Plan
The social statuses of the heroes of the play - as one of the characteristics
In the final play A.P. Chekhov " The Cherry Orchard» there is no division into major and minor actors. They are all important, even seeming episodic roles are of great importance for revealing the main idea of the whole work. The characterization of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard begins with their social representation. After all, in people's heads, social status is already leaving its mark, and not only on stage. So, Lopakhin, a merchant, is already associated in advance with a noisy and tactless huckster, incapable of any subtle feelings and emotions, but Chekhov warned that his merchant is different from typical representative this class. Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik, designated as landowners, look very strange. After all, after the abolition of serfdom, the social statuses of the landowners remained in the past, since they no longer corresponded to the new social order. Gaev is also a landowner, but in the minds of the characters he is "Ranevskaya's brother", which suggests some kind of lack of independence of this character.
With the daughters of Ranevskaya, everything is more or less clear. Anya and Varya have an age indicated, showing that they are the youngest characters in The Cherry Orchard. The age is also indicated for the oldest character - Firs. Trofimov Petr Sergeevich is a student, and this is some kind of contradiction, because if a student, then he is young and it seems too early to ascribe a patronymic, but meanwhile it is indicated.
Throughout the entire action of the play The Cherry Orchard, the characters are fully revealed, and their characters are outlined in a form typical for this type of literature - in speech characteristics given by themselves or by other participants.
Brief characteristics of the main characters
Although the main characters of the play are not singled out by Chekhov as a separate line, they are easy to identify. These are Ranevskaya, Lopakhin and Trofimov. It is their vision of their time that becomes the fundamental motive of the entire work. And this time is shown through the attitude to the old cherry orchard.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna – main character"The Cherry Orchard" - in the past, a wealthy aristocrat, accustomed to live at the behest of her heart. Her husband died quite early, leaving a lot of debts. While she indulged in new feelings tragically died her little son. Considering herself guilty of this tragedy, she runs away from home, from her lover abroad, who, among other things, followed her and literally plundered her there. But her hopes for finding peace did not come true. She loves her garden and her estate, but she cannot save it. It is unthinkable for her to accept Lopakhin’s proposal, because then the centuries-old order in which the title of “landowner” is passed down from generation to generation carrying the cultural and historical heritage, inviolability and confidence in the worldview will be violated.
Lyubov Andreevna and her brother Gaev have everything best features nobility: responsiveness, generosity, education, a sense of beauty, the ability to sympathize.
However, in modern times, all of them positive traits are not needed and are turned over in the opposite direction. Generosity becomes irrepressible squandering, responsiveness and the ability to sympathize turn into slobbering, education turns into idle talk.
According to Chekhov, these two heroes do not deserve sympathy and their feelings are not as deep as it might seem.
In The Cherry Orchard, the main characters talk more than they do, and only person- action is Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich. central character, according to the author. Chekhov was sure that if his image failed, then the whole play would fail. Lopakhin is marked as a merchant, but it would suit him better modern word"businessman". The son and grandson of serfs became a millionaire thanks to his intuition, determination and intelligence, because if he were stupid and not educated, how could he achieve such success in his business? And it is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov speaks of his subtle soul. After all, only Ermolai Alekseevich realizes the value of the old garden and its true beauty. But his commercial streak overdoes, and he is forced to destroy the garden.
Trofimov Petya- an eternal student and a "shabby gentleman." Apparently, he also belongs to noble family, but became, in fact, a homeless tramp, dreaming of the common good and happiness. He talks a lot, but does nothing for the speedy onset of a brighter future. He is also unusual for deep feelings for the people around him and attachment to the place. He lives only in dreams. However, he managed to captivate Anya with his ideas.
Anya, daughter of Ranevskaya. Her mother left her in the care of her brother at the age of 12. That is, in adolescence, so important for the formation of personality, Anya was left to her own devices. She inherited best qualities that are characteristic of the aristocracy. She is youthfully naive, perhaps that is why she was so easily carried away by Petya's ideas.
Brief characteristics of minor characters
The characters in the play "The Cherry Orchard" are divided into main and secondary only by the time of their participation in the actions. So Varya, Simeonov-Pishchik Dunyasha, Charlotte Ivanovna and the lackeys practically do not talk about the estate, and their worldview is not revealed through the garden, they are, as it were, cut off from it.
Varya – stepdaughter Ranevskaya. But in essence, she is the housekeeper on the estate, whose duties include taking care of the masters and servants. She thinks in household level, and her desire to devote herself to the service of God is not taken seriously by anyone. Instead, they try to marry her off to Lopakhin, to whom she is indifferent.
