List of characters and system of characters in Chekhov's drama. Comedy “The Cherry Orchard” System of characters (continued) Three ideological and compositional Distribution of heroes of the cherry orchard

Chekhov's innovation is also noticeable in the depiction of the characters' characters. Unlike traditional drama, with its characters outlined quite clearly and more straightforwardly than in the epic, the heroes of Chekhov’s plays are complex and ambiguous personalities.

Ranevskaya. Each of the characters in the play has their own cherry orchard, their own Russia. For Ranevskaya, the cherry orchard is her youth, memories of her closest and beloved people - her mother, her deceased son. No one feels the spirituality and beauty of the cherry orchard like Ranevskaya: “What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers, blue sky! O my garden, the angels of heaven have not abandoned you.” The cherry orchard became for Lyubov Andreevna her happiness, her life; to destroy the orchard means for her to destroy herself. Throughout the play, we feel the feeling of anxiety growing in Ranevskaya. She feverishly tries to hold back the uncontrollable, feeling the joy of meeting the cherry orchard, and immediately remembers that the auction is coming soon. The peak of tension is the third action, when she rushes about, prays for salvation, says: “I’ve definitely lost my sight, I can’t see anything. Take pity on me. My soul is heavy today... My soul trembles from every sound, but I can’t go to my room, I’m scared alone in silence.” And all this - against the backdrop of an absurd ball, so inopportunely started by Ranevskaya herself. Tears in her eyes are mixed with laughter, albeit sad and nervous. She seems lost: what to do, how to live, what to rely on? Ranevskaya has no answer to any of these questions. Chekhov’s heroine lives with a feeling of an imminent catastrophe: “I’m still waiting for something, as if the house was about to collapse above us.”

Chekhov's heroes are ordinary people; there is no ideality in Lyubov Andreevna either: she is delicate, kind, but her kindness does not bring happiness either to herself or to those around her. With hasty intervention, she ruins Varya’s fate, leaves for Paris, forgetting to make sure that her request to place Firs in the hospital is really fulfilled, as a result of which the sick old man remains abandoned. In Ranevskaya, as in almost every person, both the bright and the sinful are combined. There is artistic truth in the fact that Chekhov shows how time passes through the destinies of the most ordinary people, how the divide between two eras is reflected in everyone.

Gaev. Gaev is a “superfluous man” of the late 19th century; he calls himself “a man of the eighties.” He really lingered in the past; the present is incomprehensible and painful to him. Faced with something new and unusual, Gaev is childishly perplexed: for some reason we must endure Lopakhin’s presence, his interference in their lives, we must decide something, while he is not capable of any decision. All of Gaev’s projects for saving the garden are naive and impossible: “It would be nice to receive an inheritance from someone, it would be nice to marry Anya to a very rich man, it would be nice to go to Yaroslavl and try your luck with Aunt Countess.” In Gaev’s imagination, some general appears who can give “on a bill of exchange,” to which Ranevskaya immediately responds: “He’s delusional, there are no generals.” The only thing Gaev is capable of is making lengthy speeches in front of the “respected closet” and playing billiards. However, constant anxiety lives in him, the feeling of mental discomfort does not leave him. The state is “spent on lollipops”, life is passing, an obscure service in the bank lies ahead, so it is no coincidence that his last remark is accompanied by the remark “in despair”.

Lopakhin. The “borderline” is also palpable in Lopakhin’s state of mind, who, it would seem, is protected from the ruthlessness of time; on the contrary, time helps him. Lopakhin combines “predator” and “tender soul”. Petya Trofimov will say: “I, Ermolai Alekseich, understand that you are a rich man, you will soon be a millionaire. Just as in terms of metabolism we need a predatory beast that eats everything that comes in its way, so we need you,” but the same Petya will later remark: “You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have thin, delicate fingers.” soul".

Lopakhin’s Russia is the kingdom of the “summer resident,” the Russia of the entrepreneur, but Lopakhin does not feel complete spiritual harmony in such a Russia. He yearns, dreams of giant people who should live in the Russian expanses, and after buying the cherry orchard he bitterly says to Ranevskaya: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” It is not surprising that his words: “There is a new landowner, the owner of the cherry orchard,” is accompanied by a remark “with irony.” Lopakhin is a hero of the new era, however, even this time does not give a person the fullness of happiness.

