The fate of the firm. Composition “Reflections on the finale of the play“ The Cherry Orchard

« The Cherry Orchard" - it social play A.P. Chekhov about the death and degeneration of the Russian nobility. It was written by Anton Pavlovich in last years life. Many critics say that it is this drama that expresses the writer's attitude to the past, present and future of Russia.

Initially, the author planned to create a carefree and funny play, where the main driving force action will be the sale of the estate under the hammer. In 1901, in a letter to his wife, he shares his ideas. Previously, he had already raised a similar topic in the drama "Fatherlessness", but he recognized that experience as unsuccessful. Chekhov wanted to experiment, not resurrect plots buried in his desk. The process of impoverishment and degeneration of the nobles passed before his eyes, and he watched, creating and accumulating vital material to create artistic truth.

The history of the creation of The Cherry Orchard began in Taganrog, when the writer's father was forced to sell family nest for debts. Apparently, Anton Pavlovich experienced something similar to the feelings of Ranevskaya, which is why he so subtly delved into the experiences of seemingly fictional characters. In addition, Chekhov was personally acquainted with the prototype of Gaev - A.S. Kiselev, who also donated the estate in order to improve his shaky financial situation. His situation is one of hundreds. The entire Kharkov province, where the writer had visited more than once, became shallow: the noble nests disappeared. Such a large-scale and controversial process attracted the attention of the playwright: on the one hand, the peasants were freed and received the long-awaited freedom, on the other hand, this reform did not add prosperity to anyone. Such an obvious tragedy could not be ignored, the light comedy conceived by Chekhov did not work out.

The meaning of the name

Since the cherry orchard symbolizes Russia, it can be concluded that the author dedicated the work to the question of her fate, as Gogol wrote " Dead Souls for the sake of the question “Where does the trio bird fly?”. In fact, this is not about selling the estate, but about what will happen to the country? Will they sell it, will they cut it down for profit? Chekhov, analyzing the situation, understood that the degeneration of the nobility, the supporting class for the monarchy, promises trouble for Russia. If these people, called by their origin to be the core of the state, cannot be held responsible for their actions, then the country will go to the bottom. Such gloomy thoughts lay in wait for the author on the reverse side of the topic he touched upon. It turned out that his heroes were not laughing, just like himself.

The symbolic meaning of the title of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is to convey to the reader the idea of ​​the work - the search for an answer to questions about the fate of Russia. Without this sign, we would perceive comedy as a family drama, a drama from privacy or a parable about the problem of fathers and children. That is, an erroneous, narrow interpretation of what was written would not allow the reader to understand the main thing even after a hundred years: we are all responsible for our garden, regardless of generation, beliefs and social status.

Why did Chekhov call The Cherry Orchard a comedy?

Many researchers really classify it as a comedy, since along with tragic events (the destruction of an entire estate), comic scene. That is, it cannot be unequivocally attributed to a comedy, it is more correct to classify The Cherry Orchard as a tragic farce or tragicomedy, since many researchers attribute Chekhov's dramaturgy to a new phenomenon in the theater of the 20th century - anti-drama. The author himself stood at the origins of this trend, so he did not call himself that. However, the innovation of his work spoke for itself. This is now recognized as a writer and introduced into the school curriculum, and then many of his works remained incomprehensible, as they were out of the common rut.

The genre of The Cherry Orchard is difficult to define, because now, given the dramatic revolutionary events, which Chekhov did not find, we can say that this play is a tragedy. Dies in it whole era, and hopes for a revival are so weak and vague that it’s somehow impossible to even smile in the finale. An open ending, a closed curtain, and only a dull knock on wood is heard in my thoughts. This is the impression of the performance.

Main idea

The ideological and thematic meaning of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is that Russia is at a crossroads: it can choose the path to the past, present and future. Chekhov shows the mistakes and failure of the past, the vices and predatory grip of the present, but he still hopes for a happy future, showing the sublime and at the same time independent representatives of the new generation. The past, no matter how beautiful it may be, cannot be returned, the present is too imperfect and miserable to accept, so we must put all our efforts into ensuring that the future lives up to bright expectations. To do this, everyone should try right now, without delay.

