The characters of the play The Cherry Orchard and their characteristics. The characters of the play “The Cherry Orchard” as representatives of three different eras

Characters

“Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
Passerby.
Station manager.
Postal official.
Guests, servants" (13, 196).

As you can see, the social markers of each role are saved in the list characters And last play Chekhov, and just like in previous plays, they are of a formal nature, without predetermining either the character of the character or the logic of his behavior on stage.
So, the social status of landowner/landowner in Russia turn of XIX-XX centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure public relations. In this sense, Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik find themselves in the play persona non grata; their essence and purpose in it are not at all connected with the motive of owning souls, that is, other people, and in general, owning anything.
In turn, Lopakhin’s “thin, gentle fingers”, his “thin, gentle soul"(13, 244) are by no means predetermined by his first author's description in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely thanks to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a very definite semantic aura in Russian literature. It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of characters. In the context of the characteristics given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters of the latter Chekhov's play, it is now not the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, rush into the future.
Thus, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into dachas, they, in turn, do not understand how harmony can be sold, sell happiness:
“Lopakhin. Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people. They tell you in Russian, your estate is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What should we do? Teach what?
Lopakhin.<…>Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents - it’s so vulgar, sorry.
Gaev. I completely agree with you.
Lopakhin. I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can't! You tortured me! (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action designated by the author in the stage directions (“a room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of the “nanny” Firs in relation to Gaev: “Firs (cleans Gaev with a brush , instructively). They put on the wrong pants again. And what should I do with you! (13, 209), but also by the natural appearance of the images of father and mother in the characters’ discourse. Ranevskaya sees “the late mother” in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); Gaev remembers his father going to church on Trinity Sunday in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of behavior of the characters is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in Ranevskaya’s speeches and actions a manifestation of an “ordinary person” who, “submitting to his not always beautiful desires and whims, deceives himself every time.” One can also see in her image “an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life.” However, it seems that it is precisely the unselfishness, lightness, immediacy of the attitude towards existence, very reminiscent of a child’s, the instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and absurd, from the point of view of the other characters and many comedy researchers, actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior established in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all of Gaev’s serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing at being an adult:
“Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny temporarily withdraws - T.I.). Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to a general who could give me a bill.
Lopakhin. Nothing will work out for you. And you won’t pay interest, rest assured.
Lyubov Andreevna. He's delusional. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the characters’ attitude towards each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, afraid that they will not be heard.
Gaev (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Lyubov Andreevna. Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!..” (13, 253).
Adjacent to this micro-group of characters is Firs, whose chronotope is also the past, but a past that has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the character’s speech:
“Firs. In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be…” (13, 206).
His past is the time before the misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. IN in this case Before us is a version of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order fixed by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and does not always have a social connotation: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petit’s future, like Firs’s past, acquires the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want to for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: “Humanity is moving towards higher truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront” (13, 244).
A premonition of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of a dream come true, also characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I’m dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-so-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, as she feels herself, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have specific, tangible outlines (the lackey Yasha and “love” for him are only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... my head is spinning from dancing, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me something that took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to a funny and unreal, from his point of view, reality: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>It’s not for me here, I can’t live... nothing can be done. I’ve seen enough of ignorance—that’s enough for me” (13, 247).
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in the conditional present, in momentary problems, and in this feeling of life she is close to Lopakhin: “Only I can’t do nothing, mommy. I need to do something every minute” (13, 233). That is why her role as housekeeper in her adoptive mother’s house naturally continues now with strangers:
“Lopakhin. Where are you going now, Varvara Mikhailovna?
Varya. I? To the Ragulins... I agreed to look after the housekeeping for them... as housekeepers, or something” (13, 250).
On the other hand, in her sense of self, the desired future is also constantly present as a consequence of dissatisfaction with the present: “If I had money, even a little, even a hundred rubles, I would give up everything, move away. I would have gone to a monastery” (13, 232).
The characters of the conditional present include Lopakhin, Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik. This characteristic of the present time is due to the fact that each of the named characters has his own image of the time in which he lives, and, therefore, there is no single concept of the present time, common to the entire play, as well as the time of the future. Thus, Lopakhin’s time is the present concrete time, representing an uninterrupted chain of daily “deeds” that give visible meaning to his life: “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I I exist" (13, 246). It is no coincidence that the character’s speech is replete with indications of the specific time of occurrence of certain events (it is curious that his future tense, as follows from the remarks given below, is a natural continuation of the present, essentially already realized): “I am now, at five o’clock in the morning, at Kharkov to go" (13, 204); “If we don’t come up with anything and come to nothing, then on the twenty-second of August both the cherry orchard and the entire estate will be sold at auction” (13, 205); “I’ll see you in three weeks” (13, 209).
Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik form an oppositional pair in this group of characters. For the first, life is a chain of misfortunes, and this character’s belief is confirmed (again from his point of view) by Buckle’s theory of geographical determinism:
“Epikhodov.<…>And you also take kvass to get drunk, and then, you see, there’s something in highest degree indecent, like a cockroach.
Pause.
Have you read Buckle? (13, 216).
For the second, on the contrary, life is a series of accidents, ultimately happy ones, which will always correct any current situation: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is gone, I’m dead, and lo and behold, railway passed through my land, and... they paid me. And then, look, something else will happen not today or tomorrow” (13, 209).
The image of Charlotte is the most mysterious image in the latest comedy Chekhov. The character, episodic in its place in the list of characters, nevertheless acquires extraordinary importance for the author. “Oh, if only you played a governess in my play,” writes Chekhov O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. - This best role, but I don’t like the rest” (P 11, 259). A little later, the question about the actress playing this role will be repeated by the author three times: “Who, who will play my governess?” (P 11, 268); “Also write who will play Charlotte. Is it really Raevskaya? (P 11, 279); "Who plays Charlotte?" (P 11, 280). Finally, in a letter to Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, commenting on the final distribution of roles and, undoubtedly, knowing who will play Ranevskaya, Chekhov still counts on his wife’s understanding of the importance of this particular role for him: “Charlotte is a question mark<…>this is the role of Mrs. Knipper” (P 11, 293).
The importance of the image of Charlotte is emphasized by the author and in the text of the play. Each of the character’s few appearances on stage is accompanied by a detailed author’s commentary concerning both his appearance and his actions. This attentiveness (focus) of the author becomes all the more obvious since Charlotte’s remarks, as a rule, are kept to a minimum in the play, and the appearance of the more significant characters on stage (say, Lyubov Andreevna) is not commented on by the author at all: the stage directions give only numerous psychological details of her portrait.
What is the mystery of Charlotte's image? The first and rather unexpected observation worth making is that the character’s appearance emphasizes both feminine and masculine traits. At the same time, the selection of portrait details itself can be called autoquoting. Thus, the author accompanies Charlotte’s first and last appearance on stage with a repeated remark: “Charlotte Ivanovna with a dog on a chain” (13, 199); “Yasha and Charlotte leave with the dog” (13, 253). It is obvious that in art world Chekhov's detail “with the dog” is significant. She, as is well known, marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - very rare for Chekhov’s prose poetic image a woman capable of truly deep feeling. True, in the context of the stage action of the play, the detail receives a comic realization. “My dog ​​even eats nuts,” Charlotte says to Simeonov-Pishchik (13, 200), immediately separating herself from Anna Sergeevna. In Chekhov's letters to his wife, the semantics of the dog are even more reduced, but it is precisely in this version stage embodiment the author insists: “... the dog needed in the first act is shaggy, small, half-dead, with sour eyes” (P 11, 316); “Schnapp, I repeat, is no good. We need that shabby little dog you saw” (P 11, 317-318).
In the same first act there is another comic remark-quote containing a description of the character’s appearance: “Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitting, with a lorgnette on her belt, walks across the stage” (13, 208). Taken together, the three details mentioned by the author create an image that is very reminiscent of another governess - the daughter of Albion: “Beside him stood a tall, thin Englishwoman<…>She was dressed in a white muslin dress, through which her skinny yellow shoulders were clearly visible. A gold watch hung on a golden belt” (2, 195). The lornet instead of a watch on Charlotte’s belt will probably remain as a “memory” of Anna Sergeevna, because it is this detail that will be emphasized by the author in both the first and second parts of “The Lady with the Dog.”
Gryabov’s subsequent assessment of the Englishwoman’s appearance is also typical: “And the waist? This doll reminds me of a long nail” (2, 197). A very thin detail sounds like a sentence on a woman in Chekhov’s own epistolary text: “The Yartsevs say that you have lost weight, and I really don’t like that,” Chekhov writes to his wife and a few lines below, as if in passing, continues, “Sofya Petrovna Sredina she became very thin and very old” (P 11, 167). Such an explicit game with such multi-level quotes makes the character’s character vague, blurred, and lacking semantic unambiguity.
The remark preceding the second act of the play further complicates the image of Charlotte, because now, when describing her appearance the author emphasizes the traditionally masculine attributes of the character’s clothing: “Charlotte is wearing an old cap; she took the gun off her shoulders and adjusted the buckle on her belt” (13, 215). This description can again be read as an autoquote, this time from the drama “Ivanov”. The remark preceding its first act ends with the significant appearance of Borkin: “Borkin in big boots, with a gun, appears in the depths of the garden; he is tipsy; seeing Ivanov, tiptoes towards him and, having caught up with him, takes aim at his face<…>takes off his cap" (12, 7). However, as in the previous case, the detail does not become characterizing, since, unlike the play “Ivanov,” in “The Cherry Orchard” neither Charlotte’s gun nor Epikhodov’s revolver will ever fire.
