The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous effort. physical strength, and simply rewriting the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov finished “ The Cherry Orchard” on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of its early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the era.
On the eve of grandiose revolutions, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the perspective of the past and the future. The far-reaching perspective imbued the play with the air of history and imparted a special extent to its time and space. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual and there are no open quarrels or clashes between the characters in the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not openly, but internally, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of a generation by a generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its own time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya's arrival in her ancient family estate, from returning to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. A special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity arises. As if in last time flashes brightly - like a memory - this living life on the verge of dying. Nature is preparing for renewal - and hopes for a new one awaken in Ranevskaya’s soul, clean life.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to purchase the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just the object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives occurred at a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” turn out to be victims not of private circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is built on a unique situation that has become a favorite for 20th-century drama - the situation of the “threshold”. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a feeling of an edge, an abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya - a representative of the old nobility - is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she doesn’t even want to think about the future. Her immaturity seems funny. But it turns out that the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about beauty old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course and give in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present time. This is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Lo-akhin is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... he is a gentle man... a decent man in every sense...” But this gentle man is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. Combination selfless love towards beauty and a merchant's spirit, peasant simplicity and a subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in reality he is not ideal hero plays. We feel his lack of self-confidence.
The play intertwines several storylines. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two end-to-end, internally related topics plays. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before anyone else. It is built on Chekhov’s favorite technique: they talk most and most willingly about what does not exist, discuss details, argue about the little things that do not exist, without noticing or deliberately hushing up what exists and is essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin often visits a house where there are unmarried girls, of whom only she is suitable for him. Varya, therefore, must get married. Varya doesn’t even have the idea to look at the situation differently, to think whether Lopakhin loves her, is she interesting to him? All Varina’s expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous positions, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - “eternal student” and “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, Petya Trofimov’s thoughts and dreams are close to Chekhov’s own state of mind. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and premonitions, is naive to say the least. “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind." But a radical change has ripened in life, which Chekhov foresees, and it is not the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but the doom of the old that determines the inevitability.
But can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people, can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother’s drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. Anya still doesn’t know enough about life to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the case-ness of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded with Petya, and this strengthens the motif of the future in the play. have a wonderful life.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya starts something completely inappropriate from the point of view common sense ball. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She snatches a holiday from everyday life, snatches from life that moment that can stretch a thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - triumphant new owner, rattling the keys. Ermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to take an ax to the cherry orchard. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels the shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday’s plebeian, a person with a gentle soul and thin fingers, the purchase of a cherry orchard is, in essence, an “unnecessary victory.”
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who offers a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is realistic, first of all, because Lopakhin understands: the garden cannot be preserved in its previous form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by rearranging it in accordance with the requirements new era. But new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who most clearly sees the beauty of the dying world.
So, the main tragedy of the work consists not only in external action the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are connected, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything to improve their situation. The absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.
The last act, as always with Chekhov, is the moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for the new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok-like readiness to abandon everything - home, childhood, loved ones, and even poetry.” nightingale garden” - in order to shout with an open, free soul: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social future “The Cherry Orchard” sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared simultaneously in the finale, giving birth to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.
The young, cheerfully, calling to each other invitingly, run forward. Old people, like old things, huddled together, they stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, farewell!.. Farewell!..” But the music of farewell is drowned out by “the sound of an ax on wood, sounding lonely and sad.” The shutters and doors are closed. In the empty house, the sick Firs remains unnoticed in the bustle: “But they forgot the man...” The old man is alone in a locked house. One can hear “as if from the sky the sound of a broken string,” and in the silence the ax dully knocks on the wood.
The symbolism of the “Cherry Orchard” spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and changes in the old world.
This work reflects the problems of the passing nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov depicted in a new way main conflict works - a conflict of three generations.
In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard", it would seem, there is no pronounced conflict. There are no open quarrels or clashes between the heroes. And yet, behind their usual remarks one senses the presence of a hidden (internal) confrontation.