The author shows how important the action is, but not the mechanical pursuit of profit, but the spiritualized, meaningful, moral action. It is about him that Pyotr Trofimov speaks, it is him that Anechka wants to see. However, we also see the pernicious legacy of past years in the student - he talks a lot, but did little for his 27 years. Nevertheless, the writer hopes that this age-old slumber will be overcome on a clear and cool morning - tomorrow, where the educated, but at the same time active descendants of the Lopakhins and Ranevskys will come.

Theme of the work

1. The author used an image that is well known to each of us and understandable to everyone. cherry orchards many have to this day, and then they were an indispensable attribute of every estate. They bloom in May, beautifully and fragrantly defend the week allotted to them, and then quickly fall off. Just as beautifully and suddenly fell the nobility, once a support Russian Empire mired in debt and endless controversy. As a matter of fact, these people were unable to justify the hopes placed on them. Many of them, with their irresponsible attitude to life, only undermined the foundations of Russian statehood. What should have been a centuries-old oak forest was just a cherry orchard: beautiful, but quickly vanished. Cherry fruits, alas, were not worth the place they occupied. This is how the theme of the death of noble nests was revealed in the play "The Cherry Orchard".
2. The themes of the past, present and future are realized in the work thanks to multilevel system images. Each generation symbolizes the time allotted to it. In the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev, the past dies, in the image of Lopakhin the present is in charge, but the future is waiting for its day in the images of Anya and Peter. The natural course of events acquires a human face, the change of generations is shown on concrete examples.
3. The theme of time also occupies an important place. His power is devastating. Water wears away a stone - and so time erases human laws, destinies and beliefs into powder. Until recently, Ranevskaya could not even think that her former serf would settle in the estate and cut down the garden, which was passed down by Gaev from generation to generation. This immutable order social structure collapsed and sank into oblivion, in its place hoisted capital and its market laws, in which power was provided by money, and not by position and origin.