The remark included by the author in the third act of the comedy, on the contrary, completely neutralizes (or combines) both principles recorded in the appearance of Charlotte earlier; now the author simply calls her a figure: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat and checkered trousers waves his arms and jumps, shouting: “Bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!” (13, 237). It is noteworthy that this leveling - the game - with the masculine/feminine principle was quite consciously incorporated by the author into the semantic field of the character: “Charlotte speaks not broken, but pure Russian,” Chekhov writes to Nemirovich-Danchenko, “only occasionally she replaces b at the end of a word pronounces Kommersant and confuses adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders” (P 11, 294).
This game also explicates Charlotte’s dialogue with her inner voice, blurring the boundaries of the gender identification of its participants:
"Charlotte.<…>What good weather today!
The mysterious one answers her female voice, as if from under the floor: “Oh yes, the weather is magnificent, madam.”
You are so good, my ideal...
Voice: “I also really liked you, madam” (13, 231).
The dialogue goes back to the model of small talk between a man and a woman; it is no coincidence that only one side of it is named madam, but the dialogue is carried out by two female voices.
Another very important observation concerns Charlotte's behavior on stage. All her remarks and actions seem unexpected and are not motivated by the external logic of a particular situation; They are not directly related to what is happening on stage. Thus, in the first act of the comedy, she denies Lopakhin the ritual kiss of her hand only on the grounds that later he may want something more:
“Charlotte (removing her hand). If I allow you to kiss my hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...” (13, 208).
In the most important for the author, the second act of the play, at the most pathetic moment of her own monologue, which we have yet to talk about, when the other characters are sitting, thoughtful, involuntarily immersed in the harmony of being, Charlotte “takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats it” (13, 215 ). Having completed this process, she makes a completely unexpected and not confirmed by the text of the comedy compliment to Epikhodov: “You, Epikhodov, are very smart person and very scary; Women must love you madly” (13, 216) - and leaves the stage.
The third act includes Charlotte's card and ventriloquist tricks, as well as her illusionary experiments, when either Anya or Varya appear from under the blanket. It is noteworthy that this plot situation formally slows down the action, as if interrupting, dividing in half, Lyubov Andreevna’s single remark: “Why has Leonid been gone for so long? What is he doing in the city?<…>But Leonid is still missing. I don’t understand what he’s been doing in the city for so long!” (13; 231, 232).
And finally, in the fourth act of the comedy, during the touching farewell of the remaining characters to the house and garden
“Charlotte (takes a knot that looks like a curled up baby). My baby, bye, bye.<…>
Shut up, my good, my dear boy.<…>
I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the bundle into place)” (13, 248).
This mechanism for constructing a stage was known to the poetics of Chekhov's theater. Thus, the first act of “Uncle Vanya” includes Marina’s remarks: “Chick, chick, chick<…>Pestrushka left with the chickens... The crows wouldn’t drag them around...” (13, 71), which directly follow Voinitsky’s phrase: “In this weather it’s good to hang oneself...” (Ibid.). Marina, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in the system of characters in the play personifies a reminder to a person about the logic of events that is external to him. That is why she does not participate in the struggles of the other characters with circumstances and with each other.
Charlotte also occupies a special place among other comedy characters. This feature was not only noted by the author, as mentioned above; it is realized and felt by the character himself: “These people sing terribly” (13, 216), says Charlotte, and her remark perfectly correlates with the phrase of Dr. Dorn from the play “The Seagull”, also from the outside looking in at what is happening: “People are boring "(13, 25). Charlotte's monologue, which opens the second act of the comedy, explicates this feature, which is realized, first of all, in the absolute absence of social markers of her image. Her age is unknown: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it still seems to me that I’m young” (13, 215). Her nationality is also unknown: “And when dad and mom died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me.” About the origin and family tree The character also knows nothing: “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know” (13, 215). Charlotte’s profession also turns out to be random and unnecessary in the play, since the children in the comedy have formally grown up a long time ago.
All other characters in “The Cherry Orchard,” as noted above, are included in one or another conditional time, it is no coincidence that the motive of memories or hope for the future becomes the main one for most of them: Firs and Petya Trofimov represent the two poles of this self-perception of the characters. That is why “everyone else” in the play feels themselves in some kind of virtual, and not real, chronotope (cherry orchard, new garden, Paris, dachas). Charlotte finds herself outside of all these traditional ideas a person has about himself. Its time is fundamentally non-linear: it has no past, and therefore no future. She is forced to feel herself only now and only in this specific space, that is, in a real unconditional chronotope. Thus, we have before us a personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, modeled by Chekhov, if we consistently, layer by layer, remove absolutely all – both social and even physiological – parameters of his personality, free him from any determination by the surrounding world . In this case, Charlotte is left, firstly, with loneliness among other people with whom she does not and cannot coincide in space/time: “I really want to talk, and there is no one with whom... I have no one” (13, 215) . Secondly, absolute freedom from the conventions imposed on a person by society, subordination of behavior only to one’s own internal impulses:
“Lopakhin.<…>Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick!
Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me a trick!
Charlotte. No need. I want to sleep. (Leaves)" (13, 208-209).
The consequence of these two circumstances is the character’s absolute peace. There is not a single psychological remark in the play that would mark the deviation of Charlotte's emotions from absolute zero, while other characters may speak through tears, indignant, joyful, scared, reproachful, embarrassed, etc. And, finally, this character’s perception of the world finds its logical conclusion in a certain model of behavior - in free circulation, play, with reality familiar and unchanged for all other characters. This attitude towards the world is explicated by her famous tricks.
“I’m doing salto mortale (like Charlotte - T.I.) on your bed,” Chekhov writes to his wife, for whom climbing to the third floor without a “car” was already an insurmountable obstacle, “I stand upside down and, picking you up, turn over several times and, throwing you up to the ceiling, I pick you up and kiss you” (P 11, 33).

« 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 the 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. at the 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 old house, their 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 a very special attitude towards 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 into a life-giving spring: 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. Buying an estate for him has special meaning: “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 awkwardness would somehow change, unhappy life" 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 eyes 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 about the prospect of such a future for Russia.

Landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.


Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
The estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. Spring, cherry trees are blooming.
Varvara Mikhailovna- one of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, the daughter of the landowner Ranevskaya. She is 24 years old and she runs the entire Ranevsky household, performing at the same time adopted daughter and a housekeeper.
By nature, Varya is a very modest and pious girl, and conscientiously treats her duties. She is often busy with petty household chores and, unlike the gentlemen, she knows how to save rationally. Her homeliness is evidenced by the ties of the keys in her belt.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich- one of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903), brother of the landowner Ranevskaya. A man of the “old school”, like his sister, he is sentimental. He is very worried about the sale of the family estate and the loss of the cherry orchard.
By nature, Gaev is an idealist and romantic. He is not particularly adapted to the “new” life. He considers himself to be a people of the 80s of the 19th century. He is artistic and sincere. He can even confess his love to a closet, which for him has been the guardian of the family for almost a century. He talks a lot, sometimes not to the point.
Anya- a girl of seventeen years old, the daughter of the landowner Ranevskaya, a symbol of sincerity and spontaneity in the play “The Cherry Orchard”. Anya, like many other members of her family, grew up in a cherry orchard and received a noble upbringing under the guidance of such governesses as Charlotte Ivanovna - a former circus acrobat without a passport and a certain age. It is unlikely that such an environment could have given Ani a serious education, but the play shows that she grew spiritually, perhaps studying life from books.
She lived with her mother in Paris for several years.
Anya- daughter of Ranevskaya, 17 years old. Captured by student Pyotr Trofimov and under his influence. Under the influence of his reasoning that it is necessary to atone for the past through suffering and continuous work, he says that he no longer loves the cherry orchard as before, and will certainly leave home. Consoling her mother after the sale of the estate, she recites in the same way as Trofimov: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this...” - etc. She has a youthful faith in happiness, in her own strength. She sincerely rejoices at leaving her old home, because “a new life begins.”
"The Cherry Orchard"- lyrical play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov from 1903. “The Cherry Orchard” a brief retelling can be read in 10 minutes, but it is better to read the work in its entirety, because the abbreviated version misses many details.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her daughter is named, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
The concept of the play “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov dates back to the spring of 1901. So, in March, the playwright in a letter to his wife O.L. Knipper-Chekhov remembered working on a very funny play. And in the fall of the same year, Chekhov shared individual notes with the actors of the Moscow art theater: "Branch cherry blossoms, climbed from the garden directly into the room through the open window” and “The owner of the estate (or mistress) constantly turned to
footman (or manager) who has accumulated a large amount ».
The name of the future play has already been born.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya- landowner, has two daughters - her own Anya (17 years old) and her adopted daughter Varya (24 years old). She is easy to communicate and very sentimental and sensitive. “God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly...” she says about Russia. And returning to the estate, she cries at the sight of the fatherland of her childhood.
5 years before the moment described at the beginning of the comedy, she left for Paris after the death of her husband and death little son. She lived luxuriously in the capital of France - she spent money without counting and received guests.
Petya Trofimov- one of the characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, former teacher Ranevskaya’s seven-year-old son, a commoner, is 26 or 27 years old. Many call him an “eternal student” and a “school student” because he studies all the time and never finishes his course. Petya wears glasses and likes to philosophize about how to live. In his opinion, the nobility is last century. They were too lazy, and now the time has come for hardworking youth.
Trofimov wanders a lot from place to place.