The image of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is ambiguous and complex. This is not just part of the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev, as it might seem at first glance. This is not what Chekhov wrote about. The Cherry Orchard is a symbolic image. It signifies the beauty of Russian nature and the life of the people who raised it and admired it. Together with the death of the garden, this life also perishes.
A center that unites characters
The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the center around which all the characters unite. At first it may seem that these are just old acquaintances and relatives who, by chance, gathered at the estate to solve everyday problems. However, this is not true. It is no coincidence that Anton Pavlovich united characters representing various social groups and age categories. Their task is to decide the fate of not only the garden, but also their own.
Gaev and Ranevskaya’s connection with the estate
Ranevskaya and Gaev are Russian landowners who own an estate and a cherry orchard. This is brother and sister, they are sensitive, smart, educated people. They are able to appreciate beauty and feel it very subtly. That’s why the image of the cherry orchard is so dear to them. In the perception of the heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard”, he personifies beauty. However, these characters are inert, which is why they cannot do anything to save what is dear to them. Ranevskaya and Gaev, for all their spiritual wealth and development, are devoid of responsibility, practicality and a sense of reality. Therefore, they cannot take care not only of loved ones, but also of themselves. These heroes do not want to listen to Lopakhin’s advice and rent out the land they own, although this would bring them a decent income. They think that dachas and summer residents are vulgar.
Why is the estate so dear to Gaev and Ranevskaya?
Gaev and Ranevskaya cannot rent out the land because of the feelings connecting them with the estate. They have a special relationship with the garden, which is like a living person to them. Much connects these heroes with their estate. The Cherry Orchard seems to them to be the personification of bygone youth, a past life. Ranevskaya compared her life to a “cold winter” and a “dark stormy autumn.” When the landowner returned to the estate, she again felt happy and young.
Lopakhin's attitude to the cherry orchard
The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is also revealed in Lopakhin’s attitude towards it. This hero does not share the feelings of Ranevskaya and Gaev. He finds their behavior illogical and strange. This person is surprised why they do not want to listen to seemingly obvious arguments that will help find a way out of a difficult situation. It should be noted that Lopakhin is also capable of appreciating beauty. The cherry orchard delights this hero. He believes that there is nothing more beautiful in the world than him.
However, Lopakhin is a practical and active person. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, he cannot just admire the cherry orchard and regret it. This hero strives to do something to save him. Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya and Gaev. He never ceases to convince them that both the land and the cherry orchard should be rented out. This must be done as soon as possible, since the auction will be soon. However, the landowners do not want to listen to him. Leonid Andreevich can only swear that the estate will never be sold. He says he won't allow the auction.
New owner of the garden
Nevertheless, the auction still took place. The owner of the estate is Lopakhin, who cannot believe his own happiness. After all, his father and grandfather worked here, “were slaves”, they were not even allowed into the kitchen. The purchase of an estate for Lopakhin becomes a kind of symbol of his success. This is a well-deserved reward for many years of work. The hero would like his grandfather and father to rise from the grave and be able to rejoice with him, to see how much their descendant has succeeded in life.
Negative qualities of Lopakhin
The cherry orchard for Lopakhin is just land. It can be bought, mortgaged or sold. This hero, in his joy, did not consider himself obliged to show a sense of tact towards the former owners of the purchased estate. Lopakhin immediately begins to cut down the garden. He did not want to wait for the former owners of the estate to leave. The soulless lackey Yasha is somewhat similar to him. He completely lacks such qualities as attachment to the place in which he was born and raised, love for his mother, and kindness. In this respect, Yasha is the complete opposite of Firs, a servant who has unusually developed these feelings.
Attitude to the garden of the servant Firs
In revealing it, it is necessary to say a few words about how Firs, the oldest of everyone in the house, treated him. For many years he faithfully served his masters. This man sincerely loves Gaev and Ranevskaya. He is ready to protect these heroes from all troubles. We can say that Firs is the only one of all the characters in The Cherry Orchard endowed with such a quality as devotion. This is a very integral nature, which is fully manifested in the servant’s attitude towards the garden. For Firs, the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev is a family nest. He strives to protect it, as well as its inhabitants.
Representatives of the new generation
The image of the cherry orchard in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is dear only to those characters who have important memories associated with it. The representative of the new generation is Petya Trofimov. The fate of the garden does not interest him at all. Petya declares: “We are above love.” Thus, he admits that he is not capable of experiencing serious feelings. Trofimov looks at everything too superficially. He does not know real life, which he is trying to remake based on far-fetched ideas. Anya and Petya are outwardly happy. They thirst for a new life, for which they strive to break with the past. For these heroes, the garden is “all of Russia,” and not a specific cherry orchard. But is it possible to love the whole world without loving your home? Petya and Anya are losing their roots in their quest for new horizons. Mutual understanding between Trofimov and Ranevskaya is impossible. For Petya there are no memories, no past, and Ranevskaya deeply experiences the loss of the estate, since she was born here, her ancestors also lived here, and she sincerely loves the estate.