The younger generation – Petya and Anya. It would seem that Petya Trofimov sees happiness, he enthusiastically says to Anya: “I have a presentiment of happiness, Anya, I already see it.” He speaks just as enthusiastically about “a bright star that burns there in the distance” and on the way to which you just need to bypass “everything small and illusory that prevents a person from being free and happy.”

Petya and Anya are focused on the future, they say goodbye to the old Russia without regret: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.” However, Petya is a dreamer who still knows very little about life; according to Ranevskaya, he has not yet had time to “suffer” his beliefs. He does not have a clear program for how to get to this “bright star”; he only knows how to talk beautifully about it. The only life program that Petya offers to Anya: “Be free like the wind!”

The only thing Petya could do was to arouse in Anya’s soul sympathy for herself, a desire for a new life. However, Chekhov emphasizes that Anya is “first of all a child who does not fully know or understand life.” It is unknown what Anya’s desire to change her life will lead to, leaving the “cherry orchard” forever, so it is hardly worth asserting that it is in Anya that Chekhov shows the possible future of Russia.

Who is the future of Russia - this question remained unanswered in the play, because the time of the turn does not provide final knowledge about the future, only assumptions are possible about what it will be like and who will become its hero.

General description of comedy.

This lyrical comedy, as Chekhov himself calls it, is aimed at revealing the social theme of the death of old noble estates. The action of the comedy takes place on the estate of L.A. Ranevskaya, a landowner, and is tied to the fact that, due to debts, the inhabitants have to sell the cherry orchard so beloved by everyone. Before us is a nobility in a state of decline. Ranevskaya and Gaev (her brother) are impractical people and do not know how to manage things. Being people of weak character, they abruptly change their mood, easily shed tears over a trivial matter, willingly talk idle talk and organize luxurious holidays on the eve of their ruin. In the play, Chekhov also shows people of the new generation, perhaps the future lies with them. These are Anya Ranevskaya and Petya Trofimov (former teacher of Ranevskaya’s deceased son Grisha). New people must be strong fighters for future happiness. True, it is difficult to classify Trofimov as one of such people: he is a “klutz,” not too strong and, in my opinion, not smart enough for the great struggle. Hope is for young Anya. “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this...” - she believes, and in this faith is the only option in the play for a happy development of the situation for Russia.

1) Form: a) problem part (subjective beginning), the world of a work of art: Main characters (images): landowner Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, her daughters Anya and Varya, her brother Gaev Leonid Andreevich, merchant Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, student Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, landowner Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, governess Charlotte Ivanovna, clerk Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, maid Dunyasha, footman Firs and Yasha, as well as several minor characters (passerby, station master, postal official, guests and servants). In addition, we highlight the “garden” as an independent hero; it takes its place in the system of images of the play. b) Structure (composition) of the work, organization of the work at the macrotext level: the comedy consists of four acts. All of them are intertwined plotwise and chronologically, forming a single picture of events. c) Artistic speech

This work is a comedy, so it is very emotional. We note that the text of the play is full of historicisms and archaisms, denoting objects and phenomena from the life of people of the early 20th century (lackey, nobles, master). There is colloquial vocabulary and colloquial forms of words in the servants’ remarks (“I’m good, what a fool I’ve been!”, “Charming, after all, I’ll take one hundred and eighty rubles from you... I’ll take it...”), and there are also numerous borrowings from French and German languages, direct transliteration and foreign words as such (“Pardon!”, “Ein, zwei, drei!”, “They are dancing grand-rond in the hall”).

subject - This is a phenomenon of the external and internal life of a person, which is the subject of study of a work of art. Work under study polythematic, because contains more than one topic.

According to the method of expression, topics are divided into: 1) explicitly expressed: theme of love for home(“Children’s room, my dear, beautiful room...”, “Oh, my garden!”, “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”), theme of family, love for relatives(“My darling has arrived!”, “my beloved child”, “I suddenly felt sorry for my mother, so sorry, I hugged her head, squeezed her with my hands and couldn’t let go. Then my mother kept caressing her and crying”), old age theme(“I’m tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die sooner,” “Thank you, Firs, thank you, my old man. I’m so glad that you’re still alive”), love theme(“And what’s there to hide or remain silent about, I love him, that’s clear. I love him, I love him... This is a stone on my neck, I’m going to the bottom with it, but I love this stone and I can’t live without it,” “ You have to be a man, at your age you have to understand those who love. And you have to love yourself... you have to fall in love"; 2) implicitly expressed: nature conservation theme, the theme of the future of Russia.

