Crazy years faded fun
It's hard for me, like a vague hangover.
But like wine, the sadness of bygone days
In my soul, the older, the stronger.
A.S. Pushkin
In the works of literary critics, the interpretation of The Cherry Orchard is most often presented from a historical or social point of view. The theme of the play is defined as follows: Chekhov shows the past, present and future of Russia. In accordance with these eras, there are owners of the estate in the play (they go bankrupt, while demonstrating complete helplessness), there is a new owner of life (an energetic, enterprising merchant), there are representatives of the younger generation (noble dreamers looking to the future). The idea of the play is in the author's assessment state of the art Russia. It is obvious that Chekhov understands the inevitability of the end of the local nobility (Gaev and Ranevskaya), sadly follows the activities of bourgeois businessmen (Lopakhin), but looks with hope to the future of Russia, which he connects with new people (Petya Trofimov and Anya), who are different from the previous ones, and from real owners cherry orchard. These young people dream of planting new garden in place of the old one, ruined by Lopakhin for the sake of profits. So in latest comedy Chekhov shows historical optimism, which was not in his previous plays ("The Seagull", "Ivanov", "Uncle Vanya").
Such a definition of the theme and idea of "The Cherry Orchard" is quite possible, but it would be wrong to say that Chekhov only laughs at the nobility leaving the public stage, condemns the modern "masters of life" and sympathizes young generation which hastens the arrival of a new life. It seems that the attitude of the playwright towards his characters is more complex than unambiguous condemnation or sympathy.
Take, for example, the image of the valet Firs. This hero, of course, refers to the outgoing Russia, since for more than fifty years he has been faithfully serving the owners of the cherry orchard, he also remembers the grandfather of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Not only by age, but also by conviction, he is an adherent of the old order, the old way of life. It is remarkable that a hero similar to Firs has already been portrayed in Russian literature - this is the courtyard Ipat, the lackey of Prince Utyatin from N.A. Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” (ch. “Last Child”). Ipat, after the announcement of the Manifesto, renounced personal freedom and wished, as before, to serve his masters-princes. Firs calls the abolition of serfdom "a misfortune" and says that in 1861 he "did not agree to freedom, remained with the masters" (II). Ipat, with tears of emotion, recalls the habits of a serf master: how the young prince Utyatin harnessed Ipat to his cart instead of a horse or bathed him in a winter river. And Firs fondly recalls the tyranny of the late gentleman, who imagined himself a doctor and treated all patients with sealing wax. The old servant firmly believes in this medicine and believes that it is thanks to the sealing wax that he lives so long (III). However, the servility of Ipat causes satirical ridicule in Nekrasov's poem, and Firs's behavior is the author's calm understanding in a Chekhov's play.
Slave psychology is combined in the old man with a touching attachment to the masters. Firs sincerely cries at a meeting with Ranevskaya (I), whom he has not seen for five years, diligently continues to serve the fifty-year-old "child" Gaev. The old man ruefully remarks to him: “Again, they put on the wrong trousers. And what am I to do with you!” (I). Even when they forget him and he remains to die in a house locked for the winter, he worries about the owner: “But Leonid Andreevich, I suppose, didn’t put on a fur coat, he went in a coat ... I didn’t look ... Young and green!” (IV).
Having lived all his life on the estate, he cares about the prestige of the house and the good reputation of the owners. At the ridiculous ball started by Ranevskaya on the day of the auction, he last strength but serves the guests properly. When Ranevskaya sends him to rest, Firs replies with a grin: “I’ll go to sleep, but without me, who will give, who will order? One for the whole house" (III). And he is right, since Yasha carelessly walks around the rooms, and Dunyasha dances with the guests. The old servant is even offended for his current masters, who are not like the former ones: “In the past, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, and now we send for the postal official and the head of the station, and even they do not go hunting” (III).
Next to Firs, the play shows a servant of modern times - Yasha, a stupid and self-satisfied guy. He visited Paris and, having tasted the charms of European civilization, began to despise his fatherland and is ashamed of his peasant origin. Yasha asks Ranevskaya to take him back to Paris with her, and complains: “It’s positively impossible for me to stay here. What can I say, you yourself are miles away, the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, moreover, boredom, the food is ugly in the kitchen ... ”(III). Yasha himself is an insignificant person and a loose servant, which is proved by his behavior at the ball. He never took Firs to the hospital, because the unlucky lady Ranevskaya has a non-executive lackey. But in the last act, showing his "knowledge and skills", he declares to Lopakhin that the champagne is not real, and he drinks the whole bottle alone. At the beginning and at the end of the play, Chekhov shows Yasha's attitude towards his mother, who comes to see him on the day of his arrival and departure. The reminder of the mother waiting in the kitchen makes the lover Parisian life only annoyance. Firs, in comparison with this lackey, looks like a conscientious, devoted servant, a wise man.
Chekhov trusts the old valet with several very important statements that clarify the author's intention of the play. Firstly, love for order in everything (in service and in life) is what distinguishes Firs. And in his old age, he sees senseless fuss around him and remarkably characterizes the order both in the manor house and in the surrounding Russian life: everything was right before, “muzhiks with gentlemen, gentlemen with muzhiks, but now everything is scattered, you won’t understand anything” (II). This feeling of fragility, confusion is experienced not only by the old man, but also by Lopakhin, who has just fulfilled his dream (he bought a cherry orchard at auction) and already complains about his awkward, unhappy life.
