« The Cherry Orchard"- the pinnacle of Russian drama of the early 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning new era development of Russian theater.

The main theme of the play is autobiographical - a bankrupt family of nobles sells their family estate at auction. The author, as a person who has gone through a similar life situation, describes with subtle psychologism state of mind people who will soon be forced to leave their homes. The innovation of the play is the absence of division of heroes into positive and negative, into main and secondary ones. They are all divided into three categories:

• people of the past - noble aristocrats (Ranevskaya, Gaev and their lackey Firs);
• people of the present - their bright representative, the merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin;
• people of the future - the progressive youth of that time (Petr Trofimov and Anya).

History of creation

Chekhov began work on the play in 1901. Due to serious health problems, the writing process was quite difficult, but nevertheless, in 1903 the work was completed. First theatrical performance The play took place a year later on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, becoming the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright and a textbook classic of the theatrical repertoire.

Analysis of the play

Description of the work

The action takes place on the family estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who returned from France with her young daughter Anya. They are met at the railway station by Gaev (Ranevskaya's brother) and Varya (her adopted daughter).

The financial situation of the Ranevsky family is nearing complete collapse. Entrepreneur Lopakhin offers his own version of a solution to the problem - to divide the land into shares and give them to summer residents for use for a certain fee. The lady is burdened by this proposal, because for this she will have to say goodbye to her beloved cherry orchard, with which many warm memories of her youth are associated. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that her beloved son Grisha died in this garden. Gaev, imbued with his sister’s feelings, reassures her with a promise that their family estate will not be put up for sale.

The action of the second part takes place on the street, in the courtyard of the estate. Lopakhin, with his characteristic pragmatism, continues to insist on his plan to save the estate, but no one pays attention to him. Everyone turns to the teacher Pyotr Trofimov who has appeared. He delivers an excited speech dedicated to the fate of Russia, its future and touches on the topic of happiness in a philosophical context. The materialist Lopakhin is skeptical about the young teacher, and it turns out that only Anya is capable of being imbued with his lofty ideas.

The third act begins with Ranevskaya using her last money to invite an orchestra and organize a dance evening. Gaev and Lopakhin are absent at the same time - they went to the city for an auction, where the Ranevsky estate should go under the hammer. After a tedious wait, Lyubov Andreevna learns that her estate was bought at auction by Lopakhin, who does not hide his joy at his acquisition. The Ranevsky family is in despair.

The finale is entirely dedicated to the departure of the Ranevsky family from their home. The parting scene is shown with all the deep psychologism inherent in Chekhov. The play ends with a surprisingly deep monologue by Firs, whom the owners in a hurry forgot on the estate. The final chord is the sound of an axe. The cherry orchard is being cut down.

Main characters

A sentimental person, the owner of the estate. Having lived abroad for several years, she got used to a luxurious life and, by inertia, continues to allow herself many things that, given the deplorable state of her finances, according to the logic of common sense, should be inaccessible to her. Being a frivolous person, very helpless in everyday matters, Ranevskaya does not want to change anything about herself, while she is fully aware of her weaknesses and shortcomings.

A successful merchant, he owes a lot to the Ranevsky family. His image is ambiguous - he combines hard work, prudence, enterprise and rudeness, a “peasant” beginning. At the end of the play, Lopakhin does not share Ranevskaya’s feelings; he is happy that, despite his peasant origins, he was able to afford to buy the estate of his late father’s owners.

Like his sister, he is very sensitive and sentimental. Being an idealist and romantic, to console Ranevskaya, he comes up with fantastic plans to save the family estate. He is emotional, verbose, but at the same time completely inactive.

Petya Trofimov

An eternal student, a nihilist, an eloquent representative of the Russian intelligentsia, advocating for the development of Russia only in words. In pursuit of the “highest truth,” he denies love, considering it a petty and illusory feeling, which immensely upsets Ranevskaya’s daughter Anya, who is in love with him.

