home → About everything Minor characters of “The Cherry Orchard. Minor characters and their role in play A

Minor characters of “The Cherry Orchard. Minor characters and their role in play A

We are used to completing the study of a major work with an essay, in class or at home, giving our students the opportunity to systematize the knowledge they have acquired, and for ourselves to evaluate the results of our joint activities. Among the traditional final topics on Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” is “The past, present and future of Russia in “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov”, “Innovation of Chekhov’s dramaturgy”, “Images of Gaev and Ranevskaya (Ermolai Lopakhin, Petya Trofimov)”. It is impossible to write about these topics without repeating much of what was said in class; The student’s work of thought in this case is aimed only at logically constructing a retelling of what was previously heard and jotted down. This is quite tedious to do, although it is useful, especially in humanities classes, where you need to prepare graduates for a special exam. But if there is no such need, and the task of maintaining a keen interest in the author and the text comes to the fore, it is more convenient to propose topics of a different kind, partly research ones.

In a few lessons on Chekhov's last play, we have time to discuss some issues of poetics: features of the genre and plot, main motives, unusual dialogues, the role of stage directions.

You can rely in a conversation on Z. Paperny’s book “Contrary to all the rules...” and even quote some important fragments, for example these.

“Chekhov’s plays talk about tragic failures, misfortunes, absurdities in the destinies of the heroes, about the discord between dreams and everyday life. But all these “inconsistencies” are told in a dramatic narrative, where everything is subordinated and proportionate, everything coincides and echoes each other. The disharmony of reality is countered by the hidden harmony of form, rhythmicity and musicality of repetitions, details that “rhyme” with each other.”
“The mood is not just the spirit of Chekhov's plays. It is created by the interaction of many, many poetic microquantities.”
“They received special significance from Chekhov minor characters. <…>Those who, at first glance, are somewhere on the periphery of the plot, acquire a generalized symbolic meaning. The shadow of "clumsiness" falls on many characters " Cherry Orchard“and thus imperceptibly, almost imperceptibly, connects everything that happens.”

In class we also talk about heroes who, with some stretch, can be considered the main ones, that is, about Gaev, Ranevskaya, Lopakhin, Petya Trofimov.

At the same time, we deliberately do not touch (as far as possible) other characters - Epikhodov, Charlotte, Simeonov-Pishchik, Firs. Students will write an essay about one of them. Homework- prepare for a class essay on the topic “The place of Charlotte (Epikhodov, Simeonov-Pishchik, etc.) in the system of images of the play.” To do this, you need to re-read the play, remember all the lines and actions of the character and try to comprehend them in the light of what has already been said and understood.

Just before the start written work(one hour is allotted for it) we tell the students that in good essay There must be answers to at least three questions: how is this character connected to the main motives of the play, what similarities can be found between him and other characters, how does he influence the general mood of the play.

Of course, not every student is capable of such a task. In some works (with a weak C) there was nothing but a more or less conscientious story about what exactly the hero said and did throughout four actions plays. There were no complete, exhaustive answers to the questions posed in any of the essays (and this could not be expected); there were stretches, and even gross errors in the interpretation of certain remarks. But interesting considerations and rather subtle independent observations were also not uncommon. This can be judged from the works given below (abbreviated, but without editorial corrections) by eleventh-graders of Moscow school No. 57 Igor Yastrebov, Svetlana Popova, Evgenia Sechina and Mikhail Meshkov.

Simeonov-Pishchik

At first glance, Boris Borisovich is a hero about whom we can confidently say that he is comic. Simeonov-Pishchik falls asleep during his remarks, jokes about the fact that his family comes from the horse that Caligula put in the Senate, constantly asks to borrow money, even while dancing, loses and finds the money he has. Of course, we have sympathy for his hopeless financial position, but comic scenes and incredible stories the acquisition of the necessary money, as told by Simeonov-Pishchik himself, does not allow this feeling to become acute. However, sometimes he does things that don't fit into the overall picture. It is he who takes Lopakhin, drunk with his happiness and cognac, away from the bitterly crying Lyubov Andreevna after the sale of the cherry orchard; only he communicates with Charlotte, who “wants to talk, but has no one.” Unexpectedly, Boris Borisovich shows more humanity than one would expect from him.

Each hero of the play “The Cherry Orchard” has his own motive, and Simeonov-Pishchik is no exception. He himself constantly travels from one acquaintance to another, wanting to borrow or return, and his motive is movement. In the second act, when everyone is just walking and talking, we don’t see him, but he appears when Ranevskaya arrives and leaves the estate, he is present when Gaev and Lopakhin return from the auction. He is always in a hurry to get somewhere and makes others hurry up.

The heroes, who can confidently be considered secondary in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” often have something in common with the heroes who claim to be the main ones. Simeonov-Pishchik is always full of worries, trying to collect money before a certain date, rushing somewhere and often does not have time. In this way he resembles Lopakhin, who also always keeps track of time, who always has a lot to do and who is always late for the train. Pishchik from Nietzsche concluded that it is possible to “make fake papers,” and Lopakhin directly states that he “read the book and did not understand anything.” And even if one lends money to another, they have a lot in common.

Thus, Simeonov-Pishchik occupies an important place in the overall system of characters, and his absence would change our feeling from the play “The Cherry Orchard.”

Epikhodov

In the comedy "The Cherry Orchard" there is a lot minor characters playing an important role in the play, one of them is Epikhodov. He takes part in many comical situations and even has the nickname “twenty-two misfortunes.” Epikhodov bumps into a chair, crushes a cardboard with a hat, putting a suitcase on it, Varya wants to hit him with a stick when she hits Lopakhin.

Like many other characters in the play, Epikhodov does nothing, he is carried along by the flow of life. Epikhodov, like the rest of the characters in the comedy, can be referred to as “klutz.” He breaks something all the time and tries to do things he doesn’t know how to do: plays the guitar and sings “like a jackal,” speaks funny and illiterately about books and beliefs, plays billiards and breaks his cue. His actions and words (for example, an unexpected and unnecessary question about Bocle) complement many other events that happened inopportunely (for example, a ball on the day of the auction, Gaev’s lofty speeches, an attempt to arrange an explanation between Varya and Lopakhin just before departure, a senseless waste of Ranevskaya’s money).

In the image of Epikhodov one can see the enhanced comic features of the main characters.

Some incorrect phrases of the poorly educated Lopakhin (for example, “Every outrage has its own decency”) are similar to the even more illiterate and ridiculous words of Epikhodov, who uses a lot of unnecessary and cluttering phrases (“But, of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, I dare say so to speak, excuse the frankness, they completely brought me into a state of mind.”

The attempts of Epikhodov, who wants to seem like a “developed person,” to speak in sublime words (for example, the phrase “For a madman who is in love, this is a mandolin,” said when he was playing the guitar) and to sing about high love is a funnier version of Gaev’s empty speeches about “ esteemed closet” and about “wonderful nature”. Both Gaev and Epikhodov inappropriately talk about trends and beliefs in which they understand nothing, and Epikhodov comes out with completely ridiculous words that he “can’t understand in any way whether to live or shoot himself,” and just in case he carries a revolver with him . Epikhodov calls his minor troubles misfortunes, says that “fate treats him without regret, like a storm treats a small ship,” and this reminds Gaev, who says that he “got a lot in life for his beliefs.”

You can notice some similarities between Epikhodov and the scoundrel Yasha. Both heroes imagine themselves educated people and immediately after they talk about their education, they express some absurd judgment (Epikhodov’s phrase about the revolver, Yasha’s words “if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral”). Yasha and Epikhodov are contemptuous of Russia and believe that “abroad everything has long been in full swing.” Both of them say cruel words about the sick Firs. Epikhodov has the phrase “Long-lived Firs, in my final opinion, is not fit for repair, he needs to go to his forefathers,” Yasha says to Firs: “I’m tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die soon.”

So, Epikhodov is an important character who participates in creating the mood and general atmosphere of the play, and helps to better understand other characters.

Charlotte

If we single out the main characters of “The Cherry Orchard” (at least, the most important ones), they will be those whose fate and thoughts are connected with the orchard. However, remaining in this way on the periphery of the plot, as far as this word is applicable in this case, and at the end of the poster characters: Epikhodov, Simeonov-Pishchik, Charlotte Ivanovna are important for understanding the play, which we will try to show with the last example.

Charlotte’s ventriloquism, like Epikhodov’s “misfortunes” and Pishchik’s eternal worries about money, is one of the most striking farcical details of “The Cherry Orchard” (in general, all three are superior to the main characters in this respect, at least not inferior to them: there are similar traits, for example , and Gaev with his penchant for heartfelt speeches, but in small roles they are concentrated much more strongly).

Her more ordinary actions are not so noticeable, but numerous: she comes and goes in the first act, with a lorgnette on her belt; eats a cucumber; says that her dog “and eats nuts” (Pishchik ( surprised). Think about it!); in an old cap fiddling with a gun...<…>Unexpectedly sad remarks addressed to no one burst into the comic and everyday: “I have no one to talk to... I’m all alone, alone, I have no one and... and who I am, why I am, is unknown...” And , despite the difference in tonality, the beginning of the longest such monologue: “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,” refers to the image of Ranevskaya with her “and now I’m like little "

Once established, this parallel develops, and Charlotte's actions already cast a shadow on the entire play. During the agonizing wait for the results of the auction, Charlotte shows tricks and - ein, zwei, drei - “sells” the blanket behind which Anya and Varya are hiding - this is how the motive for selling the house is refracted; and therefore, the aspirations and hopes associated with the auction are overshadowed by the buffoonery of this scene: they are just as artificial and unjustified in Gaev and Ranevskaya, and in Lopakhin, in the words of Petya Trofimov, they resemble “waving his hands.” And then the last episode with Charlotte’s participation, where the ventriloquism itself, instead of a comic effect, takes on a shade of the same melancholy: somehow, especially, it seems, the ease of turning a “child” into a knot, it emphasizes Charlotte’s restlessness, homelessness (“We must leave.. . I have nowhere to live in the city”) - makes me remember that the former owners of the estate are now almost as homeless as she is. Even textual coincidences become symbolic meaning(Ranevskaya, act one: “I want to jump, wave my arms,” stage directions in the third act: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat, in checkered trousers, waves his arms and jumps” to cries of “bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!”).

