Publications in the Literature section
How to read " The Cherry Orchard»
In October 1903, Anton Chekhov finished work on the play The Cherry Orchard. Directed by Konstantin Stanislavsky, who first staged the play in the Moscow Art Theater, admitted: “Her [plays] charm is in the elusive, deeply hidden aroma. To feel it, it is necessary, as it were, to open the bud of a flower and force its petals to bloom. And until now, The Cherry Orchard remains one of the most controversial works of Russian literature. About what details you need to pay attention to in order to truly understand the play, Irina Sukhova, a researcher at the Department State Museum stories Russian literature named after V.I. Dahl "House-Museum of A.P. Chekhov".
Victor Borisov-Musatov. Spring (detail). 1898-1901. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg
Krnstantin Korovin. At the tea table (detail). 1888. State Memorial Historical, Artistic and natural museum-reserve V.D. Polenov, Tula region
Claude Monet. Woman in the garden (detail). 1876. State Hermitage, Saint Petersburg
Read the educational cycle, dedicated to creativity Anton Chekhov, in the project of the GMIRL named after V.I. Dahl "Literary Express".
Interviewed by Ekaterina Tarasova
Ksenia GUSAROVA,
11th grade
gymnasium No. 1514(52)
(teacher - M.M. Belfer)
Outline of the essay
Cherry Orchard - image, symbol, character
Ch ekhov - the creator of the so-called " new drama”, characterized by the novelty of the conflict, the rejection of external intrigue, the combination of dramatic, comic and lyrical principles, big role subtext created by the author's remarks, pauses, pictures of nature - "undercurrent". Although the writer himself, obviously, sought to achieve maximum realism in his plays (“Let everything be the same on stage ... as in life”), there is an opinion that it was through Chekhov that Meyerhold came to his conditional theater.
As you know, “The Cherry Orchard” is the result of Chekhov’s creative path, his last word addressed to the reader, a word about how imperceptibly for anyone the inner drama of a person who is unable to “fit in” in life is being accomplished. The main problem raised in The Cherry Orchard is the problem of duty, responsibility, the question of the fate of the Motherland.
The characters in Chekhov's plays are not just heroes, but heroes in time and space.
The cherry orchard, which is both the background of the action, and the character, and a comprehensive symbol, can be viewed in three main aspects: the garden is an image and character, the garden is time and the garden is symbolic spaces.
Animated and spiritualized (poeticized by Chekhov and idealized by the characters associated with him), the garden, no doubt, is one of the characters in the play. It takes its place in the system of images.
The garden is given simultaneously as an accusation (emphasizes irresponsibility, unkindness) and justification (a sense of beauty, keeping traditions, memory) of all other heroes.
The garden is playing passive role. Let us recall Chekhov's judgment: "It is better to be a victim than an executioner." Obviously, the victim garden is the only positive character in the play.
The garden sets the upper moral plane (what is the norm for Chekhov, but for his heroes, due to the distortion of the world order and their own inferiority, becomes the ideal), just as Yasha, a complete boor, sets the lower one. There is no vertical line that should connect them. Therefore, all the rest characters are in between, in the middle (“average” people), as if frozen in free fall, not touching any of the planes (they deviated from the norm, but did not sink completely), but reflecting them and being reflected in them - hence the ambiguity, the versatility of images.
Gaev is inextricably linked with the garden. But the nature of this connection cannot be unequivocally interpreted. On the one hand, Gaev is one of the most irresponsible heroes of the play, he “ate all his fortune on candies”, and to a greater extent, the blame for the death of the garden lies with him. On the other hand, to the last, in a quixotic naivete and to no avail, he tries to save the garden.
Ranevskaya is connected with the garden by a kind of “multiple mutual belonging effect”: Ranevskaya is the protagonist of Chekhov’s play The Cherry Orchard, that is, she belongs to The Cherry Orchard; the cherry orchard is located on the estate of Ranevskaya, therefore, belongs to her; Ranevskaya is in captivity at the image of the garden she created and thus belongs to him; the garden, as an image and symbol of the “sweet past”, exists in the imagination of Ranevskaya, which means it belongs to her ...