Secondly, Firs calls all the heroes of the play and himself, in accordance with the author's intention, "stupid" (III), that is, fools who do not understand life. An example of the bad luck of all the characters is their attitude towards the cherry orchard. Firs sees the garden as it was in the irrevocable past; for Gaev, talking about a garden is an occasion for empty boasting; Lopakhin, thinking about saving the garden, cuts it down; Anya and Petya prefer to dream of new gardens rather than saving the old one.
Summing up, it should be said that Firs is an integral part of the noble estate where the play takes place. The old valet is a type of faithful servant, which is very diversely represented in Russian literature: the nanny Eremeevna from The Undergrowth, the nanny Filipyevna from Eugene Onegin, Savelich from captain's daughter”, Zakhar from Oblomov, etc. Firs is a servant of Gaev and at the same time an exponent of the author's idea. This hero is a man old Russia, in which there was serfdom, but there was also a high spiritual culture. Therefore, the image of a faithful servant turned out to be multifaceted.
Chekhov was against sweeping denial old life, and even more so its violent destruction, it is in right time itself will give way to new orders. This author's idea is proved by the last, poignant scene of the play: forgotten by everyone, the helpless old man dies in a locked house. At the same time, Firs does not reproach his careless masters, since he sincerely loves them. His death coincides with the death of the cherry orchard and symbolizes the end of the "noble nest", the end whole era, whose keeper was an old servant.
When asked the meaning of the finale in the play " The Cherry Orchard"specified by the author Anastasia Shtaymets the best answer is At first glance, The Cherry Orchard gives a clear alignment of social forces in Russian society and outlines the struggle between them: the outgoing nobility (Ranevskaya and Gaev), the rising bourgeoisie (Lopakhin), the new revolutionary forces coming to replace them (Petya and Anya) . Social motives are also found in the characters of the characters: the lordly carelessness of Ranevskaya and Gaev, their practical helplessness; the bourgeois efficiency of Lopakhin, the openness of Petya and Anya, aspiring to a “bright future”.
However, the seemingly central event - the struggle for the cherry orchard - is devoid of the significance that the very logic of the arrangement of characters in the play would seem to require. The conflict based on the confrontation of social forces is muted in Chekhov. Lopakhin, a Russian bourgeois, is devoid of predatory grip and aggressiveness towards the nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev, who do not resist him at all. It turns out as if the estate itself floats into his hands, and he, as it were, reluctantly buys a cherry orchard.
What is the main knot of the dramatic conflict? Probably not in the economic bankruptcy of Ranevskaya and Gaev. After all, already at the very beginning of the comedy, they have an excellent option for economic prosperity, kindly offered by the same Lopakhin: rent out the garden for summer cottages. But the heroes refuse him. Why? Obviously, because the drama of their existence is deeper than elementary ruin, so deep that money cannot fix it and the will to live that is fading in the heroes cannot be returned.
On the other hand, the purchase of the cherry orchard by Lopakhin also does not eliminate the deeper conflict of this man with the world. Lopakhin's triumph is short-lived, it is quickly replaced by a feeling of despondency and sadness. This strange merchant turns to Ranevskaya with words of reproach and reproach: “Why, why didn’t you listen to me? My poor, good, you will not return now. With all the heroes of the play, Lopakhin utters with tears a significant phrase: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
Here Lopakhin directly touches on the hidden, but the main source of drama: he lies not in the struggle for the cherry orchard, but in dissatisfaction with life, equally, but differently experienced by all the heroes of The Cherry Orchard without exception. It is absurd and clumsy to live with an idea, it brings neither joy nor a feeling of happiness to anyone. This life is not only unhappy for the main characters, it is also difficult for Charlotte, lonely and useless with her tricks, and for Epikhodov with his constant failures, and for Simeonov-Pishchik with his eternal need for money.
The drama of life lies in the discord of its most essential foundations. And that is why all the heroes of the play have a sense of the temporality of their stay in the world, a sense of the gradual exhaustion and death of those forms of life that once seemed eternal. In the play, everyone lives in anticipation of the impending fatal end. The old foundations of life are disintegrating both outside and in the souls of people, while new ones are not yet born, at best they are only foreseen, and not only by the young heroes of the drama. The same Lopakhin says: “Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, I think: “Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should really be giants.”
In the face of impending changes, Lopakhin's victory is a conditional victory, just as Ranevskaya's defeat is a conditional defeat. Time is running out for both. Throughout the play, the motive of escaping time stretches.
Russia, as Chekhov saw it at the turn of the century, had not yet worked out in itself an effective ideal of man. Premonitions of the coming coup are ripening in it, but people are not yet ready for it. There are rays of truth, humanity and beauty in every hero of The Cherry Orchard. Good secretly shines everywhere, but there is no sun. At the end of the play, there is a feeling that life ends for everyone, and this is not accidental. The heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" did not rise to the height that the upcoming test requires of them.
Reading the 4th act of Chekhov's play "V. s. ”, you understand that the author wanted to show the noble nest, which is represented by Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present in the person of Lopakhin and the uncertain future, represented by the young people Petya and Anya. Before us appear heroes who have lost their past, present and future. For each of these heroes, the desired does not correspond to the actual. Self-esteem does not correspond to the impression made on others, and the words of the heroes do not correspond to their deeds. Ranevskaya - loving woman, the mother, showing sentimental tenderness for old memorabilia, often turned out to be rude and completely insensitive to people, betrays everyone and lets them go around the world.
