In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected with the garden, like other characters, for them it does not play such a significant role, which is why they somehow fall out of the general system of characters. However, in the work of a playwright of Chekhov's level there is no place for accidents; therefore, the isolation of Petya and Anya is not accidental either. Let's take a closer look at these two characters.
Among critics, the interpretation of the images of Anya and Petya, depicted in the play The Cherry Orchard, as a symbol of the young generation of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, is widespread; generation, which is replacing the long-obsolete "Ranev" and "Gaev", as well as the creations of the turning point of the era "Lopakhin". In Soviet criticism, this statement was considered undeniable, since the play itself was usually considered in a strictly defined vein - based on the year of writing (1903), critics associated its creation with social changes and the impending revolution of 1905. Accordingly, the understanding of the cherry orchard as a symbol of the “old”, pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the “dying off” noble class, Lopakhin - the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov - the raznochintsy intelligentsia was affirmed. From this point of view, the play was seen as a work about the search for a "savior" for Russia, in which inevitable changes are brewing. Lopakhin, as the bourgeois master of the country, should be replaced by the commoner Petya, full of transformative ideas and aimed at a brighter future; the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, will carry out the social revolution. Anya here symbolizes the "repentant" nobility, which takes an active part in these transformations.
Such a "class approach", inherited from ancient times, reveals its failure already in the fact that many characters do not fit into this scheme: Varya, Charlotte, Epikhodov. In their images, we do not find a "class" overtones. In addition, Chekhov was never known as a propagandist, and, most likely, he would not have written such an unambiguously deciphered play. Do not forget that the author himself defined the genre of The Cherry Orchard as a comedy and even a farce - not the most successful form for demonstrating high ideals ...
Based on the foregoing, it is impossible to consider Anya and Petya in the play The Cherry Orchard solely as an image of the younger generation. Such an interpretation would be too superficial. Who are they for the author? What role do they play in his design?
They have no vital interest in the auction and the garden, there is no clear symbolism associated with it. For Anya and Petya Trofimov, the cherry orchard is not a painful attachment. It is the lack of affection that helps them survive in the general atmosphere of devastation, emptiness and meaninglessness, so subtly conveyed in the play.
The general characterization of Anya and Petya in The Cherry Orchard inevitably includes a love line between the two characters. The author designated it implicitly, half-hint, and it is difficult to say for what purposes he needed this move. Perhaps this is a way to show a clash in the same situation of two qualitatively different characters. We see a young, naive, enthusiastic Anya, who has not yet seen life and at the same time full of strength and readiness for any transformations. And we see Petya, full of bold, revolutionary ideas, an inspired speaker, a sincere and enthusiastic person, moreover, absolutely inactive, full of internal contradictions, therefore absurd and sometimes funny. We can say that the love line brings two extremes together: Anya - a force without a vector, and Petya - a vector without a force. Anya's energy and determination are useless without guidance; Petya's passion and ideology are dead without inner strength.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the images of these two heroes in the play today, unfortunately, are still considered in the traditional "Soviet" vein. There is reason to believe that a fundamentally different approach to the system of characters and Chekhov's play as a whole will allow us to see much more shades of meaning and reveal many interesting moments. In the meantime, the images of Anya and Petya are waiting for their unbiased critic.
Artwork test
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous physical exertion, and the mere rewriting of the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov completed The Cherry Orchard on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the eras.
On the eve of grandiose upheavals, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and the future. The far-reaching perspective saturated the play with the air of history, communicated the special extent of its time and space. In the play "The Cherry Orchard" there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual, and there are no open quarrels and clashes between the heroes of the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not open, but internal, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya's arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. There is a special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity. As if for the last time, this living life on the verge of dying flashes brightly - like a memory. Nature is preparing for renewal - hopes for a new, pure life awaken in Ranevskaya's soul.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to buy the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just an object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives fell on a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of The Cherry Orchard turn out to be victims not of particular circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is just as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is built on a unique situation that has become a favorite for the drama of the 20th century - the situation of the “threshold”. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a sense of the edge, the abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a representative of the old nobility, is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry garden. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, but she does not want to think about the future. Her childishness seems ridiculous. But it turns out that the whole old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the beautiful old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course and give in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. Here is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Loahina is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word ... this is a gentle person ... a decent person in every sense ... ”But this gentle person is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. The combination of disinterested love for beauty and a merchant's streak, peasant simplicity and subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has animated conversations about how to change lives for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his self-doubt.