You can interpret Ranevskaya as the soul of the garden. This idea is suggested, in particular, by observations of temperature in its direct and figurative-artistic meaning - before the arrival of Ranevskaya, the theme of cold is repeated many times (in Chekhov's remarks and replicas of the heroes): “it's cold in the garden”, “it's a matinee now, frost is three degrees ”, “everything went cold” and so on; with the arrival of Ranevskaya, the cherry orchard and the house warm up, and after the sale of the garden it gets cold again: “just now it’s cold”, again “three degrees below zero”. In addition, the motif of the “broken thermometer” appears (a sign of the lack of a sense of proportion and the impossibility of returning to the old life).
For Lopakhin, the garden is a double symbol. This is an attribute of the nobility, where he, the peasant, “with a pig's snout”, is blocked from going (the social subtext is far from being the main thing in the play, but it is important), and the spiritual elite, where he is just as hopelessly striving (“read a book and fell asleep”).
The dual nature of Lopakhin - a merchant-artist - gives rise to a complex, a feeling of his own incompleteness (Lopakhin is far from Trofimov’s cold philosophizing: “your father was a peasant, mine is a pharmacist, and absolutely nothing follows from this”), which in turn gives rise to a subconscious desire for owning a cherry orchard.
Everyone noted a paradox: in an effort to make the garden “rich, luxurious, happy”, Lopakhin cuts it down.
Conclusion: Lopakhin, having bought a garden, believes that he “conquered” it; intoxicated with the consciousness of victory, he does not understand that he himself is subdued (this idea is partly confirmed by what happened to Lopakhin at the auction: “it got muddled in the head”; excitement is an instinct, that is, an animal, natural). Consequently, the garden puts pressure on Lopakhin, determines his life.
The garden is a symbol of the happiness of future generations: “our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see here new life”, but at the same time an obstacle to this (the garden binds all its “inhabitants” to one place, serves as a kind of pretext for their doing nothing).
The garden can be regarded as Lopakhin's curse: the repeated mention of fathers and grandfathers is generic; the theme of serfdom associated with the garden; already mentioned motive of spontaneity, fatality.
For Varya, saving the garden is the only goal that has turned into an obsession. She sacrificed her personal life, "private secret" to the garden. She has an authoritarian mind. Its sacrifice is useless (parallel: Sonya in “War and Peace”: “it will be taken away from the poor”). The epithet “poor” applied to her has a triple meaning: poor, unhappy, not rich spiritually. Working for the sake of the garden, Varya gradually changes the goal and the means in places (shifting the emphasis from the word “garden” to the word “work”). She works out of habit - without meaning and purpose. Work fills the spiritual void. Varya is deprived of the garden for excessive devotion to him.
Firs - ancient as a garden, warmed by the arrival of Ranevskaya, perishes under the sound of an ax. Firs is an integral part of the garden.
Anya’s personality is formed under the influence of Ranevskaya and Trofimov, hence the ambivalent attitude to the garden, approaching Trofimov’s: “I no longer love cherry orchard, like before". He loves the garden as a memory of childhood and as a hope for a new life, the theme “we will plant new garden” - an attempt to connect these two “loves”.
Trofimov's denial, the rejection of the garden - an attempt at a sober assessment. This assessment has both pluses and minuses: on the one hand, Chekhov often trusts Petya to express his thoughts, on the other hand, Trofimov, a dependent reasoner, a comic figure, this reduces everything he says by an order of magnitude.
The garden is given in time and outside of time (metaphysical). In time, the garden exists in three time planes: past, present and future. The garden-past is a visible image of serfdom (“human beings look at you from every leaf”); the memory of youth, a better life and a hopeless desire to return them. The garden that connects memory and aspiration is a shaky bridge thrown from the past to the future. The present tense of the garden is one with space (chronotope). The garden is also a symbol silver age” as eras: rise and fall at the same time, characteristic colors. The image of a garden, in particular, a cherry one, is often found in the poetry of the “Silver Age” (literary critics especially often note Akhmatova). One can argue about the future of the garden. There is a “Lopakhinsky” option: to cut down a garden and build dachas, it is achievable, but, according to Chekhov, this is not the future. There is an idealized garden of Trofimov and Anya - good, but not available. And there is a future on an all-Russian scale, where a new garden will inevitably be planted, the only question is what it will be like.
