Why is the main event of the play the sale of the cherry orchard? Characteristics of the play “The Cherry Orchard”, analysis of the comedy

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

The play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903) is the last work of A.P. Chekhov, completing his creative biography.

The action of the play, as the author reports with the very first remark, takes place on the estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, on an estate with a cherry orchard, surrounded by poplars, with a long alley that “goes straight, straight, like an outstretched belt” and “glitters on moonlit nights.”

Ranevskaya and her brother Leonid Andreevich Gaev are the owners of the estate. But they brought him down with their frivolity, complete misunderstanding real life to a pitiful state: it is to be sold at auction. The rich peasant son, merchant Lopakhin, a friend of the family, warns the owners about the impending disaster, offers them his rescue projects, encourages them to think about the impending disaster. But Ranevskaya and Gaev live with illusory ideas. Gaev is rushing around with fantastic projects. Both of them shed many tears over the loss of their cherry orchard, without which, as it seems to them, they cannot live. But things go on as usual, auctions take place, and Lopakhin himself buys the estate. When the disaster is over, it turns out that no special drama seems to be happening for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Lyubov Andreevna returns to Paris, to her absurd “love”, to which she would have returned anyway, despite all her words that she cannot live without her homeland. Leonid Andreevich also comes to terms with what happened. The “terrible drama” does not turn out to be so difficult for its heroes for the simple reason that they cannot have anything serious, nothing dramatic at all. This is the comedic, satirical basis of the play. The way in which Chekhov emphasized the illusory, frivolous nature of the world of the Gaev-Ranevskys is interesting. He surrounds these central characters comedies with characters that reflect the comic worthlessness of the main figures. The figures of Charlotte, the clerk Epikhodov, the footman Yasha, and the maid Dunyasha are caricatures of “gentlemen.”

In the lonely, absurd, unnecessary fate of the hanger-on Charlotte Ivanovna, there is a similarity with the absurd, unnecessary fate of Ranevskaya. Both of them regard themselves as something incomprehensibly unnecessary, strange, and both of them see life as foggy, unclear, somehow illusory. Like Charlotte, Ranevskaya also “everyone thinks she’s young,” and Ranevskaya lives like a hanger-on during her lifetime, not understanding anything about her.

The buffoonish figure of Epikhodov is remarkable. With his “twenty-two misfortunes”, he also represents a caricature - of Gaev, and of the landowner Simeonov-Pishchik, and even of Petya Trofimov. Epikhodov is a “klutz,” using old man Firs’ favorite saying. One of Chekhov’s contemporary critics correctly pointed out that “The Cherry Orchard” is “a play by klutzes.” Epikhodov focuses on this theme of the play. He is the soul of all “incompetence.” After all, both Gaev and Simeonov-Pishchik also have constant “twenty-two misfortunes”; like Epikhodov, nothing comes of all their intentions; comic failures haunt them at every step.

Simeonov-Pishchik, constantly on the verge of complete bankruptcy and, out of breath, running around to all his acquaintances asking for a loan of money, also represents “twenty-two misfortunes.” Boris Borisovich is a man “living on debt,” as Petya Trofimov says about Gaev and Ranevskaya; these people live at someone else's expense - at the expense of the people.

Petya Trofimov is not one of the advanced, skillful, strong fighters for future happiness. In his entire appearance one can feel the contradiction between the strength, scope of the dream and the weakness of the dreamer, characteristic of some Chekhov's heroes. “The eternal student,” “the shabby gentleman,” Petya Trofimov is pure, sweet, but eccentric and not strong enough for the great struggle. He has the traits of “klutziness” that are characteristic of almost all the characters in this play. But everything that he says to Anya is dear and close to Chekhov.

Anya is only seventeen years old. And youth for Chekhov is not only a biographical and age sign. He wrote: “... That youth can be accepted as healthy, which does not put up with the old orders and fights against them stupidly or intelligently - that’s what nature wants and progress is based on this.”

Chekhov does not have “villains” and “angels”; he does not even differentiate heroes into positive and negative. In his works there are often “good bad” heroes. Such principles of typology, unusual for previous dramaturgy, lead to the appearance in the play of characters that combine contradictory, and moreover, mutually exclusive traits and properties.