A romantic 17-year-old young lady who fell under the influence of the populist Peter Trofimov. Recklessly believing in better life After the sale of her parents' estate, Anya is ready for any difficulties for the sake of shared happiness next to her lover.

An 87-year-old man, a footman in the Ranevskys' house. The type of servant of old times, surrounds his masters with fatherly care. He remained to serve his masters even after the abolition of serfdom.

A young lackey who treats Russia with contempt and dreams of going abroad. A cynical and cruel man, he is rude to old Firs and even treats his own mother with disrespect.

Structure of the work

The structure of the play is quite simple - 4 acts without dividing into separate scenes. The duration of action is several months, from late spring to mid-autumn. In the first act there is exposition and plotting, in the second there is an increase in tension, in the third there is a climax (the sale of the estate), in the fourth there is a denouement. Characteristic feature the play is the absence of genuine external conflict, dynamism, unpredictable turns storyline. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. Artistic realism The play is achieved through the alternation of dramatic and comic scenes.

(Scene from a modern production)

The development of the emotional and psychological plane dominates in the play; the main driver of the action is the internal experiences of the characters. The author expands art space works using input large quantity characters who never appear on stage. Also, the effect of expanding spatial boundaries is given by the symmetrically emerging theme of France, giving an arched form to the play.

Final conclusion

Chekhov's last play, one might say, is his “swan song.” The novelty of her dramatic language is a direct expression of Chekhov’s special concept of life, which is characterized by extraordinary attention to small, seemingly insignificant details, and a focus on the inner experiences of the characters.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the author captured the state of critical disunity of Russian society of his time; this sad factor is often present in scenes where the characters hear only themselves, creating only the appearance of interaction.

A.P. Chekhov, as a Russian writer and Russian intellectual, was concerned about the fate of the Motherland on the eve of social changes felt by society. The figurative system of the play “The Cherry Orchard” reflects the writer’s view of the past, present and future of Russia.

Figurative system “The Cherry Orchard”— author's features

It is, in particular, that in his works it is practically impossible to single out one main character. is important for understanding the issues that the playwright raises in the play.

Thus, the images of the heroes in “The Cherry Orchard” represent

• on the one hand, the social strata of Russia on the eve of the turning point (nobility, merchants, common intelligentsia, partly peasantry),
• on the other hand, these groups uniquely reflect the past, present and future of the country.

Russia itself is represented by the image of a large garden, which all the heroes treat with tender love.

Images of heroes of the past

The personifications of the past are the heroes of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This is the past of noble nests leaving the historical arena. There is no selfish calculation in Gaev and Ranevskaya: the idea of ​​​​selling a cherry orchard for land to summer residents is completely alien to them. They subtly sense the beauty of nature

(“To the right, at the turn of the gazebo, a white tree bent over, looking like a woman”...).

They are characterized by a certain childishness of perception: Ranevskaya has a childish attitude towards money, does not count it. But this is not only childishness, but also the habit of living without regard to expenses. Both Gaev and Ranevskaya are kind. Lopakhin remembers how in ancient times Ranevskaya took pity on him. Ranevskaya also feels sorry for Petya Trofimov with his instability, and Anya, who was left without a dowry, and the passerby.

But the time of the Gaevs and Ranevskys has passed. Their intelligence, inability to live, carelessness turn into callousness and selfishness.

Ranevskaya squanders her fortune, leaving her daughter in the care of her adopted daughter Varya, leaves for Paris with her lover, having received money from her Yaroslavl grandmother intended for Anya, she decides to return to Paris to the man who practically robbed her, while she does not think about how things will turn out Anya's life further. She shows concern for the sick Firs, asking if he was sent to the hospital, but she cannot and does not want to check this (Ranevskaya is a man of word, but not of action) - Firs remains in the boarded up house.

The result of the life of the nobles is the consequence of a life in debt, a life based on the oppression of others.

