The beginning of a new era in the play “The Cherry Orchard. The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” The Cherry Orchard as the central image of the play

The Cherry Orchard as the central image of the play

The action of the last work by A.P. Chekhov takes place on the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, which in a few months will be sold at auction for debts, and it is the image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” that occupies a central place. However, from the very beginning the presence of such a huge garden causes bewilderment. This circumstance was subjected to rather harsh criticism by I.A. Bunin, hereditary nobleman and landowner. He was perplexed how one could extol cherry trees, which are not particularly beautiful, have gnarled trunks and small flowers. Bunin also drew attention to the fact that in manorial estates there were never gardens of only one direction; as a rule, they were mixed. If you do the math, the garden covers an area of ​​approximately five hundred hectares! To care for such a garden, a very large number of people are needed. Obviously, before the abolition of serfdom, the garden was kept in order, and it is quite possible that the harvest brought profit to its owners. But after 1860, the garden began to fall into disrepair, since the owners did not have the money or desire to hire workers. And it’s scary to imagine what impassable jungle the garden has turned into over 40 years, since the play takes place at the turn of the century, evidence of which can be seen in the walk of the owners and servants not through beautiful bushes, but across a field.

All this shows that no specific everyday meaning of the image of the cherry orchard was intended in the play. Lopakhin singled out only its main advantage: “The only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is big.” But it is precisely the image of the cherry orchard in the play that Chekhov presents as a reflection of the ideal meaning of the object of artistic space, constructed from the words of the characters who, throughout the entire stage history, idealize and embellish the old garden. For the playwright, a blooming garden became a symbol of ideal, but fading beauty. And this fleeting and destructible charm of the past, contained in thoughts, feelings and actions, is attractive to both the playwright and the audience. By connecting the fate of the estate with the characters, Chekhov connected nature with social significance by contrasting them, thereby revealing the thoughts and actions of his characters. He tries to remind us what the true purpose of people is, why spiritual renewal is necessary, what the beauty and happiness of existence lies in.

The Cherry Orchard is a means of revealing characters' personalities

The image of the cherry orchard is of great importance in the plot development of the play. It is through the attitude towards him that one gets acquainted with the worldview of the heroes: their place in the historical changes that befell Russia becomes clear. The viewer is introduced to the garden in May, during the wonderful time of flowering, and its aroma fills the surrounding space. The owner of the garden returns from abroad after being absent for a long time. However, over the years that she traveled, nothing changed in the house. Even the nursery, which has not had a single child in it for a long time, bears the same name. What does a garden mean to Ranevskaya?

This is her childhood, she even imagines her mother, her youth and her not very successful marriage to a man, like her, a frivolous spender; the love passion that arose after the death of her husband; death of the youngest son. She fled from all this to France, leaving everything behind, hoping that escape would help her forget. But even abroad she did not find peace and happiness. And now she has to decide the fate of the estate. Lopakhin offers her the only way out - to cut down the garden, which does not bring any benefit and is very neglected, and give the freed land for dachas. But for Ranevskaya, brought up in the best aristocratic traditions, everything that is replaced by money and measured by it is gone. Having rejected Lopakhin’s proposal, she again and again asks for his advice, hoping that it is possible to save the garden without destroying it: “What should we do? Teach what? Lyubov Andreevna still does not dare to step over her convictions, and the loss of the garden becomes a bitter loss for her. However, she admitted that with the sale of the estate her hands were free, and without much thought, leaving her daughters and brother, she was going to leave her homeland again.

Gaev goes through ways to save the estate, but they are all ineffective and too fantastic: receive an inheritance, marry Anya to a rich man, ask for money from a rich aunt, or re-borrow from someone. However, he guesses about this: “... I have a lot of money... that means... not one.” He is also bitter about the loss of his family nest, but his feelings are not as deep as he would like to show. After the auction, his sadness dissipates as soon as he hears the sounds of his beloved billiards.

For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the cherry orchard is a link to the past, where there was no place for thoughts about the financial side of life. This is a happy, carefree time when there was no need to decide anything, there were no shocks, and they were the masters.