Who will save the garden?
As we have already noted, it is a symbol of beauty. Only people who can not only appreciate it, but also fight for it can save it. Active and energetic people who replace the nobility treat beauty only as a source of profit. What will happen to her, who will save her?
The image of the cherry orchard in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is a symbol of the home and the past, dear to the heart. Is it possible to boldly move forward if the sound of an ax is heard behind you, destroying everything that was previously sacred? It should be noted that the cherry orchard is and it is no coincidence that such expressions as “hitting a tree with an ax”, “trampling a flower” and “cutting off the roots” sound inhumane and blasphemous.
So, we briefly examined the image of the cherry orchard as understood by the characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Reflecting on the actions and characters of the characters in Chekhov’s work, we also think about the fate of Russia. After all, it is a “cherry orchard” for all of us.
The play “The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. The writer was terminally ill and realized that he would die very soon. This is probably why the play is permeated with some special sadness, tenderness, and lyricism. “The Cherry Orchard” amazes the reader with its metaphorical nature and depth of characters. Each scene here is multifaceted and ambiguous; every detail becomes the personification of a former, passing life, but still so familiar and familiar.
It’s as if three eras met in the play: past, present and future. Some heroes live in yesterday, cherishing warm memories of the past, others know the value of time, are busy with everyday affairs and are ready to benefit from any business, while others look confidently into tomorrow, looking into the still distant and unknown future.
The artistic load placed on the landscape also makes an indelible impression. The background against which the events of the play develop is the cherry orchard. The garden is the embodiment of the inevitably passing past, the familiar, quiet, carefree life that has sunk into oblivion. Stanislavsky, in his memoirs about Chekhov, wrote that the writer in his work “... caressed the former beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he destroyed with tears in his play.”
The Cherry Orchard is a quiet family nest, an island of homely peace and comfort, with which the characters firmly associate all the brightest and dearest things that warm the soul. It’s as if the dreams and hopes, aspirations and memories of Ranevskaya and Gaev are collected here - representatives of the generation of the “past”, people who are inert and indecisive, those who are accustomed to an easy, carefree life, over which, it seemed to the heroes, time itself has no power. The characters, year after year, tenderly cherished the treasure trove of their memories, without even thinking that the old order would soon sink into oblivion and the heroes would have to learn to live in a new world, where, as it turned out, there was no place for idle dreamers.
So does the cherry orchard need to be saved? Is it necessary to save the old noble Russia, the embodiment of which is this “character” (the image of the cherry orchard is so thought out and tangible that it can safely be called another “character” of the play)? Despite the fact that the cherry orchard is a symbol of the past, do tenderly treasured memories deserve to be destroyed just because people of the “new era” are not aware of their value and significance? No. The garden was and remains the same embodiment of, albeit unfulfilled, but still surprisingly kind, bright and pure dreams and hopes; an echo of a happy and carefree past, dear to the hearts of the main characters of the play.
So, the old way of life is changing under the pressure of young, energetic, active people, but this does not mean at all that memories of the past should be destroyed, because memory is part of history and culture. That is why the cherry orchard “has the right to life” and is worthy of “salvation”, because “it preserves in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former lordly life.”
Essay text:
The play The Cherry Orchard is the latest and, presumably, the most perfect dramatic work of A.P. Chekhov. It was written in 1904 shortly before his death. The author called the play a comedy, it is difficult for us to judge why, perhaps because in the ordinary life situation of the ruin of the nobility and the withering away of the old way of life there really are many funny inconsistencies. The main characters Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna and her brother Gaev Leonid Andreevich are hopelessly behind the times, they cannot comprehend reality, their actions are illogical, their plans are unrealistic. Lyubov Andreevna gives gold to a random passer-by who asked for thirty kopecks, at a time when people at home have nothing to eat. Leonid Andreevich offers three options for saving the cherry orchard, but not one of them is feasible. The elderly servant Firs is close to these heroes. Just as Ranevskaya and Gaev are unthinkable without Firs, so Firs is unthinkable without them. These are the types of outgoing Russia. The end of the play is very symbolic: the old owners of the cherry orchard leave and forget the dying Firs. So, the natural ending: inactive consumers, parasites in the social sense, a servant who faithfully served them, a lackey in the social sense, the cherry orchard is all irrevocably a thing of the past. Is this a comedy? Good comedy!
Does this give rise to optimistic expectations? But what's ahead?
What is new in the play is personified by three people: Petya Trofimov, Anya and Lopakhin. Moreover, the author clearly contrasts Petya and Anya Lopakhina. Who are these people, and what can you expect from them?
