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.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters of the latter Chekhov's play, it is now not the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, rush into the future.
Thus, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into dachas, they, in turn, do not understand how harmony can be sold, sell happiness:
“Lopakhin. Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people. They tell you in Russian, your estate is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What do we do? Teach what?
Lopakhin.<…>Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry.
Gaev. I completely agree with you.
Lopakhin. I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can not! You tortured me!” (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action designated by the author in the stage directions (“a room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of the “nanny” Firs in relation to Gaev: “Firs (cleans Gaev with a brush , instructively). They put on the wrong pants again. And what should I do with you! (13, 209), but also by the natural appearance of the images of father and mother in the characters’ discourse. Ranevskaya sees “the late mother” in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); Gaev remembers his father going to church on Trinity Sunday in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of behavior of the characters is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in Ranevskaya’s speeches and actions a manifestation of an “ordinary person” who, “submitting to his not always beautiful desires and whims, deceives himself every time.” One can also see in her image “an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life.” However, it seems that it is precisely the unselfishness, lightness, immediacy of the attitude towards existence, very reminiscent of a child’s, the instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and absurd, from the point of view of the other characters and many comedy researchers, actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior established in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all of Gaev’s serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing at being an adult:
“Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny temporarily withdraws - T.I.).
Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to a general who could give me a bill.
Lopakhin. Nothing will work out for you. And you won’t pay interest, rest assured.
Lyubov Andreevna. He's delusional. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the characters’ attitude towards each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, afraid that they will not be heard.
Gaev (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Adjacent to this micro-group of characters is Firs, whose chronotope is also the past, but a past that has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the character’s speech:
“Firs. In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be…” (13, 206).
His past is the time before the misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. In this case, we have before us a version of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order established by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and does not always have a social connotation: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petit’s future, like Firs’s past, acquires the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want to for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront” (13, 244).
A premonition of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of a dream come true, also characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I’m dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-so-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, as she feels herself, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have specific, tangible outlines (the lackey Yasha and “love” for him are only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... and dancing makes me dizzy, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me something that took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to a funny and unreal, from his point of view, reality: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>It’s not for me here, I can’t live... nothing can be done.
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in the 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.
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 like they are in some kind of virtual rather than 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 Cherry Orchard" - the last work of A.P. Chekhov. The writer was terminally ill when he wrote this play. He realized that he would soon pass away, and this is probably why the whole play is filled with some kind of quiet sadness and tenderness. This is the great writer’s farewell to everything that was dear to him: to the people, to Russia, whose fate worried him until the last minute. Probably, at such a moment, a person thinks about everything: about the past - he remembers all the most important things and takes stock - as well as about the present and future of those whom he leaves on this earth. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” it is as if a meeting of the past, present and future took place.

It seems that the heroes of the play belong to three different eras: some live in yesterday and are absorbed in memories of bygone times, others are busy with momentary affairs and strive to benefit from everything they have. this moment, and still others turn their gaze far ahead, not taking into account real events.

Thus, the past, present and future do not merge into one whole: they exist according to piecework and sort out their relationships with each other.

Prominent representatives of the past are Gaev and Ranevskaya. Chekhov pays tribute to the education and sophistication of the Russian nobility. Both Gaev and Ranevskaya know how to appreciate beauty. They find the most poetic words to express their feelings towards everything that surrounds them - be it an old house, a favorite garden, in a word, everything that is dear to them since childhood. They even address the closet as if they were an old friend: “Dear, dear closet! I greet your existence, which for more than a hundred years has been directed towards the bright ideals of goodness and justice...” Ranevskaya, finding herself at home after a five-year separation, is ready to kiss every thing that reminds her of her childhood and youth. For her, home is a living person, a witness to all her joys and sorrows.

The image of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is ambiguous and complex. This is not just part of the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev, as it might seem at first glance. This is not what Chekhov wrote about. The Cherry Orchard is a symbolic image. It signifies the beauty of Russian nature and the life of the people who raised it and admired it. Together with the death of the garden, this life also perishes.

