Past, present and future in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"
I. Introduction
“The Cherry Orchard” was written in 1903, in an era that was in many ways a turning point for Russia, when the crisis of the old order had already become apparent, and the future had not yet been determined.
II. main part
1. The past is represented in the play by characters of the older generation: Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs, but other characters in the play also talk about the past. It is associated primarily with the nobility, which by the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century was experiencing a clear decline. The past is ambiguous. On the one hand, it was a time of serfdom, social injustice, etc., which, for example, Lopakhin and Petya Trofimov talk about. On the other hand, the past seems to be a happy time not only for Ranevskaya and Gaev, but also, in particular, for Firs, who perceives “will” as misfortune. There was a lot of good things in the past: goodness, order, and most importantly - beauty, personified in the image of a cherry orchard.
2. The present in Russia is vague, transitional, and unstable. It appears the same way in Chekhov’s play. The main exponent of the present is Lopakhin, but we should not forget about other heroes (Epikhodov, lackey Yasha, Varya). The image of Lopakhin is very contradictory. On the one hand, he, a merchant who emerged from the former serfs, is the master of the present; It is no coincidence that he gets the cherry orchard. This constitutes his pride: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai /.../ bought an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world /.../ bought an estate where his father and grandfather were slaves.” But, on the other hand, Lopakhin is unhappy. He is a subtle person by nature, he understands that he is ruining beauty, but he cannot live otherwise. The feeling of his own inferiority is especially evident in his monologue at the end of the third act: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
3. The future in the play is completely vague and uncertain. It would seem that it belongs to the younger generation - Trofimov and Anya. It is they, especially Trofimov, who speak passionately about the future, which seems to them, of course, wonderful. But Anya is still just a girl, and how her life will turn out, what her future will be, is completely unclear. There are serious doubts that Trofimov will be able to build the happy future he talks about. First of all, because he does absolutely nothing, but only talks. When it is necessary to demonstrate the ability to perform at least minimal practical action (comfort Ranevskaya, take care of Firs), he turns out to be incompetent. But the main thing is the attitude towards the key image of the play, the cherry orchard. Petya is indifferent to its beauty; he urges Anya not to regret the cherry orchard, to forget about the past altogether. “We will plant a new garden,” says Trofimov, and that means let this one die. This attitude towards the past does not allow us to seriously hope for the future.
III. Conclusion
Chekhov himself believed that the future of his country would be better than its past and present. But in what ways this future will be achieved, who will build it and at what cost - the writer did not give specific answers to these questions.
Searched here:
- past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard
- past present and future in the play The Cherry Orchard
- past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard essay
The entire comedy by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard” tells us about the invisible future that awaits Russia in one of the most difficult, transitional eras. At this time, the nobility lost its privileged positions, there were more and more wealthy peasants, and even a separate class of entrepreneurs emerged, for whom the desire for profit became the main thing.
One of the central characters of this work are the once wealthy noblemen Gaev and his sister Ranevskaya. They are on the verge of poverty, but are not ready to give up their former luxurious habits and simply waste their last money on their whims and pleasures. Yes, their past, that is, childhood, was very happy and prosperous. They have a lot to do with the cherry orchard, with the place where they were absolutely happy when they were children. The real A.P. Chekhov portrays him as sad and almost hopeless. There are huge debts and the only way to pay them off is to sell your once rich estate under the hammer so that it has new owners who would do with it whatever their heart desires. It is also worth noting that the play does not indicate how the fate of Gaev and Ranevskaya developed further. All we know is that Ranevskaya was going to leave for Paris again. But did she succeed? How did she continue to live without the cherry orchard? About this A.P. Chekhov is silent. In my opinion, for good reason. Perhaps this is how he wanted to emphasize that people of the “old school”, the nobles, have no future. They must be replaced by new generations who would have different values and a different attitude to life.
