Yuri Kuzmenkov to play the role of Simeonov-Pishchik in A. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard. Minor characters of The Cherry Orchard

“THE CHERRY ORCHARD” 1 “The Cherry Orchard” - last play Chekhov; when he held her printed imprints in his hands, he did not have long to live, a few months. Premiere of the comedy in Moscow art theater took place on the author’s birthday, January 17, 1904, and with her

12. Grandmother Louise’s cherry liqueur Beginning of summer 1945. War is over. Romilda Villani decided it was time to return to her native Pozzuoli. It was a glorious time. Most Italians did not perceive the defeat of the fascist regime as a national shame. Against,

At first glance, it seems that the characterization of Simeonov-Pishchik in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is quite unambiguous: “a klutz,” a comic character through and through. His money troubles, fussiness, and almost peasant simplicity make it possible to see in him Lopakhin’s “reduced double.” The buffoonish nature of the image of Simeonov-Pishchik is also confirmed by the fact that he often appears at a tense, dramatic moment, and his ridiculous phrase or trick immediately takes the edge off the situation (see the scene of swallowing all the pills of Ranevskaya at once and the subsequent phrase of Firs: “They were at we ate half a bucket of cucumbers…”, emphasizing the comedy of the situation).

However, it is easy to notice another characteristic feature of this hero: his mobility. He is always on the move, in the literal (travels around friends, borrowing money) and figurative (undertakes various adventures in order to get money) senses. This movement is largely chaotic and irrational, and the hero’s optimism in his situation seems surprising: “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 today or tomorrow.” We can say that the fussy and purposeful Simeonov-Pishchik in “The Cherry Orchard” is needed precisely for movement, to enliven the scenes played out by the motionless and deeply confused main characters.

Other works on this topic:

1. Plan Introduction Life path Lopakhina Characteristics of Lopakhin through the eyes of other characters Test of love Triumph of Lopakhin Introduction “... if she (the role) fails, then the whole play also...
2. In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” Chekhov depicts the traditional life of a noble estate. Along with the landowners, servants were also introduced there - a governess, a maid, a valet and a footman. Conditionally their...
3. In A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no main character; everyone has their own life. But there is something that unites everyone and attracts attention...
4. The system of images of “The Cherry Orchard”, in accordance with the ideological and thematic features of the play, is also very original. There is no room for one main character, just as there is no division into...
5. Plan Origins of the work Originality and timeliness A play born in agony Artistic methods and stylistics The origins of the work Very often the question arises, what is included in the story...

We are used to completing the study of a major work with an essay, class or home, giving our students the opportunity to systematize the knowledge they have acquired, and 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.

For several lessons on the latter Chekhov's 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 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, the 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 remarks 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 of written work (one hour is allotted for it), we tell 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 sympathize with his desperate financial situation, but the 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 do not fit into the big 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 raise money before a certain number, is in a hurry to get somewhere and often doesn’t 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 common system characters, and its absence would change our feeling from the play “The Cherry Orchard”.

Epikhodov

In the comedy “The Cherry Orchard” there are many minor characters who play 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 decency”) are similar to those of even more illiterate and funny words Epikhodov, who uses a lot of unnecessary and cluttering phrases (“But, of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, if I may put it this way, excuse my frankness, completely brought me into a state of mind”).

Attempts by 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 while he was playing the guitar) and to sing about high love- more funny option Gaev’s empty speeches about the “respected wardrobe” 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 to be educated people and immediately after talking 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-living Firs, in my opinion final opinion, is not suitable 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 thus on the periphery of the plot, as far as in this case this word is applicable, and at the end of the poster the 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 arms.” And then last episode with the participation of Charlotte, where ventriloquism itself instead comic effect acquires a shade of the same melancholy: with something, especially, it seems, the ease of turning a “child” into a knot, it emphasizes Charlotte’s restlessness, homelessness (“I have to leave... I have nowhere to live in the city”) - makes me remember that former owners the estates are now almost as homeless as she is. Even textual coincidences become symbolic meaning(Ranevskaya, act one: “I want to jump, wave my arms,” - remark in the third act: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat, in checkered trousers, waves his arms and jumps” to the shouts 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 Gayevs - occupies significant place in the play's image system. In my opinion, his words and actions enhance the feeling created 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 breaking 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 classical drama, heroes perform actions, pronounce monologues, win or die. In accordance with their role in the development of action, they are divided into positive and negative, main and secondary. In a Chekhov play there are no major or minor characters. characters. Epikhodov is just as important to the author as Gaev, and Charlotte is no less interesting than Ranevskaya. Even the “random” Passerby, who appears at the end of the second act, an episodic person, from the point of view of traditional drama, plays a certain semantic role in Chekhov’s play.