Center that unites characters

The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the center around which all the characters unite. At first it may seem that these are just old acquaintances and relatives who, by chance, gathered at the estate to solve everyday problems. However, it is not. It is no coincidence that Anton Pavlovich united characters representing different social groups And age categories. Their task is to decide the fate of not only the garden, but also their own.

Gaev and Ranevskaya’s connection with the estate

Ranevskaya and Gaev are Russian landowners who own an estate and a cherry orchard. This is brother and sister, they are sensitive, smart, educated people. They are able to appreciate beauty and feel it very subtly. That’s why the image of the cherry orchard is so dear to them. In the perception of the heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard”, he personifies beauty. However, these characters are inert, which is why they cannot do anything to save what is dear to them. Ranevskaya and Gaev, for all their spiritual wealth and development, are devoid of responsibility, practicality and a sense of reality. Therefore, they cannot take care not only of loved ones, but also of themselves. These heroes do not want to listen to Lopakhin’s advice and rent out the land they own, although this would bring them a decent income. They think that dachas and summer residents are vulgar.

Why is the estate so dear to Gaev and Ranevskaya?

Gaev and Ranevskaya cannot rent out the land because of the feelings connecting them with the estate. They have a special relationship with the garden, which is like a living person to them. Much connects these heroes with their estate. The Cherry Orchard seems to them to be the personification of bygone youth, a past life. Ranevskaya compared her life with " cold winter" and "dark stormy autumn." When the landowner returned to the estate, she again felt happy and young.

Lopakhin's attitude to the cherry orchard

The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is also revealed in Lopakhin’s attitude towards it. This hero does not share the feelings of Ranevskaya and Gaev. He finds their behavior illogical and strange. This person is surprised why they do not want to listen to seemingly obvious arguments that will help find a way out of a difficult situation. It should be noted that Lopakhin is also capable of appreciating beauty. The cherry orchard delights this hero. He believes that there is nothing more beautiful in the world than him.

However, Lopakhin is a practical and active person. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, he cannot just admire the cherry orchard and regret it. This hero strives to do something to save him. Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya and Gaev. He never ceases to convince them that they should rent out both the land and the cherry orchard. This must be done as soon as possible, since the auction will be soon. However, the landowners do not want to listen to him. Leonid Andreevich can only swear that the estate will never be sold. He says he won't allow the auction.

New owner of the garden

Nevertheless, the auction still took place. The owner of the estate is Lopakhin, who cannot believe his own happiness. After all, his father and grandfather worked here, “were slaves”, they weren’t even allowed into the kitchen. The purchase of an estate for Lopakhin becomes a kind of symbol of his success. This is a well-deserved reward for many years of work. The hero would like his grandfather and father to rise from the grave and be able to rejoice with him, to see how much their descendant has succeeded in life.

Negative qualities of Lopakhin

The cherry orchard for Lopakhin is just land. It can be bought, mortgaged or sold. This hero, in his joy, did not consider himself obliged to show a sense of tact towards the former owners of the purchased estate. Lopakhin immediately begins to cut down the garden. He did not want to wait for the former owners of the estate to leave. The soulless lackey Yasha is somewhat similar to him. He completely lacks such qualities as attachment to the place in which he was born and raised, love for his mother, and kindness. In this respect, Yasha is the complete opposite of Firs, a servant who has unusually developed these feelings.

Attitude to the garden of the servant Firs

In revealing it, it is necessary to say a few words about how Firs, the oldest of everyone in the house, treated him. Long years he served his masters faithfully. This man sincerely loves Gaev and Ranevskaya. He is ready to protect these heroes from all troubles. We can say that Firs is the only one of all the characters in The Cherry Orchard endowed with such a quality as devotion. This is a very integral nature, which is fully manifested in the servant’s attitude towards the garden. For Firs, the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev is a family nest. He strives to protect it, as well as its inhabitants.