Images of the future

New Russia is Ermolai Lopakhin, merchant. In it, the author emphasizes the active principle: he gets up at five o’clock in the morning and works until the evening; work brings him not capital, but also joy. Ermolai Lopakhin is a self-made man (his grandfather was a serf, his father a shopkeeper). A practical calculation is visible in Lopakhin’s activities: he sowed the fields with poppy seeds - both profitable and beautiful. Lopakhin proposes a way to save the cherry orchard, which should bring benefits. Lopakhin appreciates and remembers goodness, such is his touching attitude towards Ranevskaya. He has a “thin, gentle soul", according to Petya Trofimov. But the subtlety of his feelings is combined with the benefit of the owner. Lopakhin could not resist and bought a cherry orchard at auction. He repents to Ranevskaya, consoles her and immediately declares:

“The new owner of the cherry orchard is coming!”

But there is some kind of anguish in Lopakhin, otherwise where would the longing for another life come from? At the end of the play he says:

“If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!”

Images of the future - Petya Trofimov and Anya. Petya Trofimov is an eternal student, he is full of optimism, in his speeches there is a conviction that he, he is the one who knows how to make life wonderful

(Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront! ").

It is he who says to Anya:

“All of Russia is our garden!”

But his image is ambiguous. Petya Trofimov in the play is also more likely a man of words rather than deeds. In practical life, he is a klutz, like the rest of the characters in the play. The image of Anya is perhaps the only image in the play in which there is a lot of feeling of light. Anya looks like Turgenev's girls who are ready to go to new life and give her all of himself without a trace, so Anya has no regret about the loss of the cherry orchard.

Secondary images

The secondary characters of the play highlight the fates of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Simeono-Pishchik is a landowner who is ready to adapt to life, which makes him different from Ranevskaya and Gaev. But he also lives practically on debt. The image of Charlotte emphasizes the disorder and practical homelessness of Ranevskaya.

The patriarchal peasantry is represented by images of servants. This is Firs, in whom the main feature of the old servants has been preserved - devotion to the master. How Firs looks after Gaev for a small child. His fate is tragic and symbolic: he is forgotten, in general abandoned by those who spoke so much about loving him and did so little for him. Dunyasha and Yasha are servants of the new generation. Dunyasha repeats “subtlety of feelings”, exaggerating his mistress. Yasha absorbed the egoism of the masters.

Image of a cherry orchard

As already mentioned, the role of the cherry orchard in the figurative system of the play is enormous. It is around the cherry orchard that an external conflict arises; all the characters in the play express their attitude towards the orchard. Therefore, the viewer and reader feel his fate in a humanly tragic way:

“... and you can only hear how far away in the garden an ax is being knocked on a tree.”

Chekhov and the writer are characterized by sensitive listening to the beat of everyday life, the ability to find the most important social problems in this life and build his work so that these problems become the property of his compatriots.

Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share it

Characters

“Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
Passerby.
Station manager.
Postal official.
Guests, servants" (13, 196).