So, the image is secondary, the governess Charlotte in her own way sets off the entire play, introducing into it not only comic notes.

Firs

The image of Firs - the old faithful servant of the Gaevs - occupies a significant place in the system of images of the play. In my opinion, his words and actions enhance the feeling created by the central characters: Lyubov Andreevna and Leonid Andreevich, people who largely live in their past. After all, for Firs they are still “the lord’s children.” He remembers what clothes are required “for travel,” and turns to Gaev with the words: “Again, they put on the wrong trousers,” and closer to night he brings him a coat. At the same time, Firs is the only economic person in this house: “Without me, who will give, who will give orders? One for the whole house.” Firs appears in this work as the “spirit of the estate.”

Before leaving, everyone was worried and worried about him. It was clarified four times whether Firs was sent to the hospital. However, this never happened, and he remains alone in a boarded-up house, in which there will be no one until spring. But even then he doesn’t stop thinking about the Gayevs: “And Leonid Andreich, I suppose, didn’t put on a fur coat, he went in a coat... I didn’t look... It’s young and green!” Probably, the spirit of the estate was destined to die with her. The “spirit of history” was forgotten, as was the history itself in which he lived. Against the background of such a picture, the phrases “Goodbye, old life!” sound with bitter irony. and “Hello, new life!”

The sound of a broken string, which occurs twice in the play, is also inextricably linked with Firs. After the first time, he utters a phrase that can probably be called prophetic: “Before the misfortune, there was also...” The second time we hear this sound is after Firs was left in a locked house. From that moment on, his fate, like the fate of all time to which he belonged, was predetermined. Thus, Firs extremely strongly influences our perception of one of the problems posed in the play - the change of time, being himself the image of this time.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" there are many supporting characters who participate in the action along with the main characters, but at the same time do not outwardly influence the development of events. It is interesting that in addition to the main and secondary characters, persons who do not appear on stage take part in the action on an equal footing: the Yaroslavl aunt, the Parisian lover, Pishchik’s daughter Dashenka. Even these ephemeral characters set the tone for the play.

Minor characters often repeat, and thereby imprint in memory the thoughts of the main characters or say what remains unspoken; phrases that are important for understanding the play are sometimes put into their mouths.

The secondary characters remember their place, at the same time not disappearing anywhere, spinning around Gaev, Ranevskaya, Lopakhin, Trofimov, Varya, Anya, involuntarily caricaturing the behavior of the main characters, especially the first two. Despite the fact that little or almost nothing is said about not very significant personalities, their characters clearly appear in the few remarks with which the author gives them.

Here is Simeonov-Pishchik - a hectic, cheerful person who does not deviate a step from this role. Every time he appears on stage, he remains unchanged - he asks for money and talks about Dashenka. Pishchik is a comic figure without any reservations; his abbreviated surname is also funny. He is like a clown who, when he goes on stage, must show a new act. In the first act, Pischik for some reason swallows Lyubov Andreevna’s pills, seriously stating: “I took all the pills,” in the third he admires Charlotte, without bothering himself with sophisticated phrases, all his praise comes down to the words “Just think!” But he is also delicate (he takes Lopakhin away from Ranevskaya after the news of the sale of the cherry orchard), and honest (he pays off debts to Lopakhin and Ranevskaya), and sensitive (he cries when he learns about the family’s departure). A clown is a clown, but he’s sincere, a kind person, in general so similar to Gaev, who laughs at Pishchik.

A rather interesting role in the play is played by the arrogant Charlotte Ivanovna, a master of turning everything serious into a comic way. But she, too, bursts out with sorrowful streams: “I really want to talk!”, and not with anyone...” There seems to be something from Ranevskaya here. Charlotte, by the way, has a phrase that could be put into the mind of any hero: “Who am I, why am I, is unknown...” And it is Sharit who, with her tricks, ventriloquism, and circus acts, emphasizes the comedy of the situation. In fact, all the actions of the heroes are just comedies, but the main characters take themselves seriously, and the secondary ones prevent the reader from perceiving them the same way.

Another comical face of Epikhodov, a bungler, “twenty-two misfortunes.” He owns the brilliant phrase: “I just can’t understand... what I actually want, to live or to shoot myself..., but nevertheless I always carry a revolver with me.” And this is said by a man who is assigned the most comic role in the play! Such speeches are reminiscent of Gaev’s pathetic sayings. By the way, “twenty-two misfortunes” received a remarkable, if you think about it, touch from the previous owners of Lopakhip.

Finally, there are also servants. Firs can hardly be called a minor character. He, appearing relatively rarely, plays a significant role in the play; Chekhov entrusts the final monologue to him. So, despite all the poverty of his remarks, Firs is almost the most significant character. Much smaller roles are assigned to Dunyasha and Yasha, two servants who try to imitate their masters and thereby unconsciously imitate them, presenting them in an exaggerated form. character traits Ranevskaya and Gaev. The speech of servants is often an inept imitation of small talk. Doesn’t Dunyasha remind you of Ranevskaya when she says in excitement: “I’m going to fall... Oh, I’m going to fall!” or when she shows Yasha how little she was when he left (Lyubov Andreevna also loves to remember her childhood), or when she tells everyone about Epikhodov’s proposal: “He loves me, he loves me so much!”? And the ever-yawning Yasha, casually lighting a cigarette, is a recognizable parody of Gaev. “You are educated, you can reason about everything” is a sign of the highest praise from Dunyasha, although Yasha, in general, is not smart. But he is impudent and cheeky, allowing himself to laugh at every suitable and inappropriate occasion, even in Gaev’s face.

Both of them, Dunyasha and Yasha, are extremely ridiculous in their desire to be like the masters in everything. Dunyasha, always powdering herself, with her statements that she is a “delicate girl,” and with absurd declarations of love for Yasha, Yasha, drinking champagne and applying only one definition to everyone - “ignorance” - are essentially just inverted inside out, images of gentlemen brought to the point of grotesque.

All the minor characters, in their clown absurdity, present a rather sad pantomime. They cannot argue with the pattern, they cannot delay the inevitable, but they do not humiliate themselves with despondency. They must leave the stage, however, this is not a reason for sadness. Their departure is staged as a carnival performance. The main characters do not know how to deal with their grief, but the secondary ones (and they experience the same feelings) scare away grief with laughter. It is not for nothing that Chekhov presented The Cherry Orchard to us as a comedy; moreover, in places it turns into an outright farce, which, however, only aggravates the drama of the play.

In the play we are interested in by A.P. Chekhov's system of images is represented by three main groups. Let us briefly consider each of them, after which we will dwell in detail on the image of Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This hero of "The Cherry Orchard" can be called the most striking character in the play.

Below is a photo of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, the great Russian playwright, creator of the work that interests us. The years of his life are 1860-1904. For more than a hundred years, various of his plays, especially The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters and The Seagull, have been staged in many theaters around the world.

People of the noble era

The first group of characters consists of people from the noble era, which is a thing of the past. This is Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and Leonid Andreevich Gaev, her brother. These people own a cherry orchard. They are not old at all in age. Gaev is only 51 years old, and his sister is probably 10 years younger than him. It can also be assumed that the image of Varya also belongs to this group. This is Ranevskaya's adopted daughter. This also includes the image of Firs, the old footman, who is, as it were, part of the house and all the passing life. Such is the general outline first group of characters. Of course, this is only a brief description of the heroes. "The Cherry Orchard" is a work in which each of these characters plays a role, and each of them is interesting in its own way.

The most important person

Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich is very different from these heroes, new owner cherry orchard and the entire estate. He can be called the most active person in the work: he is energetic, active, moving steadily towards his intended goal, which is to buy a garden.

Younger generation

The third group is represented by Anya, daughter of Lyubov Andreevna, and Petya Trofimov, who is former teacher Ranevskaya's son, who recently died. Without mentioning them, the characterization of the heroes would be incomplete. "The Cherry Orchard" is a play in which these characters are lovers. However, in addition to the feeling of love, they are also united by their aspiration away from dilapidated values and all old life towards a wonderful future, which in Trofimov’s speeches is depicted as ethereal, although shining.

Relationships between the three groups of characters

In the play, these three groups are not opposed to each other, although they have different concepts and values. The main characters of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” despite all their differences in worldview, love each other, show sympathy, regret the failures of others, and are even ready to help. The main feature that separates them and determines their future life is their attitude towards the cherry orchard. In this case, it is not just part of the estate. This is a certain value, almost an animated face. During the main part of the action, the question of his fate is decided. Therefore, we can say that there is another hero of “The Cherry Orchard”, the suffering one and the most positive one. It's myself The Cherry Orchard.

The role of minor characters in the play "The Cherry Orchard"

The main characters were introduced in general terms. Let's say a few words about the other participants in the action taking place in the play. They are not just minor characters needed by the plot. These are companion images of the main characters of the work. Each of them carries a certain trait of the main character, but only in an exaggerated form.