Representatives of the new generation

The image of the cherry orchard in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is dear only to those characters who have important memories associated with it. The representative of the new generation is Petya Trofimov. The fate of the garden does not interest him at all. Petya declares: “We are above love.” Thus, he admits that he is not capable of experiencing serious feelings. Trofimov looks at everything too superficially. He does not know real life, which he is trying to remake based on far-fetched ideas. Anya and Petya are outwardly happy. They thirst for a new life, for which they strive to break with the past. For these heroes, the garden is “all of Russia,” and not a specific cherry orchard. But is it possible to love the whole world, not loving your home? Petya and Anya are losing their roots in their quest for new horizons. Mutual understanding between Trofimov and Ranevskaya is impossible. For Petya there are no memories, no past, and Ranevskaya deeply worries about the loss of the estate, since she was born here, her ancestors also lived here, and she sincerely loves the estate.

Who will save the garden?

As we have already noted, it is a symbol of beauty. Only people who can not only appreciate it, but also fight for it can save it. Active and energetic people who replace the nobility treat beauty only as a source of profit. What will happen to her, who will save her?

The image of the cherry orchard in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is a symbol of the home and the past, dear to the heart. Is it possible to boldly move forward if the sound of an ax is heard behind you, destroying everything that was previously sacred? It should be noted that the cherry orchard is and it is no coincidence that such expressions as “hitting a tree with an ax”, “trampling a flower” and “cutting off the roots” sound inhumane and blasphemous.

So, we briefly examined the image of the cherry orchard as understood by the characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Reflecting on the actions and characters of the characters in Chekhov’s work, we also think about the fate of Russia. After all, it is a “cherry orchard” for all of us.

A.P. Chekhov wrote his famous play “The Cherry Orchard” in 1903. In this play, the central place is occupied not so much by the personal experiences of the characters, but by an allegorical vision of the fate of Russia. Some characters personify the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs, Varya), others - the future (Lopakhin, Trofimov, Anya). The characters in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" reflect the society of that time.

Main characters

The heroes of Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" are lyrical characters with special features. For example, Epikhodov, who was constantly unlucky, or Trofimov, an “eternal student.” Below will be presented all the characters of the play "The Cherry Orchard":

• Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, mistress of the estate.
• Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. I am not indifferent to Trofimov.
• Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. In love with Lopakhin.
• Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
• Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, a native of peasants, now a merchant. He likes Varya.
• Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, eternal student. He likes Anya, but he is above love.
• Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, a landowner who constantly has no money, but he believes in the possibility of unexpected enrichment.
• Charlotte Ivanovna, the maid, loves to show tricks.
• Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk, unlucky man. He wants to marry Dunyasha.
• Dunyasha, the maid, considers herself like a lady. In love with Yasha.
• Firs, an old footman, constantly takes care of Gaev.
• Yasha, Ranevskaya's spoiled lackey.

Images of the characters in the play

A.P. Chekhov always very accurately and subtly noticed his features in each character, be it appearance or character. This Chekhovian feature is also supported by the play “The Cherry Orchard” - the images of the heroes here are lyrical and even a little touching. Each has its own unique features. For convenience, the characteristics of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard can be divided into groups.

Old generation

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna appears very frivolous, but kind woman, who cannot fully understand that all her money is gone. She is in love with some scoundrel who left her without funds. And then Ranevskaya returns with Anya to Russia. They can be compared to people who left Russia: no matter how good it is abroad, they still continue to yearn for their homeland. The image chosen by Chekhov for his homeland will be written below.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the personification of the nobility, the wealth of past years, which during the author’s time began to decline. Both brother and sister cannot fully comprehend this, but nevertheless they feel that something is happening. And by the way they begin to act, you can see the reaction of Chekhov’s contemporaries - it was either a move abroad, or an attempt to adapt to new conditions.

Firs is an image of a servant who was always faithful to her masters and did not want any change in order, because they did not need it. If with the first main characters of “The Cherry Orchard” it is clear why they are considered in this group, then why can Varya be included here?

Because Varya occupies a passive position: she humbly accepts the developing position, but her dream is the opportunity to walk to holy places, and strong faith was characteristic of people of the older generation. And Varya, despite her seemingly vigorous activity, does not take an active part in conversations about fate cherry orchard and does not offer any solutions, which shows the passivity of the rich class of that time.