Lopakhin, loving and pitying these people, calmly feasts at the commemoration of the garden. Petya Trofimov often says that he needs to work, but he himself is “an eternal student,
Spoken about the road to the future, but unable to find his own galoshes. Even minor characters unhappy, their self-characteristics sound very dramatic: “I grew up, then went to the governess,” Charlotte says. And where I come from and who I am - I don’t know:. I don’t have anyone:. And who I am, why I am unknown. ”The fate of the old servant Firs is symbolic. Se leave, leaving him to the mercy of fate. Firs is the embodiment of the past: they left their past, they lost themselves. The play ends with the word Firs "Nedotep", which can be attributed to each of the heroes, all the heroes of Chekhov do not hear each other, often answer inappropriately, each speaks about his own, completely not hearing the others. Love Andes. touched by his children's room and cries, and at this time Gaev talks about the train, which was late for 2 hours. At the same time, Charlotte remembers a dog that eats nuts well. This indicates the disunity of people, their deafness to other people's problems, the violation of interpersonal contacts and communication. Thus, we feel a through motive of deafness. Firs - a physically deaf man - becomes among them symbolic figure Moreover, he is perhaps the most sympathetic of the heroes: he is devoted to his owners, takes care of them touchingly, takes care of Gaev, who is 51 years old, like a baby. “They put on the wrong trousers again,” he tells him in a caring voice. He answers out of place, because he really doesn’t hear well, and for other heroes this deafness is not physical, but spiritual. Their position is in some sense worse than that of a servant, so he rightfully calls them klutzes.
The play calls sad mood, and its ending is sad. It would seem that Anya and Petya are the author's hope for the future, but we understand how such a person who talks more than acts cannot lead other people. Anya is still too young, she does not know life at all.
We sympathize with Ranevskaya, but we cannot fail to notice her infantile, ridiculous behavior. So all the time there is a conflict of times and a complete misunderstanding of one generation by another. It is clear that the nobility is a thing of the past. Chekhov does not believe that the bourgeoisie will become the master of life.
Lopakhin lives for today, his ideas are practical, he constantly talks about how to change life for the better and seems to know what to do. However, we constantly feel self-doubt, and at the end of the play, his hands drop and he exclaims: "Our clumsy, unhappy life would soon change."
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was a great citizen of Russia. In many of his works, we see our Motherland through his eyes. Before moving on to the topic of my essay, I would like to talk about what kind of person Anton Pavlovich was. He called lies, hypocrisy and arbitrariness his main enemies. The whole life of the writer was filled with stubborn, systematic work. Having lived for forty-four years, he wrote more than two hundred works of prose and drama, built schools, participated in the creation of hospitals and libraries. He worked as a doctor during the cholera epidemic, received up to a thousand sick peasants in the villages every year. I am very attracted by the features inherent in Chekhov: decency, humanity, intelligence and love of life. Anton Pavlovich elevated inspired work and healthy human relationships to absolutes. Reading Chekhov's works is easy and interesting. One of my favorite books by the writer is the play The Cherry Orchard.
Comedy "The Cherry Orchard" is considered vertex product Chekhov. The play reflects such a socio-historical phenomenon of the country as the degradation of the "nest of the nobility", the moral impoverishment of the nobility, the development of feudal relations into capitalist ones, and after this - the emergence of a new, ruling class of the bourgeoisie. The theme of the play is the fate of the motherland, its future. "The whole of Russia is our garden." The past, present and future of Russia, as it were, rises from the pages of the play "The Cherry Orchard". The representative of the present in Chekhov's comedy is Lopakhin, the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev, the future - Trofimov and Anya.
Starting from the first act of the play, the rottenness and worthlessness of the owners of the estate - Ranevskaya and Gaev - are exposed.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, in my opinion, is a rather empty woman. She does not see anything around her but love interests, she strives to live beautifully, carefree. She is simple, charming, kind. But her kindness is purely external. The essence of her nature is in selfishness and frivolity: Ranevskaya distributes gold, while poor Varya, out of "savings, feeds everyone with milk soup, in the kitchen they give old people one pea"; arranges an unnecessary ball when there is nothing to pay debts. He remembers the dead son, speaks of maternal feelings, love. And she herself leaves her daughter in the care of a careless uncle, does not worry about the future of her daughters. She resolutely tears telegrams from Paris, at first without even reading them, and then she goes to Paris. She is saddened by the sale of the estate, but rejoices at the possibility of going abroad. And when he talks about love for the motherland, he interrupts himself with the remark: “However, you must drink coffee.” For all her weakness, lack of will, she has the ability for self-criticism, for disinterested kindness, for sincere, ardent feeling.
Gaev, Ranevskaya's brother, is also helpless and lethargic. In his own eyes, he is an aristocrat of the highest circle, "rough" smells interfere with him. He does not seem to notice Lopakhin and tries to put "this boor" in his place. In Gaev's language, vernacular is combined with lofty words: after all, he loves liberal rantings. His favorite word is "whom"; he is addicted to billiard terms.
The present Russia in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is represented by Lopakhin. In general, his image is complex and contradictory. He is resolute and compliant, prudent and poetic, truly kind and unconsciously cruel. Such are the many facets of his nature and character. Throughout the play, the hero constantly repeats about his origin, saying that he is a peasant: “My father, however, was a peasant, but here I am in a white vest and yellow shoes. With a pig’s snout in a kalashny row ... Only now he’s rich, there’s a lot of money, but if you think and figure it out, then a peasant is a peasant ... ”Although, it seems to me, he still exaggerates his common people, because he already came from a village family fist-shopkeeper. Lopakhin himself says: “... my late father - he then traded in a shop here in the village ...” Yes, and he himself this moment very successful businessman. According to him, it can be judged that things are even going very well with him and there is no need to complain about his life and his fate in relation to money. In his image, all the features of an entrepreneur, a businessman, personifying the present state of Russia, its structure are visible. Lopakhin is a man of his time, who saw the real chain of development of the country, its structure and was drawn into the life of society. He lives for today.