Elaboration of characters

The different degrees of character development in the work “The Cherry Orchard” are striking. The main characters: Leonid Gaev, and especially Lyubov Ranevskaya - are given to us in the complexity of their experiences, the combination of sins and spiritual virtues, frivolity and kindness. Petya Trofimov and Anya are more outlined than depicted.

Lopakhin - the brightest hero of "The Cherry Orchard"

Let us dwell in more detail on the most striking character in the play, who stands apart. This hero of The Cherry Orchard is Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. According to Chekhov's description, he is a merchant. The author, in letters to Stanislavsky and Knipper, explains that Lopakhin is assigned a central role. He notes that this character is a gentle person, decent in every sense. He must behave intelligently, decently, not petty, without any tricks.

Why did the author believe that Lopakhin’s role in the work was central? Chekhov emphasized that he did not look like a typical merchant. Let's find out what are the motives for the actions of this character, who can be called the killer of the cherry orchard. After all, he was the one who knocked him out.

Peasant past

Ermolai Lopakhin does not forget that he is a man. One phrase was etched in his memory. It was uttered by Ranevskaya, consoling him, then still a boy, after Lopakhin was beaten by his father. Lyubov Andreevna said: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding.” Lopakhin cannot forget these words.

The hero we are interested in is tormented, on the one hand, by the awareness of his past, but on the other hand, he is proud that he managed to become one of the people. For the former owners, he is also a person who can become a benefactor and help them unravel a tangle of insoluble problems.

Lopakhin's attitude towards Ranevskaya and Gaev

Every now and then Lopakhin offers Gaev and Ranevskaya various rescue plans. He talks about the possibility of giving the land they own to plots for summer cottages, and cutting down the garden, since it is completely useless. Lopakhin is sincerely upset when he realizes that these heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard” do not perceive his reasonable words. He cannot comprehend how one can be so careless on the verge of one’s own death. Lopakhin directly says that he has never met such frivolous, strange, unbusinesslike people as Gaev and Ranevskaya (the heroes of Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard). There is not a shadow of deceit in his desire to help them. Lopakhin is extremely sincere. Why does he want to help his former masters?

Perhaps because he remembers what Ranevskaya did for him. He tells her that he loves her like his own. Unfortunately, the good deed of this heroine remains outside the play. However, one can guess that due to her nobility and gentle character, Ranevskaya respected Lopakhin and pitied him. In a word, she behaved like a real aristocrat - noble, cultured, kind, generous. Perhaps it is precisely the awareness of such an ideal of humanity, its inaccessibility, that forces this hero to commit such contradictory actions.

Ranevskaya and Lopakhin are the two centers in the work "The Cherry Orchard". The images of the heroes described by the author are very interesting. The plot develops in such a way that the interpersonal relationships between them are not the most important thing. What comes first is what Lopakhin does as if involuntarily, surprising himself.

How is Lopakhin's personality revealed at the end of the work?

The third action takes place in nervous tension. Everyone expects that Gaev will soon arrive from the auction and bring news about the further fate of the garden. The owners of the estate cannot hope for the best; they can only hope for a miracle...

Finally, the fateful news was announced: the garden was sold! Ranevskaya is struck as if by thunder by the answer to a completely meaningless and helpless question: “Who bought it?” Lopakhin exhales: “I bought it!” This action of Ermolai Alekseevich decides the future of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard. It seems that Raevskaya did not expect this from him. But it turns out that the estate and garden are Ermolai Alekseevich’s lifelong dream. Lopakhin could not do otherwise. In it, the merchant avenged the peasant and defeated the intellectual. Lopakhin seems to be in hysterics. He doesn’t believe in his own happiness and doesn’t notice Ranevskaya, who is heartbroken.

Everything happens according to his passionate desire, but against his will, because a minute later, noticing the unfortunate Ranevskaya, the merchant unexpectedly utters words that contradict his delight a minute earlier: “My poor, good one, you won’t bring me back now...” But the very next moment the former peasant and merchant in Lopakhino raise their heads and shout: “Music, play clearly!”

Petya Trofimov’s attitude towards Lopakhin

Petya Trofimov says about Lopakhin that he is needed “in the sense of metabolism,” like a predatory beast that eats what comes in its way. But suddenly Trofimov, who dreams of a just structure of society and assigns the role of exploiter to Yermolay Alekseevich, says in the fourth act that he loves him for his “subtle, gentle soul.” - a combination of predatory skills with a gentle soul.

The inconsistency of the character of Ermolai Alekseevich

He passionately craves purity, beauty, and is drawn to culture. In the work, Lopakhin is the only character appearing with a book in his hand. Although this hero falls asleep while reading it, other characters throughout the play do not hold books in their hands at all. However, the merchant’s calculation turns out to be stronger in him, common sense, earthly beginning. Realizing that he is proud of his possession, Lopakhin is in a hurry to knock him out and arrange everything according to his own understanding of happiness.

Ermolai Alekseevich argues that the summer resident will multiply to an extraordinary extent in 20 years. For now he is just drinking tea on the balcony. But one day it may happen that he will start farming on his tithe. Then the cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev will become luxurious, rich, and happy. But Lopakhin is wrong about this. A summer resident is not the person who will preserve and multiply the beauty that he has inherited. Its purely practical, predatory. It excludes all impractical things, including culture. Therefore, Lopakhin decides to cut down the garden. This merchant, who has a “subtle soul,” does not realize the main thing: you cannot cut the roots of culture, memory, and beauty.

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

The intelligentsia from a serf, obedient, downtrodden slave created a talented, free, creative active person. However, she herself was dying, and her creation was dying along with her, since without roots a person cannot exist. "The Cherry Orchard" is a drama about the loss of spiritual roots. This ensures it is up to date at all times.

The play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov shows the attitude of people to the events taking place at the junction of eras. This was the time when the capitalization of society and the death of Russian feudalism took place. Such transitions from one socio-economic formation to another are always accompanied by the death of the weak and the intensified struggle of various groups for survival. Lopakhin in the play is a representative of a new type of people. Gaev and Ranevskaya are characters of a dying era, who are no longer able to correspond to the changes taking place, to fit into them. Therefore they are doomed to failure.

In literature lessons we read and analyzed A.P. Chekhov's Comedy The Cherry Orchard. Showing the existence of a noble estate, the author introduces us to a whole group in some way connected with it. This, along with the footman Yasha, is the clerk Epikhodov, the landowner Seseonov-Pishchik, the maid Dunyasha, the housekeeper Varya, the governess Charlotte and the footman Firs.

Mainly they play the role of enhancing tragedies and the comic beginning of the work.

Dunyasha and Yasha are an illustrative example of the discrepancy between the behavior and statements of the heroes and their position. The maid talks about herself

Next: “She became tender, so delicate, noble.” She tries to imitate gentle young ladies in everything.

Dunyasha complains about her nerves being upset, although she is healthy and cheerful girl... Flirty and cutesy, with a constant mirror and powder compact in her hands, the girl is completely in the grip of love dreams. Firs, not without reason, warns her: “You’ll get twisted...” If Dunyasha’s behavior evokes a good-natured smile, then the image of Yasha makes a repulsive impression. This is a lackey corrupted by idleness and life in Paris.

In restaurants, he demands that only the most expensive dishes be brought to him, despite the fact that his masters have no money at all. He does not like his homeland at all, calling it “an uneducated country.” “I’ve seen enough of ignorance—that’s enough for me,” he declares, asking Ranevskaya to take him to Paris again. And his phrase: “Viv la France!” causes ridicule and contempt.

Yasha, according to Parisian habit, smokes cigars and drinks champagne, and at home, in his homeland, he rudely shouts at Firs (although he himself is the same lackey) and does not want to see his peasant mother.

A comical and at the same time sad impression is made in the play by the image of Epikhodov, the clerk of the cherry orchard. He considers himself a “developed person”, reads “various wonderful books”, but has difficulty expressing his thoughts. His desire to express himself in bookish phrases leads to the construction of the most chaotic phrases consisting of introductory words and devoid of any meaning: “Of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, if I may put it this way, excuse the frankness, have completely brought me into a state of feeling.”

Dunyasha gives a suitable description of Epikhodov’s incoherent language: “Good and sensitive, but incomprehensible.” Also, the clerk does everything at random, clumsily, for which he received the nickname “twenty-two misfortunes.” He constantly complains that he can’t do anything and falls out of his hands.

Simeonov-Pishchik is a landowner, a hectic person who does not deviate one step from his role. Every time he appears on stage, he invariably asks for money and talks about his daughter Dashenka. Pishchik is a comic figure without any reservations; even his shortened surname is funny.

He is like a clown who, when he goes on stage, must show a new act. In the first act, Pischik for some reason swallows Lyubov Andreevna’s pills, seriously stating: “I took all the pills,” in the third he admires Charlotte, without bothering himself with sophisticated phrases, all his praise comes down to the words “Just think!” But he is also delicate (he takes Lopakhin away from Ranevskaya after the news of the sale of the cherry orchard), honest (he gives debts to Lopakhin and Ranevskaya), and sensitive (he cries when he learns about the family’s departure). But still, he is a sincere, kind person, in general so similar to Gaev, who laughs at Pishchik.

A rather interesting role in the play is played by the arrogant Charlotte Ivanovna, a master of turning everything serious into a comic way. But she bursts out with sorrowful remarks: “I really want to talk!”, and not with anyone...” Something from Ranevskaya is felt here. Charlotte doesn’t know who she is, how old she is, why she’s here: “Who I am, why I am, is unknown...” There is a feeling of her uselessness.

