Division of the play's image system
Traditionally, the system of images in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is divided into three groups, symbolizing the present, future and past, which include all the characters. In the process of staging the play, Chekhov gave the actors precise instructions and recommendations on how to play each character; it was very important for him to convey to the viewer the characters of the characters, because it was through their images that Chekhov tried to show the comedy of what was happening. In addition, each character is assigned a certain socio-historical role. The author seems to be saying that it is possible to adjust your personality, relationships with outside world and the people around him, but change his place in general history they can't do it.
The heroes of the past include Ranevskaya and her brother and the old servant Firs: they are so mired in their memories that they are unable to adequately assess either the present or the future. Lopakhin is a bright representative of today, man-action. Well, Petya is an idealist, an eternal student, thinking about the common good that undoubtedly awaits in the future. It is clear that Chekhov built the characters in The Cherry Orchard according to his favorite principle of “bad good people.”
And in fact, it is impossible to single out any of the heroes as a villain, a victim, or absolutely ideal. Everyone has their own truth, and the viewer just needs to decide which of them is closer to him.
Features of the play's images
One of the features of Chekhov's images is the combination of positive and negative properties. Thus, Ranevskaya is characterized by impracticality and selfishness, but at the same time she is capable of sincere love, has a broad soul and generosity, she is beautiful both externally and internally. Gaev, despite his infantilism and sentimentality, is very kind. Brother and sister are characterized by those moral and cultural principles of hereditary nobility, which have already become an echo of the past. “Eternal student” Petya Trofimov argues very correctly and beautifully, but, like the old owners of the garden, he is absolutely divorced from reality and is not adapted to life. With his speeches, he also captivates Anya, who embodies the symbol of youth and hope for a better future, but is absolutely helpless in independent life. Her opposite is Varya, whose earthiness may interfere with her happiness.
Undoubtedly, in the play “The Cherry Orchard” the system of images is headed by Lopakhin. Chekhov insisted that Stanislavsky himself play him, and the playwright tried to convey to the performer the psychology of this character. Perhaps he is the only one whose internal beliefs are as close as possible to actions. Another striking feature of all the characters in this play is their inability and unwillingness to hear each other; everyone is so busy with themselves and their personal experiences that they are simply unable to understand others’. And instead of going through the ongoing test together - deprivation of home - they live with ideas about their future, in which everyone will be on their own. This is especially evident in the first act: Ranevskaya is so immersed in her memories that she is completely disconnected from what is happening, Anya is also busy with her thoughts, although Varya is trying to talk about what is happening in the house in her absence.
Brief characteristics of the characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard”
Characteristics of the images of “The Cherry Orchard” show how different people collected in one place. This is especially evident from current characters. Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna is one of the central characters of the play; the fate of the entire estate depends on her decision; her favorite tactic for solving all problems is escape. This happened after tragic death her youngest son, which coincided with a destructive passion for an unworthy person, “and I went abroad, completely left, never to return.” After unsuccessful attempt suicide because of the love that tormented her, “... suddenly she was drawn to Russia,” and after the sale of the estate, Lyubov Andreevna returned to Paris again, leaving her daughters to choose their own life path. Anya dreams of getting an education that will help her get a job, but adopted daughter The prospects are less rosy. Ranevskaya’s weak attempts to marry her to Lopakhin were not crowned with success, and Ranevskaya simply did not think of allocating funds to fulfill Varina’s dream - to devote herself to God, since the interests of those around her did not really care or excite her. But meanwhile, she does not refuse financial assistance to her friend Pishchik, giving her last money to a random passer-by, although she is well aware of her plight. One more in a feminine way The play is the maid Dunyasha, a peasant girl, accustomed to life in a manor house, striving to demonstrate her “subtle” nature, but not through actions, but through constant voicing. She dreams of love and marriage, but pushes away Epikhodov, who proposed to her.
Her brother Gaev Leonid Andreevich is in many ways similar to his sister. But he is characterized by idle talk, and perhaps that is why no one takes him seriously (even the lackey Yasha treats him with extreme disrespect) and is openly considered unadapted to life. This is especially evident when he tells his sister that he was offered a position at the bank “Where are you!” Just sit there…”, but meanwhile everyone is waiting for him to find the money to pay off his debts. He naively believes that fifteen thousand sent by his aunt will be enough to save the estate.
The only sane person in the play is Lopakhin, who suggests real way saving the estate, but it is perceived by the owners as “vulgarity.” Although Ranevskaya’s neighbor Simeonov-Pishchik, who is in the same position, constantly looking for money to pay interest on his debts, at the end of the play says that he leased his land to the British for the extraction of rare clay. Thus showing that it is not so scary to use your land to generate income. It is Lopakhin who is the representative of the new era that has come. Petya compares him to a predator: “that’s how you need beast of prey,...so you are needed.” He sincerely tries with all his might to help Ranevskaya, but her lack of understanding of obvious things angers him: “I’m babysitting you.” It is Lopakhin who inhales with his plan new life to the old estate.
But, perhaps, only the cherry orchard occupies a truly central place in the system of images of Chekhov’s play. Through the attitude towards him and his perception, the author shows the inner content of each of the main characters, reflecting their time and their historical era, and the garden itself becomes the image and symbol of all of Russia.
The article analyzed the image system Chekhov's play and given brief description the main characters of the comedy. The main objective of this article is to help 10th graders write an essay on the topic “The system of images in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.”
Work test
The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is inherent in the very structure of the play. Each character is absorbed in his own truth,” immersed in his experiences and does not notice those around him: their pain, their melancholy, their joys and hopes. Each of the characters is, as it were, playing his own one-man show. These one-man performances make up the action, which is so complex in sound. This is at the same time and polyphony (polyphony, a specially organized choir of independent voices), and dissonance, an inconsistent, discordant sound, where each voice strives to be unique.
