A short essay-discussion on the topic: The past, present and future of Russia in the play “ The Cherry Orchard" Three generations in the comedy "The Cherry Orchard". The fate of the Cherry Orchard

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” Chekhov portrayed several generations of people at once, each of which represents the past, present or future of Russia. The author does not idealize any of them: each era has its own advantages and disadvantages. This is why we value Chekhov’s work: he is extremely objective in relation to reality. The writer is not trying to convince us that the future is cloudless or the past is worthy of worship, and he treats the present most strictly.

The past in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is presented in the images of Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs. All of them cannot adapt to the new realities of life. Their situation in some places seems funny to us, because their actions are absurd. To save the estate, the owners just need to rent it out at a profit, but they are too scrupulous and arrogant, they are embarrassed by the vulgarity of the summer residents who will desecrate their cherry orchards. Instead, they ended up with Lopakhin buying the estate and completely cutting down the paradise. This example suggests that the nobles cannot even take care of themselves, let alone Russia. Their behavior is not rational, and their character is capricious, because they are accustomed to living carefree through the labor of others. Obviously, they did not live up to the privileges of their class, so the harsh reality left them in the past: they could not keep up with it, they kept imagining that it had to adapt to them. However, Chekhov does not set himself the task of denigrating the past. We see that these people are not devoid of spiritual subtlety, tact and other genuine virtues. They are well-mannered, educated and kind. For example, the devotion of the old servant Firs makes us sympathize with him and recognize the moral superiority of the older generation over modern people Lopakhin type.

The future in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the young generation: Trofimov and Anya. They are dreamers, maximalists, divorced from reality. They are romantic and elevated, but at the same time independent and intelligent, being able to find mistakes of the past and present and try to correct them. Student Trofimov says: “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,” it is obvious that the young man looks soberly at things. But at the same time, the hero demonstrates indifference towards the cherry orchard: “We are above love,” he declares, abdicating all responsibility for the fate of the garden, and, therefore, of all of Russia. He and Anya, of course, want to change something, but they are losing their roots. This is precisely what worries the author.

The era of the greatest aggravation of social relations, a stormy social movement, and the preparation of the first Russian revolution was clearly reflected in the writer’s last major work - the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Chekhov saw the growth of the revolutionary consciousness of the people, their dissatisfaction with the autocratic regime. Chekhov's general democratic position was reflected in The Cherry Orchard: the characters in the play, being in great ideological clashes and contradictions, do not reach the point of open hostility. However, the play shows the world of the noble-bourgeois in a sharply critical manner and depicts in bright colors people striving for a new life.

Chekhov responds to the most pressing demands of the time. The play “The Cherry Orchard,” being the culmination of Russian critical realism, amazed contemporaries with its unusual truthfulness and convexity of image.

Although “The Cherry Orchard” is based entirely on everyday material, in it everyday life has a general, symbolic meaning. This was achieved by the playwright through the use of an “undercurrent”. The cherry orchard itself is not the focus of Chekhov’s attention: the symbolic garden is the entire homeland (“all of Russia is our garden”) - Therefore, the theme of the play is the fate of the homeland, its future. Its old owners, the nobles Ranevskys and Gaevs, leave the stage, and the capitalists Lopakhins come to replace it. But their dominance is short-lived, for they are destroyers of beauty.

The real masters of life will come, and they will turn Russia into a blooming garden. The ideological pathos of the play lies in the denial of the noble-landowner system as outdated. At the same time, the writer argues that the bourgeoisie, which replaces the nobility, despite its vitality, brings with it destruction and oppression. Chekhov believes that new forces will come that will rebuild life on the basis of justice and humanity. The farewell of the new, young, tomorrow's Russia to the past, which has become obsolete and doomed to an early end, the aspiration to the tomorrow of the homeland - this is the content of “The Cherry Orchard.”

The peculiarity of the play is that it is based on showing clashes between people who are representatives of different social strata - nobles, capitalists, commoners and the people, but their clashes are not hostile. The main thing here is not the contradictions of property, but the deep revelation of the emotional experiences of the characters. Ranevskaya, Gaev and Simeonov-Pishchik form a group of local nobles. The playwright’s work was complicated by the fact that in these characters it was necessary to show positive traits. Gaev and Pischik are kind, honest and simple, and Ranevskaya is endowed and aesthetic feelings(love of music and nature). But at the same time, they are all weak-willed, inactive, incapable of practical matters.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the owners of an estate, “more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world,” as one of the characters in the play, Lopakhin, says - a delightful estate, the beauty of which lies in the poetic cherry orchard. The “owners” ruined the estate with their frivolity and complete lack of understanding real life to a pitiful state, the estate will be sold at auction. Got rich peasant son, the merchant Lopakhin, a friend of the family, warns the owners about the impending disaster, offers them his rescue projects, and encourages them to think about the impending disaster. But Ranevskaya and Gaev live with illusory ideas. Both shed many tears over the loss of their cherry orchard, which they are sure they cannot live without. But things go on as usual, auctions take place, and Lopakhin himself buys the estate.