Younger generation

Representatives of the future of Russia will be considered here - these are educated young people who put themselves above any feelings, which was fashionable in the early 1900s. At that time, public duty and the desire to develop science were put in first place. But one should not assume that Anton Pavlovich portrayed revolutionary-minded youth - this is, rather, a depiction of the majority of the intelligentsia of that time, who were only engaged in discussing lofty topics, putting themselves above human needs, but were not adapted to anything.

All this was embodied in Trofimov - the “eternal student” and “shabby gentleman”, who was never able to graduate from anything and had no profession. Throughout the play he only talked about various matters and despised Lopakhin and Varya, who was able to admit the thought of his possible romance with Anya - he is “above love.”

Anya is a kind, sweet, still completely inexperienced girl who admires Trofimov and listens carefully to everything he says. She personifies youth, who have always been interested in the ideas of the intelligentsia.

But one of the most striking and characteristic images of that era was Lopakhin, a native of peasants who managed to make a fortune for himself. But, despite his wealth, he remained essentially a simple man. This is an active person, a representative of the so-called “kulaks” class - wealthy peasants. Ermolai Alekseevich respected work, and work always came first for him, so he kept postponing an explanation with Varya.

It was during that period that Lopakhin’s hero could appear - then this “rising” peasantry, proud of the realization that they were no longer slaves, showed a higher adaptability to life than the nobles, which is proven by the fact that it was Lopakhin who bought Ranevskaya’s estate.

Why was the characterization of the characters in The Cherry Orchard chosen specifically for these characters? Because it is on the characteristics of the characters that their internal conflicts will be built.

Internal conflicts in the play

The play shows not only the personal experiences of the characters, but also the confrontation between them, which makes the images of the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” brighter and deeper. Let's take a closer look at them.

Ranevskaya - Lopakhin

Most main conflict is in the pair Ranevskaya - Lopakhin. And it is due to several reasons:

• belonging to different generations;
• contrast of characters.

Lopakhin is trying to help Ranevskaya preserve the estate by cutting down the cherry orchard and building dachas in its place. But for Raevskaya this is impossible - after all, she grew up in this house, and “dachas are so vulgar.” And in the fact that it was Ermolai Alekseevich who bought the estate, she sees this as a betrayal on his part. For him, buying a cherry orchard is the resolution of his personal conflict: he, a simple man, whose ancestors could not go beyond the kitchen, has now become the owner. And this is where his main triumph lies.

Lopakhin - Trofimov

The conflict in a pair of these people occurs due to the fact that they have opposing views. Trofimov considers Lopakhin an ordinary man, rude, limited, who is not interested in anything other than work. The same one believes that Pyotr Sergeevich is simply wasting his mental abilities, does not understand how one can live without money, and does not accept the ideology that man is above all earthly things.

Trofimov - Varya

The confrontation is most likely based on personal hostility. Varya despises Peter because he is not busy with anything, and fears that with the help of his clever speeches he will make Anya fall in love with him. Therefore, Varya tries in every possible way to prevent them. Trofimov teases the girl “Madame Lopakhina,” knowing that everyone has been waiting for this event for a long time. But he despises her because she equated him and Anya with herself and Lopakhin, because they are above all earthly passions.

So, above it was briefly written about the characters of the heroes of Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”. We described only the most significant characters. Now we can move on to the most interesting thing - the image of the main character of the play.

The main character of "The Cherry Orchard"

The attentive reader has already guessed (or is guessing) that this is a cherry orchard. He personifies Russia itself in the play: its past, present and future. Why did the orchard itself become the main character of “The Cherry Orchard”?

Because it is to this estate that Ranevskaya returns after all the misadventures abroad, because it is because of him that the heroine’s internal conflict intensifies (fear of losing the garden, awareness of her helplessness, reluctance to part with it), and a confrontation arises between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin.

The Cherry Orchard also helps resolve internal conflict Lopakhin: he reminded him that he was a peasant, an ordinary man who miraculously managed to get rich. And the opportunity that arose with the purchase of the estate to cut down this garden meant that now nothing else in those parts could remind him of his origin.