Where does this self-absorption of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard come from? What prevents them from hearing each other: after all, they are all close people trying to help, support and receive support from each other? Let us pay attention: each of the heroes confesses, but in the end all these confessions turn out to be auditorium, and not to stage partners. At some point, the confessor realizes that he cannot explain the most important thing. So, Anya will never understand her mother’s drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. What “doesn’t allow” the characters in the play to see each other? The fact is that, according to the author’s plan, each of them is not only a person, but also a performer of a certain socio-historical role: what can be called a “hostage of History.” A person can, to a certain extent, adjust his personality and his relationships with others. But he cannot change his role, no matter how alien it may be to him. The discrepancy between the hero's inner essence and the socio-historical role that he is forced to play is the dramatic essence of The Cherry Orchard.
“An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letters to Stanislavsky, who staged the play. What's in her past? Her youth family life, a blooming and fruit-bearing cherry orchard - all this ended several years ago, it ended tragically. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose. And then the irreparable happened: Grisha died - drowned in the river. The death of a son is the most terrible tragedy. For Ranevskaya, the horror of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt: infatuation with her lover, absorption in love, it seems to her, alienated her from her son. Perhaps the absurd death could have been prevented? Perhaps Grisha's death is a punishment for her, her mother, for her inadmissible passion? And Ranevskaya runs away from home - from the cherry orchard, from her daughters, from her brother, from that river where her son drowned - from her entire previous life, from her past, which turned into an irreparable disaster. He runs so as never to return, he runs so that somewhere he can end his sinful and absurd life - after the death of the boy.
Ranevskaya ends up in Paris. Dulled sharp pain, the first wave of despair subsided. Ranevskaya was saved by love. Feelings for a person unworthy of her, for a scoundrel... But is it really given to us to choose whom to love? Yes, he is a scoundrel, her last lover, he robbed and abandoned her, and then returned again - again a beggar. And Lyubov Andreevna knows everything about him, understands everything - and does not want to know or remember it. For the feeling itself is valuable, because for her there is nothing in life higher than love.
This is the only heroine of “The Cherry Orchard” who lives in an aura of love: it is no coincidence that her very name is Love. Past and present loves are intertwined in her soul, the ability to love unselfishly and recklessly, completely surrendering to feeling - this is the “key” to the image of Ranevskaya. “This is a stone around my neck, I am going to the bottom with it, but I love this stone and cannot live without it.” Which other Russian heroine was so frank?!
Her current strange Parisian existence is, in essence, life after life. Nothing of the past has been forgotten. The terrible wound has not healed and will never heal. The connection with one’s home and loved ones becomes more and more elusive. It is increasingly impossible to become “one of our own” in Paris, or to return to the cherry orchard... The illusory nature, the absurdity of existence, longing for home, the feeling of guilt before my daughter and stepdaughter - for leaving them, for wasting their fortune - Lyubov Andreevna is tormented. And now, before our eyes, a decisive step is taken: Ranevskaya returns home. She tears up telegrams from her lover, tears them up without reading: she’s finished with Paris! She is happy: “I want to jump, wave my arms... God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying.” “If only I could take the heavy stone off my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!”
Ranevskaya returns to the house where everyone loves her, where they are waiting for her - and have been faithfully waiting for her for five “Parisian” years. And where everyone condemns her for something: for “viciousness”, for frivolity... No one wants to accept her for who she is; they love her, condemning and laughing. And Ranevskaya herself acutely feels this, accepts the justice of the reproaches, and constantly feels guilty. But along with the feeling of guilt, alienation grows in her: why does everyone demand from her something that she cannot give, why do they expect her to change, to become what others want her to be, to stop being herself?! The further we go, the clearer it becomes: she is a stranger here.
In the list of characters, Ranevskaya is designated by one word: “landowner.” But this is a landowner who never knew how to manage her estate, who loved it passionately - and was unable to save it. Her flight from the estate after Grisha's death, mortgaging and remortgaging this estate... Nominally, she is a landowner. In fact, he is a child of this cherry orchard, unable to save him from ruin and death.
The role of the landowner for Ranevskaya has been “played out” for a long time. The role of the mother is also: Anya leaves for a new life, where there is no place for Lyubov Andreevna; Varya arranges herself in her own way... Having returned to stay forever, Ranevskaya only completes her previous life and becomes convinced that it is impossible to enter the same river twice. All hopes turn into a memorial service for the old life: the past has died, gone forever. She lived through all the “plots” possible in Russia. The homeland did not accept the prodigal daughter: the return did not take place. And the ghostly Parisian “life after life” turns out to be the only reality. Ranevskaya returns to Paris - and in Russia, in her cherry orchard, the ax is already knocking.
The element of love, painful passions, sin and repentance in which Ranevskaya lives is alien to the other heroes of the comedy. Here is her brother and the same age, Gaev. Leonid Andreevich, a middle-aged man who has already lived most of his life, thinks and acts like an old boy. But Gaev’s inexhaustible youth is not like his sister’s gullibility and lightness. He is simply infantile. It was not youth with its rebellious passions that remained in him - Gaev, it seems, never grew up to it, never crossed the threshold of the nursery. Helpless, talkative, shallow, not really loving anything or anyone. “Croise... Yellow in the middle...” The sound of billiard balls completely cures his suffering after the loss of the cherry orchard... But even in him, a stupid, spiritually undeveloped man, Chekhov sees something sweet: he is one of the eccentric county landowners , in their own way adorned the province in the old days, giving the Russian noble nests a peculiar charm. Gaev is a figure born of his time; comical, ridiculous and pathetic in the new era.