The play intertwines several storylines. The perishing garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before everyone else. It is built on Chekhov's favorite technique: most of all and most willingly they talk about what is not, discuss the details, argue about the minutiae of the non-existent, not noticing or deliberately hushing up the existing and essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin is often in a house where there are unmarried girls, of which only she suits him. Varya, therefore, must marry. Varia doesn’t even have a thought to take a different look at the situation, to think, does Lopakhin love her, is she interesting to him? All Varia's expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author's hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous situations, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - an “eternal student” and a “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, the thoughts and dreams of Petya Trofimov are close to Chekhov's own mentality. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life, and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and forebodings, is at least naive. “If you have the keys to the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind." But in life, a radical change has ripened, which Chekhov foresees, and inevitability is determined not by the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but by the doom of the old.
But how can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother's drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya's ideas. Anya still knows little about life in order to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheathness of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded to Petya, and this strengthens the motive of the future wonderful life that sounds in the play.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya starts a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She wrests a holiday from everyday life, grabs from life that moment that is able to stretch the thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - the new owner triumphs, rattling the keys. Yermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to hit the cherry orchard with an axe. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday's plebeian, a man with a tender soul and thin fingers, buying a cherry orchard is, in fact, an "unnecessary victory."
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who comes up with a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is real, first of all, because Lopakhin understands that the garden cannot be preserved in its former form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by reorganizing it in accordance with the requirements of the new era. But new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner is the one who sees the beauty of the dying world more clearly than anyone else.
So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything for improving your position. This absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.
The last act, as always with Chekhov, is the moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for a new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok readiness to reject everything - home, and childhood, and loved ones, and even the poetry of the “nightingale garden” - in order to openly, shout with a free soul: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social tomorrow "The Cherry Orchard" sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared in the finale at the same time, giving rise to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.
Young people, cheerfully, invitingly calling to each other, run ahead. Old people, like old things, huddled together, people stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!.. Goodbye!..” But the music of farewell is drowned out by “the sound of an ax on wood, which sounds lonely and sad.” Shutters and doors close. In the empty house, sick Firs remains unnoticed in the hustle and bustle: “But the man has been forgotten ...” The old man is alone in the locked house. One hears “as if from the sky the sound of a broken string”, and in the silence the ax thumps dully on the tree.
The symbolism of the "Cherry Orchard" spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and the change of the old world.
This work reflects the problems of the past nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov portrayed the main conflict of the work in a new way - the conflict of three generations.
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous physical exertion, and the mere rewriting of the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov completed The Cherry Orchard on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the eras.
On the eve of grandiose upheavals, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and the future. The far-reaching perspective saturated the play with the air of history, communicated the special extent of its time and space. In the play "The Cherry Orchard" there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual, and there are no open quarrels and clashes between the heroes of the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not open, but internal, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya's arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. There is a special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity. As if for the last time, this living life on the verge of dying flashes brightly - like a memory. Nature is preparing for renewal - hopes for a new, pure life awaken in Ranevskaya's soul.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to buy the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just an object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives fell on a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of The Cherry Orchard turn out to be victims not of particular circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is just as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is built on a unique situation that has become a favorite for the drama of the 20th century - the situation of the “threshold”. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a sense of the edge, the abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a representative of the old nobility, is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry garden. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, but she does not want to think about the future. Her childishness seems ridiculous. But it turns out that the whole old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the beautiful old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course and give in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. Here is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Lopakhin is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word ... this is a gentle person ... a decent person in every sense ... ”But this gentle person is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. The combination of disinterested love for beauty and a merchant's streak, peasant simplicity and subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has animated conversations about how to change lives for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his self-doubt.