From my point of view, the main conflict of the play is the discrepancy between times, the discrepancy between a person and the era in which he lives. The play contains three time planes: past, present and future. At first glance, the personification of the past is Gaev and Ranevskaya, the hero of today is Lopakhin, and the people of the future are Anya and Petya Trofimov. But is it?
Indeed, Gaev and Ranevskaya carefully preserve the memory of the past, they love their home, the cherry orchard, which in the work is both a specific garden and an image symbolizing something beautiful, as well as Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling of witnessing death. cherry orchard, the death of beauty. Gaev and Ranevskaya, on the one hand, have a sense of beauty, they seem to be graceful, sophisticated people, radiating love for others. On the other hand, in fact, it was Ranevskaya who led her estate to collapse, and Gaev “ate his fortune on candy.” In fact, both of them turn out to be people who live only with memories of the past. The present does not suit them, and they don’t even want to think about the future. That’s why both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about the real plan to save the cherry orchard and do not take Lopakhin’s practical proposals seriously - in other words, they hope for a miracle and do not try to change anything.
In a person's life, the past is the roots. Therefore, it is necessary to remember about it. But those who, living in the past, do not think about the present and the future, come into conflict with time. At the same time, a person who has forgotten about the past has no future - this, it seems to me, is the main idea of the author. This is precisely the kind of person who appears in Chekhov’s play as the new “master of life” - Lopakhin.
He is completely immersed in the present - the past does not concern him. The cherry orchard interests him only insofar as profit can be made from it. That blooming garden symbolizes the connection between the past and the present, he, of course, does not think about it, and this is his main mistake. Thus, Lopakhin also has no future: having forgotten about the past, he came into conflict with time, although for a different reason than Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Finally, there are young people left - Anya and Petya Trofimov. Can we call them people of the future? Don't think. Both have abandoned both their past and their present, they live only in dreams of the future - the conflict of times is obvious. What do they have besides faith? Anya doesn’t feel sorry for the garden - in her opinion, there’s more to come whole life, full of joyful labor for the common good: “We will plant new garden, more luxurious than this." However, neither the “eternal student” Petya, nor the very young Anya know true life, look at everything too superficially, try to reorganize the world based on ideas alone and, of course, have no idea how much work it takes to grow in reality (in fact , and not in words) a real cherry orchard.
Can Anya and Petya be trusted with the future they talk about so beautifully and constantly? In my opinion, this would be reckless. I think that the author is not on their side. Petya doesn’t even try to save the cherry orchard, but this is precisely the problem that worries the author.
Thus, in Chekhov's play there is a classic conflict - as in Shakespeare, “the connection of times is broken,” which is symbolically expressed in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the cherry orchard, the guardian of its beauty.
The play "The Cherry Orchard" was written by Chekhov in 1903. This is a time when great social changes are brewing in Russia, and there is a premonition of a “healthy and strong storm.” Dissatisfaction with life, vague and indefinite, covers all classes. Writers express it differently in their works. Gorky creates images of rebels, strong and lonely, heroic and bright characters, in which he embodies the dream of proud man future. Symbolists, through unsteady, foggy images, convey the feeling of the end of the current world, the anxious mood of an impending catastrophe, which is terrible and desirable. Chekhov in his own way conveys these same moods in his dramatic works.
Chekhov's drama is a completely new phenomenon in Russian art. There are no acute social conflicts in it. In the play "The Cherry Orchard" all the characters are gripped by anxiety and a thirst for change. Although the action of this sad comedy revolves around the question of who will get the cherry orchard, the characters do not engage in a bitter struggle. There is no usual conflict between predator and prey or two predators (as, for example, in the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky), although in the end the garden goes to the merchant Ermolai Lopakhin, and he is completely devoid of a predatory grip. Chekhov creates a situation in which open hostility between heroes with different views on life and belonging to different classes is simply impossible. All of them are connected by loving, family relationships; for them, the estate where the events unfold is almost a home.