Chekhov notes the kindness of the merchant, his desire to become better. Ermolai Alekseevich remembers how Ranevskaya stood up for him when his father offended him as a child. Lopakhin recalls this with a smile: “Don’t cry, he says, little man, he will heal before the wedding.
Page 1 ]
The other day in Moscow there was a Forum of Literature Teachers, which discussed what the final exam in literature should be like. Since 2009, all school examinations must be taken in USE format- unified state exam. Literature is still a compulsory exam, but in a year and a half it will either follow the USE format or become a subject without a final exam.
Guess how many schoolchildren will read Mumu in this case?
"A" is missing
The unified exam in literature has been passed since 2003, and there are universities that do not conduct their own entrance exam in this subject, but only accept the results of the USE. So far, literature testing has consisted of three parts: "A", "B" and "C". Part "A" - questions with four possible answers. Part "B" - questions to which the student must briefly answer himself. Part "C" is the so-called "problem" question, on which it was necessary to write a mini-essay.
An anecdote about the Unified State Examination in Literature: “On which shoulder was Helen Bezukhova’s mole? Choose one of the four options." But the real questions of part "A" are not far from the joke. For example, it is proposed to guess what exactly the lyrical heroine of Akhmatova’s poem “Songs last meeting"(" So helplessly my chest grew cold, / But my steps were light. / I right hand put on / the Glove from the left hand ... "): "1) spiritual weakness, 2) moral blindness, 3) unconsciousness of feelings, 4) inner strength."
Or an example from the Unified State Examination in 2004: “What is the fate of Firs in the final of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" Possible answers: Firs leaves Ranevskaya abroad, is forgotten in the abandoned house, taken to the hospital, or goes to work for Lopakhin. Recall that in that four-year-old Unified State Examination there were no more questions on the Cherry Orchard.
Needless to say, after seeing these tests, philologists - how school teachers, and the university professors shuddered. Someone began to protest loudly, someone shrugged his shoulders: they say, it will resolve, they will experiment and understand how stupid it is. And someone closed their eyes and handed over, because they had no choice.
In the 2008 version of the USE, there is no part “A”, but part “C” is supplemented with questions requiring detailed answers, 5-10 sentences each.
But the main thing is that all these questions and tasks of parts "B" and "C" are as doubtful as the canceled part "A".
little man with internal monologue
The published demo version of the 2008 Unified Literature Examination contains a fragment from the novel "War and Peace" about Captain Tushin during the Battle of Shengraben. The student is asked: “What formula is used in Russian literature to designate a modest, “inconspicuous” hero who, under certain circumstances, can reveal himself from an unexpectedly bright side?” The correct answer is "little man".
What, however, is the strangeness: "a little man" - and "open up from an unexpectedly bright side"? Who is in Russian literature XIX century is traditionally considered a "little man"? Samson Vyrin from " stationmaster", Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin from the "Overcoat", poor Eugene from " Bronze Horseman”, Makar Devushkin from “Poor People” by Dostoevsky. Officials, unfortunate, entering the fight for something very dear to themselves and suffering defeat. Where do they reveal themselves from an unexpectedly bright side? And why is Captain Tushin suddenly ranked among the "little people"? Who decided it?
Another USE question about Captain Tushin is as follows: “Tushin’s remarks “to himself” constitute a kind of detailed reflection of the hero about what is happening around him. What is the name of such unspoken reflection? Correct Answer: Inner monologue.
The problem is that Tushin has no internal monologue in this passage. There are separate remarks, one of which is pronounced “in a whisper to yourself”: “Look, puffed again ... now wait for the ball - send it back.” Tushin also thinks like this: “Come on, our Matveevna”, “Look, she breathed again, she breathed”, “Well, why are they me?” And there are two more remarks uttered aloud by Tushin: "Nothing, a grenade ..." and "I ... nothing ...". Where is the monologue?
But absurdities are found not only in the two questions cited above. They are scattered over almost all tasks of the proposed version of the exam. For example, one asks why the hero of Mayakovsky's poem "Listen!" it is so important to save humanity from "starless torment". But it seems to most philologists that humanity is not discussed at all in this poem. And so on.
Why am I dwelling in such detail on the version of the exam, which is offered as a demonstration, which no one will get, but is intended only to show what kind of tasks can be found on the exam?
Precisely because the demo version can be edited by the whole world. The tasks that schoolchildren will come across at the Unified State Examination are not subject to a wide discussion of the professional community, which means that there will be the same numerous inaccuracies.
Tasks for a single exam are not random people, not officials without special education. For example, the chairman of the Federal Subject Commission on Literature is Sergei Zinin - Dr. pedagogical sciences, the author of one of the school textbooks. And if today none of the philologists raises the question of the unsuitability of those who write assignments for the exam, then the problem is not in the format of the exam. The problem is in the discrepancy between the views of the philologists themselves on what is considered an internal monologue and what is not, who can be called a small person, and who is not. If there were a unified system of proofs, axioms and common places, there would be no controversy. What all experts are unanimous about is, for example, that Pushkin's name was Alexander Sergeevich, that Raskolnikov nevertheless killed the old pawnbroker, and The Cherry Orchard was first staged at the Moscow Art Theater. Further differences are possible.