Ranevskaya is impractical, selfish, she is shallow and has gone her own way. love interest, but she is also kind, responsive, and her sense of beauty does not fade. Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya, expresses genuine sympathy for her, and shares her passion for the beauty of the cherry orchard. Chekhov emphasized in letters related to the production of “The Cherry Orchard”: “Lopakhin’s role is central... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... This soft man... a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently, not petty, without tricks.” But this gentle man is a predator. Petya Trofimov explains to Lopakhin his purpose in life: “Just as in the sense of metabolism a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that gets in its way, so you are needed.” And this soft, decent one, intelligent person"eats" the cherry orchard...

The Cherry Orchard appears in the play as the personification of beauty. creative life, and the “judge” of the characters. Their attitude towards the garden as the highest beauty and determination are the author’s measure of the moral dignity of this or that hero.

Ranevskaya was not able to save the orchard from destruction, and not because she was unable to turn the cherry orchard into a commercial, profitable one, as it was 40-50 years ago... Her mental strength, absorbed energy love passion, drowning out her natural responsiveness to the joys and troubles of those around her, making her indifferent to the ultimate fate of the cherry orchard and to the fate of loved ones. Ranevskaya turned out to be lower than the idea of ​​the Cherry Orchard, she betrays it.

This is precisely the meaning of her recognition that she cannot live without the man who abandoned her in Paris: not the garden, not the estate is the focus of her innermost thoughts, hopes and aspirations. Lopakhin also does not rise to the idea of ​​the Cherry Orchard. He sympathizes and worries, but he is only concerned about the fate of the owner of the orchard; in the entrepreneur’s plans, the cherry orchard itself is doomed to destruction. It is Lopakhin who brings to its logical conclusion the action that develops in its climactic inconsistency: “Silence sets in, and you can only hear how far in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

I.A. Bunin blamed Chekhov for his “The Cherry Orchard,” since nowhere in Russia there were all cherry orchards, but rather mixed ones. But Chekhov's garden- not a concrete reality, but a symbol of a fleeting and at the same time eternal life. His garden is one of the most complex symbols of Russian literature. The modest radiance of cherry blossoms is a symbol of youth and beauty; Describing a bride in a wedding dress in one of his stories, Chekhov compared her to a cherry tree in blossom. The cherry tree is a symbol of beauty, kindness, humanity, confidence in the future; this symbol contains only positive meaning and does not have any negative meanings.

Chekhov's symbols have been transformed ancient genre comedies; it had to be staged, played and watched completely differently from the way the comedies of Shakespeare, Moliere or Fonvizin were staged.

The cherry orchard in this play is least of all a setting against which the characters philosophize, dream, and quarrel. The garden is the personification of the value and meaning of life on earth, where each new day branches off from the past, like young shoots coming from old trunks and roots.

The play "The Cherry Orchard" - the last dramatic work, in which Anton Pavlovich Chekhov pays tribute to his time, the nobles and such a broad concept as “estate”, so valued by the author at all times.

Genre "The Cherry Orchard" has always served as a reason for controversy and gossip. Chekhov himself wished to attribute the play to comedy genre, thereby going against critics and connoisseurs of literature, who loudly convinced everyone that the work belonged to tragicomedy and drama. Thus, Anton Pavlovich gave readers the opportunity to judge his creation for themselves, to observe and experience the variety of genres presented on the pages of the book.

The leitmotif of all scenes The cherry orchard serves in the play, because it is not just a backdrop against which it happens whole line events, but also a symbol of the course of life in the estate. Throughout his career, the author gravitated toward symbolism, and did not sacrifice it in this play. It is against the backdrop of the cherry orchard that both external and internal conflicts develop.

The reader (or viewer) sees successive owners of the house, as well as the sale of the estate for debts. Upon a quick reading, it is noticeable that all the opposing forces are represented in the play: youth, noble Russia and aspiring entrepreneurs. Of course, social confrontation, often taken as the main line of conflict, is obvious. However, more attentive readers may notice that the key reason for the clash is not social confrontation at all, but the conflict of key characters with their environment and reality.