What did the garden mean to the heroes?

For convenience, you can write the characters’ attitude towards the cherry orchard in a table.

Symbolism of the cherry orchard in the play

But how then is the image of the main character of “The Cherry Orchard” connected with the image of the Motherland? Through this garden, Anton Chekhov showed the past: when the country was rich, the class of nobles was in its prime, and no one thought about the abolition of serfdom. In the present, there is already a decline in society: it is divided, guidelines are changing. Russia was already on the threshold new era, the nobility became smaller, and the peasants gained strength. And the future is shown in Lopakhin’s dreams: the country will be ruled by those who are not afraid to work - only those people will be able to lead the country to prosperity.

The sale of Ranevskaya's cherry orchard for debts and its purchase by Lopakhin is a symbolic transfer of the country from the rich class to ordinary workers. Debt here means debt for how to for a long time The owners treated how they exploited the common people. And the fact that power in the country is passing to the common people is a natural result of the path along which Russia has moved. And the nobility had to do what Ranevskaya and Gaev did - go abroad or go to work. And the younger generation will try to fulfill their dreams of a bright future.

Conclusion

Having carried out such a small analysis of the work, one can understand that the play “The Cherry Orchard” is a deeper creation than it might seem at first glance. Anton Pavlovich was able to masterfully convey the mood of society at that time, the situation in which it found itself. And the writer did this very gracefully and subtly, which allows this play to remain loved by readers for a long time.

"was created by Chekhov in 1903, staged in 1904, on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.

“The Cherry Orchard” is called a play about the decline of the life of the local nobility, but first of all, it is a play about the Motherland, about the imaginary and true owners of the Russian land, about the upcoming renewal of Russia.

Russia of the outdated past is represented in the play by the images of Ranevsky and Gaev. The cherry orchard is dear to these heroes as a memory, as a memory of childhood, youth, prosperity, of their easy and graceful life. In the noble estate presented by the author, we first of all see a cultural nest.

Now let's move on to the analysis of the heroes of Chekhov's play.

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna is a landowner, the soul of a beautiful house, its mistress. I lived abroad for 5 years, in Paris. She spent a lot of money, led a lavish lifestyle, and did not deny herself anything. People are constantly drawn to her despite all her vices and frivolity. Ranevskaya is sentimental and easy to talk to. She is filled with feelings of joy when she returns home and cries at the sight of the nursery. For her, the word responsibility means nothing; when it was necessary to solve the problem with the Cherry Orchard, she naively thought that everything would go away by itself and work itself out. When Ranevskaya lost her estate, she does not experience any drama about this. She returns to Paris to her absurd love, to which, apparently, they would have returned anyway, despite all her loud words about the impossibility of living far from the Motherland. The heroine does not experience any serious worries; she can easily move from a state of anxiety and preoccupation to a cheerful and carefree animation. That's what happened this time too. She quickly calmed down about the loss that befell her...

Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich - merchant, son and grandson of a serf peasant. He owes a lot to Ranevskaya, as she helped him a lot, loves her like her own.

In the new conditions, Lopakhin became rich, but remained, in his own words, “a man, a man.” Lopakhin wants to help Ranevskaya, give the land for dachas, but for this it is necessary to cut down the garden, for him the Cherry Orchard is simply “big”. he suffers deeply from duality. He cuts down a cherry orchard, and it may seem that a rude, uneducated merchant has destroyed the beauty, without thinking about what he is doing, just for the sake of his profit. But in fact, Lopakhin does this not only for profit and for her. There is another reason, much more important than one’s own enrichment - revenge for the past. He cuts down the garden, fully aware that this is “an estate better than which there is nothing in the world.” In this way, he tries to kill the memory, which, against his will, constantly reminds him that he is a “man”, and the bankrupt owners of the cherry orchard are “gentlemen”. By any means, with all his might, he wants to erase this line separating him from the “masters.” In Lopakhin one can see the features of a predatory beast. Money and the power acquired with it cripple his soul. Two people live and fight in it: one - “with subtle, tender soul", the other is a "beast of prey".