Anya loves the garden as the only bright thing in her life. “I’m home!” Tomorrow morning I’ll get up and run to the garden...” She is sincerely worried, but cannot do anything to save the estate, relying on the decisions of her older relatives. Although in fact, she is much more reasonable than her mother and uncle. Largely under the influence of Petya Trofimov, the garden ceases to mean the same to Anya as it did to the older generation of the family. She outgrows this somewhat painful attachment to her native land, and later she herself is perplexed that she has fallen out of love with the garden: “Why don’t I love the cherry orchard as before... it seemed to me that there is no better place on earth than our garden.” And in the final scenes, she is the only one of the residents of the sold estate who looks into the future with optimism: “...We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this, you will see it, you will understand...”

For Petya Trofimov, the garden is a living monument to serfdom. It is Trofimov who says that the Ranevskaya family still lives in the past, in which they were the owners of “living souls,” and this imprint of slavery is on them: “...you...no longer notice that you live in debt, at someone else’s expense...”, and openly declares that Ranevskaya and Gaev are simply afraid of real life.

The only person who fully understands the value of the cherry orchard is the “new Russian” Lopakhin. He sincerely admires it, calling it a place “there is nothing more beautiful in the world.” He dreams of clearing the territory of trees as soon as possible, but not for the purpose of destruction, but in order to transfer this land into a new form, which will be seen by “grandchildren and great-grandchildren.” He sincerely tried to help Ranevskaya save the estate and feels sorry for her, but now the garden belongs to him, and unbridled rejoicing is strangely mixed with compassion for Lyubov Andreevna.

Symbolic image of the cherry orchard

The play “The Cherry Orchard,” written at the turn of the era, became a reflection of the changes taking place in the country. The old has already gone, and is being replaced by an unknown future. For each of the participants in the play, the garden is its own, but the symbolic image of the cherry orchard is the same for everyone except Lopakhin and Trofimov. “The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it,” says Petya, thereby showing that the people of the new era, to whom he belongs, are not characterized by attachment to their roots, and this is alarming. People who loved the garden easily abandoned it, and this is frightening, because if “All Russia is our garden,” as Petya Trofimov says, what will happen if everyone gives up on the future of Russia in the same way? And remembering history, we see: after just a little more than 10 years, such upheavals began to occur in Russia that the country really became a mercilessly destroyed cherry orchard. Therefore, we can draw an unambiguous conclusion: the main image of the play has become a true symbol of Russia.

The image of the garden, an analysis of its meaning in the play and a description of the attitude of the main characters towards it will help 10th grade students when preparing an essay on the topic “The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” by Chekhov.”

Work test

Crazy years of faded fun
It's hard for me, like a vague hangover.
But like wine, the sadness of days gone by
In my soul, the older, the stronger.
A.S. Pushkin

The works of literary scholars most often present an interpretation of “The Cherry Orchard” from a historical or social point of view. The theme of the play is defined as follows: Chekhov shows the past, present and future of Russia. In accordance with these eras, the play has the owners of the estate (they go bankrupt, demonstrating complete helplessness), there is a new owner of life (an energetic, enterprising merchant), there are representatives of the younger generation (noble dreamers looking to the future). The idea of ​​the play is the author's assessment of the current state of Russia. It is obvious that Chekhov understands the inevitability of the end of the landed nobility (Gaev and Ranevskaya), sadly follows the activities of bourgeois businessmen (Lopakhin), but looks with hope into the future of Russia, which he connects with new people (Petya Trofimov and Anya), different from the previous ones, and from the real owners of the cherry orchard. These young people dream of planting a new garden in place of the old one, destroyed by Lopakhin for the sake of profits. Thus, in Chekhov’s last comedy, historical optimism is manifested, which was not present in his previous plays (“The Seagull”, “Ivanov”, “Uncle Vanya”).

Such a definition of the theme and idea of ​​“The Cherry Orchard” is quite possible, but it would be wrong to say that Chekhov only laughs at the nobility leaving the public scene, condemns the modern “masters of life” and sympathizes with the younger generation, which is hastening the arrival of a new life. It seems that the playwright's attitude towards his characters is more complex than unequivocal condemnation or sympathy.