Issues

1. The problem of human happiness in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is manifested in all the fates of the characters. Ranevskaya, for example, experienced many troubles in this garden, but she is happy to return here again. She fills the house with her warmth, remembers her native lands, nostalgic. She is not at all worried about debts, the sale of the estate, the inheritance of her daughter, after all. She is happy with forgotten and re-experienced impressions. But now the house has been sold, the bills have been repaid, and happiness is in no hurry with the advent of a new life. Lopakhin tells her about calmness, but only anxiety grows in her soul. Instead of liberation comes depression. Thus, that for one happiness is misfortune for another, all people understand its essence in different ways, which is why it is so difficult for them to get along together and help each other.
2. The problem of preserving memory also worries Chekhov. People of the present ruthlessly cut down what was the pride of the province. Noble nests, historically important buildings, perish from inattention, are erased into oblivion. Of course, active businessmen will always find arguments to destroy unprofitable junk, but they will perish ingloriously historical monuments, monuments of culture and art, which the Lopakhins' children will regret. They will be deprived of ties with the past, the continuity of generations, and will grow up as Ivans who do not remember kinship.
3. The problem of ecology in the play does not go unnoticed. The author claims not only historical value cherry orchard, but also natural beauty, its importance for the province. All the inhabitants of the surrounding villages breathed these trees, and their disappearance is a small ecological catastrophy. The area will be orphaned, the gaping lands will become impoverished, but people will fill every patch of inhospitable space. The attitude to nature should be as careful as to a person, otherwise we will all be left without a home that we love so much.
4. The problem of fathers and children is embodied in the relationship between Ranevskaya and Anechka. You can see the estrangement between family members. The girl regrets the unlucky mother, but she does not want to share her way of life. Lyubov Andreevna indulges the child with gentle nicknames, but cannot understand that in front of her is no longer a child. The woman continues to pretend that she still does not understand anything, therefore she shamelessly builds her personal life to the detriment of her interests. They are very different, so they do not make any attempts to find a common language.
5. The problem of love for the motherland, or rather, its absence, is also traced in the work. Gaev, for example, is indifferent to the garden, he cares only about his own comfort. His interests do not rise above consumer ones, so the fate of his home does not bother him. Lopakhin, his opposite, also does not understand Ranevskaya's scrupulousness. However, he does not understand what to do with the garden either. He is guided only by mercantile considerations, profits and calculations are important to him, but not the safety of his home. He clearly expresses only love for money and the process of obtaining it. A generation of children dream of a new garden, they don't need the old one. This is where the problem of indifference comes into play. Nobody needs the Cherry Orchard, except for Ranevskaya, and even she needs memories and the old way of life, where she could do nothing and live happily. Her indifference to people and things is expressed in the scene where she calmly drinks coffee while listening to the news of the death of her nanny.
6. The problem of loneliness torments every hero. Ranevskaya was abandoned and deceived by her lover, Lopakhin cannot improve relations with Varya, Gaev is an egoist by nature, Peter and Anna are just beginning to get closer, and it is already obvious that they are lost in a world where there is no one to give them a helping hand.
7. The problem of mercy haunts Ranevskaya: no one can support her, all men not only do not help, but do not spare her. The husband drank himself, the lover left, Lopakhin took away the estate, her brother does not care about her. Against this background, she herself becomes cruel: she forgets Firs in the house, he is nailed inside. In the image of all these troubles lies an inexorable fate that is merciless to people.
8. The problem of finding the meaning of life. Lopakhin is clearly not satisfied with his meaning of life, which is why he evaluates himself so low. This search only awaits Anna and Peter ahead, but they are already winding, not finding a place for themselves. Ranevskaya and Gaev with a loss wealth and their privileges are lost and cannot orient themselves again.
9. The problem of love and selfishness is clearly visible in the contrast of brother and sister: Gaev loves only himself and does not particularly suffer from losses, but Ranevskaya searched for love all her life, but did not find it, and she herself lost it along the way. Only crumbs fell to the lot of Anechka and the cherry orchard. Even loving person can become selfish after so many years of disappointment.
10. Problem moral choice and responsibility concerns, first of all, Lopakhin. He gets Russia, his activities are able to change it. However, he lacks the moral foundations for realizing the importance of his actions for his descendants, realizing the responsibility to them. He lives by the principle: "After us - even a flood." He does not care what will be, he sees what is.

Symbolism of the play

The garden is the main character in Chekhov's play. It not only symbolizes estate life, but also connects times and epochs. The image of the Cherry Orchard is noble Russia, with the help of him, Anton Pavlovich predicted the future of the changes that awaited the country, although he himself could no longer see them. It also expresses the author's attitude to what is happening.

Episodes depict ordinary everyday situations, "little things in life", through which we learn about the main events of the play. In Chekhov, the tragic and the comic are mixed, for example, in the third act Trofimov philosophizes, and then absurdly falls down the stairs. In this one can see a certain symbolism of the author's attitude: he ironically over the characters, casts doubt on the veracity of their words.

The system of images is also symbolic, the meaning of which is described in a separate paragraph.

Composition

The first step is exposure. Everyone is waiting for the arrival of the mistress of the estate Ranevskaya from Paris. In the house, everyone thinks and talks about his own, not listening to others. The disunity, located under the roof, illustrates the discordant Russia, where such dissimilar people live.

The plot - Lyubov Andreeva enters with her daughter, gradually everyone learns that they are in danger of ruin. Neither Gaev nor Ranevskaya (brother and sister) can prevent it. Only Lopakhin knows a tolerable rescue plan: to cut down cherries and build dachas, but the proud owners do not agree with him.

Second action. During sunset at once more the fate of the garden is discussed. Ranevskaya arrogantly rejects Lopakhin's help and continues to do nothing in the bliss of her own memories. Gaev and the merchant constantly quarrel.