The nobility is being replaced by a new generation, a new type of people, with new values and ways of thinking - these are people like Lopakhin. He is an entrepreneur with all his soul, the main thing for him is money and the more of it, the better. And it seems that Lopakhin should be immensely happy, because he is clearly moving towards his intended goal. However, his soul is not at peace, and he does not feel happiness and peace. All his inner experiences are contained in one phrase: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” That is, in the new conditions he is also unhappy and is waiting for certain changes so that his life will also change. In my opinion, in the pursuit of profit and money, Lopakhin lost the most important thing, namely spirituality. Gaev and Ranevskaya had it. This can be seen in the warm and tender memories they have of the cherry orchard and their childhood. Lopakhin has no such memories; for him, a garden is just wood and land that can be sold and also make a profit.
The most positive future emerges for Petya Trofimov and Anya. The two of them understand that inevitable changes are coming throughout Russia. And that something urgently needs to be changed, it is no longer possible to live like this. We need changes that would affect all layers of society and change all the foundations that have already become obsolete. In my opinion, all of Trofimov’s calls are very similar to revolutionary ones. However, he is not ready to go further than his statements. Petya is also a very indecisive person. But he and Anya at least have faith in a bright future, in the fact that they can “plant an even more luxurious and beautiful garden.” And under A.P.’s garden Chekhov meant all of Russia in general.
Therefore, their faith in a bright future is remarkable in itself. But besides this, great efforts must be made to make sure that something changes for the better. But by the end of the play it becomes clear that Anya and Petya are not yet ready for a serious transformation. Perhaps the next generation will be much more determined.
Composition
The very name of Chekhov's play sets one in a lyrical mood. In our minds, a bright and unique image of a blooming garden appears, personifying beauty and the desire for a better life. The main plot of the comedy is related to the sale of this ancient noble estate. This event largely determines the fate of its owners and inhabitants. Thinking about the fate of the heroes, you involuntarily think about more, about the ways of development of Russia: its past, present and future.
The landowner's estate is a kind of mirror here, which reflects both the poetry of the "noble nests" and the bitter fate of the serf slaves, whose reproachful eyes, according to Petya Trofimov, look from every leaf, from every trunk of this beautiful, blooming garden. The life of many noble generations flowed here easily and carefree, supported by the labor of those dumb, powerless people who planted and nurtured it. On the one hand, a life devoid of worries about their daily bread makes it possible for nobles to devote themselves to poetry, art, and love, forming highly educated, cultured people. But, on the other hand, such an existence deprives them of will, perseverance, the ability to adapt to various life circumstances, sensitivity and attention to others. All of the above qualities are combined in the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev. Being on the verge of ruin, they are forced to sell their family estate, which is associated with touching memories of childhood, youth, past prosperity and happiness. This fact itself speaks of the economic collapse suffered by the heroes who personify Russia’s noble past. But it's not only that. After all, if Ranevskaya and Gaev were oppressed only by thoughts of impending material ruin, then they would probably happily agree with the solution that Lopakhin offers. In fact, what makes these people, with rare unanimity, reject the saving option? This question is not easy to answer. It seems that the point here is not the frivolity, impracticality or stupidity of the ruined nobles, but their heightened sense of beauty, which does not allow them to destroy beauty in order to turn a poetic cherry orchard into a profitable commercial enterprise. The crisis of the noble class is much deeper. It has lost not only its economic, but also its social position, because it is unable, as before, to determine the path of development of the country. Well aware of their worthlessness and inability to cope with life, these sweet, kind and honest people themselves give the cherry orchard to the new owner. There is no struggle in the play.
If in the image of Ranevskaya, the egoistic character traits inherent in the nobility are mainly exposed, then in the image of Gaev, helplessness, worthlessness, laziness, tactlessness, lordly arrogance and arrogance are even more clearly manifested. He often looks funny, for example, when, getting carried away, he makes a speech addressed to the closet, or gives a lecture about sexual decadents.
