Reflections on the topic: Should the cherry orchard be saved? The Cherry Orchard as a symbol of spiritual memory (based on A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”) Is it necessary to save the cherry orchard

In 1903, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote his last play, to which he gave the surprisingly accurate affectionate title “The Cherry Orchard.” When you hear this phrase, you immediately want to immerse yourself in the warmth and comfort of the noble nest that adorned our land a century ago.

It was created by the labor and sweat of serfs for the life and joy of generations of the Gaev family, who were in some ways very similar to Oblomov. They are kind, smart, but inactive, like Ilya Ilyich, who spent his whole life lying on the sofa.

They also had their own Zakhar, only his name was Firs. Now he is 87. Gaev has also aged, remaining a big, carefree child with endless candies in his mouth. His sister managed to change her last name - now she is the mother of a seventeen-year-old girl. But until now, Ranevskaya’s room is called a nursery - the power of memory and tradition.

“Oh my youth! Oh my freshness! - exclaims Gogol in “Dead Souls”. We hear almost the same thing in Ranevskaya’s remark, because not only arms and legs, but also the human soul is looking for support. The most reliable support is the parental home. That is why, after spending five years abroad, Ranevskaya returns to the estate at the most difficult moment - it is already up for auction.

The Cherry Orchard... It is both a living memory of the departed and a medicine for the soul. Ranevskaya loves her estate not for its potatoes and tomatoes, but for its memory and beauty. She won't save her estate - no matter what. But he tries to see his native nest at least once again.

Perhaps it was for the sake of this meeting with Ranevskaya - a man, not a lady - that old Firs, the emblem of the house, so merged with it that even now, four decades later, perceives will as a misfortune, saved his life. It was not for nothing that “the owl screeched and the samovar buzzed without stopping” when serfdom was abolished.

Now other sounds are heard - a broken string and an orchestra (flute, double bass and four violins). Maybe this is a requiem? Not in terms of private property in general, but in terms of that piece of memory and beauty that personally belongs to you, without which a person cannot be formed spiritually.

Lopakhin offers a real option for saving the cherry orchard - the dacha. But they will destroy everything, because this will mean the arrival of strangers in your home. “Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar,” says Ranevskaya, and Gaev supports her, although he cannot offer anything in return: he is not used to taking responsibility.

She is taken by Lopakhin, the son and grandson of the peasants who worked here. Apparently, these two clans of Lopakhins and Gaevs coexisted quite peacefully, living in parallel social worlds on the same “lordly” land. So he offers to loan money, but there is nothing to give back, and decent people in such a situation do not borrow.

Other decent people do not leave this sinking ship that sails from the past to the hopeless present until the last minute. Servants and Charlotte, who does not know her relatives and homeland, live there on pea soup. Here is Ranevskaya’s adopted daughter Varya. The clerk Simeonov-Pishchik is knocking his abacus knuckles and rustling his invoice papers - “twenty-two misfortunes,” like the entire estate. And she is like a sinking ship. Lopakhin, a new man of a new era, in a white vest, standing firmly on the ground, is trying to save him. But everything is in vain, and at the end of the drama we hear the sound of an ax - it’s the cherry trees being cut down at the roots. Together with the garden, to the sound of an ax, the faithful Firs, a symbol of the past “lordly” life, disappears into oblivion. In the bustle, everyone forgot about him. There was no one to take personal responsibility for the old man's fate.

Ranevskaya returned to Russia, and found herself, as it were, in another dimension - the era of primitive accumulation of capital, long past in the West. But not only the train - they were all late. The train of life has gone in the direction of capitalization, that is, squeezing “cash” and “non-cash” from everything from which it can be squeezed. Including defenseless beauty. But giving up on her and the past is like giving up on your own mother. This is what Yasha, who dreams of going abroad, does - the most disgusting character in the play. Not so much by position, but by psychology. He is a slave. And slaves do not need spiritual memory.

A person, a state, or history simply cannot do without it.

• November 17th, 2014
• 275

Reflections on the topic: Should the cherry orchard be saved?

Time moves inexorably forward, one era replaces another, and the question inevitably arises: is it necessary to part with the past?

