the power acquired with it cripple his soul. Two people live and fight in it: one is “with a subtle, gentle soul”, the other is a “predatory beast”.
Anya is Ranevskaya’s daughter. A 17-year-old girl, the topic of the future of Russia is connected with her. She is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. He completely shares Petit’s idea that the entire nobility is to blame for Russia. Wants to leave native home and go with Petya to the ends of the world. In A. there is faith in happiness, in one’s own strength, in another life. She tells her mother after the sale of the estate: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this one” and sincerely rejoices at leaving her parental home. But perhaps she will be disappointed, because Petya talks more than he does.
Trofimov Petya is a commoner, 27 years old.
Trofimov criticizes the entire Russian government, because he believes that it is they who do not allow the whole of Russia to develop, criticizes them for “dirt, vulgarity, Asianism,” criticizes the Russian intelligentsia, which does not look for anything and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself is a bright representative of such an intelligentsia: he only speaks beautifully, without doing anything. A characteristic phrase for Trofimy: “I will reach or show others the way to reach” (to the “highest truth”). He denies love, considering it something “petty and illusory.” He only urges Anya to believe him, as he anticipates happiness. Ranevskaya reproaches Petya for his coldness when he says that it makes no difference whether the estate is sold or not. In general, Ranevskaya does not like the hero, calling him a klutz and a second-grade high school student. At the end of the play, Petya is looking for forgotten galoshes, which become a symbol of his worthless, albeit illuminated in beautiful words, life.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich - Ranevskaya's brother, landowner. A pathetic aristocrat who squandered his entire fortune. Sentimental and sensitive. He is very worried about the sale of the estate. To hide this, the hero “defends himself” with absent-minded behavior and words like “who?”, “from the ball to the right into the corner,” etc. Completely unadapted to life in new conditions, incapable of independent life. He makes unrealistic plans to save the cherry orchard (what if someone leaves them an inheritance, what if Anya marries a rich man, what if an aunt from Yaroslavl gives them money). But this hero didn’t lift a finger to really save his estate, his “homeland.” After selling the cherry orchard, he gets a job at a bank, to which Lopakhin notes doubtfully: “But he can’t sit still, he’s very lazy...”
Firs is a footman in Ranevskaya’s house, an old man of 87 years old. He represents the type of servant of old times. Firs is infinitely devoted to his owners and takes care of them as if they were his own children. So, meeting Ranevskaya, Firs cries with joy.
After the abolition of serfdom, he “did not agree to freedom, he remained with the masters.” Firs constantly recalls the past, when the master “went to Paris... on horseback...” and when everything was clear: “men are with the gentlemen, gentlemen are with the men.”
The old servant is no longer able to serve, he hears almost nothing, he constantly misspoke. But Firs cannot sit idle. He was born for masters and will die courting them. That's almost exactly what happens. After the sale of the estate, the leaving owners forget Firs in a boarded-up house, where a servant devoted to this house dies.
Yasha is a young footman. A boor, ignorant, but very pleased with himself and admiring everything foreign.
Yasha is a cynical and cruel person. When his mother comes to him from the village and waits for him in the servants’ room all day, the footman dismissively declares: “It’s really necessary, she could come tomorrow.” Alone with Firs, Yasha says to the old man: “I'm tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die soon.” Yasha really wants to seem educated and shows off " smart sayings“: “In my opinion, if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral.” The young footman is very proud that he lived abroad. With his foreign polish, he wins the heart of the maid Dunyasha, but uses her location for his own benefit. After the sale of the estate, Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him with her to Paris again. It is impossible for him to stay in Russia: “the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, and, moreover, boredom...”
For the former owners of the estate and their entourage - Ranevskaya, Varya, Gaev, Pischik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs - with the death of the cherry orchard, their usual life ends, and what will happen next is very uncertain. And although they continue to pretend that nothing has changed, such behavior seems ridiculous, and in light of the current situation, even stupid and unreasonable. The tragedy of these people is not that they lost their cherry orchard and went bankrupt, but that their feelings became very crushed...
All the characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” are of great importance in the ideological and thematic context of the work. Even casually mentioned names carry meaning. For example, there are off-stage heroes (the Parisian lover, the Yaroslavl aunt), the very fact of whose existence already sheds light on the character and lifestyle of the hero, symbolizing an entire era. Therefore, in order to understand the author’s idea, it is necessary to analyze in detail those images that realize it.
Characteristics of heroes
- Ranevskaya is a frivolous, spoiled and pampered woman, but people are drawn to her. It was as if the house had opened its time-bound doors again when she returned here after a five-year absence. She was able to warm him with her nostalgia. Comfort and warmth again “sounded” in every room, just as festive music sounds on holidays. This did not last long, as the days at home were numbered. In the nervous and tragic image of Ranevskaya, all the shortcomings of the nobility were expressed: its inability to be self-sufficient, lack of independence, spoiledness and tendency to evaluate everyone according to class prejudices, but at the same time, subtlety of feelings and education, spiritual wealth and generosity.