Take, for example, the image of the valet Firs. This hero, of course, belongs to the passing Russia, since for more than fifty years he has faithfully served the owners of the cherry orchard, and he also remembers the grandfather of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Not only by age, but also by conviction, he is an adherent of the old order, the old way of life. It is remarkable that a hero similar to Firs has already been depicted in Russian literature - this is the courtyard Ipat, the lackey of Prince Utyatin from the poem by N.A. Nekrasov “Who Lives Well in Rus'” (chapter “The Last One”). After the announcement of the “Manifesto,” Ipat renounced personal freedom and wished, as before, to serve his masters, the princes. Firs calls the abolition of serfdom a “misfortune” and says that in 1861 “he did not agree to freedom, he remained with the masters” (II). Ipat, with tears of tenderness, recalls the habits of the serf-owner master: how the young Prince Utyatin harnessed Ipat to his cart instead of a horse or bathed him in a winter river. And Firs remembers with emotion the tyranny of the late master, who imagined himself to be a doctor and treated all patients with sealing wax. The old servant firmly believes in this medicine and believes that it is thanks to sealing wax that he lives so long (III). However, Ipat's servility evokes satirical ridicule in Nekrasov's poem, and Firs' behavior evokes the author's calm understanding in Chekhov's play.

The slavish psychology in the old man is combined with a touching attachment to his masters. Firs sincerely cries when meeting Ranevskaya (I), whom he has not seen for five years, and diligently continues to serve the fifty-year-old “child” Gaev. The old man sadly remarks to him: “They put on the wrong trousers again. And what should I do with you! (I). Even when he is forgotten and he is left to die in a house locked for the winter, he worries about the owner: “And Leonid Andreevich, I suppose, didn’t put on a fur coat, he went in a coat... I didn’t look... It’s young and green!” (IV).

Having lived his whole life on the estate, he cares about the prestige of the house and the good reputation of the owners. At the ridiculous ball organized by Ranevskaya on the day of the auction, he is exhausted, but serves the guests as expected. When Ranevskaya sends him to rest, Firs replies with a grin: “I’m going to go to bed, but without me, who will give it, who will give orders? One for the whole house” (III). And he is right, since Yasha blithely walks around the rooms, and Dunyasha dances with the guests. The old servant is even offended for his current masters, who are no match for the former: “Before, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, but now we send for the postal official and the station master, and even they are not willing to go” (III).

Next to Firs, the play shows a servant of modern times - Yasha, a stupid and smug guy. He visited Paris and, having tasted the delights of European civilization, began to despise his fatherland and was ashamed of his peasant origins. Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him with her to Paris again, and complains: “It’s absolutely impossible for me to stay here. What can I say, you are miles away, the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, and, moreover, boredom, the food in the kitchen is ugly...” (III). Yasha himself is an insignificant person and a loose servant, as evidenced by his behavior at the ball. He never took Firs to the hospital, because the unlucky lady Ranevskaya has a non-executive footman. But in the last act, showing his “knowledge and skills,” he declares to Lopakhin that the champagne is not real, and he alone drinks the entire bottle. At the beginning and at the end of the play, Chekhov shows Yasha’s attitude towards his mother, who comes to see him on the day of his arrival and departure. The reminder of his mother waiting in the kitchen only causes annoyance for a lover of Parisian life. In comparison with this lackey, Firs looks like a conscientious, devoted servant, and a wise man.

Chekhov entrusts the old valet with several very important statements that clarify the author's intent of the play. Firstly, love for order in everything (in service and in life) is what distinguishes Firs. And in his old age, he sees the senseless bustle around him and wonderfully characterizes the order both in the manor house and in the surrounding Russian life: before everything was correct, “the men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, but now everything is fragmented, you don’t understand anything” (II) . This feeling of fragility and confusion is experienced not only by the old man, but also by Lopakhin, who has just fulfilled his dream (bought a cherry orchard at auction) and is also complaining about his awkward, unhappy life.