"Underwater" current of the play no less interesting than its main plot. Chekhov builds his narrative on halftones, where, among unambiguous and indisputable events, perceived as fact and for granted, existential questions appear from time to time, emerging throughout the play. “Who am I and what do I want?” Firs, Epikhodov, Charlotte Ivanovna and many other heroes ask themselves. Thus, it becomes obvious that the leading motive of “The Cherry Orchard” is not at all the confrontation of social strata, but the loneliness that haunts each hero throughout his life.

Teffi described “The Cherry Orchard” with only one saying: “Laughter through tears,” analyzing it immortal work. It’s both funny and sad to read it, realizing that both conflicts raised by the author are relevant to this day.
************************************************
the sub-topic can be divided into the past - these are Gaev and Ranevskaya, who do not know how to navigate life at all, the present is Ermolai Lopakhin the merchant, he knows what is needed, does everything prudently, and the future is Anya and Petya Trofimov, “humanity is moving towards higher truth and I’m in the forefront” his quote. Russia is our garden.. and at the end “all you can hear is an ax hitting the trees..” that is, the garden was destroyed and no one could manage it correctly.
*******************************************

The Cherry Orchard 1903 Brief summary of the comedy

The estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. Spring, cherry trees are blooming. But the beautiful garden will soon have to be sold for debts. For the last five years, Ranevskaya and her seventeen year old daughter Anya lived abroad. Ranevskaya’s brother Leonid Andreevich Gaev and her adopted daughter, twenty-four-year-old Varya, remained on the estate. Things are bad for Ranevskaya, there are almost no funds left. Lyubov Andreevna always squandered money. Six years ago, her husband died from drunkenness. Ranevskaya fell in love with another person and got along with him. But soon he died tragically, drowning in the river, her little son Grisha. Lyubov Andreevna, unable to bear the grief, fled abroad. The lover followed her. When he fell ill, Ranevskaya had to settle him at her dacha near Menton and look after him for three years. And then, when he had to sell his dacha for debts and move to Paris, he robbed and abandoned Ranevskaya.

Gaev and Varya meet Lyubov Andreevna and Anya at the station. The maid Dunyasha and the merchant Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin are waiting for them at home. Lopakhin's father was a serf of the Ranevskys, he himself became rich, but says of himself that he remained a “man a man.” The clerk Epikhodov comes, a man with whom something constantly happens and who is nicknamed “twenty-two misfortunes.”

Finally the carriages arrive. The house is filled with people, everyone is in pleasant excitement. Everyone talks about their own things. Lyubov Andreevna looks at the rooms and through tears of joy remembers the past. The maid Dunyasha can’t wait to tell the young lady that Epikhodov proposed to her. Anya herself advises Varya to marry Lopakhin, and Varya dreams of marrying Anya to a rich man. The governess Charlotte Ivanovna, a strange and eccentric person, boasts about her amazing dog; the neighbor, the landowner Simeonov-Pishchik, asks for a loan of money. The old faithful servant Firs hears almost nothing and mutters something all the time.

Lopakhin reminds Ranevskaya that the estate should soon be sold at auction, the only way out is to divide the land into plots and rent them out to summer residents. Ranevskaya is surprised by Lopakhin’s proposal: how can her beloved wonderful cherry orchard be cut down! Lopakhin wants to stay longer with Ranevskaya, whom he loves “more than his own,” but it’s time for him to leave. Gaev makes a welcoming speech to the hundred-year-old “respected” cabinet, but then, embarrassed, he again begins to meaninglessly utter his favorite billiard words.

Ranevskaya does not immediately recognize Petya Trofimov: so he has changed, turned ugly, the “dear student” has turned into an “eternal student.” Lyubov Andreevna cries, remembering her little drowned son Grisha, whose teacher was Trofimov.

Gaev, left alone with Varya, tries to talk about business. There is a rich aunt in Yaroslavl, who, however, does not love them: after all, Lyubov Andreevna did not marry a nobleman, and she did not behave “very virtuously.” Gaev loves his sister, but still calls her “vicious,” which displeases Anya. Gaev continues to build projects: his sister will ask Lopakhin for money, Anya will go to Yaroslavl - in a word, they will not allow the estate to be sold, Gaev even swears by it. The grumpy Firs finally takes the master, like a child, to bed. Anya is calm and happy: her uncle will arrange everything.