“The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of A.P. Chekhov, his “swan song”. This play is called “the most Chekhovian” of all the writer’s plays. Stanislavsky, who highly appreciated her, noted that Chekhov was one of the first “to begin cutting down a beautiful blooming cherry orchard, realizing that his time had passed, that the old life was irrevocably condemned to scrap.” Showing the historical change in social structures, Chekhov is trying to resolve the question: is it necessary to save the cherry orchard? His entire play is woven from forebodings and expectations, and the closeness of renewal is felt in it. The time of cherry orchards with their delicate beauty is coming to an end, and lordly manor life is becoming a thing of the past. The owners of the cherry orchard - landowners Ranevskaya and Gaev - are unable to resist determined, assertive, practical entrepreneurs, because they are too passive and not adapted to a life that requires struggle. They fail, and one of the main reasons is that their time has run out.

Our whole life testifies to the fact that society in one way or another obeys the dictates of history, and every person takes into account historical laws more than his own feelings, whether he wants it or not. Ranevskaya is replaced by Lopakhin, whom, by the way, she does not blame for anything. And he, in turn, feels sincere affection for this woman. “My father was a serf to your grandfather and father, but you, in fact, you once did so much for me that I forgot everything and love you like my own…” he says. Another character, Petya Trofimov, proclaims the time of new life and makes passionate speeches against historical injustice. But this young man also treats the mistress of the estate with tenderness and on the night of her arrival at the family nest he says: “I will just bow to you and leave immediately.” Nevertheless, everything has long been clear to everyone: the atmosphere of universal goodwill and sympathy can no longer change anything, because the laws of history are inexorable. Therefore, when, leaving the estate forever, Ranevskaya and Gaev are left alone for a minute, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob... In this scene there is a breath of tragedy, a feeling of harsh and inevitable changes. The era of Lopakhin is coming, the cherry orchard is cracking under his ax. Lopakhin cannot help but rejoice at the fact that he became the owner of the estate where his father, being a forced man, served the masters. And, I must admit, his feelings are understandable. There is even some historical justice contained in Lopakhin’s triumph. At the same time, he also understands that his triumph will not bring fundamental changes. He cannot help but realize that new people will come to replace him, and this will be the next step in history, as Petya Trofimov enthusiastically declares: “All of Russia is our garden,” and these words, imbued with cheerfulness and confidence, set the tone for the entire play .

Of course, the realization of lofty goals is still far away; first we have to survive the Lopakhin era, but “humanity is moving towards the highest truth,” life, which seemed frozen in place, has begun to move. The dreamy and dreary expectation of change was replaced by the conviction that a bright future is close. People can already hear his steps. There is no need to save the cherry orchard! The salvation of society lies in the renewal of life.

In 1903, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote his last play, to which he gave the surprisingly accurate affectionate title “The Cherry Orchard.” When you hear this phrase, you immediately want to immerse yourself in the warmth and comfort of the noble nest that adorned our land a century ago.

It was created by the labor and sweat of serfs for the life and joy of generations of the Gaev family, who were in some ways very similar to Oblomov. They are kind, smart, but inactive, like Ilya Ilyich, who spent his whole life lying on the sofa.

They also had their own Zakhar, only his name was Firs. Now he is 87. Gaev has also aged, remaining a big, carefree child with endless candies in his mouth. His sister managed to change her last name - now she is the mother of a seventeen-year-old girl. But until now, Ranevskaya’s room is called a nursery - the power of memory and tradition.

“Oh my youth! Oh my freshness! - Gogol exclaims in Dead Souls. We hear almost the same thing in Ranevskaya’s remark, because not only arms and legs, but also the human soul is looking for support. The most reliable support is the parental home. That is why, after spending five years abroad, Ranevskaya returns to the estate at the most difficult moment - it is already up for auction.

The Cherry Orchard... It is both a living memory of the departed and a medicine for the soul. Ranevskaya loves her estate not for its potatoes and tomatoes, but for its memory and beauty. She won't save her estate - no matter what. But he tries to see his native nest at least once again.

Perhaps it was for the sake of this meeting with Ranevskaya - a man, not a lady - that old Firs, the emblem of the house, so merged with it that even now, four decades later, perceives will as a misfortune, saved his life. It was not for nothing that “the owl screeched and the samovar hummed endlessly” when serfdom was abolished.

Now other sounds are heard - a broken string and an orchestra (flute, double bass and four violins). Maybe this is a requiem? Not in terms of private property in general, but in terms of that piece of memory and beauty that personally belongs to you, without which a person cannot be formed spiritually.

Lopakhin offers a real option for saving the cherry orchard - the dacha. But they will destroy everything, because this will mean the arrival of strangers in your home. “Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar,” says Ranevskaya, and Gaev supports her, although he cannot offer anything in return: he is not used to taking responsibility.