The play intertwines several storylines. The perishing garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before everyone else. It is built on Chekhov's favorite technique: most of all and most willingly they talk about what is not, discuss the details, argue about the minutiae of the non-existent, not noticing or deliberately hushing up the existing and essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin is often in a house where there are unmarried girls, of which only she suits him. Varya, therefore, must marry. Varia doesn’t even have a thought to take a different look at the situation, to think, does Lopakhin love her, is she interesting to him? All Varia's expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author's hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous situations, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - an “eternal student” and a “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, the thoughts and dreams of Petya Trofimov are close to Chekhov's own mentality. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life, and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and forebodings, is at least naive. “If you have the keys to the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind." But in life, a radical change has ripened, which Chekhov foresees, and inevitability is determined not by the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but by the doom of the old.
But how can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother's drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya's ideas. Anya still knows little about life in order to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheathness of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded to Petya, and this strengthens the motive of the future wonderful life that sounds in the play.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya starts a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She wrests a holiday from everyday life, grabs from life that moment that is able to stretch the thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - the new owner triumphs, rattling the keys. Yermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to hit the cherry orchard with an axe. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday's plebeian, a man with a tender soul and thin fingers, buying a cherry orchard is, in fact, an "unnecessary victory."
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who comes up with a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is real, first of all, because Lopakhin understands that the garden cannot be preserved in its former form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by reorganizing it in accordance with the requirements of the new era. But new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner is the one who sees the beauty of the dying world more clearly than anyone else.
So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything for improving your position.
Page 1 ]
"The Cherry Orchard" is Chekhov's last play, his "swan song". In this work, the playwright united all the main characters in a cherry orchard, which he made a symbol of the beautiful, unchanging and indestructible in life. The Cherry Orchard is a symbol of Russia.
The play was written in 1903, at the turn of the era. At this time, the author is full of the feeling that Russia is on the threshold of cardinal changes. Like any person, Chekhov dreamed of the future, of a new life that would bring people something bright, pure and beautiful. It is this motive of expecting a better life that sounds in the play.
The playwright felt that the old life was gradually disappearing, and the new one was just emerging. How did Chekhov see the future? What future did he dream of? The characters of The Cherry Orchard will help answer these questions.
In the play, Chekhov expressed his hopes for the future. Therefore, the leitmotif here is the idea of a clash of dreams and reality, of a discord between them. Behind the usual conversations of the heroes of the work, behind their calm attitude towards each other, we see a misunderstanding of the events taking place around. The reader often hears remarks from the characters at random, feels distant looks. They do not hear each other, they are each in their own world, they dream and suffer alone. The finale of the play is indicative, when the old servant is simply forgotten, locked up in the estate and left, perhaps, to starve to death ...
So the past in the play is thrown away, forgotten and not comprehended.
Therefore, the main conflict of the play "The Cherry Orchard" can be characterized as follows - a misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if the past, present and future intersected at one point in the play. These three generations live each in their own time, but they only talk and can do nothing to change life.
The older generation includes Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs. To the present - Lopakhin, and representatives of the future are Petya Trofimov and Anya.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a blood noblewoman, constantly talks about her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry garden. And the whole old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the “beautiful” old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course, give in without fighting for their ideas.
Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not want or cannot think about the future ... Her pessimism seems ridiculous to the reader. We understand that there is no return to the past, and is it necessary to return there? But Lyubov Andreevna and her brother do not want to understand this. Their dreams will remain dreams... And that's why Chekhov condemns them.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. He lives for today. It should be noted that his ideas are smart and practical. He has lively conversations about how to change lives for the better and kind of knows what to do. But all these are just words. Therefore, Lopakhin is not an ideal hero. We feel his self-doubt. And at the end of the action, this hero seems to give up, and he exclaims: “Our clumsy, unhappy life would rather change!”
It is generally accepted that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author's hope for the future. But how can such a person as Petya Trofimov, "eternal student" and "shabby gentleman", change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, “acting people”, can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously.
