Characteristics of the image of Charlotte Ivanovna. The most active person

On October 5, 1903, N.K. Garin-Mikhailovsky wrote to one of his correspondents: “I met and fell in love with Chekhov. He's bad. And it burns out like the most wonderful day of autumn. Delicate, subtle, subtle tones. It’s a beautiful day, kindness, peace, and the sea and mountains are dozing in it, and this moment with a wonderful pattern in the distance seems eternal. And tomorrow... He knows his tomorrow and is glad and satisfied that he has finished his drama “The Cherry Orchard.” Chekhov wrote his last play about home, about life, about the homeland, about love, about loss, about the inexorably slipping time. The piercingly sad comedy “The Cherry Orchard” became a testament to readers, theater, and the 20th century. It is now a textbook statement that Chekhov laid the foundations new drama, created a “theater of philosophical mood.” However, at the beginning of the century this position did not seem indisputable. Each new play by Chekhov caused conflicting assessments. The comedy " The Cherry Orchard" The nature of the conflict, the characters, the poetics of Chekhov's drama - everything in this play was unexpected and new. So, Gorky, Chekhov’s “brother” on stage Art Theater, saw in “The Cherry Orchard” rehashes of old motifs: “I listened to Chekhov’s play - when reading it, it does not give the impression of a major thing. Not a word of anything new. Everything - moods, ideas - if we can talk about them - faces - all this was already in his plays. Of course - it’s beautiful and - of course - it will waft green melancholy onto the audience from the stage. I don’t know what the melancholy is about.” Contrary to such forecasts, Chekhov's play became a classic of the Russian theater. Chekhov's artistic discoveries in drama, his special vision of life were clearly manifested in this work. Chekhov was perhaps the first to realize the ineffectiveness of the old techniques of traditional drama. “Other paths for drama” were outlined in “The Seagull” (1896), and it was there that Treplev delivers the famous monologue about modern theater with his moralistic tasks, claiming that this is a “routine”, a “prejudice”. Realizing the power of the unsaid, Chekhov built his theater - a theater of allusions, hints, halftones, moods, exploding from within traditional forms. In pre-Chekhov drama, the action unfolding on stage was supposed to be dynamic and structured as a clash of characters. The intrigue of the drama developed within the framework of a given and clearly developed conflict, affecting mainly the area of ​​social ethics. The conflict in Chekhov's drama is of a fundamentally different nature. Its originality was deeply and accurately defined by A.P. Skaftymov: “Chekhov’s dramatic conflict situations do not consist in the opposition of the volitional orientation of different sides, but in objectively caused contradictions, before which the individual will is powerless... And each play says: it is not individual people who are to blame, and the entire existing structure of life as a whole.” The special nature of the conflict makes it possible to detect internal and external action, internal and external plots in Chekhov’s works. Moreover, the main thing is not the external plot, developed quite traditionally, but the internal one, which Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko called it “the background”, or “undercurrent”. The external plot of “The Cherry Orchard” is a change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. (Chekhov already addressed this topic in the youth drama “Fatherlessness,” however, there it was secondary, the main thing being the love affair.) This plot can be considered in terms of social issues and commented accordingly. A businesslike and practical merchant is opposed to educated, mentally sensitive, but not adapted to life noblemen. The plot of the play is the destruction of the poetry of estate life, which indicates the onset of a new historical era. Such an unambiguous and straightforward interpretation of the conflict was very far from Chekhov’s plan. As for the construction of the plot of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” there is no conflict in it, because there is no outwardly expressed confrontation between the parties and a clash of characters. Lopakhin's social role is not limited to the traditional one. idea of ​​the merchant-acquirer. This character is no stranger to sentimentality. The meeting with Ranevskaya is a long-awaited and exciting event for him: “... I just wish that you would still believe me, that your amazing, touching eyes would look at me as before. Merciful God! My father was a serf to your grandfather and father, but you, in fact, you once did so much for me that I forgot everything and love you like my own... more than my own.” However, at the same time, Lopakhin is a pragmatist, a man of action. Already in the first act, he joyfully announces: “There is a way out... Here is my project. Attention please! Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, there is a railway nearby, and if the cherry orchard and the land along the river are divided into dacha plots and then rented out as dachas, then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year in income.” True, this “exit” into a different, material plane - the plane of benefit and benefit, but not beauty, therefore it seems “vulgar” to the owners of the garden. In essence, there is no confrontation. There is a plea for help, on the one hand: “What should we do? Teach what? (Ranevskaya) and willingness to help - on the other: “I teach you every day. Every day I say the same thing” (Lopakhin). The characters do not understand each other, as if they were speaking in different languages. In this sense, the dialogue in the second act is indicative: * “Lopakhin. We must finally decide - time does not wait. The question is completely empty. Do you agree to give up the land for dachas or not? Answer in one word: yes or no? Just one word! * Lyubov Andreevna. Who is it here smoking disgusting cigars... (Sits down.) * Gaev. Here railway built, and it became convenient. (Sits down.) We went into town and had breakfast... yellow in the middle! I should first go into the house and play one game... * Lyubov Andreevna. You'll have time. * Lopakhin. Just one word! (Pleadingly.) Give me the answer! * Gaev (yawning). Whom? * Lyubov Andreevna (looks at her wallet). Yesterday there was a lot of money, but today there is very little. My poor Varya, to save money, feeds everyone milk soup, in the kitchen the old people are given one pea, and I spend it somehow senselessly... (Dropped my purse, scattered gold.) Well, they fell... (She is annoyed.) "Chekhov shows the confrontation between various life positions, but not a battle of characters. Lopakhin begs, asks, but they don’t hear him, or rather, they don’t want to hear him. In the first and second acts, the viewer retains the illusion that it is this hero who will play the role of patron and friend and save the cherry orchard. The climax of the external plot - the auction of the cherry orchard on August 22 - coincides with the denouement. The hope that everything would somehow work itself out disappeared like smoke. The cherry orchard and the estate were sold, but nothing has changed in the arrangement of the characters and their destinies. Moreover, the outcome of the external plot is even optimistic: * “Gaev (cheerfully). In fact, everything is fine now. Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we were all worried, suffering, and then, when the issue was finally, irrevocably resolved, everyone calmed down, even cheered up... I’m a bank employee, now I’m a financier... yellow in the middle, and you, Lyuba, after all, look better , that's for sure." So, in the organization external action Chekhov deviated from the canons classical drama. The main event of the play was moved to the “periphery”, behind the stage. It, according to the playwright’s logic, is a special episode in the eternal cycle of life.