As you can see, the social markers of each role are saved in the list characters and Chekhov's last play, and just like in previous plays, they are of a formal nature, without predetermining either the character of the character or the logic of his behavior on stage.
Thus, the social status of landowner/landowner in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure of social relations. In this sense, Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik find themselves in the play persona non grata; their essence and purpose in it are not at all connected with the motive of owning souls, that is, other people, and in general, owning anything.
In turn, Lopakhin’s “thin, gentle fingers”, his “thin, gentle soul” (13, 244) are by no means predetermined by his first author's description in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely thanks to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a very definite semantic aura in Russian literature.
It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of characters. In the context of the characteristics given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist. The main category that forms the system of characters of the latter Chekhov's play
, it is now not the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, rush into the future.
Thus, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into dachas, they, in turn, do not understand how harmony can be sold, sell happiness:
“Lopakhin. Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people. They tell you in Russian, your estate is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What do we do? Teach what?<…>Lopakhin.
Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry.
Lopakhin. I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can not! You tortured me!” (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action designated by the author in the stage directions (“a room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of the “nanny” Firs in relation to Gaev: “Firs (cleans Gaev with a brush , instructively). They put on the wrong pants again. And what should I do with you! (13, 209), but also by the natural appearance of the images of father and mother in the characters’ discourse. Ranevskaya sees “the late mother” in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); Gaev remembers his father going to church on Trinity Sunday in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of behavior of the characters is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in Ranevskaya’s speeches and actions a manifestation of an “ordinary person” who, “submitting to his not always beautiful desires and whims, deceives himself every time.” One can also see in her image “an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life.” However, it seems that it is precisely the unselfishness, lightness, immediacy of the attitude towards existence, very reminiscent of a child’s, the instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and absurd, from the point of view of the other characters and many comedy researchers, actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior established in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all of Gaev’s serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing at being an adult:
“Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny temporarily withdraws - T.I.).
Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to a general who could give me a bill.
Lopakhin. Nothing will work out for you. And you won’t pay interest, rest assured.
Lyubov Andreevna. He's delusional. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the characters’ attitude towards each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, afraid that they will not be heard.
Gaev (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Adjacent to this micro-group of characters is Firs, whose chronotope is also the past, but a past that has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the character’s speech:
“Firs. In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be…” (13, 206).
His past is the time before the misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. In this case, we have before us a version of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order established by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and does not always have a social connotation: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petit’s future, like Firs’s past, acquires the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want to for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront” (13, 244).
A premonition of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of a dream come true, also characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I’m dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-so-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, as she feels herself, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have specific, tangible outlines (the lackey Yasha and “love” for him are only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... and dancing makes me dizzy, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me something that took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to a funny and unreal, from his point of view, reality: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>It’s not for me here, I can’t live... nothing can be done.
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in the conventional present, in momentary problems, and in this feeling of life she is close to Lopakhin: “Only I can’t do nothing, mommy. I need to do something every minute” (13, 233). That is why her role as housekeeper in her adoptive mother’s house naturally continues now with strangers:
“Lopakhin. Where are you going now, Varvara Mikhailovna?
Varya. I? To the Ragulins... I agreed to look after the housekeeping for them... as housekeepers, or something” (13, 250).
On the other hand, in her sense of self, the desired future is also constantly present as a consequence of dissatisfaction with the present: “If I had money, even a little, even a hundred rubles, I would give up everything, move away. I would have gone to a monastery” (13, 232).
The characters of the conditional present include Lopakhin, Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik. This characteristic of the present time is due to the fact that each of the named characters has his own image of the time in which he lives, and, therefore, there is no single concept of the present time, common to the entire play, as well as the time of the future. Thus, Lopakhin’s time is the present concrete time, representing an uninterrupted chain of daily “deeds” that give visible meaning to his life: “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I I exist" (13, 246).