The comedy intertwines several storylines. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before anyone else. It is built on Chekhov’s favorite technique: they talk most and most readily about what does not exist, discuss details, argue about trifles - non-existent things, without noticing or deliberately hushing up what exists and is essential. By the way, let us pay attention: Gogol also loves this technique very much. Let's remember how the whole city in " Dead souls" tastefully discussed Chichikov's peasants, who were no longer in the world, how they argued about what kind of "Chichikov's peasant" was, whether the newly-minted Kherson landowner would be able to cope with this peasant. And how Chichikov himself, with pleasure, almost believing in the reality of his own invention, discusses the problems his Kherson estate. But in Gogol this technique is designed to greatly enhance the interaction of his real and unreal layers. art world, a fusion of phantasmagoria and reality. Chekhov surrounds with endless conversations the non-existent, the apparent, in order to emphasize the very illusory nature of sober calculations, logical plans that his heroes build in an unstable and unreliable world. Convinced, as if it had been decided long ago, Ranevskaya talks about her break with “that man” - and leaves for him... Projects for saving the garden are confidently discussed... They talk about the romance of Lopakhin and Varya. But why didn’t this romance take place? Why didn’t the destinies of the toiler Varya and business man Lopakhina? And here it is permissible to ask: was there an affair? Was it wishful thinking?
Let's take a closer look at the image of Lopakhin. Chekhov himself considered his role “central” in the comedy, writing to Stanislavsky that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail.” Chekhov asked Stanislavsky to play the role of Lopakhin himself; he believed that no other actor could do it: he “would either play it very pale, or act out, make Lopakhin a clown... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, you have to understand this.” However, the Moscow Art Theater team did not heed the author’s requests and staged “ Cherry Orchard"in its own way. And, although the play was a great success, Chekhov was extremely dissatisfied with the production, responded sharply negatively, claiming that the theater did not understand the play and failed everything. The theater had the right to its own interpretation, but what did the playwright himself put into the comedy, why not Ranevskaya and Gaev, as Stanislavsky played, but he placed Lopakhin at the center of the figurative system.
The figure of the merchant has attracted Russian literature for half a century. Along with dark tyrants and absurd nouveau riche, they were looking for the traits of a new, intelligent merchant, a wise and honest entrepreneur. But his features were slipping away. Thus, in “Mad Money” Ostrovsky created the image of the merchant Vasilkov - it seems, one of the most distinct failures of the great playwright. In “Talents and Admirers” he develops the image of a merchant-philanthropist: silent, intelligent, drawn to goodness and light Velikatov. In Velikatov there is no longer the “stiltedness” or unnaturalness of Vasilkov, and yet in his image there are enough reticences and ambiguities. Of course, Lopakhin belongs to this rank, to the ranks of the new merchants, to the circle of merchant-entrepreneurs at the end of the century. But this circle, this phenomenon is one of the most interesting in Russia at that time! This is a unique socio-psychological type that arose at the turn of the century, spat upon and destroyed by the revolution. Lopakhin vividly captures the features of Tretyakov, Shchukin, Sytin, Morozov, Klein, Mamontov, and even Stanislavsky himself - after all, he is from the Alekseev merchant family. Rich factory owners, they had a keen understanding of art, were patrons of the arts, maintained theaters, created magnificent museums, and published cheap books for the people. What is there! They also endlessly helped the underground revolutionaries! At Savva Morozov's factory, workers went on strike, and the strike committee existed with Morozov's money. His money helped the Bolsheviks cross borders, hiding from the tsarist police. Gorky wrote interestingly: “And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in dust and trepidation for the success of the play - I am ready to forgive him all his factories - which, however, he does not need, I love him, because he selflessly loves art “that I can almost feel in his peasant, merchant, acquisitive soul.”
This is the combination selfless love to beauty - both the merchant spirit, peasant simplicity - and the subtle artistic soul, and Chekhov strives to capture and embody in the image of Lopakhin.
Lopakhin is the only one who offers a real plan for saving the cherry orchard. And this plan is realistic, first of all, because Lopakhin understands: the garden cannot be preserved in its previous form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be saved only by rearranging, re-creating in accordance with the requirements new era.
Indeed, the garden was once an important part of the landowner's economy: “In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be...dried cherries were sent by cartload to Moscow and Kharkov. There was money ! And the dried cherries were soft, juicy, sweet, fragrant... They knew the method then..." recalls Firs. Now this method is forgotten. There is a catastrophic lack of money, but they save on food for the servants, while there is nowhere to put the cherries, they fall off and disappear. The garden turned into a symbol and ceased to be a reality: for everyone except Lopakhin, it is the abode of the ghosts of the past. Here Ranevskaya sees her deceased mother walking through the garden. Here Petya explains to Anya: “...don’t human beings look at you from every cherry tree in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, don’t you really hear voices...”
Lopakhin strives to bring life back to the garden - even if he breathes new life into it, almost negating the old one. “Dividing the garden into summer cottages - the idea that Lopakhin is running around with - is not just the destruction of the cherry orchard, but its reconstruction, the creation, so to speak, of a publicly accessible cherry orchard. With that former, luxurious garden, which served only a few, this new, thinned out and accessible to anyone at a reasonable price, the Lopakhinsky garden correlates like a democratic urban culture Chekhov's era with the marvelous estate culture of the past." (Kataev V.B. Chekhov's Literary Connections. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989). V.B. Kataev very cleverly and subtly comments on the essence of Lopakhin's idea. Ranevskaya's garden for him, a peasant son, a peasant - part of an elite aristocratic culture, its quintessence. What was inaccessible twenty years ago is now almost “lying on the road”: and this feeling intoxicates Lopakhin. On the other hand, the garden is dying - and only he. Lopakhin, can save this treasure. All his attempts to save the orchard lead to nothing for Ranevskaya: she does not hear Lopakhin, does not understand his simple and clear arguments. After all, for Lyubov Andreevna, the cherry orchard exists only in its original form, in its integrity. The garden, divided into plots and given over to dachas, is still lost and destroyed: “...sell me along with the garden...”