Assessing the very possibility of holding the Unified State Examination in Literature, teachers of the Department of the History of Russian Literature at St. philological science uniform criteria to interpret the text, the only true interpretations, which is contrary to generally accepted principles and the entire path of development of literary criticism up to the present moment. Who and on what grounds will take the liberty of choosing the “correct” interpretations from the multitude of interpretations proposed by science, rejecting others as unnecessary rubbish? currently critical, literary works and textbooks are not able to correctly answer the USE tests in literature, because their tasks and answers contradict both sound logic, the content of works, and the literary tradition. Justifying their point of view, St. Petersburg philologists refer to the tasks of the Unified State Examination, which seemed strange or even “provocative” to them. So, schoolchildren are invited to answer, the monument of Russian literature of which century is the "Tale of Igor's Campaign", although it is known that, from the point of view of different scientists, different of the given options are correct. Or, for example, it is asked what kind of pathos determines author's attitude to the characters and action in The Examiner? Satirical, heroic, tragic or didactic? “It is well known,” philologists remark, commenting on this task, “that Gogol both lectured and laughed through invisible to the world tears".
But how then can a student be prepared for the exam in literature? Sofia Kaganovich, Head of the Department of Theory and Methods general education The Novgorod Regional Center for the Development of Education advises "everyone to work according to Zinin's textbook."
It turns out that a thinking child will not be able to write the exam with excellent marks, because he will not be able to answer the questions correctly? Natalya Belyaeva, head of the laboratory of the Institute of Content and Teaching Methods Russian Academy education, believes that this is not entirely true. In her opinion, “the same question about the “little man” is worth only one point. A maximum amount points for this year's USE - 45.
It is obvious that the difficulties associated with an objective external verification of works in literature arise not only during a single examination. Speaking at the Literary Forum, Ernst Krasnovsky, Chairman of the Federal Commission for the Developers of Tasks for the Unified State Examination in Literature 2002-2004, reported disappointing data: “When the experiment with the Unified State Examination began, we carried out monitoring: from 45 regions, according to a certain sample, 5000 essays were sent to us. And three teachers led by me rechecked them according to the USE criteria - and these are our standards for checking essays, which have existed since the 1950s, only slightly expanded! We bet twos 19%! Although we were told that for all this mass - 5,000 works - only 0.2% of twos! We saw in the submitted works a substitution of themes, sometimes a substitution of writers: they ask him about Gorky, but he writes about what he can. I'm not talking about that typical standard essay that began like this: Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol is a great Russian writer, he fought, and so on. Then the main part - well, if it's about the landowners, or even about anything at all - and the finale. We are still saddened by the picture that has opened up to us. I do not advise trusting the exam to the school. This is a trick. Like, send us topics, and we will put the mark that we consider necessary.
And the state comes to me, takes his essay and says: go, "two"! But who needs his evaluation in literature? No one, only I need it and he needs it! And I'll lie and give him a "three", and why it's bad - kill me, I don't understand! But those who want to become a professional philologist can go to the state for a mark.”
The Exam Nobody Needs
According to the law on education, the unified state exam should “be conducted by the federal executive body together with the executive authorities of the subjects Russian Federation”(that is, the assignments do not come from the school and they are also checked not at the school). In addition, according to the law on education, the results of the USE are recognized by schools “as the results of the state (final) certification, and educational institutions middle vocational education and educational institutions of higher professional education as the results of entrance examinations in the relevant general education subjects. In other words, universities should accept the results of the unified exam as an entrance exam. Both of these conditions, if we talk about the exam in literature, are doubtful.
The difficulties with objective external verification have been discussed above. If the philologists themselves look at Captain Tushin differently, then whose point of view becomes the only true one at the time of the exam?
As for admission to the university, then another problem arises. For example, it is very difficult today to become a professional philologist using the results of the USE. The best philology departments in Moscow and St. Petersburg do not accept the results of a unified examination in literature. The USE, in their opinion, does not reflect either the knowledge of the student or his ability to analyze and interpret artistic text. By the way, the cost of classes with tutors who prepare applicants for admission to the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University can reach up to 150 euros per week.
As for other universities, then there is a completely strange picture. Sofya Kaganovich, for example, explained why the philological faculty of Novgorod University does not accept the Unified State Examination in literature: “After all, not only talented philologists go to the philological faculty. Those who cannot enter anywhere else often enter this faculty, and there is a very low competition. The faculty management claims that the USE in Literature is too difficult for their applicants, and they conduct their own “written interview”: a written answer to two questions out of four proposed.”
It turns out that the exam in literature, designed to become profile exam, it turns out that neither universities, nor those schoolchildren who are going to continue their literary education in the future, need it, and a single exam could help save applicants nerves and money upon admission.
Reading aloud
More recently, everyone wrote a graduation essay, for which two marks were given, in Russian and in literature. But then they introduced the Unified State Examination in the Russian language, and the general exam fell apart into two. Schools were allowed to choose the form of the final test in literature. By that time, all kinds of collections of graduation essays and methods for writing them had already appeared on the book shelves. The work, which already, as a rule, turned out to be a set of literary cliches, peeped in reviews, turned out to be completely discredited. Therefore, in many schools (but not in all), they decided to abandon the traditional composition and replaced some with an oral exam on tickets, protection research work or parsing an unfamiliar text by a familiar writer.
But can a mandatory literature exam guarantee that children will read at least those books that “pass” the program? Of course not. Was it possible to write an essay on War and Peace without reading War and Peace? Of course, you can, the majority wrote that - that in Soviet times that in the nineties, that now.
But in Soviet times, teachers had the opportunity to read texts in the classroom. Today's compulsory literature course, which includes more than 60 authors and more than 140 works, does not provide such an opportunity to read aloud in the classroom: only three hours a week are allocated for literature in high school.