It is no coincidence that the character’s speech is replete with indications of the specific time of occurrence of certain events (it is curious that his future tense, as follows from the remarks given below, is a natural continuation of the present, essentially already realized): “I am now, at five o’clock in the morning, at Kharkov to go" (13, 204);
“If we don’t come up with anything and come to nothing, then on the twenty-second of August both the cherry orchard and the entire estate will be sold at auction” (13, 205); “I’ll see you in three weeks” (13, 209).<…>Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik form an oppositional pair in this group of characters. For the first, life is a chain of misfortunes, and this character’s belief is confirmed (again from his point of view) by Buckle’s theory of geographical determinism:
“Epikhodov.
And you also take kvass to get drunk, and then, lo and behold, there is something extremely indecent, like a cockroach.
For the second, on the contrary, life is a series of accidents, ultimately happy ones, which will always correct any current situation: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is gone, I’m dead, and lo and behold, Railway passed through my land, and... they paid me. And then, look, something else will happen not today or tomorrow” (13, 209).
The image of Charlotte is the most mysterious image in Chekhov's last comedy. The character, episodic in its place in the list of characters, nevertheless acquires extraordinary importance for the author. “Oh, if only you played a governess in my play,” writes Chekhov O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. “This is the best role, but I don’t like the rest” (P 11, 259). A little later, the question about the actress playing this role will be repeated by the author three times: “Who, who will play my governess?” (P 11, 268); “Also write who will play Charlotte. Is it really Raevskaya? (P 11, 279); "Who plays Charlotte?" (P 11, 280). Finally, in a letter to Vl.I.<…>Nemirovich-Danchenko, commenting on the final distribution of roles and, undoubtedly, knowing who will play Ranevskaya, Chekhov still counts on his wife’s understanding of the importance of this particular role for him: “Charlotte is a question mark
this is the role of Mrs. Knipper” (P 11, 293).
The importance of the image of Charlotte is emphasized by the author and in the text of the play. Each of the character’s few appearances on stage is accompanied by a detailed author’s commentary concerning both his appearance and his actions. This attentiveness (focus) of the author becomes all the more obvious since Charlotte’s remarks, as a rule, are kept to a minimum in the play, and the appearance of the more significant characters on stage (say, Lyubov Andreevna) is not commented on by the author at all: the stage directions give only numerous psychological details of her portrait. Chekhov's detail “with the dog” is significant. She, as is well known, marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - a very rare poetic image of a woman capable of truly deep feeling. True, in context stage action In the play, the detail receives comic realization. “My dog ​​even eats nuts,” Charlotte says to Simeonov-Pishchik (13, 200), immediately separating herself from Anna Sergeevna. In Chekhov’s letters to his wife, the semantics of the dog are even more reduced, however, it is precisely this version of the stage embodiment that the author insists on: “... in the first act the dog is needed, shaggy, small, half-dead, with sour eyes” (P 11, 316); “Schnapp, I repeat, is no good. We need that shabby little dog you saw” (P 11, 317-318).
In the same first act there is another comic remark-quote containing a description of the character’s appearance: “Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitting, with a lorgnette on her belt, walks across the stage” (13, 208). Taken together, the three details mentioned by the author create an image that is very reminiscent of another governess - the daughter of Albion: “Beside him stood a tall, thin Englishwoman<…>She was dressed in a white muslin dress, through which her skinny yellow shoulders were clearly visible. A gold watch hung on a golden belt” (2, 195). The lorgnette instead of a watch on Charlotte’s belt will probably remain as a “memory” of Anna Sergeevna, because it is this detail that will be emphasized by the author in both the first and second parts of “The Lady with the Dog.”
Gryabov’s subsequent assessment of the Englishwoman’s appearance is also typical: “And the waist? This doll reminds me of a long nail” (2, 197).
A very thin detail sounds like a sentence on a woman in Chekhov’s own epistolary text: “The Yartsevs say that you have lost weight, and I really don’t like that,” Chekhov writes to his wife and a few lines below, as if in passing, continues, “Sofya Petrovna Sredina she became very thin and very old” (P 11, 167). Such an explicit game with such multi-level quotes makes the character’s character vague, blurred, and lacking semantic unambiguity. the author emphasizes the traditionally masculine attributes of the character’s clothing: “Charlotte is wearing an old cap; she took the gun off her shoulders and adjusted the buckle on her belt” (13, 215). This description can again be read as an autoquote, this time from the drama “Ivanov”.<…>The remark preceding its first act ends with the significant appearance of Borkin: “Borkin in big boots, with a gun, appears in the depths of the garden; he is tipsy; seeing Ivanov, tiptoes towards him and, having caught up with him, takes aim at his face
takes off his cap" (12, 7). However, as in the previous case, the detail does not become characterizing, since, unlike the play “Ivanov,” in “The Cherry Orchard” neither Charlotte’s gun nor Epikhodov’s revolver ever fires.
The remark included by the author in the third act of the comedy, on the contrary, completely neutralizes (or combines) both principles recorded in the appearance of Charlotte earlier; now the author simply calls her a figure: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat and checkered trousers waves his arms and jumps, shouting: “Bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!” (13, 237). It is noteworthy that this leveling - the game - with the masculine/feminine principle was quite consciously incorporated by the author into the semantic field of the character: “Charlotte speaks not broken, but pure Russian,” Chekhov writes to Nemirovich-Danchenko, “only occasionally she replaces b at the end of a word pronounces Kommersant and confuses adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders” (P 11, 294).