Simeonov-Pishchik- the same landowner as Ranevskaya. Constantly in debt. But his positive attitude helps to overcome difficult situation. So, he does not hesitate a bit when an offer is made to lease his lands. Thus solving their financial difficulties. He is able to adapt to a new life, unlike the owners of the cherry orchard.
Yasha- A young lackey. Having been abroad, he is no longer attracted by his homeland, and even his mother, who is trying to meet him, is no longer needed by him. his arrogance main feature. He does not respect the owners, he has no attachment to anyone.
Dunyasha- a young windy girl who lives one day and dreams of love.
Epikhodov- the clerk, he is a chronic loser, which he knows very well. In fact, his life is empty and aimless.
Firs- the oldest character for whom the abolition of serfdom became greatest tragedy. He is sincerely attached to his masters. And his death in empty house to the sound of a garden being cut down is very symbolic.
Charlotte Ivanovna- a governess and a circus performer in one person. The main reflection of the declared genre of the play.
The images of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard are combined into a system. They complement each other, thereby helping to reveal main topic works.
Artwork test
Characters
“Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
Passerby.
Station manager.
Postal official.
Guests, servants" (13, 196).
As you can see, the social markers of each role are stored in the list of actors and last play Chekhov, and just like in previous plays, they are of a formal nature, not predetermining either the character's character or the logic of his behavior on stage.
So, social status landowner/landowner in Russia turn XIX-XX centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure public relations. In this sense, Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik find themselves in the play persona non grata; their essence and purpose in it are not at all connected with the motive of possessing souls, that is, other people, and in general, possessing anything.
In turn, Lopakhin's "thin, tender fingers", his "thin, tender soul"(13, 244) are by no means predetermined by his first author's characteristic in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely due to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a well-defined semantic halo in Russian literature. It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of the characters. In the context of the description given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next on the poster are: a clerk discussing in a play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at a ball: “You are a very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and your hair too” (13, 198); a young footman with no respect for the people he serves. Perhaps only the model of Firs's behavior corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey in the presence of masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters of the latter Chekhov's play, it is no longer the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, to rush into the future.
So, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into summer cottages, they, in turn, do not understand how to sell harmony, sell happiness:
"Lopakhin. Forgive me, such frivolous people as you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange, I have not yet met. They speak Russian to you, your estate is for sale, but you definitely do not understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What do we do? Teach what?
Lopakhin.<…>Understand! Once you finally decide that there will be dachas, they will give you as much money as you like, and then you will be saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents - it's so vulgar, sorry.
Gaev. Completely agree with you.
Lopakhin. I will either sob, or scream, or faint. I can not! You tortured me!” (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action indicated by the author in the remark (“the room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of Firs’s “nanny” in relation to Gaev: “Firs (brushes Gaev , instructively). Again, they put on the wrong trousers. And what am I to do with you!” (13, 209), but also by the regular appearance in the characters' discourse of images of father and mother. Ranevskaya sees the "deceased mother" in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); about the father going to the Trinity to the church, Gaev recalls in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of the characters' behavior is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in the speeches and actions of Ranevskaya the manifestation of an “ordinary person”, who “submitting to his not always beautiful desires, whims, deceives himself every time.” You can see in her image and "an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life." However, it seems that it is the disinterestedness, lightness, momentary attitude to being, very reminiscent of a child’s, an instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and ridiculous, from the point of view of the rest of the characters and many comedy researchers, the actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior fixed in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all Gaev's serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing an adult:
"Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny is temporarily suspended - T.I.). Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to one general who could give a bill.
Lopakhin. You won't get anything. And you will not pay interest, be calm.
Lyubov Andreevna. He is delirious. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the attitude of the characters to each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. They were definitely waiting for this, throwing themselves on each other's necks and sobbing restrainedly, quietly, afraid that they would not be heard.
GAYEV (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Lyubov Andreevna. Oh my dear, my gentle, beautiful garden! .. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! .. ”(13, 253).
Firs adjoins this micro-group of characters, whose chronotope is also the past, but the past, which has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the speech of the character:
"Firs. In the old days, forty or fifty years ago, they dried cherries, soaked them, pickled them, boiled jam, and it happened ... ”(13, 206).
His past is the time before misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. In this case, we have before us a variant of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order fixed by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The peasants are with the masters, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is scattered, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and by no means always have a social coloring: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petya's future, like Firs's past, is acquiring the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: "Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, the highest happiness possible on earth, and I am in the forefront" (13, 244).