Anya is still too young, she does not yet know life to change her. And yet, Anya is an image of spring, a new, brighter future. It is she who, it seems to me, embodies Chekhov's dream of a new life. Her sensitive soul is able to turn life around, because she can catch the slightest fluctuations in the world around her. Let it be a little naive and funny, but if anyone can reach the highest truth, the highest happiness together with all mankind, then this is Anya Trofimova: “Farewell, old life. Hello new life. »
Thus, the question of the relationship between dreams and reality in the play "The Cherry Orchard" was also reflected in the disputes about the genre. It is known that Chekhov himself called the play a comedy, but Stanislavsky staged it as a drama. And yet we listen to the opinion of the author. This play is rather a sad thought about the fate of Russia than a revolutionary appeal, as they sometimes try to present it. What the author portrayed as funny is in fact worthy of the most bitter tears, but it is funny, how funny everything is miserable.
So, the main tragedy of the play lies not only in the sale of the garden and estate in which people spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the inability of these same people to change anything to improve their situation. They dream, but do nothing to fulfill their dreams, because they do not feel this world.
0
An essay on the theme of the Dispute of Generations in the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov read for free
The dispute of generations
The play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" is unusual and amazing. Unlike other works of the playwright, she puts at the center of all events not a person, but the lyrical image of a beautiful cherry orchard. He is like the personification of the beauty of Russia of the past. In the work, several generations are intertwined at once and, accordingly, the problem of a difference in thinking, perception of reality arises. The cherry orchard plays a fundamental role. It is becoming a meeting place for the past, present and future of a country that is on the verge of grandiose changes.
This drama is an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian art. There are no sharp social conflicts in it, none of the main characters enter into an open argument, and yet the conflict exists. What is it connected with? In my opinion, this is a dispute between generations that do not hear or do not want to hear each other. The past appears before us in the form of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are inveterate nobles who are unable to change their habits even for the sake of saving the estate, which still belonged to their parents and grandparents. Ranevskaya has long squandered her fortune and continues to overspend. Gaev hopes to receive an inheritance from a rich aunt living in Yaroslavl.
Will such people be able to keep their property - a family estate and a luxurious cherry orchard? Based on this description, no. One of the most prudent characters in the play is Yermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin, a representative of the current generation. This is the son and grandson of serfs, who suddenly became rich and became a wealthy merchant. This hero achieved everything himself, with his work and perseverance, and as a poet he deserves respect. Unfortunately, he cannot be attributed to happy people, since he himself is not happy with the opportunity to redeem his beloved Ranevskaya Cherry Orchard. For this reason, at the very beginning of the play, he recommends that she break it into sections and hand it over to summer residents, but the frivolous bourgeois do not even want to hear about this.
The third generation, the so-called "future" of the country, is represented by Ranevskaya's seventeen-year-old daughter and her son's former teacher. Anya and Petya are fighters for the "new life", and therefore they are little concerned about the fate of the cherry orchard. They think they can plant a new garden better than the old one. Trofimov is a talented student, but, alas, he talks more than he does, and therefore the future with such young people scares the older generation. Anya is drawn to us as the brightest and most uncomplicated character. She adopted the best features from the nobility and continued to confidently keep pace with the times towards changes. Confidence in a positive outcome never left her. It is through her that the author expresses his hopes for a brighter future.
Three generations in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard"
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous physical exertion, and the mere rewriting of the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov completed The Cherry Orchard on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the eras.
On the eve of grandiose upheavals, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and the future. The far-reaching perspective saturated the play with the air of history, communicated the special extent of its time and space. In the play "The Cherry Orchard" there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual, and there are no open quarrels and clashes between the heroes of the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not open, but internal, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya's arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. There is a special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity. As if for the last time, this living life on the verge of dying flashes brightly - like a memory. Nature is preparing for renewal - hopes for a new, pure life awaken in Ranevskaya's soul.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to buy the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just an object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives fell on a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of The Cherry Orchard turn out to be victims not of particular circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is just as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is built on a unique situation that has become a favorite for the drama of the 20th century - the situation of the “threshold”. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a sense of the edge, the abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a representative of the old nobility, is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry garden. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, but she does not want to think about the future. Her childishness seems ridiculous. But it turns out that the whole old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the beautiful old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course and give in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. Here is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Loahina is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word. this is a soft person. decent person in every sense. “But this gentle man is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. The combination of disinterested love for beauty and a merchant's streak, peasant simplicity and subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has animated conversations about how to change lives for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his self-doubt.