Lopakhin never ceases to persuade Ranevskaya and Gaev to accept his plan. The three of them had breakfast in the city and, on their way back, stopped in a field near the chapel. Just now, here, on the same bench, Epikhodov tried to explain himself to Dunyasha, but she had already preferred the young cynical lackey Yasha to him. Ranevskaya and Gaev don’t seem to hear Lopakhin and are talking about completely different things. Without convincing the “frivolous, unbusinesslike, strange” people of anything, Lopakhin wants to leave. Ranevskaya asks him to stay: “it’s still more fun” with him.

Anya, Varya and Petya Trofimov arrive. Ranevskaya starts a conversation about “ proud man" According to Trofimov, there is no point in pride: a rude, unhappy person should not admire himself, but work. Petya condemns the intelligentsia, who are incapable of work, those people who philosophize importantly, and treat men like animals. Lopakhin enters the conversation: he works “from morning to evening”, dealing with large capitals, but he is becoming more and more convinced how little there is around him. decent people. Lopakhin doesn’t finish speaking, Ranevskaya interrupts him. In general, everyone here does not want and does not know how to listen to each other. There is silence, in which the distant sad sound of a broken string can be heard.

Soon everyone disperses. Left alone, Anya and Trofimov are glad to have the opportunity to talk together, without Varya. Trofimov convinces Anya that one must be “above love”, that the main thing is freedom: “all of Russia is our garden,” but in order to live in the present, one must first atone for the past through suffering and labor. Happiness is close: if not they, then others will definitely see it.

The twenty-second of August arrives, trading day. It was on this evening, completely inappropriately, that a ball was being held at the estate, and a Jewish orchestra was invited. Once upon a time, generals and barons danced here, but now, as Firs complains, both the postal official and the station master “don’t like to go.” Charlotte Ivanovna entertains guests with her tricks. Ranevskaya anxiously awaits her brother's return. The Yaroslavl aunt nevertheless sent fifteen thousand, but it was not enough to redeem the estate.

Petya Trofimov “calms” Ranevskaya: it’s not about the garden, it’s over long ago, we need to face the truth. Lyubov Andreevna asks not to judge her, to have pity: after all, without cherry orchard her life loses meaning. Every day Ranevskaya receives telegrams from Paris. At first she tore them right away, then - after reading them first, now she no longer tears them. "This wild man", whom she still loves, begs her to come. Petya condemns Ranevskaya for her love for “a petty scoundrel, a nonentity.” Angry Ranevskaya, unable to restrain herself, takes revenge on Trofimov, calling him a “funny eccentric”, “freak”, “neat”: “You have to love yourself... you have to fall in love!” Petya tries to leave in horror, but then stays and dances with Ranevskaya, who asked him for forgiveness.

Finally, a confused, joyful Lopakhin and a tired Gaev appear, who, without saying anything, immediately goes home. The Cherry Orchard was sold, and Lopakhin bought it. The “new landowner” is happy: he managed to outbid the rich man Deriganov at the auction, giving ninety thousand on top of his debt. Lopakhin picks up the keys thrown on the floor by the proud Varya. Let the music play, let everyone see how Ermolai Lopakhin “takes an ax to the cherry orchard”!

Anya consoles her crying mother: the garden is sold, but there is more to come whole life. Will new garden, more luxurious than this, “quiet, deep joy” awaits them...

The house is empty. Its inhabitants, having said goodbye to each other, leave. Lopakhin is going to Kharkov for the winter, Trofimov is returning to Moscow, to the university. Lopakhin and Petya exchange barbs. Although Trofimov calls Lopakhin a “beast of prey,” necessary “in the sense of metabolism,” he still loves in him “tender, subtle soul" Lopakhin offers Trofimov money for the trip. He refuses: over " a free man", "in the forefront of moving" to the "highest happiness", no one should have power.