She is taken by Lopakhin, the son and grandson of the peasants who worked here. Apparently, these two clans of Lopakhins and Gaevs coexisted quite peacefully, living in parallel social worlds on the same “lordly” land. So he offers to loan money, but there is nothing to give back, and decent people in such a situation do not borrow. Material from the site

Other decent people do not leave this sinking ship that sails from the past to the hopeless present until the last minute. Servants and Charlotte, who does not know her relatives and homeland, live there on pea soup. Ranevskaya’s adopted daughter Varya is also here. The clerk Simeonov-Pishchik knocks his abacus knuckles and rustles the bills - “twenty-two misfortunes,” like the entire estate. And she is like a sinking ship. Lopakhin, a new man of a new era, in a white vest, standing firmly on the ground, is trying to save him. But everything is in vain, and at the end of the drama we hear the sound of an ax - it’s cherry trees being cut down at the roots. Together with the garden, to the sound of an ax, the faithful Firs, a symbol of the past “lordly” life, disappears into oblivion. In the bustle, everyone forgot about him. There was no one to take personal responsibility for the old man's fate.

Ranevskaya returned to Russia, and found herself, as it were, in another dimension - the era of primitive accumulation of capital, which had long passed in the West. But not only the train - they were all late. The train of life has gone in the direction of capitalization, that is, squeezing “cash” and “non-cash” from everything from which it can be squeezed. Including defenseless beauty. But giving up on her and the past is like giving up on your own mother. This is what Yasha, who dreams of going abroad, does - the most disgusting character in the play. Not so much by position, but by psychology. He is a slave. And slaves do not need spiritual memory.

A person, a state, or history simply cannot do without it.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• cherry orchard as a symbol of duzov memory
• cherry orchard as a symbol of spiritual memory
• saving the cherry orchard
• theme of spiritual memory cherry orchard
• cherry orchard symbol

Essay text:

The play The Cherry Orchard is the latest and, presumably, the most perfect dramatic work of A.P. Chekhov. It was written in 1904 shortly before his death. The author called the play a comedy, it is difficult for us to judge why, perhaps because in the ordinary life situation of the ruin of the nobility and the withering away of the old way of life there really are many funny inconsistencies. The main characters Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna and her brother Gaev Leonid Andreevich are hopelessly behind the times, they cannot comprehend reality, their actions are illogical, their plans are unrealistic. Lyubov Andreevna gives gold to a random passer-by who asked for thirty kopecks, at a time when people at home have nothing to eat. Leonid Andreevich offers three options for saving the cherry orchard, but not one of them is feasible. The elderly servant Firs is close to these heroes. Just as Ranevskaya and Gaev are unthinkable without Firs, so Firs is unthinkable without them. These are the types of outgoing Russia. The end of the play is very symbolic: the old owners of the cherry orchard leave and forget the dying Firs. So, the natural ending: inactive consumers, parasites in the social sense, a servant who faithfully served them, a lackey in the social sense, the cherry orchard is all irrevocably a thing of the past. This is a comedy? Good comedy!
Does this give rise to optimistic expectations? But what's ahead?
What is new in the play is personified by three people: Petya Trofimov, Anya and Lopakhin. Moreover, the author clearly contrasts Petya and Anya Lopakhina. Who are these people, and what can you expect from them?
Petya is an eternal student who cannot complete the course, he was expelled from the university twice. The author does not specify why this was due to poor performance or due to politics. He is twenty-seven years old, he has no education or profession, he lives (or rather takes root) in the Ranevskaya estate, where he once was a tutor for the owner’s son. He hasn't done anything in his life. His actions are words. He says to Anya: ...your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf owners who owned living souls, and don’t human beings look at you from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, do you really not hear voices? .. Anya, all focused on the future, she is only seventeen years old, shares Petya’s words, considers exploitation immoral, but she, and the accuser Petya, helps the owners live off what was previously earned by the hard work of the serfs.
Further in the same monologue, Petya says: It’s so clear that in order to start living in the present, we must first redeem our past, put an end to it, and we can redeem it only through suffering, only through extraordinary continuous labor. What does Petya mean when he talks about suffering? Maybe this is the suffering that revolutions and civil wars bring? Most likely, he repeats without deep awareness the words that in those pre-revolutionary years were in wide circulation among intelligent and semi-intelligent people. Destructive rhetoric has sprouted into destructive ideology. It seemed that as soon as one had to put an end to the hated foundations of society, all of Russia would become a garden. However, Petya, like, probably, Chekhov, does not have a positive program for rebuilding his life. He calls for work, but does not indicate the scope of work.
There is labor to collect stones (for construction) and there is labor to scatter stones (destroying). Petya has already worked on Anya’s consciousness. She, at seventeen years old, does not think about her human destiny, about love, about family, about the happiness of being a mother. But still, she has a healthy need for knowledge, before leaving the estate she tells her mother: We will read on autumn evenings, we will read many books, and a new, wonderful world will open up before us... Both Petya and Anya, of course, to varying degrees, do not accept the existing order of things and want to change it. Despite the obvious inconsistency, their position is certainly moral, they are sincere in their desire for the good of people and are ready to work for this.
But there is a person who occupies his specific place in this order. This is the merchant Lopa-khin, a representative of the active part of society. The author’s attitude towards such people is formulated by Petya Trofimov, who says to Lopakhin: I, Ermolai Nikolaevich, understand: you are a rich man, you will soon be a millionaire. Just as in terms of metabolism you need a predatory beast that eats everything that comes its way, so you need it. Lopakhin is a man of action: ...I get up at five o'clock in the morning, I work from morning to evening, well, I always have my own and other people's money... His father was a serf to Ranevskaya's grandfather and father. He lacks education and culture. He says to Lyubov Andreevna: Your brother, here is Leonid Andreevich, talk about me that I’m a boor, I’m a fist... Only Lopakhin offers a real plan for saving the estate, but he believes that by laying out a cherry orchard and plots of land and renting them out, you can make it a source of income. It is noteworthy that the garden still goes to Lopakhin.
So who is the future? For Petya and Anya or for Lopakhin? This question could have been purely rhetorical if history had not provided Russia with a second attempt to resolve it. Will active Petya and Anya or moral Lopakhin come?
The comedy is over. The comedy continues, gentlemen!