Secondly, Firs calls all the characters in the play and himself, in accordance with the author’s intention, “klutzes” (III), that is, fools who do not understand life. An example of the bad luck of all the characters is their attitude towards the cherry orchard. Firs sees the garden as it was in the irrevocable past; for Gaev, talking about the garden is a reason for empty boasting; Lopakhin, thinking about saving the garden, cuts it down; Anya and Petya prefer to dream of new gardens rather than save the old one.

To summarize, it should be said that Firs is an integral part of the noble estate where the play takes place. The old valet is a type of faithful servant, which is represented in very diverse ways in Russian literature: Nanny Eremeevna from “The Minor”, ​​Nanny Filipevna from “Eugene Onegin”, Savelich from “The Captain’s Daughter”, Zakhar from “Oblomov”, etc. Firs is Gaev's servant and at the same time an exponent of the author's idea. This hero is a man of old Russia, in which there was serfdom, but there was also a high spiritual culture. Therefore, the image of a faithful servant turned out to be multifaceted.

Chekhov was against the sweeping denial of the old life, and even more so its violent destruction; at the right time, it itself will give way to new orders. This author’s idea is proven by the last, poignant scene of the play: forgotten by everyone, a helpless old man dies in a locked house. At the same time, Firs does not reproach his careless masters, since he sincerely loves them. His death coincides with the death of the cherry orchard and symbolizes the end of the “noble nest”, the end of an entire era, the keeper of which was the old servant.

“The Cherry Orchard” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the early 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning of a new era in the 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, with subtle psychologism describes the mental state of people who will soon be forced to leave their home. 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. The first theatrical production of 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.

Play Analysis

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 a 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. A characteristic feature of the play is the absence of genuine external conflict, dynamism, and unpredictable twists in the plot line. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. The artistic realism of 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 the artistic space of the work by introducing a large number of characters who will 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.

Introduction
1. Problems of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"
2. The embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev
3. Exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin
4. Heroes of the future - Petya and Anya
Conclusion
List of used literature

Introduction

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a writer of powerful creative talent and unique subtle skill, manifested with equal brilliance both in his stories and in his novels and plays.
Chekhov's plays constituted an entire era in Russian drama and theater and had an immeasurable influence on all their subsequent development.
Continuing and deepening the best traditions of the dramaturgy of critical realism, Chekhov strove to ensure that his plays were dominated by the truth of life, unvarnished, in all its commonness and everyday life.
Showing the natural course of everyday life of ordinary people, Chekhov bases his plots not on one, but on several organically related, intertwined conflicts. At the same time, the leading and unifying conflict is predominantly the conflict of the characters not with each other, but with the entire social environment surrounding them.

Problems of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"

The play “The Cherry Orchard” occupies a special place in Chekhov’s work. Before her, he awakened the idea of ​​​​the need to change reality, showing the hostility of people's living conditions, highlighting those features of his characters that doomed them to the position of a victim. In The Cherry Orchard, reality is depicted in its historical development. The topic of changing social structures is being widely developed. The noble estates with their parks and cherry orchards, with their unreasonable owners, are becoming a thing of the past. They are being replaced by business-like and practical people; they are the present of Russia, but not its future. Only the younger generation has the right to cleanse and change life. Hence the main idea of ​​the play: the establishment of a new social force, opposing not only the nobility, but also the bourgeoisie and called upon to rebuild life on the principles of true humanity and justice.
Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” was written during the period of social upsurge of the masses in 1903. It reveals to us another page of his multifaceted creativity, reflecting the complex phenomena of that time. The play amazes us with its poetic power and drama, and is perceived by us as a sharp exposure of the social ills of society, an exposure of those people whose thoughts and actions are far from moral standards of behavior. The writer clearly shows deep psychological conflicts, helps the reader to see the reflection of events in the souls of the heroes, makes us think about the meaning of true love and true happiness. Chekhov easily takes us from our present to the distant past. Together with its heroes, we live next to the cherry orchard, see its beauty, clearly feel the problems of that time, together with the heroes we try to find answers to complex questions. It seems to me that the play “The Cherry Orchard” is a play about the past, present and future not only of its characters, but also of the country as a whole. The author shows the clash between representatives of the past, the present and the future inherent in this present. I think that Chekhov managed to show the justice of the inevitable departure from the historical arena of such seemingly harmless persons as the owners of the cherry orchard. So who are they, the garden owners? What connects their lives with his existence? Why is the cherry orchard so dear to them? Answering these questions, Chekhov reveals an important problem - the problem of passing life, its worthlessness and conservatism.
The very name of Chekhov's play sets one in a lyrical mood. In our minds, a bright and unique image of a blooming garden appears, personifying beauty and the desire for a better life. The main plot of the comedy is related to the sale of this ancient noble estate. This event largely determines the fate of its owners and inhabitants. Thinking about the fate of the heroes, you involuntarily think about more, about the ways of development of Russia: its past, present and future.

The embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev

Exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin

Heroes of the future - Petya and Anya

All this involuntarily leads us to the idea that the country needs completely different people who will accomplish different great things. And these other people are Petya and Anya.
Trofimov is a democrat by origin, habits and beliefs. Creating images of Trofimov, Chekhov expresses in this image such leading features as devotion to public causes, desire for a better future and propaganda of the fight for it, patriotism, integrity, courage, and hard work. Trofimov, despite his 26 or 27 years, has a lot of difficult life experience behind him. He has already been expelled from the university twice. He has no confidence that he will not be expelled a third time and that he will not remain an “eternal student.”
Experiencing hunger, poverty, and political persecution, he did not lose faith in a new life, which would be based on fair, humane laws and creative constructive work. Petya Trofimov sees the failure of the nobility, mired in idleness and inaction. He gives a largely correct assessment of the bourgeoisie, noting its progressive role in the economic development of the country, but denying it the role of creator and creator of new life. In general, his statements are distinguished by directness and sincerity. While treating Lopakhin with sympathy, he nevertheless compares him to a predatory beast, “which eats everything that gets in its way.” In his opinion, the Lopakhins are not capable of decisively changing life by building it on reasonable and fair principles. Petya causes deep thoughts in Lopakhin, who in his soul envies the conviction of this “shabby gentleman”, which he himself so lacks.
Trofimov's thoughts about the future are too vague and abstract. “We are heading uncontrollably towards the bright star that burns there in the distance!” - he says to Anya. Yes, his goal is wonderful. But how to achieve it? Where is the main force that can turn Russia into a blooming garden?
Some treat Petya with slight irony, others with undisguised love. In his speeches one can hear a direct condemnation of a dying life, a call for a new one: “I’ll get there. I’ll get there or show others the way to get there.” And he points. He points it out to Anya, whom he loves dearly, although he skillfully hides it, realizing that he is destined for a different path. He tells her: “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind."
The klutz and “shabby gentleman” (as Varya ironically calls Trofimova) lacks Lopakhin’s strength and business acumen. He submits to life, stoically enduring its blows, but is not able to master it and become the master of his destiny. True, he captivated Anya with his democratic ideas, who expresses her readiness to follow him, firmly believing in the wonderful dream of a new blooming garden. But this young seventeen-year-old girl, who gained information about life mainly from books, is pure, naive and spontaneous, has not yet encountered reality.
Anya is full of hope and vitality, but she still has so much inexperience and childhood. In terms of character, she is in many ways close to her mother: she has a love for beautiful words and sensitive intonations. At the beginning of the play, Anya is carefree, quickly moving from concern to animation. She is practically helpless, she is used to living carefree, not thinking about her daily bread or tomorrow. But all this does not prevent Anya from breaking with her usual views and way of life. Its evolution is taking place before our eyes. Anya’s new views are still naive, but she says goodbye to the old home and the old world forever.
It is unknown whether she will have enough spiritual strength, perseverance and courage to complete the path of suffering, labor and hardship. Will she be able to maintain that ardent faith in the best, which makes her say goodbye to her old life without regret? Chekhov does not answer these questions. And this is natural. After all, we can only talk about the future speculatively.