Petya is an eternal student who cannot complete the course, he was expelled from the university twice. The author does not specify why this was due to poor performance or due to politics. He is twenty-seven years old, he has no education or profession, he lives (or rather takes root) in the Ranevskaya estate, where he once was a tutor for the owner’s son. He hasn't done anything in his life. His actions are words. He says to Anya: ...your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf owners who owned living souls, and don’t human beings look at you from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, do you really not hear voices? .. Anya, all focused on the future, she is only seventeen years old, shares Petya’s words, considers exploitation immoral, but she, and the accuser Petya, helps the owners live off what was previously earned by the hard work of the serfs.
Further in the same monologue, Petya says: It’s so clear that in order to start living in the present, we must first redeem our past, put an end to it, and we can redeem it only through suffering, only through extraordinary continuous labor. What does Petya mean when he talks about suffering? Maybe this is the suffering that revolutions and civil wars bring? Most likely, he repeats without deep awareness the words that in those pre-revolutionary years were in wide circulation among intelligent and semi-intelligent people. Destructive rhetoric has sprouted into destructive ideology. It seemed that as soon as one had to put an end to the hated foundations of society, all of Russia would become a garden. However, Petya, like, probably, Chekhov, does not have a positive program for rebuilding his life. He calls for work, but does not indicate the scope of work.
There is labor to collect stones (for construction) and there is labor to scatter stones (destroying). Petya has already worked on Anya’s consciousness. She, at seventeen years old, does not think about her human destiny, about love, about family, about the happiness of being a mother. But still, she has a healthy need for knowledge, before leaving the estate she tells her mother: We will read on autumn evenings, we will read many books, and a new, wonderful world will open up before us... Both Petya and Anya, of course, to varying degrees, do not accept the existing order of things and want to change it. Despite the obvious inconsistency, their position is certainly moral, they are sincere in their desire for the good of people and are ready to work for this.
But there is a person who occupies his specific place in this order. This is the merchant Lopa-khin, a representative of the active part of society. The author’s attitude towards such people is formulated by Petya Trofimov, who says to Lopakhin: I, Ermolai Nikolaevich, understand: you are a rich man, you will soon be a millionaire. Just as in terms of metabolism you need a predatory beast that eats everything that comes its way, so you need it. Lopakhin is a man of action: ...I get up at five o'clock in the morning, I work from morning to evening, well, I always have my own and other people's money... His father was a serf to Ranevskaya's grandfather and father. He lacks education and culture. He says to Lyubov Andreevna: Your brother, here is Leonid Andreevich, talk about me that I’m a boor, I’m a fist... Only Lopakhin offers a real plan for saving the estate, but he believes that by laying out a cherry orchard and plots of land and renting them out, you can make it a source of income. It is noteworthy that the garden still goes to Lopakhin.
So who is the future? For Petya and Anya or for Lopakhin? This question could have been purely rhetorical if history had not provided Russia with a second attempt to resolve it. Will active Petya and Anya or moral Lopakhin come?
The comedy is over. The comedy continues, gentlemen!
The rights to the essay “The Comedy The Cherry Orchard*” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to
1. Image of a cherry orchard.
2. How the death of the cherry orchard is perceived by the characters in the play.
3. Who is to blame for the death of the garden?
Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is a fresh and profound look at the realities of life of the nobility as a class and at the relationships between representatives of various classes and estates of Russian society in the second half of the nineteenth century. Chekhov, as a subtle psychologist, was able to deeply penetrate into the essence of the characters he portrayed and convey the personality of each character figuratively, multifacetedly, and vividly. The background for the development of the character’s storyline throughout the play is the cherry orchard, the image of which is so tangible and important that it is sometimes perceived as another character. The tragic fate of the cherry orchard is perceived by the main characters of the play in completely different ways. Each of the central characters in “The Cherry Orchard” perceives this cozy and quiet corner in their own way, and the author reveals the character of each character through their relationship to the garden.
For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the death of the cherry orchard becomes a real tragedy - after all, they grew up here, admired the beauty of the garden since childhood, and their whole lives were connected with it. The Cherry Orchard, like the entire family estate, becomes the personification of not only the childhood and youth of these heroes, but also their dreams, hopes, and experiences. It has firmly entered their consciousness as an island of homely peace and comfort; with it they associate everything dear and bright that warms a person’s soul. The death of the cherry orchard, accordingly, is for Ranevskaya and Gaev almost equivalent to the death of their past, “that” life that has passed - and it cannot be returned, it was lived in vain, it is destined to sink into oblivion along with the warmth of the family nest and lush trees in the garden. That is why these heroes perceive the sale and death of the cherry orchard so tragically and hysterically. At the same time, representatives of the younger generation depicted in the play - Anya and the “eternal student” Petya Trofimov - experience farewell to the cherry orchard much simpler and easier: for them it is not such a significant symbol as for representatives of the older generation. They are more energetic, have a simpler outlook on life, and are focused on the future - so parting with the past does not become a tragedy for them. Ermolai Lopakhin views the cherry orchard simply as a commercial facility. He created for himself the image of a person not prone to sentimentality, and in his mind the cherry orchard is not associated with anything metaphysical.