So, there are three main groups of characters in the play. The older generation is Ranevskaya and Gaev, half-ruined nobles who personify the past. Today, the middle generation, is represented by the merchant Lopakhin. And finally, the youngest heroes, whose fate is in the future, are Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter, and Petya Trofimov, a commoner, teacher of Ranevskaya’s son.
They all have completely different attitudes to the problem related to the fate of the cherry orchard. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden is their whole life. They spent their childhood and youth here, happy and tragic memories tie them to this place. In addition, this is their condition, that is, all that remains of it.
Ermolai Lopakhin looks at the cherry orchard with completely different eyes. For him, this is primarily a source of income, but not only. He dreams of purchasing a garden, since it is the embodiment of a way of life that is inaccessible to the son and grandson of serfs, the embodiment of an unattainable dream of another wonderful world. However, it is Lopakhin who persistently offers Ranevskaya to save the estate from ruin. This is where the true conflict is revealed: differences arise not so much on economic, but on ideological grounds. Thus, we see that without taking advantage of Lopakhin’s offer, Ranevskaya loses her fortune not only because of her inability to do something, because of lack of will, but because the garden for her is a symbol of beauty. “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything... If there is anything interesting, even wonderful, in the entire province, it is only our cherry orchard.” It represents both material and, more importantly, spiritual value for her.
The scene of Lopakhin's purchase of the garden is the climax of the play. Here is the highest point of the hero's triumph; his wildest dreams came true. We hear the voice of a real merchant, partly reminiscent of Ostrovsky’s heroes (“Music, play clearly! Let everything be as I wish!.. I can pay for everything”), but also the voice of a deeply suffering person, not satisfied with life (“My poor, good, You won’t get it back now. (With tears.) Oh, if only it would all go away, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change."
The leitmotif of the play is the expectation of change. But do the heroes do anything for this? Lopakhin only knows how to make money. But this does not satisfy his "thin, gentle soul", feeling beauty, thirsting real life. He does not know how to find himself, his real path.
Well, what about the younger generation? Perhaps he has an answer to the question of how to live further? Petya Trofimov convinces Anya that the cherry orchard is a symbol of the past, which is scary and which needs to be rejected as quickly as possible: “Is it really possible that from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf... human beings do not look at you... Owning living souls is what has reborn you all... you live in debt, at someone else's expense..." Petya looks at life exclusively from a social point of view, through the eyes of a commoner, a democrat. There is a lot of justice in his speeches, but there is no concrete idea of resolution in them eternal questions. For Chekhov, he is the same “klutz” as most of the characters, a “shabby gentleman” who understands little in real life.
The image of Anya appears as the brightest and most unclouded in the play. She is full of hope and vitality, but in her Chekhov emphasizes inexperience and childishness.
“All of Russia is our garden,” says Petya Trofimov. Yes, in Chekhov's play the central theme is the fate of not only the cherry orchard belonging to Ranevskaya. This dramatic work- a poetic reflection on the fate of the Motherland. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become a savior, a real owner of the “cherry orchard,” the guardian of its beauty and wealth. All the characters in this play (excluding Yasha) evoke sympathy, sympathy, but also the sad smile of the author. All of them are sad not only about their personal fate, but they feel a general unwellness that seems to be in the very air. Chekhov's play does not resolve the issues, nor does it give us an idea of future fate heroes.
A tragic chord ends the drama - the old servant Firs, who has been forgotten, remains in the boarded-up house. This is a reproach to all the heroes, a symbol of indifference and disunity of people. However, the play also contains optimistic notes of hope, although uncertain, but always living in a person, because life is directed towards the future, because the old generation is always replaced by youth.
In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected to the garden like others characters, for them he doesn’t play like that significant role, causing them to fall out of the picture in some way. common system 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 - force without a vector, and Petya - a vector without 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.
Work test