Perhaps, thoughts about the future of Russia, which largely coincide with Chekhov’s, are most fully expressed in the monologues of Petya Trofimov, a young intellectual whose life is full of work and hardship. Experiencing hunger, poverty, and political persecution, this “eternal student” did not lose faith in a new life, which would be based on fair, humane laws and creative constructive work. Petya Trofimov sees the failure of the nobility, mired in idleness and inaction. He gives a largely correct assessment of the bourgeoisie, noting its progressive role in the economic development of the country, but denying it the role of creator and creator of new life. In general, his statements are distinguished by directness and sincerity. While treating Lopakhin with sympathy, he nevertheless compares him to a predatory beast, “which eats everything that gets in its way.” In his opinion, Lopakhins are not capable of decisively changing life by building it on reasonable and fair principles. Trofimov's thoughts about the future are too vague and abstract. “We are heading uncontrollably towards the bright star that burns there in the distance!” - he says to Anya. Yes, his goal is wonderful. But how to achieve it? Where is the main force that can turn Russia into a blooming garden?
Usually the theme of the future is associated precisely with the young heroes of the play - Petya Trofimov and Anya Ranevskaya. But, in my opinion, with all the sympathy for them, one cannot say that they will become the creators of new life. The klutz and “shabby gentleman” (as Varya ironically calls Trofimova) lacks Lopakhin’s strength and business acumen. He submits to life, stoically enduring its blows, but is not able to master it and become the master of his destiny. True, he captivated Anya with his democratic ideas, who expresses her readiness to follow him, firmly believing in the beautiful dream of a new blooming garden. But this young seventeen-year-old girl, who gained information about life mainly from books, is pure, naive and spontaneous, has not yet encountered reality. It is unknown whether she will have enough spiritual strength, perseverance and courage to complete the path of suffering, labor and hardship. Will she be able to maintain that ardent faith in the best, which makes her say goodbye to her old life without regret? Chekhov does not answer these questions. And this is natural. After all, we can only talk about the future speculatively.
If Chekhov looked with hope into the 20th century, which was just beginning, then we, on the threshold of the next century, are still dreaming about our cherry orchard and about those who will nurture it. Flowering trees cannot grow without roots. And the roots are the past and the present. Therefore, for a wonderful dream to come true, the younger generation must combine high culture, education with practical knowledge of reality, will, perseverance, hard work, humane goals, that is, embody the best features of Chekhov's heroes.
The future as the main theme of the play
In 1904, the last play by A.P. was staged on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard", which became the result of the entire work of the playwright. Greeted enthusiastically by the audience, this production received mixed reviews from critics. Both the heroes and the circumstances in which they found themselves were controversial. The theme and idea of the play were also controversial. There is no doubt that Chekhov tried to understand what kind of future awaits the heroes in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” and indeed the entire Russian society as a whole. What caused this desire? More than 40 years have passed since the abolition of serfdom. The usual way of life, built over centuries, has collapsed, and not everyone has the strength and ability to rebuild for a new one. Moreover, not only the nobility suffered from the loss of their peasants, but also many peasants had a hard time getting used to freedom. Some were accustomed to living off the labor of others, while those others simply did not know how to think and make decisions independently. In the play this sounds quite often: “Men are with the gentlemen, gentlemen are with the peasants.”
But that's the past. And what awaits all of them in the future - this is exactly what the playwright wanted to understand. To provide a clear explanation, Chekhov used the image of a cherry orchard as a symbol of Russia, and through his attitude towards it, his attitude towards his homeland. The future of the cherry orchard is the future of Russia.
The future and the heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard”
So what does the future hold for the heroes of The Cherry Orchard? After all, each of the heroes is very vital. The past is irretrievably lost and this is a fact; symbolic proof is the cutting down of the garden and the death of Firs. “...I don’t understand my life without the cherry orchard...” says Ranevskaya, who runs abroad again after selling it, to waste her last money. Gaev gets a job in a bank, with a certain annual salary. For brother and sister, the future is completely unclear, because their whole life is closely connected with the past, and remains there. At the cellular level, they are not able to get used to the present, to begin to think rationally and make decisions, and there is simply no place for such baggage in their new life.
Lopakhin with his business acumen is real. He cuts down the cherry orchard, knowing full well that he is destroying centuries-old traditions, as if breaking the knot that connected the landowners with the peasants working on their land and belonging to them. Therefore, the behind-the-scenes scene of the peasants’ farewell to their owners is also very symbolic. He understands that the future belongs to summer residents, to whom the land does not belong, and working on it is not their duty and obligation. There is a future for Lopakhin, but it is also very vague.