The play intertwines several storylines. The perishing garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before everyone else. It is built on Chekhov's favorite technique: most of all and most willingly they talk about what is not, discuss the details, argue about the minutiae of the non-existent, not noticing or deliberately hushing up the existing and essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin is often in a house where there are unmarried girls, of which only she suits him. Varya, therefore, must marry. Varia doesn’t even have a thought to take a different look at the situation, to think, does Lopakhin love her, is she interesting to him? All Varia's expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author's hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous situations, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - an “eternal student” and a “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, the thoughts and dreams of Petya Trofimov are close to Chekhov's own mentality. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life, and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and forebodings, is at least naive. “If you have the keys to the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind." But in life, a radical change has ripened, which Chekhov foresees, and inevitability is determined not by the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but by the doom of the old.
But how can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother's drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya's ideas. Anya still knows little about life in order to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheathness of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded to Petya, and this strengthens the motive of the future wonderful life that sounds in the play.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya starts a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She wrests a holiday from everyday life, grabs from life that moment that is able to stretch the thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - the new owner triumphs, rattling the keys. Yermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to hit the cherry orchard with an axe. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday's plebeian, a man with a tender soul and thin fingers, buying a cherry orchard is, in fact, an "unnecessary victory."
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who comes up with a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is real, first of all, because Lopakhin understands that the garden cannot be preserved in its former form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by reorganizing it in accordance with the requirements of the new era. But new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner is the one who sees the beauty of the dying world more clearly than anyone else.
So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything for improving your position. This absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.
The last act, as always with Chekhov, is the moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for a new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok readiness to reject everything - home, and childhood, and loved ones, and even the poetry of the “nightingale garden” - in order to openly, shout with a free soul: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social tomorrow "The Cherry Orchard" sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared in the finale at the same time, giving rise to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.
Young people, cheerfully, invitingly calling to each other, run ahead. Old people, like old things, huddled together, people stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye. Goodbye. ” But the farewell music is drowned out by the “clatter of an ax on wood, sounding lonely and sad.” Shutters and doors close. In the empty house, sick Firs remains unnoticed in the bustle: “But the person has been forgotten. “The old man is alone in the locked house. One hears “as if from the sky the sound of a broken string”, and in the silence the ax thumps dully on the tree.
The symbolism of the "Cherry Orchard" spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and the change of the old world.
This work reflects the problems of the past nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov portrayed the main conflict of the work in a new way - the conflict of three generations.
50812 people have viewed this page. Register or login and find out how many people from your school have already copied this essay.
Past, present, future in A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
“All Russia is our garden!” (based on the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard").
Who is to blame for the death of the cherry orchard? (based on the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard")
/ Works / Chekhov A.P. / The Cherry Orchard / Three generations in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard"
See also the work "The Cherry Orchard":
We will write an excellent essay according to your order in just 24 hours. A unique piece in a single copy.
The main conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard"
Conflict in drama
One of the features of Chekhov's dramaturgy was the absence of open conflicts, which is quite unexpected for dramatic works, because it is the conflict that is the driving force of the whole play, and it was important for Anton Pavlovich to show people's lives through the description of everyday life, thereby bringing the stage characters closer to the viewer. As a rule, the conflict finds expression in the plot of the work, organizing it, internal dissatisfaction, the desire to get something, or not to lose it pushes the characters to do something. Conflicts can be external and internal, and their manifestation can be obvious or hidden, so Chekhov successfully hid the conflict in the play The Cherry Orchard behind the everyday difficulties of the characters, present as an integral part of that modernity.