A presentiment of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of the realization of a dream characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I am dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-too-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, which she feels herself to be, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have concrete, tangible outlines (Yasha's lackey and "love" for him is only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... and my head is spinning from dancing, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me this, it took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to reality that is ridiculous and, from his point of view, not real: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>It’s not for me here, I can’t live ... there’s nothing to be done. Seen enough of ignorance - it will be with me ”(13, 247).
In the indicated group of characters, Varya occupies a dual position. On the one hand, she lives in the conditional present, momentary problems, and in this sense of life she is close to Lopakhin: “Only I can’t do nothing, mommy. I have to do something every minute” (13, 233). That is why her role as a housekeeper in the house of a foster mother naturally continues now with strangers:
"Lopakhin. Where are you going now, Varvara Mikhailovna?
Varya. I AM? To the Ragulins ... I agreed to look after the household ... to be housekeepers, or something ”(13, 250).
On the other hand, in her self-awareness, the desired future is also constantly present as a result of dissatisfaction with the present: “If I had money, at least a little, at least a hundred rubles, I would leave everything, I would go away. I would have gone to a monastery” (13, 232).
The characters of the conditional present include Lopakhin, Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik. Such a characteristic of the present time is due to the fact that each of the named characters has his own image of the time in which he lives, and, therefore, there is no single concept of the present time common to the whole play, as well as the time of the future. So, Lopakhin’s time is a real concrete time, which is an uninterrupted chain of daily “deeds” that give a visible meaning to his life: “When I work for a long time, without getting tired, then my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know what I am for. I exist” (13, 246). It is no coincidence that the character's speech is replete with indications of the specific time of the accomplishment of certain events (it is curious that his future tense, as follows from the remarks given below, is a natural continuation of the present, in fact, already realized): “I am now, at five in the morning, at Kharkov to go” (13, 204); “If we don’t come up with anything and don’t come to anything, then on the twenty-second of August both the cherry orchard and the whole estate will be sold at auction” (13, 205); "See you in three weeks" (13, 209).
Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik form an opposition couple in this group of actors. For the first, life is a chain of misfortunes, and this conviction of the character is confirmed (again from his point of view) by Bockle's theory of geographical determinism:
"Epikhodov.<…>And you will also take kvass to get drunk, and there, you see, something in the highest degree obscene, like a cockroach.
Pause.
Have you read Buckle? (13, 216).
For the second, on the contrary, life is a series of accidents, ultimately happy, who will always correct any situation that has developed: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is gone, he died, but lo and behold - Railway passed through my land, and ... they paid me. And there, look, something else will happen not today or tomorrow” (13, 209).
The image of Charlotte is the most mysterious image in latest comedy Chekhov. Episodic in its place in the list of characters, the character, however, acquires extraordinary importance for the author. “Oh, if you played a governess in my play,” writes Chekhov O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. - This best role but I don’t like the rest” (P 11, 259). a little later question about the actress playing this role will be repeated by the author three times: “Who, who will play my governess?” (P 11, 268); “Write also who will play Charlotte. Really Raevskaya? (P 11, 279); "Who plays Charlotte?" (P 11, 280). Finally, in a letter to Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, commenting on the final distribution of roles and, undoubtedly, knowing who will play Ranevskaya, Chekhov still counts on his wife understanding the importance of this particular role for him: “Charlotte is a question mark<…>this is the role of Mrs. Knipper” (P 11, 293).
The importance of the image of Charlotte is emphasized by the author in the text of the play. Each of the few appearances of the character on the stage is accompanied by a detailed author's commentary concerning both his appearance as well as his actions. This attentiveness (focusedness) of the author becomes all the more obvious since Charlotte's remarks are, as a rule, reduced to a minimum in the play, and the appearance of characters more significant on the stage (say, Lyubov Andreevna) is not commented on by the author at all: only numerous psychological details of her are given in the remarks. portrait.
What is the mystery of Charlotte's image? The first and rather unexpected observation worth making is that the appearance of the character emphasizes both feminine and masculine features at the same time. At the same time, the very selection of portrait details can be called autoquoting. Thus, the author accompanies the first and last appearance of Charlotte on the stage with a repeated remark: “Charlotte Ivanovna with a dog on a chain” (13, 199); "Yasha and Charlotte leave with the dog" (13, 253). It is obvious that in the art world Chekhov's detail "with a dog" is significant. She, as is well known, marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - a very rare poetic image of a woman capable of really deep feeling in Chekhov's prose. Indeed, in the context stage action play detail receives a comic realization. “My dog eats nuts too,” says Charlotte to Simeonov-Pishchik (13, 200), immediately separating herself from Anna Sergeevna. In Chekhov's letters to his wife, the semantics of the dog is even more reduced, but it is precisely this version of the stage embodiment that the author insists on: "... the dog is needed in the first act, furry, small, half-dead, with sour eyes" (P 11, 316); “Schnap, I repeat, is not good. We need that shabby little dog that you saw” (P 11, 317-318).