Anya is Ranevskaya’s daughter. A 17-year-old girl, the topic of the future of Russia is connected with her. She is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. He completely shares Petit’s idea that the entire nobility is to blame for Russia. He wants to leave his home and go with Petya to the ends of the world. In A. there is faith in happiness, in one’s own strength, in another life. She tells her mother after the sale of the estate: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this one” and sincerely rejoices at leaving her parental home. But perhaps she will be disappointed, because Petya talks more than he does.

Trofimov Petya is a commoner, 27 years old.

Trofimov criticizes the entire Russian government, because he believes that it is they who do not allow the whole of Russia to develop, criticizes them for “dirt, vulgarity, Asianism,” criticizes the Russian intelligentsia, which does not look for anything and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself is a bright representative of such an intelligentsia: he only speaks beautifully, without doing anything. A characteristic phrase for Trofimy: “I will reach or show others the way to reach” (to the “highest truth”). He denies love, considering it something “petty and illusory.” He only calls on Anya to believe him, as he anticipates happiness. Ranevskaya reproaches Petya for his coldness when he says that it makes no difference whether the estate is sold or not. In general, Ranevskaya does not like the hero, calling him a klutz and a second-grade high school student. At the end of the play, Petya is looking for forgotten galoshes, which become a symbol of his worthless, albeit illuminated by beautiful words, life.

Gaev Leonid Andreevich - Ranevskaya's brother, landowner. A pathetic aristocrat who squandered his entire fortune. Sentimental and sensitive. He is very worried about the sale of the estate. To hide this, the hero “defends himself” with absent-minded behavior and words like “who?”, “from the ball to the right into the corner,” etc. Completely unadapted to life in new conditions, incapable of independent life. He makes unrealistic plans to save the cherry orchard (what if someone leaves them an inheritance, what if Anya marries a rich man, what if an aunt from Yaroslavl gives them money). But this hero didn’t lift a finger to really save his estate, his “homeland.” After selling the cherry orchard, he gets a job at a bank, to which Lopakhin notes doubtfully: “But he can’t sit still, he’s very lazy...”

Firs is a footman in Ranevskaya’s house, an old man of 87 years old. He represents the type of servant of old times. Firs is infinitely devoted to his owners and takes care of them as if they were his own children. So, meeting Ranevskaya, Firs cries with joy.

After the abolition of serfdom, he “did not agree to freedom, he remained with the masters.” Firs constantly recalls the past, when the master “went to Paris... on horseback...” and when everything was clear: “men are with the gentlemen, gentlemen are with the men.”

The old servant is no longer able to serve, he hears almost nothing, he constantly misspoke. But Firs cannot sit idle. He was born for masters and will die courting them. That's almost exactly what happens. After the sale of the estate, the leaving owners forget Firs in a boarded-up house, where a servant devoted to this house dies.

Yasha is a young footman. A boor, ignorant, but very pleased with himself and admiring everything foreign.

Yasha is a cynical and cruel person. When his mother comes to him from the village and waits for him in the servants’ room all day, the footman dismissively declares: “It’s very necessary, she could come tomorrow.” Alone with Firs, Yasha says to the old man: “I'm tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die soon.” Yasha really wants to seem educated and flaunts “clever statements”: “In my opinion, if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral.” The young footman is very proud that he lived abroad. With his foreign polish, he wins the heart of the maid Dunyasha, but uses her location for his own benefit. After the sale of the estate, Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him with her to Paris again. It is impossible for him to stay in Russia: “the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, and, moreover, boredom...”

For the former owners of the estate and their entourage - Ranevskaya, Varya, Gaev, Pischik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs - with the death of the cherry orchard, their usual life ends, and what will happen next is very uncertain. And although they continue to pretend that nothing has changed, such behavior seems ridiculous, and in light of the current situation, even stupid and unreasonable. The tragedy of these people is not that they lost their cherry orchard and went bankrupt, but that their feelings became very crushed...