None of the characters in the play take that decisive step that could change the fate of the cherry orchard and save it from destruction. Perhaps, under existing conditions, such an outcome would simply be impossible? The author thinks differently. And we understand that the cherry orchard could have been saved. But none of the characters in the play could do this - for various reasons. Ranevskaya, Gaev - they are most worried about the fate of the garden, but are unable to bring themselves to take practical steps to save it. Anya, Trofimov and Lopakhin do not believe that the life of the cherry orchard should be fought for at all. That is why all the heroes are somehow to blame for the death of the garden.
In 1903, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote his last play, to which he gave the surprisingly accurate and affectionate title “The Cherry Orchard.” When you hear this phrase, you immediately want to immerse yourself in the warmth and comfort of the noble nest that adorned our land a century ago.
It was created by the labor and sweat of serfs for the life and joy of generations of the Gaev family, who were in some ways very similar to Oblomov. They are kind, smart, but inactive, like Ilya Ilyich, who spent his whole life lying on the sofa.
They also had their own Zakhar, only his name was Firs. Now he is 87. Gaev has also aged, remaining a big, carefree child with endless candies in his mouth. His sister managed to change her last name - now she is the mother of a seventeen-year-old girl. But until now, Ranevskaya’s room is called a nursery - the power of memory and tradition.
“Oh my youth! Oh my freshness! - exclaims Gogol in “Dead Souls”. We hear almost the same thing in Ranevskaya’s remark, because not only arms and legs, but also the human soul is looking for support. The most reliable support is the parental home. That is why, after spending five years abroad, Ranevskaya returns to the estate at the most difficult moment - it is already up for auction.
The Cherry Orchard... It is both a living memory of the departed and a medicine for the soul. Ranevskaya loves her estate not for its potatoes and tomatoes, but for its memory and beauty. She won't save her estate - no matter what. But he tries to see his native nest at least once again.
Perhaps it was for the sake of this meeting with Ranevskaya - a man, not a lady - that old Firs, the emblem of the house, so merged with it that even now, four decades later, perceives will as a misfortune, saved his life. It’s not for nothing that “the owl screeched and the samovar buzzed without stopping” when serfdom was abolished.
Now other sounds are heard - a broken string and an orchestra (flute, double bass and four violins). Maybe this is a requiem? Not in terms of private property in general, but in terms of that piece of memory and beauty that personally belongs to you, without which a person cannot be formed spiritually.
Lopakhin offers a real option for saving the cherry orchard - the dacha. But they will destroy everything, because this will mean the arrival of strangers in your home. “Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar,” says Ranevskaya, and Gaev supports her, although he cannot offer anything in return: he is not used to taking responsibility.
She is taken by Lopakhin, the son and grandson of the peasants who worked here. Apparently, these two clans of Lopakhins and Gaevs coexisted quite peacefully, living in parallel social worlds on the same “lordly” land. So he offers to loan money, but there is nothing to give back, and decent people in such a situation do not borrow.
Other decent people do not leave this sinking ship that sails from the past to the hopeless present until the last minute. Servants and Charlotte, who does not know her relatives and homeland, live there on pea soup. Here is Ranevskaya’s adopted daughter Varya. The clerk Simeonov-Pishchik is knocking his abacus knuckles and rustling his invoice papers - “twenty-two misfortunes,” like the entire estate. And she is like a sinking ship. Lopakhin, a new man of a new era, in a white vest, standing firmly on the ground, is trying to save him. But everything is in vain, and at the end of the drama we hear the sound of an ax - it’s the cherry trees being cut down at the roots. Together with the garden, to the sound of an ax, the faithful Firs, a symbol of the past “lordly” life, disappears into oblivion. In the bustle, everyone forgot about him. There was no one to take personal responsibility for the old man's fate.
Ranevskaya returned to Russia, and found herself, as it were, in another dimension - the era of primitive accumulation of capital, which had long passed in the West. But not only the train - they were all late. The train of life has gone in the direction of capitalization, that is, squeezing “cash” and “non-cash” from everything from which it can be squeezed. Including defenseless beauty. But giving up on her and the past is like giving up on your own mother. This is what Yasha, who dreams of going abroad, does - the most disgusting character in the play. Not so much by position, but by psychology. He is a slave. And slaves do not need spiritual memory.
A person, a state, or history simply cannot do without it.