In the same first act, there is another comic remark-quote containing a description of the character's appearance: "Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitting, with a lorgnette on her belt, passes through the stage" (13, 208). Taken together, the three details mentioned by the author create an image that is very reminiscent of another governess - the daughter of Albion: “Near him stood a tall, thin Englishwoman<…>She was dressed in a white muslin dress, through which her skinny yellow shoulders were clearly visible. A golden watch hung on a golden belt” (2, 195). The lornet instead of the watch on Charlotte's belt will probably remain as a "memory" of Anna Sergeevna, because it is this detail that the author will emphasize in both the first and second parts of The Lady with the Dog.
Gryabov's subsequent assessment of the appearance of the Englishwoman is also characteristic: “And the waist? This doll reminds me of a long nail” (2, 197). A very thin detail sounds like a sentence to a woman in Chekhov’s own epistolary text: “The Yartsevs say that you have lost weight, and I really don’t like it,” Chekhov writes to his wife and a few lines below, as if in passing, continues, “Sofya Petrovna Sredina she lost a lot of weight and got very old” (P 11, 167). Such an explicit game with such multi-level quotes makes the character's character vague, blurry, devoid of semantic unambiguity.
The remark that precedes the second act of the play further complicates the image of Charlotte, because now when describing her appearance the author emphasizes the traditionally masculine attributes of the character's clothing: “Charlotte in an old cap; she has taken off her gun from her shoulders and is adjusting the buckle on her belt” (13, 215). This description can again be read as an autoquote, this time from the drama Ivanov. The remark preceding its first act ends with Borkin's significant appearance: “Borkin, in big boots, with a gun, appears in the depths of the garden; he is tipsy; when he sees Ivanov, he goes on tiptoe towards him and, having caught up with him, aims at his face<…>takes off his cap" (12, 7). However, as in the previous case, the detail does not become characterizing, because, unlike the play "Ivanov", in "The Cherry Orchard" neither Charlotte's gun nor Epikhodov's revolver will ever fire.
The remark included by the author in the third act of the comedy, on the contrary, completely levels (or unites) both principles, fixed earlier in Charlotte's appearance; now the author simply calls her a figure: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat and plaid trousers is waving his arms and jumping, shouting: “Bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!” (13, 237). It is noteworthy that this leveling - the game - by the masculine/feminine principle was quite consciously incorporated by the author into the semantic field of the character: "Charlotte speaks not in broken, but in pure Russian," Chekhov writes to Nemirovich-Danchenko, "only occasionally she instead of b at the end of the word pronounces Ъ and confuses adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders ”(P 11, 294).
This game is also explicated by Charlotte's dialogue with her inner voice, blurring the boundaries of the gender identity of its participants:
"Charlotte.<…>And what good weather today!
She is answered by a mysterious female voice, as if from under the floor: "Oh yes, the weather is magnificent, ma'am."
You are such a good my ideal ...
Voice: “Madam, I also liked you very much” (13, 231).
The dialogue goes back to the model of secular conversation between a man and a woman, it is no coincidence that only one side of it is called madam, but two female voices carry out the dialogue.
Another very important observation concerns Charlotte's behavior on stage. All her remarks and actions seem unexpected and are not motivated by the external logic of this or that situation; they are not directly related to what is happening on the stage. So, in the first act of the comedy, she refuses Lopakhin the ritual kiss of her hand only on the grounds that later he may want something more:
"Charlotte (withdrawing her hand). If you let me kiss your hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder ... ”(13, 208).
In the most important for the author, the second act of the play, at the most pathetic moment of his own monologue, which we have yet to talk about, when the other characters are sitting, thinking, involuntarily immersed in the harmony of being, Charlotte “takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats” (13, 215 ). Having finished this process, she makes a completely unexpected and not confirmed by the text of the comedy compliment to Epikhodov: “You, Epikhodov, are very clever man and very scary; women must love you madly” (13, 216) and leaves the stage.
The third act includes Charlotte's card and ventriloquial tricks, as well as her illusionary experiments, when either Anya or Varya appears from under the blanket. It is noteworthy that this plot situation formally slows down the action, as if interrupting, dividing in half, a single remark of Lyubov Andreevna: “Why has Leonid been absent for so long? What is he doing in the city?<…>But Leonidas is still missing. What he's been doing in the city for so long, I don't understand!" (13; 231, 232).