Understanding the space of a garden is most simple (ordinary garden) and complex at the same time. The garden is also a space of mood (contributes to the creation of an “undercurrent”). The garden combines the lyrical and epic beginnings.
Garden taken for moral ideal, can be taken as an ideal space. Thus, there is a symbolic parallel “Cherry Orchard-Eden” and the theme of expulsion from paradise. But the sins of Ranevskaya, in which she repents to Lopakhin, are not those sins.
Conclusion: not to do good, according to Chekhov, is almost more sinful than to do evil.
The space of the cherry orchard is universal, since it unites all the actors of the play (at least outwardly), Chekhov and all his readers, that is, a higher, metaphysical plane is created.
Finally, the metaphor “garden-Russia” is obvious.
Petya's mistake is that in his statement (“All Russia is our garden”) he focuses on the word “Russia”, thus Russia (if not the whole earth) is presented as an endless number of gardens (“The earth is great and beautiful, there is there are many wonderful places on it”), and the loss of one of them does not seem to be anything important - such negligence inevitably leads to the destruction of everything.
Chekhov, on the contrary, focuses on the word "garden". This means that one concrete garden Russia already exists, and responsibility for it should be the same as for the fate of the entire Motherland, and without the first there can be no second. With this understanding of the “garden-Russia”, the answer to the age-old question “what to do?” there could be a call going back to Goethe and Voltaire: “Let everyone cultivate his own vineyard”, but in this context it would sound like a call not to ultimate individualization, but to selfless labor on one’s own piece of land, and labor should not be perceived as a way to fill the inner emptiness, but as a means to make (sya) better.
There is no hope for a “happy ending” within the play: Firs dies in a boarded-up house; the garden has been cut down or will be cut down, and dachas will be built in its place; a broken string cannot be tied.
The image of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is ambiguous and complex. This is not just a part of the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev, as it might seem at first glance. This is not what Chekhov wrote about. The cherry orchard is an image-symbol. It means the beauty of Russian nature and the lives of the people who raised him and admired him. With the death of the garden, this life also perishes.
Center uniting characters
The image of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is the center around which all the characters unite. At first it may seem that these are only old acquaintances and relatives who have gathered by chance on the estate to solve everyday problems. However, it is not. It is no coincidence that Anton Pavlovich united characters representing various social groups and age categories. Their task is to decide the fate of not only the garden, but also their own.
Connection of Gaev and Ranevskaya with the estate
Ranevskaya and Gaev are Russian landowners who own a manor and a cherry orchard. This is a brother and sister, they are sensitive, smart, educated people. They are able to appreciate beauty, they feel it very subtly. Therefore, the image of the cherry orchard is so dear to them. In the perception of the heroes of the play "The Cherry Orchard" he personifies beauty. However, these characters are inert, which is why they cannot do anything to save what is dear to them. Ranevskaya and Gaev, with all their spiritual wealth and development, are deprived of responsibility, practicality and a sense of reality. Therefore, they cannot take care not only of loved ones, but also of themselves. These heroes do not want to heed Lopakhin's advice and rent out their land, although this would bring them a decent income. They believe that dachas and summer residents are vulgar.
Why is the estate so dear to Gaev and Ranevskaya?
Gaev and Ranevskaya are unable to rent out the land because of the feelings that bind them to the estate. They have special treatment to the garden, which for them is like a living person. Much connects these heroes with their estate. The cherry orchard seems to them the personification of a bygone youth, past life. Ranevskaya compared her life with " cold winter"and" dark rainy autumn ". When the landowner returned to the estate, she again felt happy and young.
Lopakhin's attitude to the cherry orchard
The image of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is also revealed in Lopakhin's attitude towards it. This hero does not share the feelings of Ranevskaya and Gaev. He finds their behavior illogical and strange. This person wonders why they do not want to listen to seemingly obvious arguments that will help find a way out of a predicament. It should be noted that Lopakhin is also able to appreciate beauty. The Cherry Orchard delights this hero. He believes that there is nothing more beautiful than him in the world.
However, Lopakhin is a practical and active person. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, he cannot just admire the cherry orchard and regret it. This hero seeks to do something to save him. Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya and Gaev. He never ceases to convince them that both the land and the cherry orchard should be leased. This must be done as soon as possible, as the auction will be soon. However, the landowners do not want to listen to him. Leonid Andreevich can only swear that the estate will never be sold. He says he won't allow the auction.