Lopakhin convinces Ranevskaya and Gaev, explains, proves, offers money: he is sincerely trying to preserve the garden for the owner. And in the end he himself turns out to be the owner of the garden - unexpectedly, unexpectedly for himself and those around him. He is at the same time happy - and dejected, discouraged by what happened: “Hey, musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Come everyone and watch how Ermolai Lopakhin will hit the cherry orchard with an ax, how the trees will fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren they will see a new life here... Music, play!.. Why, why didn’t you listen to me, my poor dear, you won’t come back now (With tears.) Oh, if only all this would pass, if only you would change somehow. our awkward, unhappy life."
Let's think about Lopakhin's last desperate words. He - the only one in the play - is given the opportunity to get closer to the real truth, to a deep understanding of the essence of the era. Lopakhin sees not just someone’s individual sins and guilt, but the deep troubles of the whole modern life: “We must say frankly, our life is stupid... We make a fool of each other, but life just goes by...” It is this understanding of the global absurdity of modern life, its illogicality, the impossibility of living the way you want, in harmony with himself and the world, and pushes Lopakhin to a central place in the comedy.
Now let’s think: could Lopakhin be attracted to Varya - gray, narrow-minded, caught up in petty economic calculations? Does Varya love Lopakhina? How does she understand love? Remember, Petya is still angry that Varya is spying on him and Anya, he is afraid that an affair might turn out between them, that something illegal might happen. And the point is not that Petya and Anya are far from love, but in Varya’s principles and views, in her petty, rational, petty-bourgeois perception of any human relationship - including her relationship with Lopakhin. Varya does not wonder whether she loves Ermolai Alekseevich and whether he loves her. She sees a suitable match (especially since there are no other contenders for her hand, even those around her have no one else to gossip about). She wants to get married. And she is waiting for a declaration of love and a proposal from Lopakhin - and the fact that Lopakhin does not utter the long-awaited words, Varya attributes to his businesslike nature": "He has a lot to do, he has no time for me," and "he is getting rich, he is busy with business... "Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin often visits a house where there is unmarried girls, of which only she, Varya, is “suitable” for him, which means he must marry. And only being busy prevents him from noticing her merits. Varya doesn’t even have a thought to look at the situation differently, to think whether Lopakhin loves her, is she interesting to him? All Varina’s expectations are based on the conversations of others that this marriage would be successful, on idle gossip!
It is not shyness or busyness that prevents Lopakhin from explaining things to Varya. Understanding what everyone expects from him, and understanding that Varya is a “decent match” for him, Ermolai Alekseevich still hesitates and in the end does not make an offer. Well, he doesn’t love Varya, he’s bored with her! In parallel with the alleged affair with Varya, about which everyone is talking so much, another thread runs through Lopakhin: he “like his own, more than his own,” loves Ranevskaya. This line is perfectly revealed by V.B. Kataev: “This would seem unthinkable, absurd to Ranevskaya and everyone around him, and he himself, apparently, is not fully aware of his feelings. But it is enough to observe how Lopakhin behaves, say, in the second act, after Ranevskaya tells him so that he proposes to Varya. It is after this that he talks with irritation about how good it was before, when men could be fucked, and begins tactlessly teasing Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood after he clearly sees that Ranevskaya. and it doesn’t even occur to us to take his feelings seriously. And later in the play this unrequited tenderness of Lopakhin will break through several more times.
A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two end-to-end, internally related topics plays "(Kataev V.B. Literary connections of Chekhov. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989).
Man, peasant son Owing only to himself, to his abilities and hard work, his success in life, Lopakhin becomes the owner of the cherry orchard. It is to him that the most ardent recognition belongs: “...an estate, the most beautiful of which is nothing in the world.” None of the characters in the play spoke more soulfully and enthusiastically about the garden! A man of the people, he takes into his own hands what until now belonged only to the aristocracy and what the aristocracy was unable to keep. Does Chekhov rely on Lopakhin? Yes, of course. But the author does not delude himself about the new men who, like Lopakhin, have broken away from their circle. Next to Ermolai Alekseevich there is a very “important figure - the lackey Yasha. He is the same peasant son, he also feels the gap between his current position (lived in Paris! saw civilization! joined!) and his past. And this arrogant, disgusting boor clearly sets off Lopakhin, with all its essence opposes him. Not only Ranevskaya’s Russia and Petya Trofimov’s Russia look at each other, but also Lopakhin’s Russia and the Russia of the lackey Yasha.
"... Lopakhin at the end of the play, having achieved success, is shown by Chekhov by no means as a winner. The entire content of The Cherry Orchard reinforces the words of this hero about the “awkward, unhappy life", which "you know it's passing." In fact, the person who alone is capable of truly appreciating what a cherry orchard is is forced (after all, there are no other ways out of the current situation) to destroy it with his own hands. Chekhov shows with merciless sobriety in " Cherry Orchard" fatal discrepancy between personal good qualities a person, subjectively good “his intentions - and the results of his social activities” (Kataev V.B. Chekhov’s Literary Connections. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989). And here again one cannot help but remember " Dead Souls"Gogol. The intrigue of "The Cherry Orchard" mirrors Gogol's mirage intrigue. Chichikov, who strained all his strength to accumulate wealth and become the master of life, absurdly and unexpectedly breaks down " highest point"of each of his scams, when it would seem that happiness is just a stone's throw away. Just as unexpectedly and inevitably, Lopakhin, who was desperately trying to save it for Ranevskaya, receives a cherry orchard - "an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world."