When the disaster is over, it turns out that no special drama is happening for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Ranevskaya returns to Paris, to her absurd “love”, to which she would have returned anyway, despite all her words that she cannot live without her homeland and without the cherry orchard. Gaev also comes to terms with what happened. “A terrible drama”, which for its heroes, however, did not turn out to be a drama at all for the simple reason that they cannot have anything serious, nothing dramatic at all. The merchant Lopakhin personifies the second group of images. To him special meaning Chekhov added: “... the role of Lopakhin is central. If it fails, then the whole play will fail.”

Lopakhin replaces Ranevsky and Gaev. The playwright persistently emphasizes the relative progressiveness of this bourgeois. He is energetic, businesslike, intelligent and enterprising; he works “from morning to evening.” His practical advice, if Ranevskaya had accepted them, would have saved the estate. Lopakhin’s “thin, gentle soul", thin fingers, like an artist. However, he recognizes only utilitarian beauty. Pursuing the goals of enrichment, Lopakhin destroys beauty - he cuts down the cherry orchard.

The dominance of the Lopakhins is transitory. New people will come to the stage for them - Trofimov and Anya, who make up the third group of characters. The future is embodied in them. It is Trofimov who pronounces the verdict on the “nests of the nobility.” “Whether the estate is sold today,” he says to Ranevskaya, “or not sold, does it matter? It’s been over for a long time, there’s no turning back..."

In Trofimov, Chekhov embodied aspirations for the future and devotion to public duty. It is he, Trofimov, who glorifies work and calls for work: “Humanity moves forward, improving its strength. Everything that is out of reach for him now will someday become close and understandable, but he must work and help with all his might those who are seeking the truth.”

True, the specific ways to change the social structure are not clear to Trofimov. He only declaratively calls for the future. And the playwright endowed him with features of eccentricity (remember the episodes of searching for galoshes and falling down the stairs). But still, his service to public interests, his calls awakened the people around him and forced them to look forward.

Trofimov is supported by Anya Ranevskaya, a poetic and enthusiastic girl. Petya Trofimov encourages Anya to turn her life around. Anya's connections with ordinary people, her thoughts helped her notice the absurdity, the awkwardness of what she observed around her. Conversations with Petya Trofimov made clear to her the injustice of the life around her.

Influenced by conversations with Petya Trofimov, Anya came to the conclusion that her mother’s family estate belonged to the people, that it was unfair to own it, that one must live by labor and work for the benefit of disadvantaged people.

Enthusiastic Anya was captivated and carried away by Trofimov’s romantically upbeat speeches about a new life, about the future, and she became a supporter of his beliefs and dreams. Anya Ranevskaya is one of those who, having believed in the truth of working life, parted with their class. She does not feel sorry for the cherry orchard, she no longer loves it as before; she realized that behind him were the reproachful eyes of the people who planted and raised him.

Smart, honest, crystal clear in her thoughts and desires, Anya happily leaves the cherry orchard, the old manor house in which she spent her childhood, adolescence and youth. She says with delight: “Farewell, home! Goodbye, old life! But Anya’s ideas about a new life are not only vague, but also naive. Turning to her mother, she says: “We will read on autumn evenings, we will read many books, and a new, wonderful world will open before us...”

Anya's path to a new life will be extremely difficult. After all, she is practically helpless: she is used to living, ordering numerous servants, in complete abundance, carefree, not thinking about her daily bread, about tomorrow. She is not trained in any profession, is not prepared for constant, hard work and for everyday deprivation of the most necessary things. Striving for a new life, she, by way of life and habits, remained a young lady of the noble-landed circle.

It is possible that Anya will not withstand the temptation of a new life and will retreat before its trials. But if she finds the necessary strength within herself, then her new life will be in studying, in educating the people and, maybe (who knows!), in the political struggle for their interests. After all, she understood and remembered Trofimov’s words that redeeming the past, putting an end to it “can only be done through suffering, only through extraordinary, continuous labor.”