2) cultural and historical topics: the theme of the future of Russia

According to the classification of philologist Potebnya:

2) Internal form (shaped structures, plot elements, etc.)

3) External form (words, text structure, composition, etc.)

Problems of the work.

The main problems of this play are questions about the fate of the Motherland and the duty and responsibility of the younger generation. The problem is implicitly expressed, since the author conveys this idea through the symbol of the cherry orchard, revealed from various aspects: temporal, figurative and spatial).

Specific issues: a) social (social relationships, building a new life, the problem of a noble leisurely society); b) socio-psychological (inner experiences of the characters); d) historical (the problem of nobles getting used to the abolition of serfdom).

Chronotope.

Straightforward, the action takes place in May 1900, immediately after the abolition of serfdom, and ends in October. Events take place in chronological order on Ranevskaya’s estate, but there are references to the heroes’ past.

Characteristics of heroes.

It is worth noting that there are no sharply positive or sharply negative characters in the work.

Appearance The heroes are given very briefly, and mainly only clothing is described. The text does not contain characteristics of all heroes.

Lopakhin - “in a white vest, yellow shoes”, “with a pig’s snout”, “thin, delicate fingers, like an artist’s”

Trofimov – 26-27 years old, “in a shabby old uniform, with glasses”, “hair is not thick”, “How ugly you have become, Petya”, “stern face”

Firs - 87 years old, “in a jacket and white vest, shoes on his feet.”

Lyubov Ranevskaya, landowner - “She is a good person. An easy, simple person,” very sentimental. He lives idly out of habit, despite the fact that he is completely in debt. It seems to the heroine that everything will work out by itself, but the world collapses: the garden goes to Lopakhin. The heroine, having lost her estate and her homeland, goes back to Paris.

Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter, is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. She is passionate about the idea that the nobility is guilty before the Russian people and must atone for their guilt. Anya believes in future happiness, a new, better life (“We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this”, “Goodbye, home! Goodbye, old life!”).

Varya is described by her adoptive mother Ranevskaya as “simple, works all day,” “a good girl.”

Leonid Andreevich Gaev is Ranevskaya’s brother, “a man of the eighties,” a man confused by words, whose vocabulary consists mainly of “billiard words” (“Cut into a corner!”, “Doublet into a corner... Croise in the middle..”) .") and complete nonsense (“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; your silent call for fruitful work has not weakened for a hundred years, supporting (through tears) in the generations of our kind, vigor, faith in a better future and nurturing in us the ideals of goodness and social self-awareness"). One of the few who comes up with various plans to save the cherry orchard.

Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin is a merchant, “he is a good, interesting person,” he characterizes himself as “a man with a man.” He himself comes from a family of serfs, and now is a rich man who knows where and how to invest money. Lopakhin is a very contradictory hero, in whom callousness and rudeness fight with hard work and ingenuity.

Pyotr Trofimov - Chekhov describes him as an “eternal student”, already old, but still not graduated from the university. Ranevskaya, angry at him during an argument about love, shouts: “You are twenty-six or twenty-seven years old, and you are still a second-grade high school student!” Lopakhin ironically asks, “How many years have you been studying at the university?” This hero belongs to the generation of the future, he believes in it, denies love and is in search of truth.

Epikhodov, Ranevskaya and Gaev’s clerk, is madly in love with their maid Dunyasha, who speaks of him a little ambiguously: “He is a meek man, but sometimes when he starts talking, you won’t understand anything. It’s both good and sensitive, just incomprehensible. I kind of like him. He loves me madly. He is an unhappy person, something happens every day. They tease him like that: twenty-two misfortunes...” “You walk from place to place, but don’t do anything. We keep a clerk, but no one knows why”: in these words of Varya is Epikhodov’s whole life.

Portraits, as we described earlier, are brief – they are not an independent element of the work.