The most joyful future is in the representation of Chekhov’s heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” in Petya and Anya. Petya very beautifully reflects on the good of all humanity, calls for action, but he himself does not know what awaits him, because his speeches are so different from his actions, he is an empty talker. Even Ranevskaya notes: “You don’t do anything, only fate throws you from place to place, it’s so strange...” For him there is no past, he does not find a place in the present, but he sincerely believes that he will find himself in the future: “...I have a presentiment of happiness...I already see it.” Anya strives for the future almost as enthusiastically. She sincerely believes that she will be able to pass the exam at the gymnasium and find a job. “We will build a new garden!” - says a young seventeen-year-old girl. Petya and Anya are new people, an emerging layer of the intelligentsia, for whom moral beauty is at the forefront. However, Petya is not entirely like that, he is only trying to show it, and this can be seen from the words of Ranevskaya, who called him “neat,” and later, when this free and proud person was looking for old galoshes.
And what awaits Varya, Ranevskaya’s adopted daughter and the young servants Yasha and Dunyasha? Varya is a very economical and sensible girl, but she is so down to earth that she does not arouse any interest in Lopakhin, who wanted to marry her. It is obvious that she has no bright impressions ahead of her, that the future awaits her, no different from the present.
But the future of Yasha and Dunyasha can cause a lot of controversy. They are cut off from their roots, being poorly educated, without strict moral principles, they are capable of much in order to satisfy their desires. They treat their owners without respect, and in some ways are even able to use them. So arrogant and boorish Yasha begs to go back to Paris with Ranevskaya, since life in the Russian outback, among ordinary peasants, has become painful for him. He even disdains his own mother, and it is clear that at any moment he will also step over his mistress. It is people like Yasha who, in 13 years, will destroy the Winter Palace, destroy noble estates and shoot former owners.
It can be argued that the future in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard” is very vague. Chekhov only indicated in which direction the heroes could move, because the future of Russia was of great concern to everyone who lived in such a difficult historical time. What is indisputable is that Anton Pavlovich clearly showed that there will be no return to the past and it is necessary to learn to live in a new way, preserving only the best in the form of a set of spiritual values.
Thoughts about the future of the cherry orchard and a description of the future as imagined by Chekhov’s heroes can be used by 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “The Future in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.”
Work test
RESPONSE PLAN
1. Problems of A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”.
2. Features of the genre of the play.
3. The main conflict of the play and its characters:
a) the embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya, Gaev;
b) exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin;
c) heroes of the future - Anya and Petya.
4. The tragedy of the era is a break in the connection of times.
1. The play “The Cherry Orchard” was completed by A.P. Chekhov in 1903. And although it reflects real social phenomena of those years, the play turned out to be in tune with the sentiments of subsequent generations - primarily because it touches on eternal problems: dissatisfaction with life and the desire to change it, the destruction of harmony between people, their mutual alienation, loneliness, weakening of family connections and loss of spiritual roots.
2. Chekhov himself believed that his play was a comedy. It can be classified as a lyrical comedy, where the funny is intertwined with the sad, the comic with the tragic, just like in real life.
3. The central image of the play is the cherry orchard, which unites all the characters. The Cherry Orchard is both a concrete garden, common for estates, and an image-symbol - a symbol of the beauty of Russian nature, Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling from the death of the beautiful cherry orchard.
In the play we do not see a clear conflict; everything, it would seem, goes on as usual. The characters in the play behave calmly, there are no open quarrels or clashes between them. And yet one feels the existence of a conflict, but hidden, internal. Behind ordinary conversations, behind the calm attitude of the characters in the play towards each other, their misunderstanding of each other is hidden. The main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is misunderstanding between generations. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future.