New garden owner
Nevertheless, the auction still took place. The owner of the estate was Lopakhin, who cannot believe his own happiness. After all, his father and grandfather worked here, "were slaves", they were not even allowed into the kitchen. Buying an estate for Lopakhin becomes a kind of symbol of his success. This is a well-deserved reward for years of hard work. The hero would like his grandfather and father to rise from the grave and be able to rejoice with him, to see how their descendant succeeded in life.
Negative qualities of Lopakhin
The Cherry Orchard for Lopakhin is just land. It can be bought, mortgaged or sold. This hero, in his joy, did not consider himself obliged to show a sense of tact towards former owners purchased estate. Lopakhin immediately begins cutting down the garden. He did not want to wait for departure former owners estates. The soulless lackey Yasha is somewhat similar to him. It completely lacks such qualities as attachment to the place in which he was born and raised, love for his mother, kindness. In this respect, Yasha is the exact opposite of Firs, a servant who has these senses unusually developed.
Attitude towards the garden of Firs's servant
Revealing, it is necessary to say a few words about how Firs, the oldest of all in the house, treated him. Long years he devotedly served his masters. This man sincerely loves Gaev and Ranevskaya. He is ready to protect these heroes from all troubles. We can say that Firs is the only one of all the characters in The Cherry Orchard who is endowed with such a quality as devotion. This is a very whole nature, which is manifested in its entirety in the relation of the servant to the garden. For Firs, the estate of Ranevskaya and Gaev - family nest. He seeks to protect it, as well as its inhabitants.
Representatives of the new generation
The image of the cherry orchard in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is dear only to those heroes who have important memories associated with it. The representative of the new generation is Petya Trofimov. The fate of the garden does not interest him at all. Petya declares: "We are above love." Thus, he admits that he is not able to experience serious feelings. Trofimov looks at everything too superficially. He does not know real life, which is trying to remake, based on far-fetched ideas. Anya and Petya are outwardly happy. They crave a new life, for which they seek to break with the past. For these heroes, the garden is "the whole of Russia", and not a specific cherry orchard. But is it possible to love the whole world not loving your own home? Petya and Anya lose their roots in the pursuit of new horizons. Mutual understanding between Trofimov and Ranevskaya is impossible. For Petya, there are no memories, no past, and Ranevskaya is deeply worried about the loss of the estate, since she was born here, her ancestors also lived here, and she sincerely loves the estate.
Who will save the garden?
As we have already noted, it is a symbol of beauty. Only people who can not only appreciate her, but also fight for her can save her. Active and energetic people who replace the nobility treat beauty only as a source of profit. What will happen to her, who will save her?
The image of the cherry orchard in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is a symbol of the native hearth and the past, dear to the heart. Is it possible to boldly go forward if the sound of an ax is heard behind your back, which destroys everything that used to be sacred? It should be noted that the cherry orchard is, after all, it is no coincidence that such expressions as "hit a tree with an ax", "trample a flower" and "cut roots" sound inhuman and blasphemous.
So, we briefly examined the image of the cherry orchard in the understanding of the heroes of the play "The Cherry Orchard". Reflecting on the actions and characters of the characters in Chekhov's work, we also think about the fate of Russia. After all, it is for all of us a "cherry orchard".
Scientific adviser: Barnashova Elena Vyacheslavovna, cand. philol. Sciences, Department of Theory and History of Culture, National Research Tomsk State University, Russia, Tomsk
Annotation.
This article is devoted to the study of the worldview and the inner world of a person of a critical era late XIX- the beginning of the XX century. To reveal this topic, the author uses the analysis of the work of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard". This play was not chosen by chance, it is in it that the writer most fully reveals the mood of a person in a crisis era, and also gives an assessment of the general atmosphere of that time.
Keywords: A.P. Chekhov, "The Cherry Orchard", human attitude, the era of the late XIX-early XX centuries, crisis perception of the world.