Ranevskaya and Gaev even became happier after selling the cherry orchard. Previously they were worried and suffered, but now they have calmed down. Ranevskaya is going to live in Paris for now with money sent by her aunt. Anya is inspired: a new life is beginning - she will graduate from high school, will work, read books, a “new wonderful world" Suddenly, out of breath, Simeonov-Pishchik appears and instead of asking for money, on the contrary, he gives away debts. It turned out that the British found white clay on his land.

Everyone settled down differently. Gaev says that now he is a bank employee. Lopakhin promises to find a new place for Charlotte, Varya got a job as a housekeeper for the Ragulins, Epikhodov, hired by Lopakhin, remains on the estate, Firs should be sent to the hospital. But still Gaev sadly says: “Everyone is abandoning us... we suddenly became unnecessary.”

There must finally be an explanation between Varya and Lopakhin. Varya has been teased as “Madame Lopakhina” for a long time. Varya likes Ermolai Alekseevich, but she herself cannot propose. Lopakhin, who also speaks highly of Varya, agrees to “end this matter right away.” But when Ranevskaya arranges their meeting, Lopakhin, having never made up his mind, leaves Varya, taking advantage of the first pretext.

“It's time to go! On the road! - With these words they leave the house, locking all the doors. All that remains is old Firs, whom everyone seemed to care about, but whom they forgot to send to the hospital. Firs, sighing that Leonid Andreevich went in a coat and not a fur coat, lies down to rest and lies motionless. The same sound of a broken string is heard. “Silence falls, and you can only hear how far away in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

Retold . Source: All the masterpieces of world literature in summary. Plots and characters. Russian literature XIX century / Ed. and comp. V. I. Novikov. - M.: Olympus: ACT, 1996. - 832 p. On the cover:

******************************************************************************
"The Cherry Orchard" - last piece A.P. Chekhov. The writer was terminally ill when he wrote this play. He realized that he would soon pass away, and this is probably why the whole play is filled with some kind of quiet sadness and tenderness. This is the great writer’s farewell to everything that was dear to him: to the people, to Russia, whose fate worried him until last minute. Probably, at such a moment, a person thinks about everything: about the past - he remembers all the most important things and takes stock - as well as about the present and future of those whom he leaves on this earth. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” it is as if a meeting of the past, present and future took place. It seems that the heroes of the play belong to three different eras: some live in yesterday and are absorbed in memories of bygone times, others are busy with momentary affairs and strive to benefit from everything they have. this moment, and still others turn their gaze far ahead, not taking into account real events.
Thus, the past, present and future do not merge into one whole: they exist according to piecework and sort out their relationships with each other.
Prominent representatives of the past are Gaev and Ranevskaya. Chekhov pays tribute to the education and sophistication of the Russian nobility. Both Gaev and Ranevskaya know how to appreciate beauty. They find the most poetic words to express their feelings towards everything that surrounds them, be it an old house, favorite garden, in a word, everything that is dear to them
since childhood. They even address the closet as if they were an old friend: “Dear, dear closet! I greet your existence, which for more than a hundred years has been directed towards the bright ideals of goodness and justice...” Ranevskaya, finding herself at home after a five-year separation, is ready to kiss every thing that reminds her of her childhood and youth. For her, home is a living person, a witness to all her joys and sorrows. Ranevskaya has absolutely special treatment to the garden - it seems to personify all the best and brightest things that happened in her life, it is part of her soul. Looking at the garden through the window, she exclaims: “Oh my childhood, my purity! I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then he was exactly the same, nothing has changed.” Ranevskaya's life was not easy: she lost her husband early, and soon after that her seven-year-old son died. The man with whom she tried to connect her life turned out to be unworthy - he cheated on her and squandered her money. But returning home for her is like falling to life-giving source: She feels young and happy again. All the pain boiling in her soul and the joy of the meeting are expressed in her address to the garden: “Oh my garden! After a dark stormy autumn and cold winter again you are young, full of happiness, the angels have not abandoned you...” For Ranevskaya, the garden is closely connected with the image of her late mother - she directly sees her mother in a white dress walking through the garden.
Neither Gaev nor Ranevskaya can allow their estate to be rented out to summer residents. They consider this very idea vulgar, but at the same time they do not want to face reality: the day of the auction is approaching, and the estate will be sold under the hammer. Gaev shows complete immaturity in this matter (the remark “Puts a lollipop in his mouth” seems to confirm this): “We will pay the interest, I am convinced...” Where does he get such conviction from? Who is he counting on? Obviously not on myself. Without any reason, he swears to Varya: “I swear on my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! ... I swear on my happiness! Here's my hand, call me trashy then dishonest person, if I make it to the auction! I swear with all my being!” Beautiful but empty words. Lopakhin is a different matter. This man does not waste words. He sincerely tries to explain to Ranevskaya and Gaeva that there is a real way out of this situation: “Every day I say the same thing. Both the cherry orchard and the land must be rented out for dachas, this must be done now, as quickly as possible - the auction is just around the corner! Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.” With such a call, the “present” turns to the “past,” but the “past” does not heed. “Finally deciding” is an impossible task for people of this type. It is easier for them to stay in the world of illusions. But Lopakhin does not waste time. He simply buys this estate and rejoices in the presence of the unfortunate and destitute Ranevskaya. The purchase of an estate has a special meaning for him: “I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” This is the pride of a plebeian who has “rubbed his nose” with the aristocrats. He is only sorry that his father and grandfather do not see his triumph. Knowing what the cherry orchard meant in Ranevskaya’s life, he literally dances on her bones: “Hey, musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Come and watch how Ermolai Lopakhin takes an ax to the cherry orchard and how the trees fall to the ground!” And he immediately sympathizes with the sobbing Ranevskaya: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” But this is a momentary weakness, because he is experiencing his finest hour. Lopakhin is a man of the present, the master of life, but is he the future?
Maybe the man of the future is Petya Trofimov? He is a truth-teller (“You don’t have to deceive yourself, you have to look the truth straight in the eye at least once in your life”). He is not interested in his own appearance (“I don’t want to be handsome”). He apparently considers love to be a relic of the past (“We are above love”). Everything material does not attract him either. He is ready to destroy both the past and the present “to the ground, and then...” And then what? Is it possible to grow a garden without knowing how to appreciate beauty? Petya gives the impression of a frivolous and superficial person. Chekhov, apparently, is not at all happy with the prospect of such a future for Russia.
The rest of the characters in the play are also representatives of the three different eras. For example, the old servant Firs is all from the past. All his ideals are connected with distant times. He considers the reform of 1861 to be the beginning of all troubles. He does not need “will”, since his whole life is devoted to the masters. Firs is a very integral person; he is the only hero of the play endowed with such a quality as devotion.
Lackey Yasha is akin to Lopakhin - no less enterprising, but even more soulless man. Who knows, maybe he will soon become the master of life?
The last page of the play has been read, but there is no answer to the question: “So with whom does the writer pin his hopes for new life? There is a feeling of some confusion and anxiety: who will decide the fate of Russia? Who can save beauty?

Chekhov himself called “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy, although he admitted later that “What I came up with was... a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” A great director K. S. Stanislavsky called the work a tragedy: “This is a tragedy...” The problem of the genre and the date itself is one of the most difficult when studying Chekhov’s play, although there seems to be such a genre as tragicomedy, which combines the tragic and the funny, only in “The Cherry Orchard” there doesn’t seem to be anything tragic, just the usual collapse of not very lucky people who continue to live on, not really looking back - which is why they forget old Firs in the house abandoned by everyone... Together with However, this “comedy” shows the deepest internal tragedy of people who have outlived their time and are feverishly trying to somehow get settled in a new, so incomprehensible to them, even hostile towards them, life, the departure of a whole historical era, which was replaced by an era of major social and moral upheavals. Only this is clear to us now, what will happen “after” Ranevskaya and Gaev, what will replace the “cherry orchard”, and for them, who lived then, it was incredibly difficult to “guess” the future, which frankly frightened them, because it destroyed the life in which they felt good and which they would like to keep for themselves forever.