Conclusion

The truth of life in all its consistency and completeness is what Chekhov was guided by when creating his images. That is why each character in his plays represents a living human character, attracting with great meaning and deep emotionality, convincing with its naturalness, the warmth of human feelings.
In terms of the strength of his direct emotional impact, Chekhov is perhaps the most outstanding playwright in the art of critical realism.
Chekhov's dramaturgy, responding to pressing issues of his time, addressing the everyday interests, experiences and worries of ordinary people, awakened the spirit of protest against inertia and routine, and called for social activity to improve life. Therefore, she has always had a huge influence on readers and viewers. The significance of Chekhov's drama has long gone beyond the borders of our homeland; it has become global. Chekhov's dramatic innovation is widely recognized outside the borders of our great homeland. I am proud that Anton Pavlovich is a Russian writer, and no matter how different the masters of culture may be, they probably all agree that Chekhov, with his works, prepared the world for a better life, more beautiful, more just, more reasonable.
If Chekhov looked with hope into the 20th century, which was just beginning, then we live in the new 21st century, still dreaming about our cherry orchard and about those who will grow it. Flowering trees cannot grow without roots. And the roots are the past and the present. Therefore, for a wonderful dream to come true, the younger generation must combine high culture, education with practical knowledge of reality, will, perseverance, hard work, humane goals, that is, embody the best features of Chekhov's heroes.

Bibliography

1. History of Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century / ed. prof. N.I. Kravtsova. Publisher: Prosveshchenie - Moscow 1966.
2. Exam questions and answers. Literature. 9th and 11th grades. Tutorial. – M.: AST – PRESS, 2000.
3. A. A. Egorova. How to write an essay with a "5". Tutorial. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 2001.
4. Chekhov A.P. Stories. Plays. – M.: Olimp; LLC "Firm" Publishing house AST, 1998.

Time, along with space, is one of the main conditions for the existence of both a work of art and life itself. In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" time is a key symbol that creates the plot and forms the problem.

The image of time allows us to separate the true from the false, connects and at the same time separates the characters of the play and turns out to be fatal on the personal, social and historical levels.

Three forms of time - past, present and future - divide the heroes of The Cherry Orchard into three ideological categories. Thus, Gaev and Ranevskaya belong to the past: despite their position as landowners, they do not farm, and therefore cannot preserve the cherry orchard. Ranevskaya lives only with memories and is a deeply sensitive and loving person, while Gaev is a still ungrown boy who eats candy and thinks only about playing billiards.

Lopakhin in the play is a representative of the present, who in the conditions of new times becomes the owner of a garden and an estate. Anya and Petya are inactive heroes living in the future. Petya denounces old Russia, talks about new ways to improve society, but in reality he is an eternal student and a “shabby gentleman.”

Heroes belonging to different times are not able to understand and hear each other. Ultimately, everyone talks about their own things. The forms of time have both their advantages and disadvantages, but together they form a single “life” plot of “The Cherry Orchard”.

The garden itself also represents time. This happens, firstly, because of the direct meaning of the image of the garden: in the spring it blooms, in the autumn it sheds its leaves. In this sense, the garden means the annual cycle of time and nature. Secondly, the garden is a historical time: it is necessary to destroy old ideas about the world so that new ones can appear in their place; it is necessary to cut down a beautiful useless garden in order to give the land to summer residents and make a profit from it.

Finally, the turning point in time turns out to be connected with the historical fate of Russia and the author: the play was written in 1903, on the threshold of the revolution of 1905 and the revolution that followed it in 1917. In this context, one can try to predict the future fate of the heroes: Gaev and Ranevskaya will not accept the revolution, they will go abroad where they will be forgotten; Lopakhin will be dispossessed, the garden land will be collectivized; The followers of the revolutionary movement will be Petya and Anya, poor, “shabby”, ready to work and sincerely believing in the possibility of building an ideal society.

Thus, we can conclude that time is not only an integral part of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” but also an active figure. Thanks to the diversity of time, the events of The Cherry Orchard are coherent and logically interact. However, despite the power of time, much more important is the ability of the heroes to act independently and independently choose the reality in which they have to live.