Sergey Volkov: “I will give just one example, which was mentioned by the director of the Center for the Sociology of Education of the Russian Academy of Education Vladimir Sobkin. He explores children's reading since 1975. In 1976 and in 2005, schoolchildren were offered the same task: they had to determine who wrote what from eight fragments of works of art belonging to two authors. Do not name a surname or work, do not explain your choice, but simply, relying on a feeling literary style divide the passages into two groups. For the purity of the experiment, fragments were offered from authors who were not included in the school curriculum (to exclude the moment of recognition): prose - Olesha and Platonov, poetry - Samoilov and Voznesensky (as we see, the authors are quite contrasting). So, if in 1976 35% of boys and 46% of girls from the 9th grade coped with the poetry task, and 15 and 21%, respectively, with the prose task, today only 6.2% successfully completed the poetry test. boys and 11% girls. And the success of the prose test does not exceed a percentage random selection correct answers - 3%. The question is, what do we do in the classroom? The big problem is that today we don't have time to read books to children. The list of "program" texts is huge, it needs to be reduced. Many teachers say that if there were no compulsory exam, then there would be no such race in the classroom and we would be happy to read to children beautiful lyrics. We are ready to read, of course. But if there is no mandatory exam, the children will not be ready to listen to us.” This is especially noted in the final document of the Russian Literary Forum: “Without a mandatory exam, long-term school literary education loses its meaning.”
To study other subjects, the child needs to read the textbook. You can't get off with one textbook to pass literature. You need to read a lot. Of course, no literature exam will force a student to do this if the child does not like and is not accustomed to reading. But an exam in literature is also needed so that the student has a good reason not to skip these lessons and still find time to read.
Officials do not like "essay"
Impossible to come up with perfect shape an exam that would suit everyone. And it's impossible to fit a big book in short lesson. Therefore, teachers are forced to seek a compromise between great literature, schooling and the unified state exam.
Librarians offer to let the student choose for himself: to take the exam or the compulsory school final exam. It could be either paperwork(analysis and interpretation of one artwork or extended response to problematic issue), or an oral answer (by tickets or in the form of an interview), or the defense of abstracts and projects (a similar form is practiced by many Russian gymnasiums).
As for the USE itself in literature, experts believe that “the optimal genre of such an exam is a written work related to the analysis and interpretation of one literary work (with independent expert verification). The verification criteria should be widely discussed by the professional community.” The idea is good. True, so far the proposed compromise contradicts both the current law on education and the instructions received by the compilers of the Ege assignments.
When teachers asked the chairman of the Federal Subject Commission for Literature, Sergei Zinin, why an essay could not be the format of the Unified State Examination in Literature, he named two reasons. The first is that officials do not like the word “composition”: “If we return to composition again, it turns out that all the reforms were in vain, there was no point in starting all this. Modernization is a mandatory modification of the format. Nice. This is really a good reason not to write a serious big work, but to enter one or two words into the boxes.
However, philologists took into account such a dislike for writing and now accurately formulate: "written work in literature." Indeed, that's more accurate.
Sergey Zinin also named the second reason why a written work based on one work cannot be the format of the Unified State Examination: “We work within the framework of the terms of reference. All subjects must be checked in the same format, otherwise it will not be the exam. Do you think I do not understand that the questions of part "A" only check whether the child has read the text or not? But we fought for five years to be allowed to remove part "A". And now they tell me: fine, but it would be nice to remove part “B” as well! The officials, after listening to us, answer: if you don't want the exam, you don't have to! Wonderful! Since your item is so unique, since you don't have unified system criteria and evaluations, since you have nothing to check, except for the love of literature, go into the subjects of the humanities cycle, into art! But then literature becomes a subject without an exam, and this cannot be allowed.
However, since the developers of the unified exam received this terms of reference, much has changed. For example, there appeared federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science (“Rosobrnadzor”), one of the tasks of which is to prepare proposals “for improving the legislation of the Russian Federation based on the analysis and generalization of law enforcement practice in the field of monitoring and assessing the quality of education”.
And the head of this service, Viktor Bolotov, recently stated that the search for the optimal USE forms literature continues. He admitted that the main thing that such an exam should reveal is “the level of ability to analyze a literary text and write an essay, which corresponds to the tradition literary education in the local school. That is, written work as a USE is possible, despite the fact that the law on education says that a single exam is held with "using tasks of a standardized form."
And a mandatory final exam in literature not in the USE format is also, apparently, possible. It is only necessary, being aware of the uniqueness and absolute significance for society of this school subject to amend the legislation.
And already now.
Otherwise, the cherry orchard will be sold for debts, and then all that remains is to stab Firs in the master's house. Or did Ranevskaya take him to Paris with her? Does anyone remember?
Composition
Reading the 4th act of Chekhov's play "V. s. ”, you understand that the author wanted to show the noble nest, which is represented by Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present in the person of Lopakhin and the uncertain future, represented by the young people Petya and Anya. Before us appear heroes who have lost their past, present and future. For each of these heroes, the desired does not correspond to the actual. Self-esteem does not correspond to the impression made on others, and the words of the heroes do not correspond to their deeds. Ranevskaya - a loving woman, a mother, showing sentimental tenderness for old memorabilia, often turned out to be rude and completely insensitive to people, betrays everyone and lets them go around the world.