The interior is an intrinsic element in the work (i.e. it is needed for description as such), because, among other things, it creates an image of time: in the first and third acts, this is an image of the past and present (the comfort and warmth of one’s home after a long separation (“My room, my windows, as if I had never left”, “The living room, separated by an arch from the hall . The chandelier is burning")), in the fourth and last act - this is a picture of the future, the realities of the new world, the emptiness after the departure of the heroes (“The scenery of the first act. There are no curtains on the windows, no paintings, there is a little furniture left, which is folded in one corner, definitely for sale. You feel the emptiness. Suitcases, travel items, etc. are stacked near the exit door and at the back of the stage. The door to the left is open").

Thus, the interior performs a descriptive and characteristic function.

(continuation)

Three ideological and compositional centers are united in the play: Ranevskaya, Gaev and Varya - Lopakhin - Petya and Anya. Please note: among them only Lopakhin is absolutely alone. The rest form stable groups. We have already comprehended the first two “centers,” now let’s think about the third center - about Pete Trofimov and Anya. Petya certainly plays the leading role. This figure is contradictory, and the attitude of the author of the comedy and the inhabitants of the estate towards him is contradictory. A stable theatrical tradition forced us to see Petya as a progressive thinker and activist: this began with Stanislavsky’s first production, where V. Kachalov played Petya as Gorky’s “petrel”. This interpretation was also supported in most literary works, where researchers relied on Petya’s monologues and did not correlate them with the actions of the hero, with the entire structure of his role. Meanwhile, let us remember that Chekhov’s theater is a theater of intonation, not text, therefore the traditional interpretation of Trofimov’s image is fundamentally incorrect. First of all, literary roots are clearly felt in the image of Petya. He is correlated with the hero of Turgenev's "Novi" Nezhdanov and with the hero of Ostrovsky's play "Talents and Admirers" Pyotr Meluzov. And Chekhov himself spent a long time exploring this historical and social type - the type of Protestant-enlightener. Such are Solomon in "The Steppe", Pavel Ivanovich in "Gusev", Yartsev in the story "Three Years", Doctor Blagovo in "My Life". The image of Petya is especially closely connected with the hero of “The Bride” Sasha - researchers have repeatedly noted that these images are very close, that the roles of Petya and Sasha in the plot are similar: both of them are needed to captivate the young heroines into a new life. But the constant, intense interest with which Chekhov peered into this type that appeared in the era of timelessness, returning to him in various works, led to the fact that from secondary and episodic heroes, in the last play he became a central hero - one of the central ones. Lonely and restless, Petya wanders around Russia. Homeless, worn out, practically a beggar... And yet he is happy in his own way: he is the freest and most optimistic of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard. Looking at this image, we understand: Petya lives in a different world than the other characters in the comedy - he lives in a world of ideas that exists in parallel with the world of real things and relationships. Ideas, grandiose plans, social and philosophical systems - this is Petya’s world, his element. Such a happy existence in another dimension interested Chekhov and made him look more and more closely at this type of hero. Petya's relationship with the real world is very tense. He does not know how to live in it, for those around him he is absurd and strange, ridiculous and pitiful: “a shabby gentleman,” “an eternal student.” He cannot complete his course at any university - he is expelled from everywhere for participating in student riots. He is not in harmony with things - everything always breaks, gets lost, falls. Even poor Petya’s beard isn’t growing! But in the world of ideas he soars! There everything turns out deftly and smoothly, there he subtly grasps all the patterns, deeply understands the hidden essence of phenomena, and is ready and able to explain everything. And all of Petya’s arguments about the life of modern Russia are very correct! He truly and passionately speaks about the terrible past, which still vividly influences the present and does not let go of its convulsive embrace. Let us remember his monologue in the second act, where he convinces Anya to take a fresh look at the cherry orchard and at her life: “To own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living...” Petya is right! Something similar was passionately and convincingly argued by A. I. Herzen: in the article “The Meat of Liberation” he wrote that serfdom poisoned the souls of people, that no amount of decrees can abolish the most terrible thing - the habit of selling one’s own kind... Petya speaks of the necessity and inevitability of redemption : “It’s so clear that in order to begin to live 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.” And this is absolutely true: the idea of ​​repentance and atonement is one of the purest and most humane, the basis of the highest morality. But then Petya begins to talk not about ideas, but about their real embodiment, and his speeches immediately begin to sound pompous and absurd, the entire system of beliefs turns into simple phrase-mongering: “All of Russia is our garden,” “humanity is moving toward the highest truth, toward the highest happiness.” , which is only possible on earth, and I am in the forefront! " Petya speaks just as shallowly about human relationships, about what is not subject to logic, what contradicts the harmonious system of the world of ideas. Remember how tactless his conversations with Ranevsk are?
oh about her beloved, about her cherry orchard, which Lyubov Andreevna longs for and cannot save, how funny and vulgar Petya’s famous words sound: “We are above love!..” For him, love is for the past, for a person, for a home, love in general, this feeling itself, its irrationality, is inaccessible. And therefore Petya’s spiritual world is flawed and incomplete for Chekhov. And Petya, no matter how correctly he reasoned about the horror of serfdom and the need to atone for the past through labor and suffering, is just as far from a true understanding of life as Gaev or Varya. It is no coincidence that Anya is placed next to Petya - a young girl who does not yet have her own opinion about anything, who is still on the threshold of real life. Of all the inhabitants and guests of the estate, only Anya managed to captivate Petya Trofimov with his ideas; she is the only one who takes him absolutely seriously. “Anya is, first of all, a child, cheerful to the end, not knowing life and never crying...” Chekhov explained to the actors at rehearsals. So they walk in pairs: Petya, hostile to the world of things, and the young, “not knowing life” Anya. And Petya has a goal - clear and definite: “forward - to the star.” Chekhov's irony is brilliant. His comedy amazingly captured all the absurdity of Russian life at the end of the century, when the old was over and the new had not yet begun. Some heroes confidently, in the forefront of all humanity, step forward - towards the star, leaving the cherry orchard without regret. What to regret? After all, all of Russia is our garden! Other heroes painfully experience the loss of the garden. For them, this is the loss of a living connection with Russia and their own past, with their roots, without which they can only somehow live out the allotted years, already forever fruitless and hopeless... The salvation of the garden lies in its radical reconstruction, but new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who most clearly sees the beauty of the dying world.