The unexpectedness of such a turn strengthens those around him in the opinion that he is a merchant, a money-grubber, thinking only about profit. And the abyss separating Lopakhin from the rest of the characters in the play becomes deeper and deeper. Three ideological and compositional centers are united in the play: Ranevskaya, Gaev and Varya - Lopakhin - Petya and Anya. Please note: among them only Lopakhin is absolutely alone. The rest form stable groups. We have already comprehended the first two “centers,” now let’s think about the third center - about Pete Trofimov and Anya.
Petya certainly plays the leading role. This figure is contradictory, and the attitude of the author of the comedy and the inhabitants of the estate towards him is contradictory. A stable theatrical tradition forced us to see Petya as a progressive thinker and activist: this began with Stanislavsky’s first production, where V. Kachalov played Petya as Gorky’s “petrel”. This interpretation was also supported in most literary works, where researchers relied on Petya’s monologues and did not correlate them with the actions of the hero, with the entire structure of his role. Meanwhile, let us remember that Chekhov’s theater is a theater of intonation, not text, therefore the traditional interpretation of Trofimov’s image is fundamentally incorrect.
First of all, in the image of Petya one can clearly feel literary roots. He is correlated with the hero of Turgenev's "Novi" Nezhdanov and with the hero of Ostrovsky's play "Talents and Admirers" Pyotr Meluzov. And Chekhov himself spent a long time researching this historical and social type - the type of Protestant-enlightener. Such are Solomon in "The Steppe", Pavel Ivanovich in "Gusev", Yartsev in the story "Three Years", Doctor Blagovo in "My Life". The image of Petya is especially closely connected with the hero of “The Bride” Sasha - researchers have repeatedly noted that these images are very close, that the roles of Petya and Sasha in the plot are similar: both of them are needed to captivate the young heroines into a new life. But the constant, intense interest with which Chekhov peered into this type that appeared in an era of timelessness, returning to him in different works, led to the fact that from the secondary and episodic heroes he is in last play became a central hero - one of the central ones.
Lonely and restless, Petya wanders around Russia. Homeless, worn out, practically a beggar... And yet he is happy in his own way: he is the freest and most optimistic of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard. Looking at this image, we understand: Petya lives in a different world than the other characters in the comedy - he lives in a world of ideas that exists in parallel with the world of real things and relationships. Ideas, grandiose plans, social and philosophical systems - this is Petya’s world, his element. Such a happy existence in another dimension interested Chekhov and made him look more and more closely at this type of hero.
Petya's relationship with real world very tense. He does not know how to live in it, for those around him he is absurd and strange, ridiculous and pitiful: “a shabby gentleman,” “an eternal student.” He cannot complete his course at any university - he is expelled from everywhere for participating in student riots. He is not in harmony with things - everything always breaks, gets lost, falls. Even poor Petya’s beard isn’t growing! But in the world of ideas he soars! There everything turns out deftly and smoothly, there he subtly grasps all the patterns, deeply understands the hidden essence of phenomena, and is ready and able to explain everything. And after all, all Petya’s thoughts about life modern Russia very correct! He truly and passionately speaks about the terrible past, which still vividly influences the present and does not let go of its convulsive embrace. Let us remember his monologue in the second act, where he convinces Anya to take a fresh look at the cherry orchard and at her life: “To own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living...” Petya is right! Something similar was passionately and convincingly argued by A.I. Herzen: in the article “The Meat of Liberation” he wrote that serfdom poisoned the souls of people, that no amount of decrees can abolish the most terrible thing - the habit of selling one’s own kind... Petya speaks of the necessity and inevitability of redemption: “It’s so clear to start living in present, we must first redeem our past, put an end to it, and it can only be redeemed through suffering, only through extraordinary, continuous labor.” And this is absolutely true: the idea of repentance and atonement is one of the purest and most humane, the basis of the highest morality.
But then Petya begins to talk not about ideas, but about their real embodiment, and his speeches immediately begin to sound pompous and absurd, the whole system of beliefs turns into simple phrase-mongering: “All of Russia is our garden,” “humanity is going to higher truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront! "
Petya speaks just as shallowly about human relationships, about what is not subject to logic, what contradicts the harmonious system of the world of ideas. Remember how tactless his conversations with Ranevskaya are about her lover, about her cherry orchard, which Lyubov Andreevna longs for and cannot save, how funny and vulgar Petya’s famous words sound: “We are above love!..” For him, love is for the past, to a person, to a home, love in general, this very feeling, its irrationality, is inaccessible. And therefore spiritual world Petit for Chekhov is flawed, inferior. And Petya, no matter how correctly he reasoned about the horror of serfdom and the need to atone for the past through labor and suffering, is just as far from true understanding life, like Gaev or Varya. It is no coincidence that Anya is placed next to Petya - young girl, who doesn’t yet have her own opinion about anything, and is still on the threshold of real life.
Of all the inhabitants and guests of the estate, only Anya managed to captivate Petya Trofimov with his ideas; she is the only one who takes him absolutely seriously. “Anya is, first of all, a child, cheerful to the end, not knowing life and never crying...” Chekhov explained to the actors at rehearsals. So they walk in pairs: Petya, hostile to the world of things, and the young one, “not knowledgeable about life“Anya. And Petya has a goal - clear and definite: “forward - to the star.”