And, finally, in the fourth act of the comedy, during the touching farewell of the rest of the characters to the house and garden
"Charlotte (takes up a bundle that looks like a folded child). My baby, bye, bye.<…>
Shut up, my good, my dear boy.<…>
I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the knot back)" (13, 248).
Such a mechanism for constructing a scene was known to the poetics of the Chekhov theater. So, in the first act of "Uncle Vanya" Marina's remarks are included: "Chick, chick, chick<…>Pestrushka left with the chickens… The crows wouldn’t have dragged her…” (13, 71), which directly follow Voinitsky’s phrase: “It’s good to hang yourself in such weather…” (Ibid.). Marina, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in the system of characters in the play personifies a reminder to a person about the logic of events outside of him. That is why she does not participate in the struggles of other characters with circumstances and with each other.
Charlotte also occupies a special place among other comedy characters. This feature is not only noted by the author, as mentioned above; it is realized and felt by the character himself: “These people sing terribly” (13, 216), Charlotte will say, and her remark correlates perfectly with the phrase of Dr. Dorn from the play “The Seagull”, also from the side of the observer of what is happening: “People are boring » (13, 25). Charlotte's monologue, which opens the second act of the comedy, explicates this peculiarity, which is realized, first of all, in the absolute absence of social markers of her image. Her age is unknown: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it still seems to me that I am young” (13, 215). Her nationality is also unknown: “And when my father and mother died, a German lady took me to her and began to teach me.” About the origin and family tree the character is also unknown: “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married ... I don’t know” (13, 215). Charlotte's profession also turns out to be accidental and unnecessary in the play, since the children in the comedy have formally grown up a long time ago.
All other characters of The Cherry Orchard, as noted above, are included in one or another conditional time, it is no coincidence that the motive of memories or hope for the future becomes the main one for most of them: Firs and Petya Trofimov represent the two poles of this self-awareness of the characters. That is why “everyone else” in the play feels they are in some kind of virtual, and not real, chronotope (cherry orchard, new garden, Paris, dachas). Charlotte, on the other hand, finds herself outside of all these traditional ideas of a person about himself. Its time is fundamentally non-linear: it has no past, and hence no future. She is forced to feel herself only now and only in this particular space, that is, in the real unconditional chronotope. Thus, we have before us, modeled by Chekhov, the personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, if, layer by layer, we remove absolutely everything - both social and even physiological - parameters of his personality, free him from any kind of determinism by the surrounding world. . What remains in this case for Charlotte, firstly, is loneliness among other people with whom she does not coincide and cannot coincide in space / time: “I so want to talk, and not with anyone ... I have no one” (13, 215) . Secondly, absolute freedom from the conventions imposed on a person by society, the subordination of behavior only to their own internal impulses:
"Lopakhin.<…>Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick!
Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me the trick!
Charlotte. No need. I wish to sleep. (Leaves)" (13, 208-209).
The consequence of these two circumstances is the absolute peace of the character. There is not a single psychological remark in the play that would mark the deviation of Charlotte's emotions from absolute zero, while other characters can speak through tears, indignant, joyful, frightened, reproachful, embarrassed, etc. And, finally, this attitude of the character finds a natural completion in a certain model of behavior - in free circulation, play, with reality that is familiar and unchanged for all other characters. This attitude to the world is what her famous tricks explicate.
“I’m doing salto mortale (like Charlotte - T.I.) on your bed,” Chekhov writes to his wife, for whom climbing to the third floor without a “car” was already an insurmountable obstacle, “I stand upside down and, picking you up, roll over several times and throwing you up to the ceiling, I pick you up and kiss you” (P 11, 33).
In his play "The Cherry Orchard" A.P. Chekhov gives vivid characteristics to all the heroes, dividing them, conditionally, into people of the present, past and future. These characters not only by their deeds, but most importantly by their words, speak about themselves. So, one of the main characters of the action, Lyubov Andreevna Raevskaya. She is a fashionably dressed woman. Having squandered her fortune, she returned from Europe to sell an estate with a cherry orchard.
Lyubov Andreevna is smart, very kind and absent-minded. She caresses everyone and loves her daughters Anya and foster Varya very much. Ranevskaya is responsive and generous person, she does not know how to save at all, although she knows perfectly well how hard it is financial condition their families. Her brother is Leonid Andreevich Gaev. He is not much different from his sister and also, completely, does not know how to use money. He eats and drinks a lot and constantly sucks on lollipops. He talks a lot, often nonsense, but he likes to make solemn speeches.