- Anya. A heart beats in the chest of a young girl, waiting for sublime love and looking for certain life guidelines. She wants to trust someone, to test herself. Petya Trofimov becomes the embodiment of her ideals. She cannot yet look at things critically and blindly believes Trofimov’s “chatter,” presenting reality in a rosy light. Only she is alone. Anya does not yet realize the versatility of this world, although she is trying. She also does not hear those around her, does not see the real problems that have befallen the family. Chekhov had a presentiment that this girl was the future of Russia. But the question remained open: will she be able to change something or will she remain in her childhood dreams. After all, to change something, you need to act.
- Gaev Leonid Andreevich. Spiritual blindness is characteristic of this mature man. He remained in childhood for the rest of his life. In conversation he constantly uses billiard terms out of place. His horizons are narrow. The fate of the family nest, as it turned out, does not bother him at all, although at the beginning of the drama he beat himself in the chest with his fist and publicly promised that the cherry orchard would live. But he is categorically incapable of doing business, like many nobles who are accustomed to living while others work for them.
- Lopakhin buys Ranevskaya’s family estate, which is not a “bone of discord” between them. They do not consider each other enemies; humanistic relationships prevail between them. Lyubov Andreevna and Ermolai Alekseevich seem to want to get out of this situation as quickly as possible. The merchant even offers his help, but is refused. When everything ends well, Lopakhin is happy that he can finally get down to real business. We must give the hero his due, because it was he, the only one, who was concerned about the “fate” of the cherry orchard and found a solution that suited everyone.
- Trofimov Petr Sergeevich. He is considered a young student, although he is already 27 years old. One gets the impression that being a student has become his profession, although outwardly he has turned into an old man. He is respected, but no one believes in his noble and life-affirming calls except Anya. It is a mistake to believe that the image of Petya Trofimov can be compared with the image of a revolutionary. Chekhov was never interested in politics; the revolutionary movement was not part of his interests. Trofimov is too soft. His soul and intelligence will never allow him to cross the boundaries of what is permitted and jump into an unknown abyss. In addition, he is responsible for Anya, a young girl who does not know real life. She still has a rather delicate psyche. Any emotional shock can push her in the wrong direction, from where she can no longer be returned. Therefore, Petya must think not only about himself and the implementation of his ideas, but also about the fragile creature that Ranevskaya entrusted to him.
How does Chekhov relate to his heroes?
A.P. Chekhov loved his heroes, but he could not trust any of them with the future of Russia, not even Petya Trofimov and Anya, the progressive youth of that time.
The heroes of the play, sympathetic to the author, do not know how to defend their rights in life, they suffer or remain silent. Ranevskaya and Gaev suffer because they understand that they cannot change anything about themselves. Their social status fades into oblivion, and they are forced to eke out a miserable existence on the last proceeds. Lopakhin suffers because he realizes that he cannot help them. He himself is not happy about buying a cherry orchard. No matter how hard he tries, he still will not become its full owner. That is why he decides to cut down the garden and sell the land, so that he can later forget about it as a bad dream. What about Petya and Anya? Isn't it the author's hope in them? Perhaps, but these hopes are very vague. Trofimov, due to his character, is not capable of taking any radical actions. And without this the situation cannot be changed. He is limited to talking about a wonderful future and that’s all. And Anya? This girl has a slightly stronger core than Petra. But due to her young age and life’s uncertainty of change should not be expected from her. Perhaps in the distant future, when she has set all her life priorities, some action can be expected from her. In the meantime, she limits herself to faith in the best and a sincere desire to plant a new garden.
Whose side is Chekhov on? He supports each side, but in his own way. In Ranevskaya, he appreciates genuine feminine kindness and naivety, albeit seasoned spiritual emptiness. Lopakhin appreciates the desire for compromise and poetic beauty, although he is not able to appreciate the real charm of the cherry orchard. The Cherry Orchard is a member of the family, but everyone unanimously forgets about this, while Lopakhin is not able to understand this at all.
The heroes of the play are separated by a huge abyss. They are not able to understand each other, since they are closed in the world of their own feelings, thoughts and experiences. However, everyone is lonely, they have no friends, like-minded people, no real love. Most people go with the flow, without setting any serious goals for themselves. Besides, they are all unhappy. Ranevskaya experiences disappointment in love, life and her social supremacy, which seemed unshakable just yesterday. Gaev once again discovers that aristocratic manners are not a guarantee of power and financial well-being. Before his eyes, yesterday's serf takes away his estate and becomes the owner there, even without the nobility. Anna is left penniless and has no dowry for a profitable marriage. Although her chosen one does not demand it, he has not yet earned anything. Trofimov understands that he needs to change, but does not know how, because he has neither connections, nor money, nor position to influence anything. They are left with only the hopes of youth, which are short-lived. Lopakhin is unhappy because he realizes his inferiority, belittles his dignity, seeing that he is no match for any gentlemen, even though he has more money.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