The peculiarity of the era determined the main external conflict plays "The Cherry Orchard": this is a conflict between the past, present and future. However, not only does it determine the plot and composition of the work, it is permeated internal conflicts, almost each of the image-characters carries duality; he not only confronts reality, but also painfully tries to reconcile himself with his own soul, which turns out to be the most difficult thing. Chekhov’s characters cannot be divided into “positive” and “negative”; they are living people, in whom there is a lot of good and not so good, who behave the way they think they should behave in the situations in which they find themselves - and It can be funny, or not very funny, or completely sad.

The image of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya is the core image; all other characters are somehow connected with her. Ranevskaya combines sincerity and spiritual callousness, ardent love for the Motherland and complete indifference to it; they say about her that she is a “good”, “easy” person - and this is true, as is the truth that it is unbearably difficult to live next to her... First of all, it should be noted that the contradictory image of Ranevskaya does not mean that she is - some special, complex, incomprehensible person, rather, on the contrary: she is always who she is, it’s just that to those around her such behavior seems extravagant to some, and unusually attractive to others. The contradictory behavior of Lyubov Andreevna is explained by the fact that she never truly understood that life had changed, she continues to live in that life when there was no need to think about a piece of bread, when the cherry orchard provided an easy and carefree life for its owners. That’s why she wastes money, repenting of it herself, that’s why she doesn’t think about the future (“everything will work out!”), that’s why she’s so cheerful. She spends money on her “fatal passion,” realizing that she is thereby complicating the life of her daughters, and at the end of the play she returns to Paris again, where she can live as she is used to. Ranevskaya is one of the best manifestations old life(it is no coincidence that Lopakhin idolizes her, who since childhood sees her as an unattainable ideal), however, like this whole life, she must leave - and the viewer perceives her departure with sympathy and pity, because in human terms she is so sweet and attractive.

Little can be said about Ranevskaya’s brother, Gaev. He is very similar to his sister, but he does not have her lightness and charm, he is simply ridiculous in his reluctance and inability to face life and “grow up” - Chekhov emphasizes that the footman Firs still perceives him as little boy, which, in essence, is what he is. Gaev’s inappropriate, tearful monologues (addressing the closet!) are not just funny, they take on a touch of tragedy, since such a blatant isolation from the life of an elderly person cannot but frighten.

Much attention in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is paid to the problem of the future. Chekhov shows us, so to speak, two options for the future: the future “according to Petya Trofimov” and the future “according to Ermolay Lopakhin.” IN different periods In history, each of these future options had its adherents and opponents.

Petya Trofimov, with his vague calls, loud assurances that “All of Russia is our garden,” and his denunciation of modernity, during the creation of the play, was perceived as positive hero, his words “I have a presentiment of happiness, Anya, I already see it...” were perceived auditorium with great enthusiasm. However, Chekhov himself was wary of this hero: we see Petya, who, a “shabby gentleman,” does practically nothing. For him in beautiful words it is difficult to see truly real affairs, moreover, he constantly finds himself in a funny position. Even when at the beginning of Act IV he loudly promises Lopakhin that he will reach “the highest truth, the highest happiness that is possible on earth,” because in this movement of humanity towards them he is “in the forefront!”, he in no way can find... his own galoshes, and this makes his confidence ridiculous: he sets his sights on such things, but cannot find the galoshes!..

The future “according to Ermolay Lopakhin” is depicted in a completely different way. A former serf who bought “an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen,” who gets up “at five o’clock in the morning” and works all day, who made millions and knows what needs to be done with the cherry orchard ( “Both the cherry orchard and the land must be rented out for dachas, do this now, as soon as possible”), in fact, he knows practically nothing about relationships between people, he is tormented by the fact that wealth does not give him a feeling of happiness. The image of Lopakhin is an image close to tragic, because for this man the meaning of life was the accumulation of money, he succeeded, but why then does he so desperately, “with tears,” exclaim at the end of the third act, when he had already become the owner of the estate , “there is nothing more beautiful in the world”: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change”? A millionaire - and an unhappy life?.. But in fact: he understands that he has remained a “man a man”, he loves Varya in his own way, but still does not dare to explain himself to her, he is able to feel beauty (“I in the spring I sowed a thousand dessiatines of poppy and now I have earned forty thousand net. And when my poppy bloomed, what a picture it was!"), he has a "thin, gentle soul"(this is what Petya Trofimov says about him) - but he is truly unhappy. What despair can be heard in his words: “We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here...”! Grandchildren and great-grandchildren - this is understandable, What do you have left in life?..