The rights to the essay “The Comedy The Cherry Orchard*” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to

The play “The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. The writer was terminally ill and realized that he would die very soon. This is probably why the play is permeated with some special sadness, tenderness, and lyricism. “The Cherry Orchard” amazes the reader with its metaphorical nature and depth of characters. Each scene here is multifaceted and ambiguous; every detail becomes the personification of a former, passing life, but still so familiar and familiar.

It’s as if three eras met in the play: past, present and future. Some heroes live in yesterday, cherishing warm memories of the past, others know the value of time, are busy with everyday affairs and are ready to benefit from any business, while others look confidently into tomorrow, looking into the still distant and unknown future.

The artistic load placed on the landscape also makes an indelible impression. The background against which the events of the play develop is the cherry orchard. The garden is the embodiment of the inevitably passing past, the familiar, quiet, carefree life that has sunk into oblivion. Stanislavsky, in his memoirs about Chekhov, wrote that the writer in his work “... caressed the former beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he destroyed with tears in his play.”

The Cherry Orchard is a quiet family nest, an island of homely peace and comfort, with which the heroes firmly associate all the brightest and dearest things that warm the soul. It’s as if the dreams and hopes, aspirations and memories of Ranevskaya and Gaev are collected here - representatives of the “past” generation, people who are inert and indecisive, those who are accustomed to an easy, carefree life, over which, it seemed to the heroes, time itself has no power. The characters, year after year, tenderly cherished the treasure trove of their memories, without even thinking that the old order would soon sink into oblivion and the heroes would have to learn to live in a new world, where, as it turned out, there was no place for idle dreamers.

So does the cherry orchard need to be saved? Is it necessary to save the old noble Russia, the embodiment of which is this “character” (the image of the cherry orchard is so thought out and tangible that it can safely be called another “character” of the play)? Despite the fact that the cherry orchard is a symbol of the past, do tenderly treasured memories deserve to be destroyed just because people of the “new era” are not aware of their value and significance? No. The garden was and remains the same embodiment of unfulfilled, but still surprisingly kind, bright and pure dreams and hopes; an echo of a happy and carefree past, dear to the hearts of the main characters of the play.

So, the old way of life is changing under the pressure of young, energetic, active people, but this does not mean at all that memories of the past should be destroyed, because memory is part of history and culture. That is why the cherry orchard “has the right to life” and is worthy of “salvation”, because “it preserves in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former lordly life.”