But it is Charlotte, with her tricks, ventriloquism, and circus acts, who emphasizes the comedy of the situation. While the fate of the cherry orchard is being decided, she cheerfully demonstrates tricks. All this once again proves that A.P. Chekhov did not introduce such a number of minor characters into the play in vain, because they play an important role with their presence - they enhance the tragedy of the work.

It is also important to create greater comedy at the beginning of the work.

(No Ratings Yet)

Depicting the life of a noble estate in the play, Chekhov brings onto the stage a whole group of people associated with the estate. This, along with the valet Firs, is the footman Yasha, the clerk Epikhodov, the maid Dunyasha, and the housekeeper Varya. Their images are important in the sense that, on the one hand, they complete the picture of the life of the old noble nest, on the other hand, they show the corrupting influence of this way of life on […]...
It is difficult to imagine the play “The Cherry Orchard” without those characters who are called secondary. “The Cherry Orchard” is considered to be a lyrical comedy. The title emphasizes the main comic orientation of the play and at the same time its lyrical orientation, which is most associated with the image of the author, whose presence the reader feels in everything: in the stage directions, in the depiction of the characters, in the setting. Chekhov is sad and happy, sympathizes and [...]
All the characters in the play are conventionally divided into the “owners” of the garden (Lopakhin, Gaev, Ranevskaya) and servants (Firs, Charlotte, Yasha, Epikhodov, Dunyasha). Each of them is deeply individual, but despite their different ages and social status, all characters have much in common. All of them are depicted from a tragic-comedy perspective: the situations in which they find themselves are comical, and the fates of the heroes are dramatic. Each of them is […]...
The image of Ranevskaya, elusive in its charm, absorbed the generic features of Russian noble culture, which found their literary expression in the Larins and Rostovs, Kirsanovs and Lavretskys, Oblomovs and Levins. The poetry of Ranevskaya’s image lies in her inextricable connection with the 337 estate, the ancient house, and the cherry orchard. R. cannot imagine his life without a cherry orchard, but the garden without [...]
A. S. Griboyedov belonged to that generation of young Russian nobles for whom socio-political issues became the most important in life. Opposition sentiments, the spirit of freedom, the desire for change in the state led many people from this generation to secret political societies, and then to an uprising... In the comedy, the conflict between Chatsky and society gradually grows out of his personal love conflict. Myself […]...
The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboyedov is a kind of “encyclopedia of Russian life” of the first half of the 19th century. Having significantly expanded the scope of the narrative due to many minor and off-stage characters, Griboyedov outlines magnificent human types contemporary Moscow. As O. Miller notes, almost all minor characters in comedy come down to three types: “Famusovs, candidates for [...]
The author designated the genre of “The Cherry Orchard” as “lyrical comedy.” The play has many comedic characters and comedic situations, but they all have dramatic overtones. The basis of the subtext is the contrast between the neutrality of the remarks and the significance of the unspoken, implied. Every word, every detail, every remark plays a role in revealing the author's intention. The lyrical image of the cherry orchard is a symbolic image of Russia. Basic […]...
The image of a cherry orchard is the central image in Chekhov’s comedy; it is represented as a leitmotif of various time plans, involuntarily connecting the past with the present. But the cherry orchard is not just a backdrop to ongoing events, it is a symbol of estate life. The fate of the estate organizes the plot of the play. Already in the first act, immediately after Ranevskaya’s meeting, a discussion begins on saving the mortgaged estate from auction. IN […]...
When creating the play “The Cherry Orchard,” A.P. Chekhov paid great attention to the image of Lopakhin as one of the central images of the comedy. In revealing the author's intention, in resolving the main conflict, it is Lopakhin who plays a very important role. Lopakhin is unusual and strange; he caused and continues to puzzle many literary critics. In fact, Chekhov’s character does not fit into the usual scheme: […]...
Hussar captain Zurin, who at the beginning of the novel (first chapter) teaches young Grinev to “get used to service” and, taking advantage of his complete inexperience, cruelly beats him at billiards, appears again at the end of the novel (penultimate chapter) to help Grinev in a difficult time for him minute. An even more important, downright decisive role in Grinev’s fate is played by someone he met by chance in the Orenburg […]...
The passage of time in A.P. Chekhov’s comedy “The Cherry Orchard” The play “The Cherry Orchard” still does not leave the stages of Russian and foreign theaters. The problems raised in it are topical to this day: a person’s dissatisfaction with reality and himself, the desire to change his life, alienation and loneliness, the loss of family roots. “The Cherry Orchard” is a timeless comedy. The theme of “time” in […]...
“The Cherry Orchard” is a capacious and polysemantic name, just like this image itself. It is incorrect to understand it only as the setting of the play. The sale of the cherry orchard is at the heart of its plot, and we can say that all the heroes of the comedy are characterized in relation to it. But what is even more important is what meaning is put into the image of the cherry orchard. It is known that in the beginning Chekhov [...]
A.P. Chekhov, with his play “The Cherry Orchard,” which is rightfully considered quite famous in Russian literature, showed an example of an innovative approach to conveying old ideas in a new style. The author ridicules the actions of the heroes of the work. They reveal the true depth of their experiences and sensations. They became the personification of helplessness in front of this world. The characters are klutzes – these are all heroes without exception […]...
The debate about the genre of “The Cherry Orchard” has not subsided to this day, but it was started by the leaders of the Moscow Art Theater and the author himself. Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko saw in the play “the heavy drama of Russian life,” and Chekhov argued: “What came out of me was not a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce.” He insisted that there should be no “crying tone” in the play. Really, […]...
1st competition: “Who says this?” Assignment: Read the passage expressively, identify the hero and characterize him. 1. “All of Russia is our garden. The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it. (Pause.) Think... your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf owners who owned living souls, and is it really possible that from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from […]...
A.P. Chekhov's drama “The Cherry Orchard” was originally conceived as a farcical story of the life of a gentleman who loved to play billiards and fish. But in the process of writing the play, the author had to think about the serious problems of that time, and they could not help but be reflected in the work, so the content of the play became more deep meaning. The genre of the work remained the same […]...
In A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” many characters in some way oppose each other. Therefore, we can identify contrasting pairs of heroes with their contrasting beliefs. Firstly, “I am above love” by Ranevskaya and “we are above love” by Petya Trofimov. For Firs, all the best is irrevocably a thing of the past, Anya is recklessly focused on the future. Varya lives for her family, renouncing [...]
It is well known that Chekhov’s moral ideal is a harmoniously developed person. But even among his favorite heroes there is no one about whom one could say that “everything is beautiful with him - his face, his clothes, his soul, and his thoughts.” Much more often we are annoyed with Chekhov’s heroes, because in the most obvious situations they behave at all […]...
A. N. Ostrovsky, the author of numerous plays about the merchants, is rightfully considered the “singer of merchant life” and the father of Russian national theater. He created about 60 plays, the most famous of which are “The Dowry”, “Forest”, “Our People – We Will Be Numbered”, “Thunderstorm” and many others. The most striking and decisive, according to A. N. Dobrolyubov, was the play “The Thunderstorm”. In it “mutual […]...
In the play, Chekhov generalizes the theme of the death of noble nests, reveals the doom of the nobility and the coming to replace it of new social forces. The Russia of the past, the Russia of cherry orchards with their elegiac beauty is represented by the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are fragments of the local nobility. They are indecisive, not adapted to life, passive. The only thing they can do is make pompous speeches like Gaev […]...
The play “The Cherry Orchard” is Chekhov’s last dramatic work, a sad elegy about the passing time of “noble nests”. In a letter to N.A. Leikin, Chekhov admitted: “I terribly love everything that in Russia is called an estate. This word has not yet lost its poetic connotation.” The playwright valued everything connected with estate life; it symbolized the warmth of family [...]
The premiere of the play “The Cherry Orchard” took place on January 17, 1904 on the stage of the Art Theater. The birth of the play was long and painful. There were many reasons for this: the serious illness of the writer himself, the sudden long-term illness of his wife, everyday troubles associated with the arrangement in the Yalta house. But the main thing was the creative torment. Shortly after the premiere of “Three Sisters,” Chekhov writes from Yalta to O. […]...
The system for creating images of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” is characterized by originality. There is more than one hero here. At the same time, the reader immediately notices the absence of division of characters into positive and negative heroes. They are all equally far from the true understanding of the essence of life. They are all characterized by helplessness in the face of fast-flowing time, and they all strive to cast a glance into the future, which is destined to remain [...]
Let everything on stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life. People have lunch, just have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are broken. A.P. Chekhov The premiere of the play “The Cherry Orchard” took place on January 17, 1904 on the stage of the Art Theater. The birth of the play was long and painful. The reasons for this […]...
Even characters who, unlike the main antagonists, have little influence on the development of the plot, receive clear individual characteristics in the play about Richard II. The Duke of York is shown as a subjectively honest person, guided in his behavior, like Gaunt, by the idea of patriotism and at the same time devoted to the throne and the reigning monarch. But unlike Gaunt, York is more [...]
Perhaps, for Ranevskaya, the cherry orchard is the past, these are his pleasant memories, because for her, selling the orchard means betraying herself, her habits, ideals, life values. And everything that happened in the past, connected with the garden, warms the soul and fills Lyubov Andreevna’s heart with happiness. She is a person of the past, completely unsuited to life, and living in the past on her estate […]...
There is only a moment between the past and the future... L. Derbenev Indeed, a moment - between the past, which cannot be changed, and the future, for whose surprises one cannot be prepared in advance - this is what our present is. Time given to us to stop, think about our mistakes, decide what to do next, try to influence our future destiny. But do we always [...]
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's comedy “The Cherry Orchard” is the greatest work of the 20th century. There is, perhaps, no artist or director who would not want to play and stage this play. What is so attractive about this work? In the last comedy of A.P. Chekhov there is one central image determines the entire life of the heroes. This is a cherry orchard. Ranevskaya has whole memories associated with him […]...
One of the characters in A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is the merchant Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This man, so eager to help Ranevskaya, in the reader’s opinion, raises some concerns. Why? Yes, because in fact this person is a predator. Petya Trofimov explains Lopakhin’s purpose in life this way: “This is how, in the sense of metabolism, you need a beast of prey, which [...]
“Thunderstorm” is, without a doubt, the most decisive work Ostrovsky; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences; and with all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it produces a less serious and sad impression than Ostrovsky’s other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). In “The Thunderstorm” […]...
Main characters: Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya - landowner. Anya is her daughter, 17 years old. Varya is her adopted daughter, 24 years old. Leonid Andreevich Gaev is Ranevskaya’s brother. Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin - merchant. Boris Borisovich Simeonov-Pishchik is a landowner. Firs – footman, 87 years old. Semyon Panteleevich Epikhodov – clerk. Lopakhin and the maid Dunyasha are waiting in the children's room, [...]
The theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the playwright’s reflection on the fate of Russia, its past, present and future, and the cherry orchard, “more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world” (III), personifies the homeland for Chekhov (“All Russia is our garden” (II ), says Petya Trofimov). The former owners of the country - the local nobles, spiritually helpless and practically insolvent in economic [...] are becoming a thing of the past.
In the play “The Cherry Orchard” A.P. Chekhov raises the most important social issue the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries - the theme of the death of “noble nests”. This work clearly shows the farewells of the new, young, tomorrow's Russia to the past, obsolete, doomed. The “old” and “new” times in the play are symbolized by the characters: representatives of the old, patriarchal Russia - Ranevskaya, her brother Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik, a man of the new time - […]...
Essay plan 1. Introduction 2. The image of the cherry orchard in the work: A) What does the cherry orchard symbolize? B) Three generations in the play 3. Problems of the play A) Internal and external conflict 4. My attitude to the work For more than a century, the play “The Cherry Orchard” has been successfully performed on the stages of many theaters, and not only Russian ones. Directors are looking for everything in […]...
The dramatic works of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov are complex and ambiguous. By the author’s own admission, written “contrary to all the rules of dramatic art,” meanwhile, for many decades they have not left the stages of theaters around the world. Why is Chekhov's dramaturgy so attractive? The author brilliantly managed to see and reflect contemporary times and changing human relationships. After all, there is little dynamics in Chekhov's plays. Heroes […]...
Plan Social statuses heroes of the play - as one of the characteristics Brief characteristics main characters Brief characteristics of minor characters Social statuses of the characters in the play - as one of the characteristics B final piece A.P. Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” there is no division into main and secondary characters. They are all major, even seemingly episodic roles, of great importance for [...]
In life, people often say things that are not what they mean. In literary theory, this implicit, hidden meaning, which does not coincide with the direct meaning of the phrase, is called “subtext”. In prose works, it is quite easy to convey this semantic effect with the help of an omniscient author-storyteller. For example, in the novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky “What to do?” (chapter 2, VI) lively mother Marya Alekseevna Rozalskaya addresses […]...
“The Cherry Orchard” Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a great Russian writer and playwright, whose plays invariably inspire admiration among audiences all over the world. The originality of Chekhov's plays lies in the new relationship between external and internal action. The external action of Chekhov's plays is everyday, ordinary, filled with the little things of everyday life. However, the meaning of everything that happens on stage is revealed in depth, in the inner, like [...]
Comparison “All of Russia is our garden!” in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” it is very symbolic, because with the beauty of the cherry orchard, which dies from the sound of an ax, all of Russia dies. The image of the garden is the image of the homeland itself. It is the theme of the homeland that is the internal poetic theme of “The Cherry Orchard,” this deeply patriotic play, imbued from the first to the last line with passionate and [...]
The image of Firs, the old faithful servant of the Gaevs, contains individual psychological and historical and symbolic meaning. Firs’s antique livery and white gloves are as much a memory of the past as the room that “is still called the nursery,” the hundred-year-old “respected closet,” the family estate with a house and a cherry orchard. Firs himself – in the literal sense of the word – is a “walking” memory of the ancient estate [...]