The origins of the conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard" and its originality
In order to understand the main conflict in the play "The Cherry Orchard", it is necessary to take into account the time of writing this work and the circumstances of its creation. Chekhov wrote The Cherry Orchard at the beginning of the 20th century, when Russia was at the crossroads of eras, when the revolution was inevitably approaching, and many felt the impending enormous changes in the entire habitual and established way of life of Russian society. Many writers of that time tried to comprehend and understand the changes taking place in the country, and Anton Pavlovich was no exception. The play "The Cherry Orchard" was presented to the public in 1904, becoming the final in the work and life of the great writer, and in it Chekhov reflected his thoughts about the fate of his country.
The decline of the nobility, caused by changes in the social structure and the inability to adapt to new conditions; separation from their roots not only of landowners, but also of peasants who began to move to the city; the birth of a new class of the bourgeoisie, who came to the place of the merchants; the emergence of intellectuals who came from the common people - and all this against the background of the emerging general discontent with life - this is perhaps the main source of the conflict in the comedy "The Cherry Orchard".
Feeling the coming changes, Chekhov tried to convey his feelings to the viewer through the peculiarity of the conflict in the play The Cherry Orchard, which became a new type, characteristic of all his dramaturgy. This conflict does not originate between people or social forces, it manifests itself in the discrepancy and repulsion of real life, its denial and replacement. And it could not be played, this conflict could only be felt. By the beginning of the 20th century, society was not yet able to accept this, and it was necessary to rebuild not only the theater, but also the audience, and for the theater, which knew and was able to reveal open confrontations, it was practically impossible to convey the features of the conflict in the play The Cherry Orchard. That is why Chekhov was disappointed with the premiere. Indeed, out of habit, the conflict marked the clash of the past in the face of impoverished landowners and the future. However, the future closely connected with Petya Trofimov and Anya does not fit into Chekhov's logic. It is unlikely that Anton Pavlovich connected the future with the "shabby gentleman" and "eternal student" Petya, who was not even able to keep track of the safety of his old galoshes, or Anya, in explaining whose role, Chekhov made the main emphasis on her youth, and this was the main requirement for performer.
Lopakhin is the central character in revealing the main conflict of the play
Why did Chekhov focus on the role of Lopakhin, saying that if his character fails, then the whole play will fail? At first glance, it is precisely Lopakhin's opposition to the frivolous and passive owners of the garden that is a conflict in his classical interpretation, and Lopakhin's triumph after the purchase is his permission. However, it was precisely this interpretation that the author feared. The playwright said many times, fearing the coarsening of the role, that Lopakhin is a merchant, but not in his traditional sense, that he is a soft person, and in no case can one trust his portrayal of a “screamer”. After all, it is through the correct disclosure of the image of Lopakhin that it becomes possible to understand the entire conflict of the play.
So what is the main conflict of the play? Lopakhin is trying to tell the owners of the estate how to save their property, offering the only real option, but they do not heed his advice. To show the sincerity of his desire to help, Chekhov makes it clear about Lopakhin's tender feelings for Lyubov Andreevna. But despite all the attempts to reason and influence the owners, Ermolai Alekseevich, the “man is a man,” becomes the new owner of a beautiful cherry orchard. And he is glad, but this is fun through tears. Yes, he bought it. He knows what to do with his acquisition in order to make a profit. But why does Lopakhin exclaim: “I wish all this would pass, our awkward, unhappy life would change somehow!” And it is these words that serve as a pointer to the conflict of the play, which turns out to be more philosophical - the discrepancy between the needs of spiritual harmony with the world and reality in the transitional era and, as a result, the person does not coincide with himself and with historical time. In many ways, this is precisely why it is practically impossible to single out the stages of development of the main conflict in the play The Cherry Orchard. After all, it was born even before the beginning of the actions described by Chekhov, and it never found its solution.
Composition "Dispute of generations: together and apart"
Here we will try to collect for you all the useful material in the direction of "Dispute of generations: together and apart."
You will find all general information in the section "Final Essay 2015".
Below are specific topics for these areas, recommendations for preparation, lists of references and specific examples of good essays.