This is a narrow-minded, lazy and unbusinesslike person, And, most importantly, he is not a man - his word. A personality of a different format, which will soon replace the short-sighted Ranevskaya and Gaev, will be Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This is a new class. He is a rich merchant who, from the son of a serf, turned into an entrepreneur and merchant. Lopakhin has no education, but he is smart by nature. Humble and practical person. He is in love with Varya, but he does not dare to propose to her. "Eternal" student Petr Trofimov former teacher the drowned son of Ranevskaya. He is poor and cannot graduate from university.
He doesn't do anything serious. Him a pure soul, but many consider him an eccentric. He is a proud and shy person. He is friends with Anya Ranevskaya, freely expressing his thoughts about freedom and happiness with her. Anya, own daughter Lyubov Andreevna. A smart and well-educated girl, but almost still a child. She is not afraid of change and strives for it. She is a dreamer. Anya wants to study and work, bringing joy to people. Varya, adopted daughter of Ranevskaya.
She matured early and is forced to take on her shoulders the whole burden of maintaining the estate. Knowing the price of every penny, she does not waste anything. She likes Lopakhin, but his timidity brings young people only sadness. Varya, due to lack of money, will go to serve as a housekeeper to rich people. Life does not spoil her very much, but she is a kind and attentive girl. The servants who surround Raevskaya and Gaev are mostly kind and nice people. For example, Firs, served in their house all his life.
This is a faithful and reliable servant, but he is already very old, at the end of the play, he will die of grief, abandoned by everyone. And here is the young footman Yasha, "a rogue and a drunkard." He flirts with the maids, promising them all sorts of gifts, but lies and "plays" with feelings. He asks Raevskaya to leave with her, as a servant, abroad. Nothing keeps him here. Russia is not dear to him. Lyubov Andreevna's neighbor, Simeonov, Boris Borisovich Pishchik, an impoverished nobleman. He spends all his energy trying to find someone to borrow money from. Boris Borisovich suffers from gout. He is frivolous and comical.
Now they are reading:
- The plot of the novel A Hero of Our Time
Lermontov Mikhail Yurievich, created a novel called "A Hero of Our Time" in early 1841, he is the very first in the lyrical and psychological direction.
- I dedicated the lyre to my people - composition by Nekrasov
In today's essay, we will talk about the folk poet Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov in his work, well-chosen, and compatible, and how vividly he portrayed the people and life in his works.
- Love in Oblomov's life essay
As soon as the novel "Oblomov" was published, it immediately aroused a flurry of reasoning, questions, and disputes among critics and specialists in the field of literature. However, one cannot fail to say that the novel was recognized and loved by many people.
- Composition Childhood of Alyosha Peshkov
Alyosha Peshkov was born into a poor bourgeois family. The boy's father died early, having contracted cholera from his son. His mother returned to her father, who in the past was a barge hauler, and later opened a dyeing workshop. He was assisted by his two married sons,
- Composition Ostap and Andriy Brothers and Enemies Grade 7, Grade 8
The events described by N.V. Gogol, underlie the Cossack uprising of 1637-1638, suppressed by Hetman N. Pototsky. During these times, the Commonwealth resolutely sought to convert the part of the territories under its control to Catholicism.
- The idea of the novel Oblomov essay
The novel by I. Goncharov "Oblomov" was published in the middle of the 19th century - a time when not only serfdom, but the whole society experienced acute crisis. It was an era of change, the need for which was recognized by all progressive minds. But there was another
The image of the cherry orchard in the minds of the heroes of the play by L.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
The Cherry Orchard unites all the heroes of the play around it. The writer connects the characters different ages and social groups, and they will have to somehow decide the fate of the garden, and hence their own fate.
The owners of the estate are Russian landowners Gaev and Ranevskaya. Both brother and sister are educated, intelligent, sensitive people. They know how to appreciate beauty, they feel it subtly, but due to inertia they cannot do anything to save it. Gaev and Ranevskaya are deprived of a sense of reality, practicality and responsibility, and therefore are not able to take care of themselves or their loved ones. They cannot follow Lopakhin's advice and rent out the land, despite the fact that this would bring them a solid income: "Dachas and summer residents - it's so vulgar, sorry." They are prevented from going to this measure by special feelings that connect them with the estate. They treat the garden as a living person, with whom they have a lot in common. The cherry orchard for them is the personification of the past from life, bygone youth. Looking out the window at (the garden, Ranevskaya exclaims “Oh my childhood, my purity! I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then it was exactly like that, nothing has changed.” Returning to homestead, she again felt young and happy.