Consciously depriving the play of “events,” Chekhov directed all attention to the state of the characters, their attitude to the main fact - the sale of the estate and garden, to their relationships and clashes. The teacher should draw students' attention to the fact that dramatic work author's attitude, author's position turns out to be the most hidden. To clarify this position, in order to understand the playwright’s attitude to the historical phenomena of the life of the homeland, to the characters and events, the viewer and reader need to be very attentive to all components of the play: the system of images carefully thought out by the author, the arrangement of characters, the alternation of mise-en-scenes, the coupling of monologues, dialogues, individual lines of characters, author's remarks.

At times Chekhov deliberately exposes the clash of dreams and reality, the lyrical and comic principles in the play. So, while working on “The Cherry Orchard,” he introduced into the second act, after Lopakhin’s words (“And living here, we ourselves should truly be giants...”) Ranevskaya’s response: “You needed giants. They’re only good in fairy tales, but they’re so scary.” To this, Chekhov added another mise-en-scène: the ugly figure of the “klutz” Epikhodov appears at the back of the stage, clearly contrasting with the dream of giant people. Chekhov specifically attracts the audience's attention to Epikhodov's appearance with two remarks: Ranevskaya (thoughtfully) “Epikhodov is coming.” Anya (thoughtfully) “Epikhodov is coming.”

In the new historical conditions, Chekhov the playwright, following Ostrovsky and Shchedrin, responded to Gogol’s call: “For God’s sake, give us Russian characters, give us ourselves, our rogues, our eccentrics! Take them to the stage, to everyone's laughter! Laughter is a great thing!” (“Petersburg Notes”). Chekhov strives to bring “our eccentrics”, our “klutzes” to the ridicule of the public in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.

The author's intention to make the viewer laugh and at the same time make him think about modern reality is most clearly expressed in the original comic characters - Epikhodov and Charlotte. The function of these “klutzes” in the play is very significant. Chekhov forces the viewer to grasp their internal connection with the central characters and thereby exposes these eye-catching faces of comedy. Epikhodov and Charlotte are not only funny, but also pathetic with their unfortunate “fortune” full of inconsistencies and surprises. Fate, in fact, treats them “without regret, like a storm treats a small ship.” These people are disfigured by life. Epikhodov is shown as insignificant in his penny ambitions, pathetic in his misfortunes, in his claims and in his protest, limited in his “philosophy.” He is proud, painfully proud, and life has put him in the position of a lackey and a rejected lover. He claims to be “educated,” sublime feelings, strong passions, but life has “prepared” for him daily “22 misfortunes,” petty, ineffective, offensive.”

Chekhov, who dreamed of people in whom “everything would be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts,” still saw many freaks who had not found their place in life, people with complete confusion of thoughts and feelings, actions and words which are devoid of logic and meaning: “Of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, if I may put it this way, excuse the frankness, have completely brought me into a state of mind.”

The source of Epikhodov's comedy in the play also lies in the fact that he does everything inopportunely, at the wrong time. There is no correspondence between his natural data and behavior. Close-minded, tongue-tied, he is prone to lengthy speeches and reasoning; awkward, untalented, he plays billiards (breaking his cue in the process), sings “terribly, like a jackal” (according to Charlotte’s definition), gloomily accompanying himself on the guitar. He declares his love for Dunyasha at the wrong time, inappropriately asks thoughtful questions (“Have you read Buckle?”), inappropriately uses many words: “Only people who understand and are older can talk about this”; “and so you look, there’s something in highest degree indecent, like a cockroach”, “let me express this, you cannot exact it from me.”

The function of Charlotte's image in the play is close to the function of Epikhodov's image. Charlotte's fate is absurd and paradoxical: a German, circus actress, acrobat and magician, she ended up in Russia as a governess. Everything is uncertain, random in her life: Ranevskaya’s appearance on the estate is random, and her departure from it is also random. There are always surprises waiting for Charlotte; How her life will be determined further after the sale of the estate, she does not know, how incomprehensible the purpose and meaning of her existence are: “Everyone is alone, alone, I have no one and ... who I am, why I am - is unknown.” Loneliness, unhappiness, and confusion constitute the second, hidden basis of this comic character in the play.

It is significant in this regard that, while continuing to work on the image of Charlotte during rehearsals of the play in Art Theater, Chekhov did not preserve the previously planned additional comic episodes (tricks in Acts I, III, IV) and, on the contrary, strengthened the motive of Charlotte’s loneliness and unhappy fate: at the beginning of Act II, everything is with the words: “I really want to talk, and there’s no one with... .” to: “Why am I - it is unknown” - included by Chekhov in the final edition.

"Happy Charlotte: Singing!" - says Gaev at the end of the play. With these words, Chekhov emphasizes Gaev’s misunderstanding of Charlotte’s position and the paradoxical nature of her behavior. At a tragic moment in her life, even as if aware of her situation (“so please, find me a place. I can’t do this... I have nowhere to live in the city”), she performs tricks and sings. Serious thought, awareness of loneliness and misfortune are combined with buffoonery, buffoonery, and the circus habit of amusing.