Turning to reflections on the topics of this direction, first of all, remember all the works that show the relationship between “fathers” and “children”. This problem is multifaceted.
1. Perhaps the topic will be formulated in such a way as to make you talk about family values. Then you should remember the works in which fathers and children are blood relatives. In this case, one will have to consider the psychological and moral foundations of family relationships, the role of family traditions, disagreements and continuity between generations within the family.
2. A possible version of the wording is topics that involve considering the conflict between the mores of representatives of different generations in general, regardless of family ties. In this case, considerable attention should be paid to the views of people, due to belonging to different eras, formation in different social conditions.
3. Speaking about the dispute of generations, one can mean an ideological conflict, i.e. clash of ideologies of people with different political views. The antagonists of this conflict may be peers, but their ideological principles may reflect the ideology of certain social strata.
4. Relations between generations are not only a conflict, but also continuity, a desire to pass on one's own system of values, to surround oneself with close people. Does it always work?
Bibliography
1. D.I. Fonvizin. "Undergrowth"
2. A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit"
3. A.S. Pushkin. "The Captain's Daughter", "Eugene Onegin", "The Stationmaster", "The Young Lady-Peasant Woman"
4. M.Yu. Lermontov. "Borodino"
5. N.V. Gogol. "Taras Bulba", "Dead Souls" (on the image of Chichikov)
6. A.N. Ostrovsky. "Storm"
7. I.A. Goncharov. "Oblomov"
8. I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons"
9. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. "Wise Gudgeon"
10. L.N. Tolstoy. "Childhood", "Adolescence", "War and Peace"
11. A.P. Chekhov. "The Cherry Orchard"
12. V.G. Korolenko. "In Bad Society"
13. A.M. Bitter. "Childhood"
14. M.A. Sholokhov. Quiet Don, Mole
15. V.G. Rasputin. "French Lessons", "Deadline"
16. V. Tendryakov. "Pay"
17. B. Vasiliev. "Tomorrow there was a war"
18. Yu. Bondarev. "Choice"
19. G. Shcherbakova. "You never dreamed"
20. L. Razumovskaya. "Dear Elena Sergeevna!"
21. W. Shakespeare. "Romeo and Juliet"
22. A. Aleksin. "Mad Evdokia", "Steps"
23. B. Ekimov. "Healing Night", "A Pair of Autumn Shoes".
Topics of essays (approximate):
- What should family relationships be based on?
- How to overcome the misunderstanding that sometimes arises in the relationship between parents and children?
- What is the importance of home and family in a child's life?
- Why do children suffer?
- What should be the family?
- Why can't you forget your father's house?
- Why is the lack of understanding between generations dangerous?
- How should the younger generation relate to the experience of the older ones?
- How does the era affect the relationship between fathers and children?
- Is conflict between fathers and children inevitable?
- What does it mean to become an adult?
- Is love and respect for parents a sacred feeling?
Three generations in A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" 1. "The Cherry Orchard" - Chekhov's "swan song". 2. Ranevskaya and Gaev are representatives of the outgoing life. 3. Lopakhin is the personification of the present. 4. Petya Trofimov and Anya as representatives of a new generation, the future of Russia.
A.P. Chekhov turned to the genre of dramaturgy already in his early work. But his real success as a playwright began with the play The Seagull. The play "The Cherry Orchard" is called Chekhov's swan song. She completed the creative path of the writer. In The Cherry Orchard, the author expressed his beliefs, thoughts, and hopes. Chekhov believes that the future of Russia belongs to people like Trofimov and Anya. In one of his letters, Chekhov wrote: “Students and female students are good and honest people. This is our hope, this is the future of Russia.” It is they, according to Chekhov, who are the true owners of the cherry orchard, which the author identified with his homeland. “The whole of Russia is our garden,” says Petya Trofimov.
The owners of the cherry orchard are the hereditary nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev. The estate and the garden have been the property of their family for many years, but they can no longer be in charge here. They are the personification of Russia's past, there is no future behind them. Why?