This game also explicates Charlotte’s dialogue with her inner voice, blurring the boundaries of the gender identification of its participants:<…>"Charlotte.
And what good weather today!
A mysterious female voice answers her, as if from under the floor: “Oh yes, the weather is magnificent, madam.”
You are so good, my ideal...
Voice: “I also really liked you, madam” (13, 231).
The dialogue goes back to the model of small talk between a man and a woman; it is no coincidence that only one side of it is named madam, but the dialogue is carried out by two female voices.
Another very important observation concerns Charlotte's behavior on stage. All her remarks and actions seem unexpected and are not motivated by the external logic of a particular situation;
In the most important for the author, the second act of the play, at the most pathetic moment of her own monologue, which we have yet to talk about, when the other characters are sitting, thoughtful, involuntarily immersed in the harmony of being, Charlotte “takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats it” (13, 215 ). Having completed this process, she makes a completely unexpected and not confirmed by the text of the comedy compliment to Epikhodov: “You, Epikhodov, are a very smart person and very scary; Women must love you madly” (13, 216) - and leaves the stage.
The third act includes Charlotte's card and ventriloquist tricks, as well as her illusionary experiments, when either Anya or Varya appear from under the blanket. It is noteworthy that this plot situation formally slows down the action, as if interrupting, dividing in half, Lyubov Andreevna’s single remark: “Why has Leonid been gone for so long? What is he doing in the city?<…>But Leonid is still missing. I don’t understand what he’s been doing in the city for so long!” (13; 231, 232).
And finally, in the fourth act of the comedy, during the touching farewell of the remaining characters to the house and garden
“Charlotte (takes a knot that looks like a curled up baby). My baby, bye, bye.<…>
Shut up, my good, my dear boy.<…>
I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the bundle into place)” (13, 248).
This mechanism for constructing a stage was known to the poetics of Chekhov's theater. Thus, the first act of “Uncle Vanya” includes Marina’s remarks: “Chick, chick, chick<…>Pestrushka left with the chickens... The crows wouldn’t drag them around...” (13, 71), which directly follow Voinitsky’s phrase: “In this weather it’s good to hang oneself...” (Ibid.).
Charlotte also occupies a special place among other comedy characters. This feature was not only noted by the author, as mentioned above; it is realized and felt by the character himself: “These people sing terribly” (13, 216), says Charlotte, and her remark perfectly correlates with the phrase of Dr. Dorn from the play “The Seagull”, also from the outside looking in at what is happening: “People are boring "(13, 25). Charlotte's monologue, which opens the second act of the comedy, explicates this feature, which is realized, first of all, in the absolute absence of social markers of her image.
Her age is unknown: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it still seems to me that I’m young” (13, 215). Her nationality is also unknown: “And when dad and mom died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me.” Nothing is also known about the origin and family tree of the character: “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know” (13, 215). Charlotte’s profession also turns out to be random and unnecessary in the play, since the children in the comedy have formally grown up a long time ago. All the other characters in “The Cherry Orchard,” as noted above, are included in one or another conventional time; it is no coincidence that the motive of memories or hope for the future becomes the main one for most of them: Firs and Petya Trofimov represent the two poles of this self-perception of the characters. That is why “everyone else” in the play feels themselves in some kind of virtual, and not real, chronotope (cherry orchard, new garden
, Paris, dachas). Charlotte finds herself outside of all these traditional ideas a person has about himself. Its time is fundamentally non-linear: it has no past, and therefore no future. She is forced to feel herself only now and only in this specific space, that is, in a real unconditional chronotope. Thus, we have before us a personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, modeled by Chekhov, if we consistently, layer by layer, remove absolutely all – both social and even physiological – parameters of his personality, free him from any determination by the surrounding world . In this case, Charlotte is left, firstly, with loneliness among other people with whom she does not and cannot coincide in space/time: “I really want to talk, but there is no one with whom... I have no one” (13, 215) . Secondly, absolute freedom from the conventions imposed on a person by society, subordination of behavior only to one’s own internal impulses:<…>Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick!
Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me a trick!
Charlotte. No need. I want to sleep. (Leaves)" (13, 208-209).
The consequence of these two circumstances is the character’s absolute peace. There is not a single psychological note in the play that would mark the deviation of Charlotte’s emotions from absolute zero, while other characters can speak through tears, indignant, joyful, scared, reproachful, embarrassed, etc. And, finally, this character’s perception of the world finds its logical conclusion in a certain model of behavior - in free circulation, play, with reality familiar and unchanged for all other characters. This attitude towards the world is explicated by her famous tricks.
“I’m doing salto mortale (like Charlotte - T.I.) on your bed,” Chekhov writes to his wife, for whom climbing to the third floor without a “car” was already an insurmountable obstacle, “I stand upside down and, picking you up, turn over several times and, throwing you up to the ceiling, I pick you up and kiss you” (P 11, 33).