In Charlotte’s speech there is the same bizarre combination of different styles and words: along with purely Russian ones - distorted words and constructions (“I want to sell. Does anyone want to buy?”), foreign words, paradoxical phrases (“These smart guys are all so stupid”, “You, Epikhodov, are very clever man and very scary; Women should love you madly. Brrr!..").

Chekhov gave great importance these two characters (Epikhodov and Charlotte) and was concerned that they would be correctly and interestingly interpreted in the theater. The role of Charlotte seemed to the author the most successful, and he advised the actresses Knipper and Lilina to take it, and wrote about Epikhodov that this role was short, “but the most real.” With these two comic characters, the author, in fact, helps the viewer and reader understand not only the situation in the lives of the Epikhodovs and Charlotte, but also extend to the rest of the characters the impressions that he receives from the convex, pointed image of these “klutzes”, makes him see the “wrong side” of life phenomena, to notice in some cases what is “unfunny” in the comic, in other cases to guess the funny behind the outwardly dramatic.

We understand that not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik “exist for unknown reasons.” To these idle inhabitants of ruined noble nests, living “at someone else’s expense,” Chekhov added persons not yet acting on the stage and thereby strengthened the typicality of the images. The serf-owner, the father of Ranevskaya and Gaev, corrupted by idleness, Ranevskaya’s morally lost second husband, the despotic Yaroslavl grandmother-countess, showing class arrogance (she still cannot forgive Ranevskaya that her first husband was “not a nobleman”) - all these “types,” together with Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik, “have already become obsolete.” To convince the viewer of this, according to Chekhov, neither evil satire nor contempt was needed; It was enough to make them look at them through the eyes of a person who had gone a considerable historical distance and was no longer satisfied with their living standards.

Ranevskaya and Gaev do nothing to preserve or save the estate and garden from destruction. On the contrary, it is precisely thanks to their idleness, impracticality, and carelessness that their “sacredly beloved” “nests” are ruined, their poetic beautiful cherry orchards are destroyed.

This is the price of these people’s love for their homeland. “God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly,” says Ranevskaya. Chekhov forces us to confront these words with her actions and understand that her words are impulsive, do not reflect a constant mood, depth of feeling, and are at odds with her actions. We learn that Ranevskaya left Russia five years ago, that from Paris she was “suddenly drawn to Russia” only after a catastrophe in her personal life (“there he robbed me, abandoned me, got in touch with someone else, I tried to poison myself...”). , and we see in the finale that she still leaves her homeland. No matter how much Ranevskaya regrets the cherry orchard and the estate, she soon “calmed down and became cheerful” in anticipation of leaving for Paris. On the contrary, Chekhov says throughout the entire course of the play that the idle, antisocial nature of the lives of Ranevskaya, Gaev, and Pishchik testifies to their complete oblivion of the interests of their homeland. He creates the impression that, despite all the subjectively good qualities, they are useless and even harmful, since they contribute not to creation, not to “increasing the wealth and beauty” of the homeland, but to destruction: Pischik thoughtlessly rents out a plot of land to the British for 24 years for the predatory exploitation of Russian natural resources, The magnificent cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev is dying.

Through the actions of these characters, Chekhov convinces us that we cannot trust their words, even those spoken sincerely and excitedly. “We will pay the interest, I am convinced,” Gaev bursts out without any reason, and he is already exciting himself and others with these words: “On my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! .. I swear on my happiness! Here's my hand to you, then call me a crappy, dishonest person if I allow it to the auction! I swear with all my being!” Chekhov compromises his hero in the eyes of the viewer, showing that Gaev “allows the auction” and the estate, contrary to his vows, turns out to be sold.

In Act I, Ranevskaya resolutely tears up, without reading, telegrams from Paris from the person who insulted her: “It’s over with Paris.” But in the further course of the play, Chekhov shows the instability of Ranevskaya’s reaction. In the following acts, she already reads telegrams, is inclined to reconcile, and in the finale, calmed down and cheerful, willingly returns to Paris.

Uniting these characters on the basis of kinship and social affiliation, Chekhov, however, shows both similarities and individual traits of each. At the same time, he forces the viewer not only to question the words of these characters, but also to think about the justice and depth of other people’s reviews about them. “She is good, kind, nice, I love her very much,” Gaev says about Ranevskaya. “She is a good person, an easy-going, simple person,” Lopakhin says about her and enthusiastically expresses his feelings to her: “I love you like my own... more than my own.” Anya, Varya, Pischik, Trofimov, and Firs are attracted to Ranevskaya like a magnet. She is equally kind, delicate, affectionate with both her family and adopted daughter, and with his brother, and with the “man” Lopakhin, and with the servants.

Ranevskaya is warm-hearted, emotional, her soul is open to beauty. But Chekhov will show that these qualities, combined with carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, very often (albeit regardless of Ranevskaya’s will and subjective intentions) turn into their opposite: cruelty, indifference, negligence towards people. Ranevskaya will give the last gold to a random passer-by, and at home the servants will live from hand to mouth; she will say to Firs: “Thank you, my dear,” kiss him, sympathetically and affectionately inquire about his health and... leave him, a sick, old, devoted servant, in a boarded-up house. With this final chord in the play, Chekhov deliberately compromises Ranevskaya and Gaev in the eyes of the viewer.

Gaev, like Ranevskaya, is gentle and receptive to beauty. However, Chekhov does not allow us to completely trust Anya’s words: “Everyone loves and respects you.” “How good you are, uncle, how smart.” Chekhov will show that Gaev’s gentle, gentle treatment of close people (sister, niece) is combined with class disdain for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a peasant and a boor” (by his definition), with a contemptuous and disgusting attitude towards servants (from Yasha “smells like chicken”, Firs is “tired”, etc.). We see that along with lordly sensitivity and grace, he absorbed lordly swagger, arrogance (Gaev’s word is typical: “who?”), conviction in the exclusivity of the people of his circle (“white bone”). More than Ranevskaya, he feels himself and makes others feel his position as a master and the associated advantages. And at the same time, he flirts with his closeness to the people, claims that he “knows the people,” that “the man loves him.”

Chekhov clearly makes one feel the idleness and idleness of Ranevskaya and Gaev, their habit of “living in debt, at someone else’s expense.” Ranevskaya is wasteful (“spends money”) not only because she is kind, but also because money comes easily to her. Like Gaev, she does not count on her labors and siush, but only on random help from outside: she will either receive an inheritance, or Lopakhin will lend it, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send her to pay off the debt. Therefore, we do not believe in the possibility of Gaev’s life outside the family estate, we do not believe in the prospect of the future, which captivates Gaev like a child: he is a “bank servant.” Chekhov hopes that, like Ranevskaya, who knows her brother well, the viewer will smile and say: What a financier and official he is! “Where are you! Just sit down!”

Having no idea about work, Ranevskaya and Gaev go completely into the world of intimate feelings, refined, but confused, contradictory experiences. Ranevskaya not only devoted her entire life to the joys and sufferings of love, but she attaches decisive importance to this feeling and therefore feels a surge of energy whenever she can help others experience it. She is ready to act as a mediator not only between Lopakhin and Varya, but also between Trofimov and Anya (“I would willingly give Anya for you”). Usually soft, compliant, passive, she only reacts actively once, revealing both sharpness, anger, and harshness, when Trofimov touches this world that is sacred to her and when she recognizes in him a person of a different, deeply alien nature in this regard: “In your years you need to understand those who love and you need to love yourself... you need to fall in love! (angrily). Yes Yes! And you have no purity, and you are just a clean person, a funny eccentric, a freak... “I am above love!” You are not above love, but simply, as our Firs says, you are a klutz. Don't have a mistress at your age! .."

Outside the sphere of love, Ranevskaya’s life turns out to be empty and aimless, although in her statements, frank, sincere, sometimes self-flagellation and often verbose, there is an attempt to express interest in general issues. Chekhov puts Ranevskaya in a funny position, showing how her conclusions, even her teachings, diverge from her own behavior. She reproaches Gaev for being “inappropriate” and talking a lot in the restaurant (“Why talk so much?”). She instructs those around her: “You... should look at yourself more often. How you all live in a gray way, how much you say unnecessary things.” She herself also says a lot and inappropriately. Her sensitive, enthusiastic appeals to the nursery, to the garden, to the house are quite consonant with Gaev’s appeal to the closet. Her verbose monologues, in which she tells close people her life, that is, what they have known for a long time, or exposes her feelings and experiences to them, are usually given by Chekhov either before or after she reproaches her for verbosity those around you. This is how the author brings Ranevskaya closer to Gaev, whose need to “speak out” is most clearly expressed.

Gaev’s anniversary speech in front of the closet, his farewell speech in the finale, discussions about decadents addressed to restaurant servants, generalizations about people of the 80s expressed by Anya and Varya, a word of praise to “Mother Nature” pronounced in front of a “walking company” - all it breathes inspiration, fervor, sincerity. But behind all this, Chekhov makes us see empty liberal phrase-mongering; hence in Gaev’s speech such vague, traditionally liberal expressions as: “bright ideals of goodness and justice.” The author shows the admiration of these characters for themselves, the desire to quench the insatiable thirst to express “beautiful feelings” in “beautiful words”, their focus only on their inner world, their experiences, isolation from “external” life.