The pre-revolutionary politicized atmosphere in which society lived could not but affect the perception of the play. “The Cherry Orchard” was immediately understood as Chekhov’s most social play, embodying the fate of entire classes: the departing nobility, the capitalism that replaced it, and the people of the future already living and acting. This superficial approach to the play was picked up and developed by literary criticism of the Soviet period.

However, the play turned out to be much higher than the political passions that flared up around it. Already contemporaries noted the philosophical depth of the play, dismissing its sociological reading. Publisher and journalist A. S. Suvorin argued that the author of “The Cherry Orchard” is aware that “something very important is being destroyed, it is being destroyed, perhaps out of historical necessity, but still this is a tragedy of Russian life.”

The end of the nineteenth - the beginning of the twentieth - a time of change. At the turn of the century, people live on the eve. On the eve of what, few people understand. People of a new generation are already appearing, while people of the past continue to exist. A generational conflict arises. Turgenev already depicted something similar in his novel “Fathers and Sons.” For him, this is a vivid conflict, often resolved by disputes. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov took a different look at the problem. He has no external conflicts, but the reader feels a deep inner tragedy. Connections between generations are being broken, and, worst of all, they are being broken routinely. For the new generation, which Anya and Petya represent in the play, those values ​​no longer exist without which the life of the elder, that is, Ranevskaya, Gaev, makes no sense.
These values ​​in the play are personified by the cherry orchard. He is a symbol of the past, over which the ax has already been raised. The life of Lyubov Andreevna and her brother cannot exist separately from the cherry orchard, but at the same time they cannot do anything to preserve it. Ranevskaya is simply running away from her problems. After the death of her son, she leaves everything for Paris. After breaking up with her lover, she returns to Russia again, but, having discovered insoluble problems in her homeland, she again wants to flee to France. Gaev is strong only in words. He talks about a rich aunt, about many other things, but in reality he understands that many recipes are offered only for incurable illnesses. Their time has already passed, and the time has come for those for whom beauty lies only in usefulness.
This was Lopakhin. They talk about him in different ways: sometimes he is a “predator”, sometimes he is a “subtle and gentle soul”. It combines the incompatible. A person who loves Lyubov Andreevna, sympathizes with her with all his soul, does not understand the charm of the cherry orchard. He offers to rent out the estate, divide it into dachas,
not realizing that this would be the end not only of the cherry orchard, but also of its owners. Two opposites fought in this man, but in the end the rationalistic grain won. He cannot contain his joy that he, a former slave, becomes the owner of a cherry orchard. He begins to knock him out without any regret. Lopakhin overcame his love for Ranevskaya; he did not have the courage to marry Vara.
Varya, Ranevskaya's adopted daughter, was essentially the mistress of the cherry orchard during her mother's long absences. She has the keys to the estate. But she, who in principle could become a mistress, does not want to live in this world. She dreams of monasticism and wanderings.
Anya could be considered the actual heir of Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev. But, unfortunately, she is not. Anya and Petya personify the future. He is an “eternal student”, reminiscent of Gaev with his philosophical speeches; she is an educated girl, his bride. Anya is greatly influenced by Petya’s speeches. He tells her that the cherry orchard is in the blood, that it should be hated, not loved. She agrees with Petya in everything and admires his intelligence. And what a terrible outcome sounds like Anya’s question: “Why don’t I love the cherry orchard anymore?” Anya, Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev - all of them, in essence, betray their garden, a garden that they have tamed, but for which they are not able to stand up. The tragedy of the older generation is its inability to protect its past. The tragedy of the present and future generations is their inability to appreciate and understand the values ​​of the past. After all, it’s impossible for an ax to become a symbol of an entire generation. In the play, Chekhov described three generations and revealed to the reader the tragedy of each of them. These problems are also relevant in our time. And at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, Chekhov’s work acquires the connotation of a certain warning.

Past, present and future in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"

I. Introduction

“The Cherry Orchard” was written in 1903, in an era that was in many ways a turning point for Russia, when the crisis of the old order had already become apparent, and the future had not yet been determined.

II. main part

1. The past is represented in the play by characters of the older generation: Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs, but other characters in the play also talk about the past. It is associated primarily with the nobility, which end of the 19th century- at the beginning of the 20th century it was in obvious decline. The past is ambiguous. On the one hand, it was a time of serfdom, social injustice, etc., which, for example, Lopakhin and Petya Trofimov talk about. On the other hand, the past seems to be a happy time not only for Ranevskaya and Gaev, but also, in particular, for Firs, who perceives “will” as misfortune. There was a lot of good things in the past: goodness, order, and most importantly - beauty, personified in the image of a cherry orchard.