Lopakhin, loving and pitying these people, calmly feasts at the commemoration of the garden. Petya Trofimov often says that he needs to work, but he himself is “an eternal student,
Spoken about the road to the future, but unable to find his own galoshes. Even the minor characters are unhappy, their self-characteristics sound very dramatic: “I grew up, then went to the governess,” Charlotte says. And where I come from and who I am - I don’t know:. I don’t have anyone:. And who I am, why I am unknown. ”The fate of the old servant Firs is symbolic. Se leave, leaving him to the mercy of fate. Firs is the embodiment of the past: they left their past, they lost themselves. The play ends with the word Firs "Nedotep", which can be attributed to each of the heroes, all the heroes of Chekhov do not hear each other, often answer inappropriately, each speaks about his own, completely not hearing the others. Love Andes. touched by his children's room and cries, and at this time Gaev talks about the train, which was late for 2 hours. At the same time, Charlotte remembers a dog that eats nuts well. This indicates the disunity of people, their deafness to other people's problems, the violation of interpersonal contacts and communication. Thus, we feel a through motive of deafness. Firs, a physically deaf person, becomes a symbolic figure among them; moreover, he is perhaps the most sympathetic of the heroes: he is devoted to his owners, takes care of them touchingly, takes care of Gaev, who is 51 years old, like a baby. “They put on the wrong trousers again,” he tells him in a caring voice. He answers out of place, because he really doesn’t hear well, and for other heroes this deafness is not physical, but spiritual. Their position is in some sense worse than that of a servant, so he rightfully calls them klutzes.
The play evokes a sad mood, and its ending is sad. It would seem that Anya and Petya are the author's hope for the future, but we understand how such a person who talks more than acts cannot lead other people. Anya is still too young, she does not know life at all.
We sympathize with Ranevskaya, but we cannot fail to notice her infantile, ridiculous behavior. So all the time there is a conflict of times and a complete misunderstanding of one generation by another. It is clear that the nobility is a thing of the past. Chekhov does not believe that the bourgeoisie will become the master of life.
Lopakhin lives for today, his ideas are practical, he constantly talks about how to change life for the better and seems to know what to do. However, we constantly feel self-doubt, and at the end of the play, his hands drop and he exclaims: "Our clumsy, unhappy life would soon change."
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was a great citizen of Russia. In many of his works, we see our Motherland through his eyes. Before moving on to the topic of my essay, I would like to talk about what kind of person Anton Pavlovich was. He called lies, hypocrisy and arbitrariness his main enemies. The whole life of the writer was filled with stubborn, systematic work. Having lived for forty-four years, he wrote more than two hundred works of prose and drama, built schools, participated in the creation of hospitals and libraries. He worked as a doctor during the cholera epidemic, received up to a thousand sick peasants in the villages every year. I am very attracted by the features inherent in Chekhov: decency, humanity, intelligence and love of life. Anton Pavlovich elevated inspired work and healthy human relationships to absolutes. Reading Chekhov's works is easy and interesting. One of my favorite books by the writer is the play The Cherry Orchard.
The comedy "The Cherry Orchard" is considered Chekhov's top work. The play reflects such a socio-historical phenomenon of the country as the degradation of the "nest of the nobility", the moral impoverishment of the nobility, the development of feudal relations into capitalist ones, and after this - the emergence of a new, ruling class of the bourgeoisie. The theme of the play is the fate of the motherland, its future. "The whole of Russia is our garden." The past, present and future of Russia, as it were, rises from the pages of the play "The Cherry Orchard". The representative of the present in Chekhov's comedy is Lopakhin, the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev, the future - Trofimov and Anya.
Starting from the first act of the play, the rottenness and worthlessness of the owners of the estate - Ranevskaya and Gaev - are exposed.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, in my opinion, is a rather empty woman. She does not see anything around her but love interests, she strives to live beautifully, carefree. She is simple, charming, kind. But her kindness is purely external. The essence of her nature is in selfishness and frivolity: Ranevskaya distributes gold, while poor Varya, out of "savings, feeds everyone with milk soup, in the kitchen they give old people one pea"; arranges an unnecessary ball when there is nothing to pay debts. He remembers the dead son, speaks of maternal feelings, love. And she herself leaves her daughter in the care of a careless uncle, does not worry about the future of her daughters. She resolutely tears telegrams from Paris, at first without even reading them, and then she goes to Paris. She is saddened by the sale of the estate, but rejoices at the possibility of going abroad. And when he talks about love for the motherland, he interrupts himself with the remark: “However, you must drink coffee.” For all her weakness, lack of will, she has the ability for self-criticism, for disinterested kindness, for sincere, ardent feeling.
Gaev, Ranevskaya's brother, is also helpless and lethargic. In his own eyes, he is an aristocrat of the highest circle, "rough" smells interfere with him. He does not seem to notice Lopakhin and tries to put "this boor" in his place. In Gaev's language, vernacular is combined with lofty words: after all, he loves liberal rantings. His favorite word is "whom"; he is addicted to billiard terms.
The present Russia in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is represented by Lopakhin. In general, his image is complex and contradictory. He is resolute and compliant, prudent and poetic, truly kind and unconsciously cruel. Such are the many facets of his nature and character. Throughout the play, the hero constantly repeats about his origin, saying that he is a peasant: “My father, however, was a peasant, but here I am in a white vest and yellow shoes. With a pig’s snout in a kalashny row ... Only now he’s rich, there’s a lot of money, but if you think and figure it out, then a peasant is a peasant ... ”Although, it seems to me, he still exaggerates his common people, because he already came from a village family fist-shopkeeper. Lopakhin himself says: “... my late father - he then traded here in the village in a shop ...” Yes, and he himself is currently a very successful businessman. According to him, it can be judged that things are even going very well with him and there is no need to complain about his life and his fate in relation to money. In his image, all the features of an entrepreneur, a businessman, personifying the present state of Russia, its structure are visible. Lopakhin is a man of his time, who saw the real chain of development of the country, its structure and was drawn into the life of society. He lives for today.