This topic is relevant for the 21st century, as the consonance of epochs is now traced. Modern man is in a similar state. The surrounding reality shows its instability, values quickly become obsolete, new ideas, opinions, preferences appear, the world around is rapidly changing every second. Confidence in a stable future disappears. As at the end of the 19th century, a person cannot find support, unshakable ideals on which he could rely. The 21st century is engulfed in a special atmosphere of languor, expectation of change, weariness from life. In this regard, the author of the article considers it appropriate to study the work of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" to identify the special mood of this crisis era and the worldview of a person. And understanding the atmosphere of the late XIX-early XX centuries. makes it possible to understand the processes taking place in inner world modern man.
Anton Pavlovich wrote the play The Cherry Orchard in 1903, a year before his death. He shares his idea of a new work in a letter with his wife O.L. Knipper March 7, 1901: "The next play I write will certainly be funny, very funny, at least in concept." And already in the summer of 1902, the writer clearly defines the contours of the plot, and comes up with a title for his new play. However, the writing of the play was postponed due to the illness of Anton Pavlovich, but already in June 1903, being at a dacha near Moscow in Naro-Fominsk, the writer set about writing a full-fledged plot of the play. And on September 26, 1903, the play was finished.
The play is created in a difficult time for the country. The era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was marked by rapid changes in all areas of society. Society was torn apart by contradictions, revolutionary sentiments grew, especially among the workers. The socio-political situation in the country worsened. Old values are losing credibility common people. revolutionary movements, opposing the old, they still cannot offer anything concrete in return. The man is at a crossroads.
And it is in this "troubled" time that this play is created. This last work, written by Chekhov, reflects the whole essence cultural era of that time and how a person felt in it.
This is one of his most interesting and most discussed plays. Until now, researchers have not come to a consensus on the interpretation of this work, with each reading it opens up new meanings and gives rise to new interpretations.
The plot of this play is quite everyday and ordinary. However, the value of Chekhov's work is not at all in the plot, but in the subtle human psychologism with which the writer shows a person, his experiences and spiritual quest. A special atmosphere of the work is also created, it becomes more depressing compared to other plays. Here we will no longer see the dreams of happy life some feeling of dissatisfaction. There is now a sense of doom in the air. It is in this work that Chekhov especially accurately and subtly shows the turning point and the person living in it, who is trying to find support, but cannot do it. Characters cannot accurately understand what torments them, they cannot express their feelings. They are in an endless search for answers to their tormenting questions.
There is also a special relationship between the characters themselves. The misunderstanding between them is clearly shown. The characters seem to speak different languages, as a result of this, the so-called “parallel dialogues” appear, when, for example, Ranevskaya and Lopakhin are talking about selling the estate, the landowner does not seem to hear what her interlocutor is talking about (or does not want to hear), she talks about her wonderful childhood, plunging into she does not notice anything around her.
Chekhov, moving away from class, depicts people from the point of view of their perception surrounding reality. And we see Lopakhin, who was able to adapt and survive in this changed world, but on the other hand, the image of Ranevskaya, a person who does not want and cannot change, she is not ready for changes in her life, and therefore continues to live as before. In her image, a special fear of the future is read, she looks defenseless and desperate. It should be noted that this aspect cannot be tied to social aspects heroes, since then their status would be emphasized, but in the play, instead, attention is focused on emotional experiences.
The image of the Garden occupies a special place in the play; on the one hand, it appears as a kind of metaphor for life, an ideal where everyone strives to get. It is symbolic that the characters look at the garden only from afar. But on the other hand, the Garden is an image of the past, that happy carefree past, where everything was clear. Where certain authorities remained, unshakable values, where life flowed evenly and measuredly, and everyone knew what awaited tomorrow. Therefore, Firs says: “In the old days, forty or fifty years ago, cherries were dried ... And then dried cherries were soft, juicy ... The method was then known ... ". This special way, the secret of life that allowed the cherry orchard to bloom, has been lost and is now bound to be cut down and destroyed. Time moves forward, the surrounding world changes, and therefore the Garden must become a thing of the past. It is very difficult to part with it, but this will be the main impetus for the development of the present, and with it the future.
Along with this, the problem of self-determination of a person in a new, constantly changing world is traced. Some find their occupation (like Lopakhin), others (Ranevskaya) still live in the past and are afraid to face the future. At first, she is really afraid to part with the garden, but after selling it, Gaev says: “Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we all worried, suffered, and then, when the issue was finally resolved, irrevocably, everyone calmed down, even cheered up”, thereby proving the need for change.