2. The present in Russia is vague, transitional, and unstable. This is how it appears in Chekhov’s play. The main exponent of the present is Lopakhin, but we should not forget about other heroes (Epikhodov, lackey Yasha, Varya). The image of Lopakhin is very contradictory. On the one hand, he, a merchant who emerged from the former serfs, is the master of the present; It is no coincidence that he gets the cherry orchard. This constitutes his pride: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai /.../ bought an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world /.../ bought an estate where his father and grandfather were slaves.” But, on the other hand, Lopakhin is unhappy. He is a subtle person by nature, he understands that he is ruining beauty, but he cannot live otherwise. The feeling of his own inferiority is especially evident in his monologue at the end of the third act: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”

3. The future in the play is completely vague and uncertain. It would seem that it belongs to the younger generation- Trofimov and Anya. It is they, especially Trofimov, who speak passionately about the future, which seems to them, of course, wonderful. But Anya is still just a girl, and how her life will turn out, what her future will be, is completely unclear. There are serious doubts that Trofimov will be able to build the happy future he is talking about. First of all, because he does absolutely nothing, but only talks. When it is necessary to demonstrate the ability to perform at least minimal practical action (comfort Ranevskaya, take care of Firs), he turns out to be incompetent. But the main thing is the attitude towards the key image of the play, the cherry orchard. Petya is indifferent to its beauty, he urges Anya not to regret the cherry orchard, to forget about the past altogether. "We will plant new garden“, says Trofimov, and this one, then, let him die. This attitude towards the past does not allow us to seriously hope for the future.

III. Conclusion

Chekhov himself believed that the future of his country would be better than its past and present. But in what ways this future will be achieved, who will build it and at what cost - the writer did not give specific answers to these questions.

Searched here:

• past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard
• past present and future in the play The Cherry Orchard
• past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard essay

(482 words) “The Cherry Orchard” is the last play by A.P. Chekhov. It was written by him in 1903, shortly before the 1905 revolution. The country then stood at a crossroads, and in the work the author skillfully conveyed the atmosphere of that time through events, characters, their characters and actions. The Cherry Orchard is the embodiment of pre-revolutionary Russia, and the heroes different ages- the personification of the past, present and future of the country.

Ranevskaya and Gaev represent earlier times. They live in memories and do not want to solve the problems of the present at all. Their house is under threat, but instead of making any attempts to save it, they in every possible way avoid conversations with Lopakhin on this topic. Lyubov Andreevna constantly wastes money that could be used to buy out a house. In the second act, she first complains: “Oh, my sins... I’ve always wasted money without restraint, like crazy...” - and literally a minute later, having heard the Jewish orchestra, she suggests “inviting him somehow, having an evening.” There is a feeling that before us are not adult, experienced, educated heroes, but foolish children who are unable to exist independently. They hope that their problem will be solved miraculously, but they themselves do not take any action, leaving everything to the mercy of fate. In the end, they are deprived of the entire past that they treasured so much.

The present time is personified by the merchant Ermolai Lopakhin. He is a representative of the growing class in Russia - the bourgeoisie. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, he is not childish, but very hardworking and enterprising. It is these qualities that help him eventually buy the estate. He grew up in a family of serfs who used to serve the Gaevs, so he is very proud of himself: “... beaten, illiterate Ermolai... bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” For Ermolai, the garden is not a memory of past years; for him, the plot is only a means for making money. Without any doubt, he cuts it down, thereby destroying the old, but at the same time, without creating anything new.

Anya and Petya Trofimov are heroes of the future. They both talk about the future as something absolutely bright and beautiful. But in reality, for the two of them it is quite vague. Petya talks a lot, but does little. At 26, he still hasn't graduated from university, earning him the nickname "the eternal student." He criticizes the nobility and supports the bourgeoisie, calling people to work, but he himself is not capable of anything. Of all the characters in the play, only Anya supports him. She is still a 17-year-old girl who represents the personification of youth, inexhaustible strength and the desire to do good. Her future is also unknown, but it is she who reassures her mother: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.” She has no doubt that the loss of an estate is not the worst tragedy and that you can plant a new garden, just as you can start new life. Although the author does not claim anything, perhaps Anya is the true future of Russia.

A.P. Chekhov showed readers heroes of different generations, classes and views on life of that time, but was never able to give a definite answer as to who the future of the country lay behind. But still, he sincerely believed that Russia’s future would certainly be bright and beautiful, like a blooming cherry orchard.