Chekhov's irony is brilliant. His comedy amazingly captured all the absurdity of Russian life at the end of the century, when the old was over and the new had not yet begun. Some heroes confidently, in the forefront of all humanity, step forward - towards the star, leaving the cherry orchard without regret. What to regret? After all, all of Russia is our garden! Other heroes painfully experience the loss of the garden. For them, this is the loss of a living connection with Russia and their own past, with their roots, without which they can only somehow live out the allotted years, already forever fruitless and hopeless... The salvation of the garden lies in its radical reconstruction, but new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who most clearly sees the beauty of the dying world.
Based on materials:
Kataev V.B. Chekhov's literary connections. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1989.
Monakhova O.P., Malkhazova M.V. Russian literature XIX century. Chekhov about literature. M., 1955
Comedy "The Cherry Orchard" Character system The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is inherent in the very structure of the play. Each character is absorbed in his own truth,” immersed in his experiences and does not notice those around him: their pain, their melancholy, their joys and hopes. Each of the characters is, as it were, playing his own one-man show. These one-man performances make up the action, which is so complex in sound. This is at the same time and polyphony (polyphony, a specially organized chorus of independent voices), and dissonance, an uncoordinated, discordant sound, where each voice strives to be unique. Where does this self-absorption of the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” come from? What prevents them from hearing each other: after all, they are all close people, trying to help each other, support and receive support? Let's pay attention: each of the characters confesses, but in the end all these confessions turn out to be addressed to the audience, and not to their partners on stage.
At some point, the confessor realizes that he cannot explain the most important thing. So, Anya will never understand her mother’s drama, and Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. What “doesn’t allow” the characters in the play to see each other? The fact is that, according to the author’s plan, each of them is not only a person, but also a performer of a certain socio-historical role: what can be called a “hostage of History.” A person can, to a certain extent, adjust his personality and his relationships with others. But he cannot change his role, no matter how alien it may be to him.
The discrepancy between the hero’s inner essence and the socio-historical role that he is forced to play is the dramatic essence of “The Cherry Orchard.” “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letters to Stanislavsky, who staged the play. .
What's in her past? Her youth, family life, blooming and fruit-bearing cherry orchard - all this ended several years ago, ended tragically. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose.
And then the irreparable happened: Grisha died - drowned in the river. The death of a son is the worst tragedy. For Ranevskaya, the horror of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt: infatuation with her lover, absorption in love, it seems to her, alienated her from her son.
Perhaps the absurd death could have been prevented? Perhaps Grisha's death is a punishment for her, her mother, for her inadmissible passion? And Ranevskaya runs away from home - from the cherry orchard, from her daughters, from her brother, from that river where her son drowned - from her entire previous life, from her past, which turned into an irreparable disaster. She runs so as never to return, she runs in order to end her sinful and absurd life somewhere - after the death of the boy. Ranevskaya ends up in Paris. The acute pain dulled, the first wave of despair subsided. Ranevskaya was saved by love.
Feelings for a person unworthy of her, for a scoundrel... But is it really given to us to choose whom to love? Yes, he is a scoundrel, her last lover, he robbed and abandoned her, and then returned again - again a beggar. And Lyubov Andreevna knows everything about him, understands everything - and does not want to know or remember it. For the feeling itself is valuable, because for her there is nothing in life higher than love.
This is the only heroine of “The Cherry Orchard” who lives in an aura of love: it is no coincidence that her very name is Love. Past and present loves are intertwined in her soul, the ability to love unselfishly and recklessly, completely surrendering to feeling - this is the “key” to the image of Ranevskaya. “This is a stone around my neck, I am going to the bottom with it, but I love this stone and cannot live without it.” Which other Russian heroine was so frank?! Her current strange Parisian existence is, in essence, life after life.
Nothing of the past has been forgotten. The terrible wound has not healed and will never heal. The connection with one’s home and loved ones becomes more and more elusive. It is increasingly impossible to become “one of our own” in Paris, or to return to the cherry orchard... The illusory nature, the absurdity of existence, longing for home, the feeling of guilt before my daughter and stepdaughter - for leaving them, for wasting their fortune - Lyubov Andreevna is tormented. And now, before our eyes, a decisive step is taken: Ranevskaya returns home. She tears up telegrams from her lover, tears them up without reading: she’s finished with Paris!
She is happy: “I want to jump, wave my arms... God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying.” “If only I could take the heavy stone off my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!” Ranevskaya returns to the house where everyone loves her, where they are waiting for her - and have been faithfully waiting for her for five “Parisian” years. And where everyone condemns her for something: for “viciousness”, for frivolity...
No one wants to accept her as she is; they love her, condemning and laughing. And Ranevskaya herself acutely feels this, accepts the justice of the reproaches, and constantly feels guilty.
But along with the feeling of guilt, alienation grows in her: why does everyone demand from her something that she cannot give, why do they expect her to change, to become what others want her to be, to stop being herself?! The further we go, the clearer it becomes: she is a stranger here. Each of you, of course, has encountered funny situations and linguistic absurdities in various publications and in the speech of others. A section has been opened specifically for such language incidents. Send us your finds. We are waiting for your letters
Understand author's position in the last play a. P. Chekhov; to form in students a further understanding of the specifics of drama as an art phenomenon, of the uniqueness of a dramaturgical talent. P. Chekhov; to master at a new level for students the concept of “symbol” in comparison with the concepts of “image” and “allegory”; promote spiritual development students, formation moral values. textbook, text of the play, illustrations for the play, literary dictionary.
Predicted results: students know the content of the play they are studying; formulate the problems raised by the author in the play; give their own assessment of the characters; reveal ideological meaning plays; note genre originality Chekhov's drama; give examples; highlight fragments in the text of the studied drama that contain psychological overtones. Form of delivery: lesson-conversation. PROGRESS OF THE LESSON I. Organizational stage II. Updating of reference knowledge Listening to several creative works(see assignment from the previous lesson) Proposed answers by Gaev.