Based on materials:

Kataev V. B. Chekhov’s literary connections. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989. Monakhova O. P., Malkhazova M. V. Russian literature of the 19th century. Chekhov about literature. M., 1955.

We write correctly. Read the morphological and phonetic principles of Russian spelling with recommendations and examples in the section

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 we can see, the social markers of each role are preserved in the list of characters in 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 characterization in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely thanks to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a very definite semantic aura in Russian literature. It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of characters. In the context of the characteristics given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters in Chekhov’s last play now becomes 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...
Lyubov Andreevna. Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!..” (13, 253).
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. I’ve seen enough of ignorance—that’s enough for me” (13, 247).
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.
Pause.
Have you read Buckle? (13, 216).
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 lost, I’m dead, and lo and behold, the railroad 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.
What is the mystery of Charlotte's image? The first and rather unexpected observation worth making is that the character’s appearance emphasizes both feminine and masculine features at the same time. At the same time, the selection of portrait details itself can be called autoquoting. Thus, the author accompanies Charlotte’s first and last appearance on stage with a repeated remark: “Charlotte Ivanovna with a dog on a chain” (13, 199); “Yasha and Charlotte leave with the dog” (13, 253). It is obvious that in Chekhov’s artistic world the detail “with the dog” is significant. As is well known, it marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - a very rare poetic image of a woman capable of truly deep feeling in Chekhov’s prose. True, in the context of the stage action of the play, the detail receives a 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 remark preceding the second act of the play further complicates the image of Charlotte, because now, when describing her appearance, 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 will ever fire.
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; They are not directly related to what is happening on stage. Thus, in the first act of the comedy, she denies Lopakhin the ritual kiss of her hand only on the grounds that later he may want something more:
“Charlotte (removing her hand). If I allow you to kiss my hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...” (13, 208).
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.). Marina, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in the system of characters in the play personifies a reminder to a person about the logic of events that is external to him. That is why she does not participate in the struggles of the other characters with circumstances and with each other.
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:
“Lopakhin.<…>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” 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.