The problem of the theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard”

In the last play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" the theme was a situation common at the turn of the century - the sale of an estate and a once luxurious cherry orchard to bankrupt nobles. However, the sale of an orchard is something that lies on the very surface, but in fact the theme and idea of ​​the play “The Cherry Orchard” is much deeper.

The decline of the nobility as a class and their loss of their family nests, the destruction of a way of life that had been formed over centuries, the emergence of a new class of entrepreneurs replacing the nobility, revolutionary ideas about changing life, which raise doubts in the author - all this served as the idea of ​​the play. However, Chekhov's skill was so great that his final play turned out to be so multi-layered that its meaning turned out to be much deeper than the original plan. In addition to the most visible topic, a number of other equally significant ones can be identified. This is the conflict of generations, and misunderstanding of each other, the internal discord of the characters, concluded in the inability to love and hear others, the conscious destruction of one’s roots, the oblivion of the memory of ancestors. But the most relevant theme of the work “The Cherry Orchard” today is the destruction of beauty human life and the disappearance of links between generations. And the garden itself in this context becomes a symbol of the destruction of an entire culture. And it is no coincidence that in the second act Charlotte Ivanovna has a gun, because, according to Chekhov himself, the gun must definitely fire. But in this play the shot was never fired, and meanwhile the murder of the garden, which personifies beauty, occurs.

The main theme of the play

So what topic can be identified as the main one? The theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard” was not chosen by chance; Chekhov was very interested in this problem, since his family at one time lost their house, sold for debts. And all the time he tried to understand the feelings of people who were losing their native nest, forced to break away from their roots.

While working on the production of the play, A.P. Chekhov was in close correspondence with the actors involved in it. It was extremely important to him that the characters were presented to the public exactly as he intended. Why was this so important to the playwright? Anton Pavlovich became the first writer who did not divide heroes into positive or negative. Every image he created is so close to real people that it is easy to find in them some traits of themselves and their friends. His expression: “The whole meaning and drama of a person is inside, and not in external manifestations: People dine, and only dine, and at this time their destinies are formed and their lives are broken” prove that for Chekhov, interest in human characters came first. After all, just as in life there are no people who represent absolute evil or good, so on stage. And it is no coincidence that Chekhov was called a realist.

It can be concluded that main topic“The Cherry Orchard” by Chekhov is life shown through created images. A life in which very often what is desired diverges from reality. After all, history is made by people, and ideal people no, which Anton Pavlovich showed very clearly.