Chekhov emphasizes that all these monologues, speeches, honest, disinterested, sublime, are unnecessary, pronounced “inappropriately.” He draws the viewer’s attention to this, forcing Anya and Varya to constantly, albeit gently, interrupt Gaev’s beginning rantings. The word inopportunely turns out to be the leitmotif not only for Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Inopportunely speeches are made, inopportunely they throw a ball at the very time when the estate is being sold at auction, inopportunely at the moment of departure they start an explanation between Lopakhin and Varya, etc. And not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya and Gaev turn out to be “klutzes”. Charlotte’s unexpected remarks no longer seem surprising to us: “My dog even eats nuts.” These words are no more inappropriate than the “reasonings” of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Revealing in central characters features of similarity with the “minor” comedic characters - Epikhodov and Charlotte - Chekhov subtly exposed his “noble heroes”.

The author of The Cherry Orchard achieved the same thing by bringing Ranevskaya and Gaev closer to Simeonov-Pishchik, another comedic character in the play. The landowner Simeonov-Pishchik is also kind, gentle, sensitive, impeccably honest, childishly trusting, but he is also inactive, a “klutz.” His estate is also on the verge of destruction and the plans for preserving it, just like those of Gaev and Ranevskaya, are not viable, they feel calculated on chance: his daughter Dashenka will win, someone will give him a loan, etc.

Giving Pischik another option in his fate: he is saving himself from ruin, his estate is not yet being sold at auction. Chekhov emphasizes both the temporary nature of this relative well-being and its unstable source, which does not at all depend on Pishchik himself, i.e., he emphasizes even more the historical doom of the owners of noble estates. In the image of Pishchik, the isolation of the nobles from “external” life, their limitations, and emptiness are even clearer. Chekhov deprived him of even his external cultural gloss. Pishchik’s speech, reflecting the wretchedness of his inner world, is subtly mockingly brought closer by Chekhov to the speech of other noble characters and, thus, the tongue-tied Pishchik is equated with the eloquent Gaev. Pishchik’s speech is also emotional, but these emotions also only cover up the lack of content (it’s not for nothing that Pishchik himself falls asleep and snores during his “speeches”). Pishchik constantly uses epithets in the superlative degree: “a man of enormous intelligence”, “most worthy”, “greatest”, “most wonderful”, “most respectable”, etc. The poverty of emotions is revealed primarily in the fact that these epithets apply equally to Lopakhin , and to Nietzsche, and to Ranevskaya, and to Charlotte, and to the weather. Gaev’s exaggerated “emotional” speeches, addressed to the closet, to sex, to Mother Nature, are neither give nor take. Pishchik's speech is also monotonous. “Just think!” - with these words Pishchik reacts to both Charlotte’s tricks and philosophical theories. His actions and words also turn out to be inappropriate. Inopportunely, he interrupts Lopakhin’s serious warnings about the sale of the estate with questions: “What’s in Paris? How? Did you eat frogs? Inopportunely asks Ranevskaya for a loan of money when the fate of the owners of the cherry orchard is being decided, inopportunely, obsessively constantly refers to the words of his daughter Dashenka, unclearly, vaguely, conveying their meaning.

Strengthening the comedic nature of this character in the play, Chekhov, in the process of working on him, additionally introduced episodes and words into the first act that created a comic effect: an episode with pills, a conversation about frogs.

Denouncing the ruling class - the nobility - Chekhov persistently thinks for himself and makes the viewer think about the people. This is the strength of Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard. We feel that the author has such a negative attitude towards the idleness and idle talk of the Ranevskys, Gaevs, Simeonovs-Pishchikovs, because he guesses the connection of all this with the difficult situation of the people, and defends the interests of the broad masses of working people. It was not for nothing that the censorship at one time removed from the play: “The workers eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, thirty or forty in one room, there are bedbugs and stench everywhere.” “To own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you are living in debt, at the expense of others, at the expense of those people whom you do not allow further than the front."

In comparison with Chekhov’s previous plays, in The Cherry Orchard the theme of the people is much stronger, and it is clearer that the author denounces the “lords of life” in the name of the people. But the people here are mainly “off-stage”.

Without making the working man either an open commentator or a positive hero of the play, Chekhov, however, sought to provoke thought about him, about his situation, and this is the undoubted progressiveness of The Cherry Orchard. The constant mentions of the people in the play, the images of servants, especially Firs, acting on stage, make you think.

Showing only just before his death a glimpse of consciousness in the slave Firs, Chekhov deeply sympathizes with him and gently reproaches him: “Life has passed, as if you had never lived... You don’t have Silushka, there’s nothing left, nothing... "Eh, you... klutz."

IN tragic fate Firsa Chekhov blames his masters even more than he himself. He speaks of the tragic fate of Firs not as a manifestation of the evil will of his masters. Moreover, Chekhov shows that good people - the inhabitants of the noble nest - even seem to care that the sick servant Firs is sent to the hospital. - “They sent Firs to the hospital?” - “Have they taken Firs to the hospital?” - “Have they taken Firs to the hospital?” - “Mom, Firs has already been sent to the hospital.” Outwardly, the culprit turns out to be Yasha, who answered the question about Firs in the affirmative, as if he had misled those around him.

Firs was left in a boarded-up house - this fact can also be considered as a tragic accident for which no one is to blame. And Yasha could be sincerely confident that the order to send Firs to the hospital had been carried out. But Chekhov makes us understand that this “accident” is natural, it is an everyday phenomenon in the lives of the frivolous Ranevskys and Gaevs, who are not deeply concerned about the fate of their servants. In the end, the circumstances would have changed little if Firs had been sent to the hospital: all the same, he would have died, lonely, forgotten, far from the people to whom he gave his life.

There is a hint in the play that Firs' fate is not unique. The life and death of the old nanny and servants Anastasius were just as inglorious and also passed by the consciousness of their masters. The soft, loving Ranevskaya, with her characteristic frivolity, does not react at all to the message about the death of Anastasia, about leaving the estate for the city of Petrushka Kosoy. And the death of the nanny did not make a big impression on her, not one kind words she doesn't remember her. We can imagine that Ranevskaya will respond to the death of Firs with the same insignificant, vague words with which she responded to the death of her nanny: “Yes, the kingdom of heaven. They wrote to me."

Meanwhile, Chekhov makes us understand that remarkable possibilities are hidden in Firs: high morality, selfless love, folk wisdom. Throughout the play, among idle, inactive people, he - an 87-year-old old man - is shown alone as an eternally preoccupied, troublesome worker (“alone for the whole house”).

Following his principle of individualizing the speech of the characters, Chekhov gave the words of the old man Firs, for the most part, a fatherly, caring and grumpy intonation. Avoiding pseudo-folk expressions, without abusing dialectisms (“lackeys should speak simply, without let and without now” vol. XIV, p. 362), the author endowed Firs with pure folk speech, which is not devoid of specific words characteristic only of him: “klutz” , "to pieces."

Gaev and Ranevskaya pronounce long, coherent, sublime or sensitive monologues, and these “speeches” turn out to be “inappropriate.” Firs, on the other hand, mutters incomprehensible words that seem incomprehensible to others, which no one listens to, but it is his words that the author uses as apt words reflecting the experience of life, the wisdom of a person from the people. Firs's word "klutz" is heard many times in the play; it characterizes all the characters. The word “in pieces” (“now everything is in pieces, you won’t understand anything”) indicates the nature of post-reform life in Russia. It defines the relationships between people in the play, the alienation of their interests, and misunderstanding of each other. The specificity of the dialogue in the play is also connected with this: everyone talks about his own, usually without listening, without thinking about what his interlocutor said:

Dunyasha: And to me, Ermolai Alekseich, I must admit, Epikhodov made an offer.

Lopakhin: Ah!

Dunyasha: I don’t know how... He’s an unhappy person, something happens every day. They tease him like that: twenty-two misfortunes...

Lopakhin (listens): Looks like they’re coming...

For the most part, the words of one character are interrupted by the words of others, leading away from the thought just expressed.

Chekhov often uses the words of Firs to show the movement of life and the loss at the present time of the former strength, the former power of the nobles as a privileged class: “Before, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, but now we send for the postal official and the station master, and even those They’re not going out to hunt.”

Firs, with his every minute concern for Gaev as a helpless child, destroys the viewer’s illusions that might arise based on Gaev’s words about his future as a “bank official”, “financier”. Chekhov wants to leave the viewer with the consciousness of the impossibility of reviving these unworking people to any kind of activity. Therefore, Gaev has only to utter the words: “They are offering me a place in the bank. Six thousand a year...”, as Chekhov reminds the viewer of Gaev’s lack of viability, his helplessness. Firs appears. He brings a coat: “If you please, sir, put it on, it’s damp.”

By showing other servants in the play: Dunyasha, Yasha, Chekhov also denounces the “noble” landowners. He makes the viewer understand the pernicious influence of the Ranevskys and Gaevs on people in the working environment. The atmosphere of idleness and frivolity has a detrimental effect on Dunyasha. From the gentlemen she learned sensitivity, hypertrophied attention to her “delicate feelings” and experiences, “refinement”... She dresses like a young lady, is absorbed in issues of love, constantly listens warily to her “refined-tender” organization: “I have become anxious, I’m still worried... She has become tender, so delicate, noble, I’m afraid of everything...” “My hands are shaking.” “The cigar gave me a headache.” “It’s a little damp in here.” “Dancing makes you dizzy, your heart beats,” etc. Like her masters, she developed a passion for “beautiful” words, for “beautiful” feelings: “He loves me madly,” “I fell in love with you passionately.”

Dunyasha, like her masters, does not have the ability to understand people. Epikhodov seduces her with sensitive, albeit incomprehensible, words, Yasha with “education” and the ability to “reason about everything.” Chekhov exposes the absurd comedy of such a conclusion about Yasha, for example, by forcing Dunyasha to express this conclusion between two of Yasha’s remarks, testifying to Yasha’s ignorance, narrow-mindedness and inability to think, reason and act at all logically:

Yasha (kisses her): Cucumber! Of course, every girl must remember herself, and what I don’t like most is if a girl has bad behavior... In my opinion, it’s like this: if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral...