The feelings of Gaev and Ranevskaya are not shared by Lopakhin. Their behavior seems strange and illogical to him. He wonders why they are not affected by the arguments of a prudent way out of a difficult situation, which are so obvious to him. Lopakhin knows how to appreciate beauty: he is fascinated by the garden, "more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world." But he is an active and practical man. He sincerely tries to help Gaev and Ranevskaya, constantly convincing them: “Both the cherry orchard and the land must be leased for summer cottages, do it now, as soon as possible, the auction is on the nose! Understand! But they don't want to listen to him. Gaev is only capable of empty oaths: “By my honor, whatever you want, I swear that the estate will not be sold! ..”
However the auction took place, and Lopakhin bought the estate. For him, this event has a special meaning: “I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. I’m sleeping, it only seems to me, it just seems ... ”Thus, for Lopakhin, buying an estate becomes a kind of symbol
his success, a reward for many years of work. For Lopakhin, the cherry orchard is just land that can be sold, mortgaged or bought. In his joy, he does not even consider it necessary to show an elementary sense of tact in relation to the former owners of the estate. He starts cutting down the garden without even waiting for them to leave. In some ways, the soulless footman Yasha is akin to him, in which there are completely no such feelings as kindness, love for his mother, attachment to the place where he was born and raised. In this he is the direct opposite of Firs, in whom these qualities are unusually developed. Firs is the most an old man in the house. For many years he faithfully serves his masters, sincerely loves them and is fatherly ready to protect them from all troubles. Perhaps Firs is the only character in the play endowed with this quality - devotion. Firs is a very integral nature, and this integrity is fully manifested in his attitude towards the garden. The garden for the old lackey is family nest, which he seeks to protect in the same way as his masters.
Petya Trofimov is a representative of a new generation. He does not care at all about the fate of the cherry orchard. “We are above love,” he declares, thus confessing his inability to have a serious feeling. Petya looks at everything too superficially: not knowing true life, he tries to rebuild it on the basis of far-fetched ideas. Outwardly, Petya and Anya are happy. They want to go to a new life, decisively breaking with the past. The garden for them is "the whole of Russia", and not just this cherry orchard. But is it possible, without loving your home, to love the whole world? Both heroes rush to new horizons, but lose their roots. Mutual understanding between Ranevskaya and Trofimov is impossible. If for Petya there is no past and memories, then Ranevskaya is deeply grieving: “After all, I was born here, my father and mother lived here, my grandfather, I love this house, without a cherry orchard I don’t understand my life ...”
The cherry orchard is a symbol of beauty. But who will save beauty if people who are capable of appreciating it are unable to fight for it, and energetic and active people look at it only as a source of profit and profit?
The cherry orchard is a symbol of goodness, and therefore such expressions as “cut roots”, “trample a flower” or “hit a tree with an ax” sound blasphemous and inhuman.
Reflecting on the characters and actions of the heroes of the play, we think about the fate of Russia, which is for us the same “cherry orchard”.
"was created by Chekhov in 1903, staged in 1904, on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.
"The Cherry Orchard" is called a play about the decline of the life of the nobility, but above all, this is a play about the Motherland, about the imaginary and true owners of the Russian land, about the upcoming renewal of Russia.
The Russia of the obsolete past is represented in the play by the images of Ranevsky and Gaev. The cherry orchard is dear to these heroes as a memory, as a memory of childhood, youth, well-being, of their easy and graceful life. In presented by the author noble estate we see the cultural nest first of all.
And now let's move on to the analysis of the heroes of Chekhov's play.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna is a landowner, the soul of a beautiful house, its mistress. She lived abroad for 5 years, in Paris. She spent a lot of money, led a wasteful lifestyle, did not deny herself anything. People are constantly drawn to her despite all her vices and frivolity. Ranevskaya is sentimental, easy to communicate with. She is overwhelmed with feelings of joy when she returned home, crying at the sight of the nursery. For her, the word responsibility means nothing, when it was necessary to solve the problem with the Cherry Orchard, she naively thought that everything would go away by itself and fit in. When Ranevskaya lost her estate, she does not experience any drama about this. She returns to Paris to her ridiculous love, to which, apparently, they would have returned without that, despite all her loud words about the impossibility of living far from their homeland. The heroine does not experience any serious emotions, she can easily move from a state of anxiety, concern to a cheerful and carefree revival. That is what happened this time as well. She quickly calmed down about the loss that befell her ...
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich - merchant, son and grandson of a serf. He owes a lot to Ranevskaya, since she helped him a lot, loves her like her own.