An interesting image is the old servant Firs, for whom the liberation of the serfs was a “misfortune.” He cannot imagine a life other than life in slavery, which is why he remains in the house - to die along with the cherry orchard, which is not hit by Ermolai Lopakhin with an axe, but by time itself. The image of the “cherry orchard” is a semi-symbolic image of the past, which is doomed and which needs to be gotten rid of for the sake of the future, but we have already seen what it can be, this is the future. The historical doom of the past is obvious, but it in no way explains what, in fact, this future, desired by some and cursed by other heroes, could become, therefore Chekhov’s entire play is permeated with anxious expectations that make the heroes’ lives even more bleak, and parting with The “cherry orchard” is especially painful - isn’t that why Lopakhin is in such a hurry, ordering the trees to be cut down when the old owners have not yet left the doomed estate?

“The Cherry Orchard,” which we analyzed, was created by Chekhov on the eve of dramatic changes in Russian life, and the author, welcoming them, ardently wishing for a change in life for the better, could not help but see that any changes are always destruction, they bring with them someone else’s life. then dramas and tragedies, “progress” necessarily denies something that earlier, in its time, was also progressive. Awareness of this determined the moral pathos of Chekhov’s “comedy”, his moral position: he welcomes the change in life and at the same time worries about what it can bring to people; he understands the historical doom of his heroes and humanly sympathizes with them, who find themselves “between the past and the future” and trying to find their place in a new life that frightens them. As a matter of fact, Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is very relevant today, since now Russia is again “between the past and the future,” and I really want us to find ourselves happier than heroes"The Cherry Orchard".

Which main topic plays "The Cherry Orchard" by Anton Chekhov? This work is worthy of serious attention modern reader and it is widely studied, and in order to understand the theme of the play, we will briefly consider what events happened in Chekhov’s life a little earlier. Chekhov's family had good property, they owned a house, and in addition, his father had his own shop, but in the 80s of the 19th century the family became quite impoverished and accumulated debts, so the house and shop had to be sold. For Chekhov, this became a tragedy and greatly influenced his fate, leaving a deep mark in his memory.

Chekhov’s work on a new work began with reflections on these events, so the main theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the sale at auction of a family noble estate, which resulted in the impoverishment of the family. Closer to the 20th century in Russia, this happened more and more often.

Composition of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

The play has four acts, let's look at the composition of the play "The Cherry Orchard" in order, from the first act to the fourth. Let's do a little analysis of the actions of "The Cherry Orchard".

• Act one. The reader gets to know all the characters and their personalities. It is interesting that by the way the characters in the play relate to the cherry orchard, one can judge their spiritual mood. And here the first conflict of the work is revealed, concluded in the confrontation between what was and the present time. For example, the Gaeva sister and brother, as well as Ranevskaya, represent the past. These are rich aristocrats - they used to own a lot of property, and now the cherry orchard and house remind of old times. And Lopakhin, standing on the other side of this conflict, thinks about profit. He believes that if Ranevskaya agrees to become his wife, they will save the estate. This is an analysis of the first act of The Cherry Orchard.
• Act two. In this part of the play, Chekhov shows that since the owners and their servants are walking through the field, and not through the garden, it means that the garden has been completely neglected and that it is impossible to even walk around it. Here you can clearly see how Petya Trofimov imagines his future.
• Act three. This action takes place climax. After the sale of the estate, Lopakhin became the new owner. He feels satisfied because the deal was successful, but he is sad that now he is responsible for the fate of the garden. It turns out that the garden will have to be destroyed.
• Act four. The family nest is empty, now there is no refuge for a united and friendly family. The garden has been cut down to the very roots, and the family name no longer exists.

Thus, we examined the composition of the play "The Cherry Orchard". From the reader's perspective, one can see the tragedy in what is happening. However, Anton Chekhov himself did not sympathize with his heroes, considering them short-sighted and powerless, incapable of feeling deeply.

In this play, Chekhov takes a philosophical approach to the question of what the immediate future of Russia is.