Chekhov notes the kindness of the merchant, his desire to become better. Ermolai Alekseevich remembers how Ranevskaya stood up for him when his father offended him as a child. Lopakhin recalls this with a smile: “Don’t cry, he says, little man, he will heal before the wedding ... (Pause.) Little man ...” He sincerely loves her, willingly lends Lyubov Andreevna money, not expecting to ever receive them. For her sake, he tolerates Gaev, who despises and ignores him. The merchant strives to improve his education, to learn something new. At the beginning of the play, he is shown with a book in front of the readers. Regarding this, Yermolai Alekseevich says: “I was reading a book and did not understand anything. Read and fell asleep.
Yermolai Lopakhin, the only one in the play busy with business, leaves for his merchant needs. In one of the conversations about this, you can hear: "I now, at five o'clock in the morning, go to Kharkov." He differs from others in his vitality, diligence, optimism, assertiveness, practicality. One he offers real plan saving the estate.
Lopakhin may seem like a clear contrast to the old masters of the cherry orchard. After all, he is a direct descendant of those whose faces "look from every cherry tree in the garden." Yes, and how can he triumph after buying a cherry orchard: “If my father and grandfather got up from their graves and looked at the whole incident, like their Yermolai, beaten, illiterate Yermolai, who ran barefoot in winter, how this same Yermolai bought the estate where grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. I'm sleeping, it only seems to me, it only seems... Hey, musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Everyone come and watch how Yermolai 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 will see here new life... Music, play!" But this is not so, because in the place of something ruined it is impossible to build something beautiful, joyful and happy. And here Chekhov opens and negative qualities bourgeois Lopakhin: his desire to get rich, not to miss his profit. He still buys Ranevskaya's estate himself and puts into practice his idea of organizing dachas. Anton Pavlovich showed how acquisitiveness gradually cripples a person, becoming his second nature. “Just as in terms of metabolism, a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that comes in its way, so you are needed,” Petya Trofimov explains to the merchant about his role in society. And yet Ermolai Alekseevich is simple and kind, from the bottom of his heart he offers help to the “eternal student”. It is not for nothing that Petya likes Lopakhin - for his thin, gentle, like an artist's fingers, for his "thin, tender soul." But it is he who advises him "not to wave his arms", not to be carried away, imagining that everything can be bought and sold. And Ermolai Lopakhin further, the more he learns the habit of "waving his arms." At the beginning of the play, this is not yet so pronounced, but at the end it becomes quite noticeable. His confidence that everything can be considered in terms of money increases and becomes more and more his feature.
The story of Lopakhin's relationship with Varya does not evoke sympathy. Varya loves him. And he seems to like her, Lopakhin understands that his proposal will be her salvation, otherwise she will go to the housekeeper. Ermolai Alekseevich is going to take a decisive step and does not take it. It is not entirely clear what prevents him from proposing to Varya. Or is it the absence true love, or is it his excessive practicality, or maybe something else, but in this situation he does not cause sympathy for himself.
He is characterized by enthusiasm and merchant arrogance after the purchase of the Ranevskaya estate. Having acquired a cherry orchard, he solemnly and boastfully announces this, cannot refrain from praise, but tears former mistress suddenly shock him. Lopakhin’s mood changes, and he bitterly says: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” The triumph that has not yet died out is combined with mockery of oneself, merchant dashing - with spiritual awkwardness.
Another feature of him does not make a good impression. First of all, this is his indelicateness, the desire for the fastest profit. He starts cutting trees before former owners left. No wonder Petya Trofimov says to him: “Really, is there really not enough tact ...” The cutting of the cherry orchard is stopped. But as soon as former owners left the estate, the axes clattered again. New owner in a hurry to turn his idea into action.
Representatives of the future of Russia are Trofimov and Anya. Pyotr Trofimov correctly looks at many life phenomena, is able to captivate with figurative, deep thought, and under his influence Anya quickly grows spiritually. But Petya's words about the future, his calls to work, to be free as the wind, to go forward are vague, they are too general, dreamy. Petya believes in "higher happiness", but he does not know how to achieve it. It seems to me that Trofimov is the image of a future revolutionary.
The Cherry Orchard was written by Chekhov during the period of pre-revolutionary unrest. The writer confidently believed in the onset of a better future, in the inevitability of the revolution. Creators of the new happy life he considered the younger generation of Russia. In the play The Cherry Orchard, these people are Petya Trofimov and Anya. The revolution has come to pass, a “bright future” has come, but it has not brought the “higher happiness” to the people.
I am closer to the comedy hero Lopakhin. With his work, perseverance and diligence, he achieved his goal - he bought an estate where "grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen." He became a rich, respected man. Of course, it also has negative traits character: the desire for profit, the habit of "waving hands." But Lopakhin seeks to improve his education, to learn something new. Unlike Petya Trofimov, Yermolai Alekseevich's word does not diverge from his deed. With his thirst for enrichment, he still had compassion for his neighbor. In Lopakhin I like optimism, diligence, sober look on things.
All of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, in my opinion, was reflected in Chekhov's play. And now you can meet such impractical people who have lost their ground under their feet, like Ranevskaya and Gaev. Idealists like Petya Trofimov and Anya are also alive, but it’s quite difficult to meet people like Chekhov’s Lopakhin: modern entrepreneurs very often lack those attractive features personalities that I liked about this character. Unfortunately, in our society, "Yasha's lackeys" come to the fore every day more and more confidently. There is not a word about this hero in my essay, since I am limited by time examination work. I could say a lot about him, and about other characters in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, since this work provides inexhaustible material for reflection on the fate of Russia.