Third act (culmination): while the old owners of the garden are having a ball, as if nothing had happened, the auction is going on: the former serf Lopakhin acquires the estate.

Fourth act (denouement): Ranevskaya returns to Paris to squander the rest of her savings. After her departure, everyone disperses in all directions. Only the old servant Firs remains in the packed house.

Chekhov's innovation as a playwright

It remains to add that the play is not without reason beyond the understanding of many schoolchildren. Many researchers attribute it to the theater of the absurd (what is it?). This is very complex and controversial phenomenon in modernist literature, which is still being debated. The fact is that Chekhov's plays can be classified as a theater of the absurd for a number of reasons. The lines of the heroes very often have no logical connection with each other. They seem to be turned to nowhere, as if they are spoken by one person and at the same time talking to himself. The destruction of dialogue, the failure of communication - this is what the so-called anti-drama is famous for. In addition, the alienation of the individual from the world, his global loneliness and life turned into the past, the problem of happiness - all these are features of the existential problem in the work, which are again inherent in the theater of the absurd. This is where the innovation of Chekhov the playwright in the play The Cherry Orchard manifested itself, and these features attract many researchers in his work. Such a "provocative" phenomenon, misunderstood and condemned public opinion, it is difficult to fully perceive even an adult, not to mention the fact that only a few who were attached to the world of art managed to fall in love with the theater of the absurd.

Image system

Chekhov does not have telling surnames, like Ostrovsky, Fonvizin, Griboedov, but there are off-stage characters (for example, a Parisian lover, Yaroslavl aunt) who are important in the play, but Chekhov does not bring them into "external" action. There is no division into good and bad characters in this drama, but there is a multifaceted character system. Actors plays can be divided into:

• on the heroes of the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs). They only know how to waste money and think, not wanting to change anything in their lives.
• on the heroes of the present (Lopakhin). Lopakhin is a simple “muzhik” who got rich with the help of labor, bought an estate and is not going to stop.
• on the heroes of the future (Trofimov, Anya) - this is the younger generation, dreaming of the highest truth and the highest happiness.

The characters in The Cherry Orchard are constantly jumping from one topic to another. With visible dialogue, they do not hear each other. There are as many as 34 pauses in the play, which are formed between many "unnecessary" statements of the characters. The phrase is repeatedly repeated: “You are still the same”, which makes it clear that the characters do not change, they stand still.

The action of the play "The Cherry Orchard" begins in May, when the fruits of the cherry trees begin to bloom, and ends in October. The conflict does not have a pronounced character. All the main events that decide the future of the heroes take place behind the scenes (for example, the sale of the estate). That is, Chekhov completely abandons the norms of classicism.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

Composition

Reading the 4th act of Chekhov's play "V. s. ”, you understand what the author wanted to show Noble Nest, which is represented by Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present represented by 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 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.

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 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. Either this is the lack of true love, or it is 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 help but praise, but the tears of the former mistress suddenly shake 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 the former owners left the estate, the axes clattered again. The new owner is 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.

Other writings on this work

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 is a loving woman, a mother who shows sentimental tenderness for old memorabilia, often turns 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, talking high-flown about the road to the future, but not able to find his own galoshes.

Even the secondary characters are unhappy, their samohar-ki sound very dramatic: “I grew up, then went to the governess,” says Charlotte. But where I am and who I am, I don’t know:. 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 speaks of the generality 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 idiots. 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 but notice her infantility, 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 talks post-but about how to change life for the better and seems to know what to do.

However, we constantly feel his self-doubt, and at the end of the play his hands drop and he exclaims: "We would rather change our awkward, unhappy life."

Perhaps this will interest you:

1. Let us recall the stories of A.P. Chekhov. Lyrical mood, piercing sadness and laughter... Such are his plays - unusual plays, and even more so seemed strange to Chekhov's contemporaries....


2. Chekhov, who came to literature in the 80s XIX years century, acutely felt the doom of the old forms of life and the inevitability of the emergence of new ones. It evoked both hope and anxiety.