Having become a bank employee, he will try to change his previous life and start working. But work will seem like a punishment to him (he needs to get up early, carry out other people’s orders). If he doesn't work for long, he'll be kicked out for irresponsibility. After which Gaev realizes his helplessness, understands that he is incapable of anything, and sells his remaining things to buy a ticket to Paris.
But he won't have enough money. He will put everything on the line in billiards: if he loses, he will get drunk, shoot himself or hang himself. If she wins, she will go to Paris, where she will meet with Ranevskaya. By this time, she will be completely robbed and then abandoned by her lover, after which she will settle in a small apartment, for which very close “friends” will pay. When she meets her brother, she will tell her how they love her and how she loves them; then he will break into a gentle smile, and then he will burst into tears, with sincere tears, from hopelessness (after all, working is so vulgar, sorry). Gaev will look at her life and remember what happened before.
The past will appear to him beautiful dream, but very unclear. He will think about the future, asking the question: “does it exist? "He gets drunk, shoots himself, or hangs himself: "A doublet in the corner... Croiset in the middle!
» Lopakhin. Yermolai Alekseevich will be fine. He will cut down a cherry orchard, give the land for dachas and make a fortune from it.
He will be proud that he changed his life, destroyed the past. Lopakhin will become an example of how a peasant, thanks to his hard work and efficiency, managed to become a large landowner and began to manage his land no worse, and perhaps better, than any landowner. Ermolai Alekseevich will be glad that he can destroy the past, but he will still not understand what this can lead to.
He will begin to build a future in his dreams (and by that time many such Lopakhins will appear). But one day, before his death, he will have a dream about how a huge giant man will chop with an ax everything that comes to his hand until he clears the earth for the construction of the future. Then he will look and understand that there is no one to build, no one for whom, and it is unknown what needs to be built. You will feel dizzy from the height, a giant man will fall and see the roots washed with blood. III.
Setting the goal and objectives of the lesson. Motivation educational activities Teacher. According to the memoirs of K.
S. Stanislavsky, a. Chekhov once told him that he had found a wonderful title for the play - “The Cherry Orchard”: “From this I only understood that it was about something beautiful, dearly loved: the charm of the title was conveyed not in words, but in the very intonation of Anton Pavlovich’s voice " A few days later, Chekhov announced to Stanislavsky: “Listen, not Cherry, but the Cherry Orchard.” “Anton Pavlovich continued to savor the title of the play, pressing on the gentle ... “e” in the word cherry, as if trying with its help to caress the former beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he destroyed with tears in his play.
This time I understood the subtlety: - this is a business, commercial garden that generates income. We still need such a garden now.
But “The Cherry Orchard” does not bring in any income; it preserves within itself and in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former lordly life. such a garden grows and blooms for whim, for the eyes of spoiled aesthetes.
It’s a pity to destroy it, but it’s necessary, because the process economic development the country demands it." The cherry orchard, which is simultaneously the background of the action, the protagonist, and the all-encompassing symbol, can be considered in three main aspects: the garden - image and character, the garden - time and the garden - symbolic space. Animated and spiritualized (poeticized by A.P. Chekhov and idealized by those associated with him actors) the garden is, without a doubt, one of the characters in the play. It takes its place in the system of images.
IV. Working on the topic of the lesson 1. Conversation ♦ How does the image of the cherry orchard permeate all the actions of the play? ♦ Find descriptions of the cherry orchard in the author’s stage directions. What mood do they create? ♦ can we say that the cherry orchard is the central character?
Why? ♦ What is its symbolism?
♦ How are the characters in the play related to the image of the cherry orchard? ♦ “Ranevskaya - a garden in the past. Lopakhin - in the present. Petya Trofimov has a wonderful future” (Z. Paperny).
Try to explain how you understand this quote? 2. Collective work on the concepts of “symbol” and “subtext” With the participation of reference books(Literary Dictionary) and based on previously studied material (Write in notebooks.) Questions for an analytical conversation with a short comment♦ What is the relationship between the concepts symbol and allegory? (Translation of the image into an allegorical plan) ♦ What is the fundamental difference between these concepts? (The tendency of an allegory to be unambiguous, the polysemy of a symbol) ♦ Express the idea by inserting the words “symbol” and “allegory” into the sentence with gaps: “In<…
> (allegory)<…>the individual is brought in to visually demonstrate the generality, and in<…
> (symbol)<… >a visual picture illustrates some kind of community” (A.F. Losev). ♦ In this regard, remember play a.
N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm". What is the symbolism central image included in the title of the drama? (Thunderstorm as tyranny, as retribution, as liberation and as purification, “grace”.
) ♦ Name the central image-symbol of the play a. P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" and give maximum quantity his interpretations, justifying all interpretations. 3. Teacher's word Commentary. The students’ work consists of proving the points given by the teacher, selecting relevant examples, and making laconic, sketchy notes as the teacher explains.
Chekhov's definition of the play's genre has symbolic overtones. The word “comedy” can be understood in Balzac’s sense of the word: “ human comedy" Comedy is a panorama of life. A generalized symbolic subtext is embedded in the system of images: ♦ all the main classes, three generations are represented; ♦ heroes are divided into “people of phrase” and “people of action”, identified in the system of images of “victims and predators, unfortunate and happy”; ♦ all heroes can be called “klutzes” in one way or another. The play has a system of symbolic oppositions (dream - reality, happiness - trouble, past - future). In the speech of the heroes there are traditional symbols and words-emblems.