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

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

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

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

Characters

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

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

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

Lyubov AndreevnaRanevskaya–bankrupt landowner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The play also contains several occasional persons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The artistic originality of the play.

Genre. Combination of comedy and drama

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

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

Conflict between “given” and “desired”

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

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

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

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

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

Features of stage action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's consider highlights of the stage action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions and tasks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Make a detailed outline plan

The position of the governess in society is described in more detail in literature than in historical sources. Governesses are a difficult status. This is a person with education and a special culture. The image and characterization of Charlotte Ivanovna in the play “The Cherry Orchard” prove how a profession can change a person’s lifestyle and habits.

Appearance

Charlotte is a "very thin" figure woman. The author chose such an epithet to emphasize not the stateliness of the woman, her slimness and grace, but rather her thinness, comparable to soreness. Charlotte's figure is also wrapped in clothes and accessories. For what? Unclear. Here we can assume that the classic wants to emphasize the circus roots: an acrobat. Another option is poor nutrition. Owners with limited funds are unlikely to think about food for their servants.

Interesting selection of clothes for the heroine:

• Lornet on the belt;
• Old cap;
• Belt with buckle;
• Gray cylinder;
• Checkered trousers.

The social status of the woman is not clear, there is no precise statement about her nationality. Maybe that's why the author leaves her faceless. An actress with a sense of humor can play a character on stage - this is the main instruction of the classic.

Character

Lonely and unhappy the woman is always calm. Humor allows her to survive and not lose faith in the future. There is no end to her life, and there is no resolution to the situation with the garden, around which so many destinies revolve.

The woman seems like an extra character, but once you exclude her from the play, you understand that without her the whole meaning is lost. The governess constantly observes and analyzes, her judgments help to understand the essence of the problem, its roots and causes.

Biography

The governess has no home, no homeland. She lives with Ranevskaya no longer as a governess, but as a hanger-on.

A.P. Chekhov said that Charlotte is “an important role.” Collective image shows the problem of a changed Rus'. A rootless servant who has lost touch with loved ones is a whole class. Impoverished parents placed their children with rich ones, hoping that they had provided them with a comfortable existence and relieved themselves of responsibility for their future. Morality, connection between generations, value are lost family traditions. The essence of family, the importance of love, the necessity of procreation disappears. An example of Charlotte's life is another cherry orchard, cut down and put on sale.

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

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

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

The importance of the image of Charlotte in the play “The Cherry Orchard” lies, firstly, in her role as a free outside observer with the right to impartial judgment (sudden and illogical at first glance, Charlotte’s remarks, 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.

All characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” have 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

1. Ranevskaya is a frivolous, spoiled and pampered woman, but people are drawn to her. The house seemed to open 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.
2. Anya. In the chest of a young girl there beats a heart that is waiting sublime love and is 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.
3. Gaev Leonid Andreevich. Spiritual blindness is characteristic of this mature person. He stayed there for a long time childhood for 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.
4. Lopakhin buys family estate Ranevskaya, which is not a “bone of contention” 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 way out that suited everyone.
5. 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 nightmare. 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 it. 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 is experiencing 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, 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!