The system of images as a means of revealing the theme of the work

The system of images in the play is divided according to the characters’ belonging to a certain time. These are past, present and future. What's left in the past? Lightness, beauty, a centuries-old way of life, understandable to everyone. After all, there were only “men” and “gentlemen”. The gentlemen lived for their own pleasure, and the common people worked. Both of them went with the flow, and there was no need to make firm decisions about their lives, because everything was so established. But the old regime was replaced by the abolition of serfdom. And everything got mixed up. It turned out that smart, sensitive, sympathetic and generous aristocrats could not fit into the new era. They still know how to see and feel the beauty that surrounds them, but they are not able to save them. They are opposed to the present. The real thing is harsh and cynical. Lopakhin is the real thing. He knows how to see and appreciate beauty, but the ability to make a profit is firmly in his mind. He is bitter to realize that he is destroying the past, but he cannot do otherwise.

And finally, the future. It is so foggy and gloomy that it is impossible to say what it will be: joyful or bitter. However, it is clear that the future in the present has a break with the past. Family ties and attachment to one’s home lose their significance, and another theme of the work becomes noticeable: loneliness.

Chekhov was many years ahead of the development of theater. His works are so subtle in their content that it is very difficult to single out any one main theme of the plays. After all, analyzing them, it becomes clear that he sought to show the full depth of life, thereby becoming an unsurpassed master in depicting “undercurrents.”

Work test

Arguments to the final essay from the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov in the following areas: “Fathers and Sons” (the struggle between old and new, attitude towards parents), “Dream and Reality”, “Kindness and Cruelty” (towards loved ones).

Dream and reality

Dreamers:
Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs (dreaming about the past)
Trofimov, Anya (dream about the future)

Realist:
Lopakhin (lives in the present), a man of “his” time.

Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs are stuck in the past, all their thoughts are directed to the past, they remember their childhood, they are not able to live in reality, solve problems, they do not accept new things, in particular, a solution to the problem of ruin.

Ranevskaya, a noblewoman, dreams of returning to the old days when the cherry orchard flourished, but is not able to do anything to make it happen.
Gaev is a nobleman, lazy, also dreams of the past, sentimental and sensitive, incapable of action, does not get along with reality, talks a lot but does nothing, idealist and romantic, dreams of saving the cherry orchard, makes unrealistic plans, dreams of the fantastic problem solving, lazy.

Firs dreams of the past, is not able to accept the new, even refuses freedom after the abolition of serfdom, he has nothing personal, including dreams, his desires are always connected with the desires of his owners. He is forgotten sick on the estate, where he dies.

Lopakhin is a representative of the new generation, a merchant. His father was a serf to the Ranevskys, but he adapted to reality and quickly became rich. He is devoid of nostalgic feelings, lives in the present, is a realist, tries to solve the problem here and now, does not give himself time to dream and think about the meaning of life, “clogging all the time” with work. Buying a cherry orchard is not a dream come true, but a profitable investment
Trofimov and Anya: dreamers, thoughts directed to the future. Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter, dreams of leaving home, starting a new life with Petya Trofimov, with whom she is in love, believes in happiness and in another life, her thoughts are directed to the future
“We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.”

Petya Trofimov is an eternal student, cannot sit in one place for a long time, he is thrown from one extreme to another, believes in a better future, does not work, does not look for work, does not like the intelligentsia, is ideologically naive, believes in happiness, feels its approach, it is not clear , whether something will be done for this or not, lazy, but intoxicated by the dream of the future, preaches the need for work for the benefit of a happy future, but does not make any attempts to do something.

Fathers and sons (attitude towards parents)

Yasha - attitude towards parents (towards mother) An arrogant, ungrateful, selfish type, believes that everyone owes him.

"...Varya (to Yasha). Your mother came from the village, she's been sitting in the people's room since yesterday, she wants to see... Yasha. God bless her!.." "... Yasha. It's very necessary. I could come tomorrow. (Leaves.)."