Exercise

Presented by landed nobility in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"? Give brief description these characters.

Answer

The local nobility is represented in the play by the old owners of the cherry orchard - brother and sister Gaev and Ranevskaya, as well as Simeonov-Pishchik.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are nice, sweet, in their own way good people. Ranevskaya is sentimental, accustomed to an idle life, wastes money, her feelings are superficial and shallow.

Exercise

Tell us about Gaev. How is he similar to Ranevskaya? What are you interested in? Compare their monologues in front of the closet. How do they characterize the characters?

Answer

Gaev is in many ways similar to his sister, completely helpless in practical matters, a phrase-monger. He is already over fifty, but he is still like a child. Gaeva is still undressed by Firs at night.

When Ranevskaya returns to native home, she is worried about the resurrected past, she is surprised that everything is the same here; as it was, as if time did not move. This immutability of things delights Gaev. Only his enthusiasm is frankly ridiculous. Pompously and solemnly he addresses the closet. His love for the estate is limited by his own eloquence. He offers many plans to save the estate, but it is clear that all of them are untenable.

Question

What is close to the owners of the cherry orchard Simeonov-Pishchik?

Answer

Those qualities that in Ranevskaya are surrounded by a haze of poetry, in Gaev are reduced to the comic, and in Simeon Pishchik they are reduced to farce.

Question

How is Ranevskaya characterized by her attitude towards Vara, towards Anya, towards the servants, towards Lopakhin, towards Trofimov? How can you evaluate the kindness of Ranevskaya?

Answer

Ranevskaya's kindness coexists with indifference. She kisses things and takes the news of the nanny’s death completely indifferently: “My dear old man,” she calls Firs. And then he was left in the house where his life ended forever.

Ranevskaya leaves Varya, whom she loves, “like her own.” Ani goes to Paris with the money. He loves Anya, cries for his dead son, but leaves 12-year-old Anya for 5 years with his unlucky brother; hugs Firs, kisses Dunyasha, but does not think about the fact that there is nothing to eat in the house, etc.

Question

How does her refusal of Lopakhin’s proposal characterize her? Why did everyone calm down after the sale of the cherry orchard?

Answer

Ranevskaya's garden is dear, but her love is inactive. She hoped that it would work out that way. And in Act IV, Ranevskaya and Gaev completely calmed down. What worried them has passed, they no longer feel responsible for the cherry orchard.

Questions

1.​ How to understand Chekhov’s words: “It’s not difficult to play Ranevskaya, you just need to take the right tone from the very beginning; you need to come up with a smile and a way to laugh, you need to know how to dress”?

2. What does Ranevskaya consider to be her sins and are they sins? What are her real sins?

3. Who is to blame for Ranevskaya’s fate? Was there a choice?

Exercise

Find the positive and negative in the images of the local nobility.

conclusions

The images of Ranevskaya and Gaev are the embodiment of peace noble nest, for whom time has stopped. The drama is in their vulnerability and simplicity. Comedy lies in the contrast of speech and actions. Life in vain, a future without hope, life in debt, “at someone else’s expense.” “Selfish, like children, and flabby, like old people,” Gorky will say about them.

Literature

1. D.N. Murin. Russian literature second half of the 19th century century. Guidelines in the form of lesson planning. Grade 10. M.: SMIO Press, 2002.

2. E.S. Rogover. Russian literature XIX century. M.: Saga; Forum, 2004.

3. Encyclopedia for children. T. 9. Russian literature. Part I. From epics and chronicles to classics of the 19th century century. M.: Avanta+, 1999.