Gaev and Ranevskaya are helpless, idle people, incapable of any active actions. They admire the beauty of the blooming garden, it evokes nostalgic memories in these people, but that's all. Their estate is ruined, and these people cannot and do not try to do anything in order to somehow improve the situation. The price of such "love" is small. Although Ranevskaya says: “God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly.” But the question arises, what kind of love is this if she left Russia five years ago and returned now only because she failed in her personal life. And in the finale of the play, Ranevskaya again leaves her homeland.
Of course, the heroine gives the impression of a person with an open soul, she is cordial, emotional, impressionable. But these qualities are combined with such traits of her character as carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, bordering on callousness and indifference to others. We see that in fact Ranevskaya is indifferent towards people, even sometimes cruel. How else to explain the fact that she gives the last gold to a passerby, and the servants in the house are left to live from hand to mouth. She thanks Firs, asks about his health, and... leaves an old, sick man in a boarded up house, simply forgetting about him. It's monstrous to say the least!
Like Ranevskaya, Gaev has a sense of beauty. I would like to note that he, more than Ranevskaya, gives the impression of a gentleman. Although this character can be called exactly the same inactive, careless and frivolous as his sister. Like a small child, Gaev cannot give up the habit of sucking candies and even counts on Firs in small things. His mood changes very quickly, he is a fickle, windy person. Gaev is upset to tears because the estates are being sold, but as soon as he heard the sound of balls in the billiard room, he immediately cheered up, like a child.
Of course, Gaev and Ranevskaya are the embodiment of the past passing life. Their habit of living “in debt, at the expense of others” speaks of the idleness of the existence of these heroes. They are definitely not the masters of life, since even their material well-being depends on some kind of accident: either it will be an inheritance, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send them money in order to pay off their debts, or Lopakhin will lend money. People like Gaev and Ranevskaya are being replaced by a completely different type of people: strong, enterprising, dexterous. One of these people is another character in the play, Lopakhin.
Lopakhin embodies the present of Russia. Lopakhin's parents were serfs, but after the abolition of serfdom, the fate of this man changed. He made his way into the people, got rich, and is now able to buy the estate of those who were once his masters. Lopakhin feels his superiority over Ranevskaya and Gaev, and even they treat him with respect, because they are aware of their dependence on this person. It is clear that Lopakhin and people like him will very soon oust the well-born nobles.
However, Lopakhin gives the impression of a person who is the "master of life" only in a given, short period of time. He is not the owner of the cherry orchard, but only its temporary owner. He is going to cut down the cherry orchard and sell the land. It seems that, having increased his capital from this enterprise that is beneficial to him, he still will not occupy a dominant place in the life of the state in the future. In the image of this character, Chekhov masterfully managed to portray a bizarre and contradictory combination of features of the past and the present. Lopakhin, although he is proud of his current position, does not forget for a second about his low origin, his resentment for life is too strong in him, which, as it seems to him, was unfair to him. Very soon the reader and viewer realizes that Lopakhin is just an intermediate step between the past and future generations.
In the play Chekh'ba we also see characters opposed to the destructive activity of Lopakhin and the inaction of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This is Anya and Petya Trofimov. It is for such people, according to the author, the future of Russia. Trofimov is an ardent seeker of truth, who sincerely believes in the triumph of a just life in the near future. Student Petya Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but as an honest person he refuses to live at the expense of others. He talks a lot about the need for a reorganization of society, but he has not yet taken real actions. But he is a great propagandist. This is one of those who are followed by young people, who are trusted. Anya is carried away by Trofimov's call to change life, and at the end of the play we hear her words calling for "planting a new garden." The author does not give us the opportunity to see the fruits of the activities of the representatives of the new generation. He only leaves us hope that the words of Petya Trofimov and Anya will not diverge from deeds.
Chekhov depicted three generations of people in his play The Cherry Orchard, and each character personifies the life of Russia: Ranevkaya and Gaev - the past, Lopakhin - the present, Trofimov and Anya - the future. Time has shown that Chekhov was absolutely right - in the near future, the Russian people were expecting a revolution, and it was people like Trofimov who made history.