Under the new conditions, Lopakhin became rich, but remained, in his own words, "a peasant is a peasant." Lopakhin wants to help Ranevskaya, give the land for dachas, but for this it is necessary to cut down the garden, for him the Cherry Orchard is simply “big”. he suffers deeply from duality. He cuts down a cherry orchard, and it may seem that a rude, uneducated merchant has destroyed beauty, without thinking about what he is doing, only for the sake of his profit. But in fact, Lopakhin does this not only for the sake of profit and for her. There is another reason, much more important than your own enrichment - this is revenge for the past. He cuts down the garden, knowing full well that this is "the estate, better than which there is nothing in the world." In this way, he tries to kill the memory, which, against his will, constantly reminds him that he is a "man", and the ruined owners of the cherry orchard are "gentlemen". He wants to erase this line that separates him from the "masters" by any means, with all his strength. In Lopakhin, the features of a predatory beast are visible. Money and the power acquired with it cripples his soul. Two people live and fight in it: one - "with a thin, gentle soul", the other -" a predatory beast.
Anya is the daughter of Ranevskaya. A 17-year-old girl, the theme of the future of Russia is connected with her. She is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. He fully shares Petya's idea that all the nobility is to blame before Russia. Wants to leave native home and go with Petya even to the ends of the world. In A. there is faith in happiness, in one's own strength, in another life. She tells her mother after the sale of the estate: "We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this" and sincerely rejoices at the departure from her parents' house. But, perhaps, she will be disappointed, because Petya says more than he does.
Trofimov Petya is a 27-year-old raznochinets.
Trofimov criticizes all Russian authorities, since she believes that it is she who does not allow the whole of Russia to develop, scolds for - "dirt, vulgarity, Asianism", criticizes Russian intelligentsia, which looks for nothing and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself bright representative such an intelligentsia: he only speaks beautifully, without doing anything. Trofimy's characteristic phrase: "I will reach or show others the way how to reach" (to the "higher truth"). He denies love, considering it to be something "petty and ghostly." He only urges Anya to believe him, as he anticipates happiness. Ranevskaya reproaches Petya for coldness when he says that it makes no difference whether the estate is sold or not. In general, Ranevskaya does not like the hero, calls him a klutz and a second-class high school student. At the end of the play, Petya searches for forgotten galoshes, which become a symbol of his useless, albeit illuminated, beautiful words, life.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich - brother of Ranevskaya, landowner. A miserable aristocrat who blew his entire fortune. Sentimental and sensitive. He is very worried about the sale of the estate. To hide this, the hero "defends himself" with absent-minded behavior and catchphrases like "who?", "from the ball to the right into the corner", etc. Completely unadapted to life in new conditions, incapable of independent living. He makes unrealistic plans to save the cherry orchard (what if someone leaves them an inheritance, what if Anya marries a rich man, what if an aunt from Yaroslavl gives them money). But this hero did not lift a finger to really save his estate, his “homeland”. After the sale of the cherry orchard, he gets a job at a bank, to which Lopakhin remarks with doubt: “only he can’t sit still, he’s very lazy ...”
Firs is a lackey in Ranevskaya's house, an old man of 87 years old. He is a type of servant of the old time. Firs is boundlessly devoted to his masters and cares for them as if they were his own children. So, meeting Ranevskaya, Firs cries with joy.
After the abolition of serfdom, he "did not agree to the will, remained with the masters." Firs constantly recalls the past, when the master "went to Paris ... on horseback ..." and when everything was clear: "men with gentlemen, gentlemen with men."
The old servant is no longer able to serve, he hears almost nothing, he constantly makes a reservation. But Firs cannot sit idle. He was born for masters and will die caring for them. This is almost exactly what happens. After the sale of the estate, the departing owners forget Firs in a boarded-up house, where a servant devoted to this house dies.
Yasha is a young footman. Ham, ignorant, but very pleased with himself and bowing to everything foreign.
Yasha is cynical and Cruel person. When his mother comes to him from the village and waits for him all day in the servants' room, the footman scornfully declares: "It is very necessary, I could come tomorrow." Alone with Firs, Yasha says to the old man: “You are tired, grandfather. If only you'd die sooner." Yasha really wants to appear educated and flaunts " clever sayings":" In my opinion, if a girl loves someone, then she, therefore, is immoral. The young lackey is very proud of having lived abroad. With a foreign gloss, he wins the heart of the maid Dunyasha, but uses her location for his own benefit. After the sale of the estate, Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him back to Paris with her. It is impossible for him to stay in Russia: "the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, moreover, boredom ..."
For former owners estates and their surroundings - Ranevskaya, Vari, Gaev, Pishchik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs - ends with the death of the cherry orchard habitual life and what happens next is highly uncertain. And although they continue to pretend that nothing has changed, such behavior seems ridiculous, and in the light of the current situation, even stupid and unreasonable. The tragedy of these people is not that they lost the cherry orchard, went bankrupt, but that their feelings became very crushed ...