(Trofimov: “We are moving uncontrollably towards a bright star.”) The author’s remarks sometimes transform the action into a conventional plan. (Petya captivates Anya with loud words that are filled with faith in a wonderful future: “I have a presentiment of happiness..., I already see it...” It is no coincidence that the author’s remark mentions Epikhodov, who “plays the same sad song on the guitar.” This is how the author’s doubt is manifested in the truth of Petya's premonitions.
) Plot twists in the play a. Chekhov's poems often acquire symbolic overtones. (The finale of the play. The blame for the tragic outcome of Firs’ life is placed on all the main characters of the play.
) V. Reflection. Summing up the lesson 1. general conversation ♦ Identify chronological framework actions of the play. What is the peculiarity of the spatio-temporal organization? Cherry Orchard"? ♦ How is the theme of passing time revealed in the characters’ actions? ♦ What, in your opinion, internal conflict plays?
♦ A play seems to you to be a drama or comedy. P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"? ♦ Who is responsible for the death of The Cherry Orchard? ♦ How does Ranevskaya’s environment and proximity to other characters in the play affect the reader’s attitude to Andreevna’s drama of love? ♦ What makes you regret, and what hopes does “The Cherry Orchard” arouse? P.
Chekhov? ♦ What are your impressions of the work of a writer, playwright, or just a person?
Has anything changed in your initial perception of his work and himself? 2. Final word teachers - The end of Chekhov’s life coincided with the beginning of a new century, a new era, new moods, aspirations and ideas. This is the inexorable law of life: those who were once young and full of strength become old and decrepit, giving way to a new one - young and strong life... Death and dying are followed by the birth of a new one, disappointment in life is replaced by hopes, expectation of change. Play a.
P. Chekhov's “The Cherry Orchard” reflects just such a turning point - a time when the old has already died, and the new has not yet been born, and life has stopped for a moment, has become quiet... Who knows, maybe this is the calm before the storm?
The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written by A.P. Chekhov in 1903, at the turn of the era, when all classes in Russia felt the expectation of major and decisive changes. And in his last work A.P. Chekhov reflects on the fate of Russia, its future. “The Cherry Orchard” is called the writer’s swan song, and in this work his innovation was especially fully demonstrated.
This play has a rather simple plot, since the whole action revolves around the problem of who will get the cherry orchard. The characters of the play are united in precisely this way - symbol of the garden, which is a kind of embodiment of their past, present or future life. As the plot develops, the character of the characters in the play is gradually revealed, and this leisurely, unhurried nature allows the author to show the inner conflict of the human soul.
The play takes place on the estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. The social conflict of the play is the conflict between the departing nobility and the bourgeoisie that replaced it. Another plot line is socio-romantic. A.P. Chekhov himself says through the lips of his heroes: “All of Russia is our garden.” But Anya and Petya Trofimov’s dream is shattered by Lopakhin’s practicality, by whose will the cherry orchard is cut down. The nobility, which was accustomed to living idlely, spending, but not making money, was unable to adapt to the new conditions after the abolition of serfdom. And Ranevskaya’s estate was mortgaged and remortgaged; she “lost” her fortune long ago, but due to habit she cannot change her wasteful lifestyle. Ranevskaya does not understand that the coming time requires constant efforts from her, but Lyubov Andreevna lives with emotions, memories of the past, she is confused, broken by everything that is happening and most likely is simply afraid to think about the present. But she is just a woman, spoiled by many years of idle life, and she can be understood, but her brother Gaev is a mixture of stupid conceit and complete insignificance in everything. An important detail in describing Gaev’s character is that at his age his old lackey Firs continues to put on his pants. Gaev declares that he “ate his entire fortune on candy,” he makes long speeches, and this is just a parody of a cultured and educated person. In Russian classical literature Gaev became the final stage in the gallery of “extra people”.
Lopakhin, a “beast of prey,” according to Petya Trofimov’s definition, becomes a clear contrast to the owners of the cherry orchard. Lopakhin's energy and economic determination are contrasted with the carelessness and impracticality of the old owners of the cherry orchard. He is a descendant of serfs, those “whose faces look out from every cherry tree in the garden,” and therefore he passes by buying an estate. Petya Trofimov says about Lopakhin: “Just as in the sense of metabolism a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that comes in its way, so you are needed.”
Ranevskaya’s tears shock Lopakhin, he understands that not everything can be bought and sold, but the practicality of the “man” wins over him. His soul will sooner or later harden, because the “businessman” in him will always prevail.
The heroes see their future differently. Ranevskaya believes that her life is over. Anya and Petya see this as a chance to start a new life and grow their own garden. The cherry orchard has become a vivid symbol of what has been lived, and with it go both Ranevskaya and old Firs, who is forgotten in the empty, boarded-up house.
Both the plot, the characters, and the problems of the play show us Russia at a crossroads, a Russia in which the past has not yet been completely eradicated, where the present has not yet finally arrived, but the future is already visible. The passive dreamer and idealist Petya Trofimov is unlikely to be able to change his life; it’s not for nothing that he is called the “shabby gentleman.” But, according to A.P. Chekhov, it is Petya who should replace Lopakhin, because it is in his mouth that the author puts the idea that “all of Russia is our garden.” A.P. Chekhov was deeply convinced that a person needs the entire globe to be free. A storm was approaching, and A.P. Chekhov foresaw and waited for it.
The play “The Cherry Orchard” was the result of the writer’s creative path. With this play, with the help of plot, characters and issues, A.P. Chekhov completed the ideological debunking of the nobility, begun by Turgenev in the novel “Fathers and Sons.” Over the many years since the repeal serfdom, the nobility largely lost its economic positions, it gradually disappeared from the historical arena. The new owner of the cherry orchard is also not a positive hero for A.P. Chekhov. Although he is, of course, more viable and has a strong grip, in the pursuit of profit, people like him, undoubtedly, unfortunately, destroy spiritual values.