3. The play "The Cherry Orchard" occupies a special place in the work of A.P. Chekhov. Before her, he awakened the idea of ​​the need to change reality, showing the hostility of living conditions to a person, ...


4. Chekhov's plays seemed unusual to his contemporaries. They differed sharply from the usual dramatic forms. They lacked the seemingly necessary opening, climax, and, strictly speaking, dramatic action...


5. In both plays, the landscape is amazingly beautiful, although it is difficult to compare the breathtaking views of the Volga from the place where the city of Kalinov is located, with a small one compared to...

• (!LANG:Ranked Posts

  • - 15 559 views
  • - 11,060 views
  • - 10 624 views
  • - 9 772 views
  • - 8 699 views

• News

  • Featured Essays

    Peculiarities of education and upbringing of children in a school of type V The purpose of a special educational institution for children with disabilities

    “The Master and Margarita” by Mikhail Bulgakov is a work that pushed the boundaries of the genre of the novel, where the author, perhaps for the first time, managed to achieve organic compound historical epic,

    Open lesson "Square curvilinear trapezoid» Grade 11 Prepared by the teacher of mathematics Kozlyakovskaya Lydia Sergeevna. MBOU secondary school No. 2 of the village of Medvedovskaya, Timashevsk district

    famous novel Chernyshevsky "What to do?" was consciously oriented towards the tradition of world utopian literature. The author consistently expresses his point of view on

    REPORT ON THE WEEK OF MATHEMATICS. 2015-2014 academic year Year Goals subject week: - level up mathematical development students, expanding their horizons;

  • Exam Essays

    Organization extracurricular activities foreign language Tyutina Marina Viktorovna, teacher French Article categorized under: Teaching foreign languages System

    I want the swans to live, And the world has become kinder from the white flocks... Ah. DementievSongs and epics, fairy tales and stories, novels and Russian novels

    "Taras Bulba" - not quite ordinary historical tale. It does not reflect any precise historical facts, historical figures. It is not even known

    In the story "Dry Valley" Bunin paints a picture of impoverishment and degeneration noble family Khrushchev. Once rich, noble and powerful, they are going through a period

    Russian language lesson in 4 "A" class

Reflections on the finale of the play "The Cherry Orchard"
Reading the 4th act of Chekhov's play "VS", 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 is a loving woman, a mother who shows sentimental tenderness for old memorabilia, often turns 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,
pompous about the road to the future, but unable to find his own galoshes. Even the secondary characters are unhappy, their samohar-ki sound very dramatic: “I grew up, then went to the governess,” says Charlotte. But where I am and who I am, I don’t know:. 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 "Nedotepa", 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.And. 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 speaks of the generality 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, tk. really hard of hearing, and in other heroes this deafness is not physical, but mental. Their position is in some sense worse than that of a servant, so he rightfully calls them blunderers.

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 talks post-but about how to change life for the better and seems to know what to do. However, we constantly feel his self-doubt, and at the end of the play his hands drop and he exclaims: "We would rather change our awkward, unhappy life."

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 exams must be held in the format of the USE - a 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 accept only USE results. Until now, the literature test 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 am on 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 inner 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. Etc.

Why am I dwelling in such detail on 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 possibility conducting the exam in Literature, teachers of the Department of the History of Russian Literature of St. Petersburg State University, in an open letter sent to the Forum of Language Writers, remark: 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, and the content of the 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, one asks what kind of pathos determines the author's attitude to the characters and action in The Government Inspector? 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" little man is worth only one point. AND 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 constituent entities of the Russian Federation” (that is, assignments do not come from school and they are also checked not at 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 secondary vocational education and educational institutions of higher vocational 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, here and at all 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 all) they decided to abandon the traditional composition and replaced some with an oral exam on tickets, defense of research papers, or analysis of 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 find 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. This can be either a written work (analysis and interpretation of one work of art or a detailed answer to a problematic question), 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.

Sergei Zinin also named the second reason why a written work 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?