Like her masters, Dunyasha speaks inappropriately and acts inappropriately. She often says about herself what people, like Ranevskaya and Gaev, think about themselves and even let others feel, but do not directly express in words. And this creates a comic effect: “I’m such a delicate girl, I love her terribly.” tender words" In the final version, Chekhov strengthened these features in the image of Dunyasha. He added: “I’m going to faint.” “Everything went cold.” “I don’t know what will happen to my nerves.” "Now leave me alone, now I'm dreaming." "I am a gentle creature."

Chekhov attached great importance to the image of Dunyasha and was worried about the correct interpretation of this role in the theater: “Tell the actress playing the maid Dunyasha to read The Cherry Orchard in the Knowledge edition or in proof; there she will see where she needs to powder, and so on. and so on. Let him read it without fail: everything in your notebooks is mixed up and smeared.” The author makes us think more deeply about the fate of this comic character and see that this fate, in essence, also by the grace of the “masters of life,” is tragic. Cut off from her working environment (“I’m unaccustomed to simple life”), Dunyasha lost her ground (“she doesn’t remember herself”), but did not acquire a new support in life. Her future is predicted in the words of Firs: “You will spin.”

Chekhov also shows the destructive impact of the world of the Ranevskys, Gaevs, Pischikov in the image of the lackey Yasha. Witnessing the easy, carefree and vicious life of Ranevskaya in Paris, he is infected with indifference to his homeland, people and a constant desire for pleasure. Yasha expresses more directly, sharply, more rudely what, in essence, is the meaning of Ranevskaya’s actions: the attraction to Paris, the careless and contemptuous attitude towards the “uneducated country”, “ignorant people”. He, like Ranevskaya, is bored in Russia (“yawns” is the author’s insistent remark for Yasha). Chekhov makes it clear to us that Yasha was corrupted by Ranevskaya’s careless recklessness. Yasha robs her, lies to her and others. An example of Ranevskaya's easy life, her mismanagement developed in Yasha claims and desires beyond his capabilities: he drinks champagne, smokes cigars, orders expensive dishes in a restaurant. Yasha’s intelligence is just enough to adapt to Ranevskaya and take advantage of her weaknesses for personal gain. Outwardly, he remains devoted to her and behaves politely and helpfully. He adopted a “well-mannered” tone and words when dealing with a certain circle of people: “I can’t disagree with you,” “let me make a request to you.” Valuing her position, Yasha strives to create a better impression of herself than she deserves, she is afraid of losing Ranevskaya’s trust (hence the author’s remarks: “looks around”, “listens”). Hearing, for example, that “the gentlemen are coming,” he sends Dunyasha home, “otherwise they will meet and think of me as if I’m on a date with you. I can’t stand it.”

Chekhov thus simultaneously exposes both the deceitful lackey Yasha and the gullible, thoughtless Ranevskaya, who keeps him close to her. Chekhov blames not only him, but also the masters, for the fact that Yasha found himself in the absurd position of a man who “does not remember his kinship” and who has lost his environment. For Yasha, who is removed from his native element, men, servants, and a peasant mother are already people of a “lower order”; he is harsh or selfishly indifferent towards them.

Yasha is infected by his masters with a passion to philosophize, to “speak out,” and, like them, his words are at odds with his life practice, with his behavior (relationship with Dunyasha).

A.P. Chekhov saw in life and reproduced in the play another version of the fate of a man from the people. We learn that Lopakhin’s father, a peasant, a serf, who was also not even allowed into the kitchen, after the reform he “made it into the people,” became rich, became a shopkeeper, an exploiter of the people.

In the play, Chekhov shows his son - a bourgeois new formation. This is no longer a “grimy”, not a tyrant merchant, despotic, rude, like his father. Chekhov specifically warned the actors: “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he must behave quite decently, intelligently.” “Lopakhin should not be played as a loudmouth... He is a gentle person.”

While working on the play, Chekhov even enhanced the features of gentleness and external “decency, intelligence” in the image of Lopakhin. Thus, he included in the final edition Lopakhin’s lyrical words addressed to Ranevskaya: “I would like... for your amazing, touching eyes to look at me as before.” Chekhov added to the description given to Lopakhin by Trofimov the words: “After all, I still love you. You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have a subtle, gentle soul...”

In Lopakhin’s speech, Chekhov emphasizes sharp, commanding and didactic intonations when he addresses the servants: “Leave me alone. I'm tired of it." “Bring me some kvass.” “We must remember ourselves.” In Lopakhin’s speech, Chekhov crosses various elements: it senses both the life practice of Lopakhin the merchant (“he gave forty”, “the least”, “net income”) and peasant origin (“if”, “that’s it”, “played the fool”, “to tear his nose”, “with a pig’s snout in a row of guns”, “hanging out with you”, “was drunk”), and the influence of lordly, pathetically sensitive speech: “I think: “Lord, you gave us... vast fields , the deepest horizons...” “I just wish that you would still believe me, that your amazing, touching eyes would look at me as before.” Lopakhin's speech takes on different shades depending on his attitude towards the listeners, towards the very subject of the conversation, depending on his state of mind. Lopakhin speaks seriously and excitedly about the possibility of selling the estate, warns the owners of the cherry orchard; his speech at this moment is simple, correct, clear. But Chekhov shows that Lopakhin, feeling his strength, even his superiority over the frivolous, impractical nobles, is a little flirtatious with his democracy, deliberately contaminates book expressions (“a figment of your imagination, covered in the darkness of the unknown”), and deliberately distorts the grammatical and stylistic forms perfectly known to him. By this, Lopakhin simultaneously ironizes those who “seriously” use these cliched or incorrect words and phrases. So, for example, along with the word: “farewell,” Lopakhin says “goodbye” several times; along with the word “enormous” (“Lord, you gave us enormous forests”) he pronounces “enormous” - (“the cone, however, will jump up huge”), and the name Ophelia is probably deliberately distorted by Lopakhin, who memorized Shakespeare’s text and almost who paid attention to the sound of Ophelia’s words: “Ophmelia, O nymph, remember me in your prayers.” “Okhmelia, go to the monastery.”

When creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov experienced certain difficulties, understanding possible censorship attacks: “I was mainly frightened by ... the unfinished state of the student Trofimov. After all, Trofimov is constantly in exile, he is constantly expelled from the university, but how do you portray these things? In fact, student Trofimov appeared before the viewer at a time when the public was agitated by student “unrest.” Chekhov and his contemporaries witnessed the fierce but inconclusive struggle waged against the “disobedient citizens” for several years by “... the Russian government... with the help of its numerous troops, police and gendarmes.”

In the image of the “eternal student” commoner, the son of a doctor - Trofimov, Chekhov showed the superiority of democracy over the noble-bourgeois “lordship”. Chekhov contrasts the antisocial, anti-patriotic idle life of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pischik, and the destructive “activity” of the acquirer-owner Lopakhin with the search for social truth by Trofimov, who fervently believes in the triumph of a just social life in the near future. When creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov wanted to preserve a measure of historical justice. Therefore, on the one hand, he opposed the conservative noble circles, which saw modern democratic intellectuals as immoral, mercantile, ignorant “grimy”, “cook’s children” (see the image of the reactionary Rashevich in the story “On the Estate”); on the other hand, Chekhov wanted to avoid idealizing Trofimov, since he perceived a certain limitation of the Trofimovs in creating a new life.

In accordance with this, the democratic student Trofimov is shown in the play as a man of exceptional honesty and selflessness; he is not constrained by established traditions and prejudices, mercantile interests, or an addiction to money and property. Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but categorically refuses to “live at someone else’s expense” or borrow money. Trofimov’s observations and generalizations are broad, intelligent and objectively fair: nobles “live in debt, at someone else’s expense”, temporary “masters”, “ beasts of prey"- the bourgeois are making limited plans for the reconstruction of life, the intellectuals are doing nothing, are not looking for anything, the workers live badly, “they eat disgustingly, sleep... thirty or forty in one room.” Trofimov’s principles (work, live for the sake of the future) are progressive and altruistic; His role - as a herald of the new, as an educator - should evoke the respect of the viewer.

But with all this, Chekhov shows in Trofimov some traits of limitation and inferiority, and the author finds in him the traits of a “klutz” that brings Trofimov closer to other characters in the play. The breath of the world of Ranevskaya and Gaev also affects Trofimov, despite the fact that he fundamentally does not accept their way of life and is confident in the hopelessness of their situation: “there is no going back.” Trofimov speaks indignantly about idleness, “philosophizing” (“We only philosophize,” “I’m afraid of serious conversations”), and he himself also does little, talks a lot, loves teachings, ringing phrases. In Act II, Chekhov forces Trofimov to refuse to continue the idle, abstract “yesterday’s conversation” about a “proud man,” while in Act IV he forces Trofimov to call himself a proud man. Chekhov shows that Trofimov is not active in life, that his existence is subject to elemental forces (“fate drives him”), and he himself unreasonably denies himself even personal happiness.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard” this does not happen positive hero, which would be fully consistent with the pre-revolutionary era. The time required a writer-propagandist whose loud voice would sound both in open denunciation and in the positive beginning of his works. Chekhov's distance from the revolutionary struggle muffled his authorial voice, softened his satire, and was expressed in the lack of specificity of his positive ideals.