The older generation is Ranevskaya, Gaev, half-ruined nobles who personify the past. Today, the middle generation, is represented by Lopakhin. The youngest generation, whose fate is in the future, is represented by Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter, and Petya Trofimov, a commoner, teacher of Ranevskaya’s son.
a) The owners of the cherry orchard seem to us to be graceful, sophisticated people, full of love for others, capable of feeling the beauty and charm of nature. They carefully preserve the memory of the past, love their home: “I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning...” recalls Lyubov Andreevna. Once upon a time, Lyubov Andreevna, then still a young girl, consoled Ermolai Lopakhin, a fifteen-year-old “peasant” who was punched in the face by his shopkeeper father. Lopakhin cannot forget the kindness of Lyubov Andreevna, he loves her “like his own... more than his own.” She is affectionate with everyone: she calls the old servant Firs “my old man,” she is happy to meet him, and when leaving, she asks several times whether he has been sent to the hospital. She is generous not only to her loved one, who deceived her and robbed her, but also to a random passer-by, to whom she gives the last gold. She herself is penniless and asks to lend money to Semyonov-Pishchik. Relationships between family members are imbued with compassion and delicacy. No one blames Ranevskaya, who actually led to the collapse of her estate, or Gaev, who “ate his fortune on candy.” The nobility of Ranevskaya is that she does not blame anyone but herself for the misfortune that befell her - this is punishment for the fact that “we have sinned too much...”. Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not even want to think about the future. Chekhov considers Ranevskaya and Gaev to be the culprits of their tragedy. They behave like little children who close their eyes in fear when they are in danger. That’s why both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about the real plan of salvation put forward by Lopakhin, hoping for a miracle: if Anya married a rich man, if the Yaroslavl aunt sent money... But neither Ranevskaya nor Gaev are trying anything change. Speaking about the “beautiful” old life, they seem to have come to terms with their misfortune, letting everything take its course, giving in without a fight.
b) Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a man of the present. On the one hand, this is a person with a subtle and gentle soul, who knows how to appreciate beauty, is faithful and noble; he is a hard worker, works from morning to night. But on the other hand, the world of money has already subjugated him. Businessman Lopakhin has conquered his “subtle and gentle soul”: he cannot read books, he is incapable of love. His businesslike nature has eroded the spirituality in him, and he himself understands this. Lopakhin feels like the master of life. “The new owner of the cherry orchard is coming!” “Let everything be as I wish!” - he says. Lopakhin has not forgotten his past, and now the moment of his triumph has come: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai” bought “an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world,” an estate “where his father and grandfather were slaves.”
But Ermolai Lopakhin remained a “peasant”, despite the fact that he came out into the public eye. He is not able to understand one thing: the cherry orchard is not only a symbol of beauty, it is a kind of thread connecting the past with the present. You can't cut down your own roots. And the fact that Lopakhin does not understand this is his main mistake.
At the end of the play, he says: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” But he knows how to do this only in words. But in reality, he is cutting down the garden in order to build summer cottages there, thereby destroying the old, which his time has come to replace. The old has been destroyed, “the connecting thread of days has broken,” but the new has not yet been created, and it is unknown whether it will ever be created. The author is in no hurry to draw conclusions.
c) Petya and Anya, replacing Lopakhin, represent the future. Petya is an “eternal student”, always hungry, sick, unkempt, but proud; lives by labor alone, educated, smart. His judgments are profound. Denying the past, he predicts the short duration of Lopakhin's stay, as he sees his predatory essence. He is full of faith in a new life: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront!” Petya managed to inspire in Anya the desire to work and live at her own expense. She no longer feels sorry for the garden, because ahead of her is a life full of joyful work for the common good: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this one...” Will her dreams come true? Unknown. After all, she doesn’t yet know life to change it. But Petya looks at everything too superficially: not knowing real life, he tries to rebuild it on the basis of ideas alone. And in the whole appearance of this hero one can see some kind of insufficiency, shallowness, lack of healthy vitality. The author cannot trust him. that beautiful future he talks about. Petya doesn’t even try to save the garden; he doesn’t care about the problem that worries the author himself.
4. There is no connection between times in the play; the gap between generations is heard in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the “cherry orchard”, the guardian of its beauty.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
1. What lines are repeated repeatedly in the play? What is their significance?
2. How did A.P. Chekhov define the genre of “The Cherry Orchard”?
3. Why A.P. Chekhov noted the age of only three characters: Anya -17 years old. Varya is 24 years old, Firsa is 87 years old?