Another an important factor become "random" sounds. Like the sound of the broken arrow at the end. In my opinion, this is an assumption about the future of the author himself. Throughout the play, tension grew, internal conflict a person with himself with his old habits of prejudice, inevitable changes were felt that put pressure on a person, forced him to make his “right” decision. The heroes rushed about in search of the truth and did not want to change anything, but the changes slowly took over their lives. And at the end the garden is sold, everyone left, and we see an empty stage, we hear the sound of a broken string, nothing and no one is left except Firs. The tension has been resolved, leaving a void that invites the reader to see something of themselves in her. Chekhov did not know exactly what this “future” would look like, he did not know what would be there, but he definitely foresaw the inevitable changes that were already very close, so close that we can already hear the knock of an ax.
Thus, the writer sought to show inner life character, his feelings and emotions, external everyday aspects were not so important. And so Chekhov is trying to get away from the usual social characteristics characters, he tries to more fully describe their out-of-class features. For example, personal characteristics, individualization of speech, special gestures. Another feature of The Cherry Orchard is that the reader does not see a pronounced social conflict, there are no contradictions or clashes. The speech of the characters also becomes new: they often say “random” phrases, and at the same time they do not listen to each other, they conduct parallel conversations. The whole meaning of the work is manifested in the totality of these small strokes, unsaid words.
Heroes appear before readers as realistically as in life, the writer shows that there is no single true truth that can be accepted by everyone. Everyone has their own truth, their own meaning and way of life, in which they sincerely believe. Anton Pavlovich showed the tragedy of the end situation XIX beginning XX century, when man stood at a crossroads. Old values and guidelines were crumbling, but new ones have not yet been found and assimilated. Life, to which everyone is accustomed, was changing, and a person felt the inevitable approach of these changes.
Bibliographic list:
1. Chekhov A.P. complete collection works and letters: in 30 volumes / ch. ed. N.F. Belchikov. - M. : Nauka, 1980. - T. 9: Letters 1900-March 1901. - 614 p.
2. Chekhov A.P. Novels and plays / A.P. Chekhov. - M. : Pravda, 1987. - 464 p.
"The Cherry Orchard" as an example Chekhov's play
Consider Chekhov's stories. Lyrical mood, piercing sadness and laughter... Such are his plays - unusual plays, and even more so seemed strange to Chekhov's contemporaries. But it was in them that the “watercolor” of Chekhov's colors, his penetrating lyricism, his piercing accuracy and frankness, manifested itself most vividly and deeply.
Chekhov's dramaturgy has several plans, and what the characters say is by no means what the author himself hides behind their remarks. And what he hides, perhaps, is not at all what he would like to convey to the viewer ...
From this diversity - the difficulty with the definition of the genre. For example, a play
"The Cherry Orchard" the author himself called a comedy. But the play is sad!.. So what's the matter?
As known from the very beginning, the estate is doomed; the heroes are also doomed - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Anya and Varya - they have nothing to live on, nothing to hope for. The exit proposed by Lopakhin is impossible for them. Everything for them symbolizes the past, some old, wonderful life, when everything was easy and
simple, and they even knew how to dry cherries and send carts to Moscow ... But now the garden has grown old, harvest years rare, the method of making cherries is forgotten... Constant trouble is felt behind all the words and deeds of the heroes... And even the hopes for the future expressed by one of the most active heroes - Lopakhin - are unconvincing. The words of Petya Trofimov are also unconvincing: “Russia is our garden”, “we have to work”. After all, Trofimov himself is an eternal student who cannot in any way start any serious activity. Trouble and in how relations develop between the characters (Lolakhin and Varya love each other, but for some reason do not get married), and in their conversations. Everyone talks about what interests him in this moment, and ns listens to others. The heroes of Chekhov are characterized by a tragic "deafness", so the important and the petty, the tragic and the stupid get in the way in the dialogues.
Indeed, in The Cherry Orchard, as in human life, tragic circumstances (material difficulties, the inability of the characters to act), dramatic (the life of any of the characters) and comic (for example, Petya Trofimov's fall from the stairs at the most stressful moment) are mixed up. Discord is visible everywhere, even in the fact that the servants behave like masters. Firs says, comparing the past and the present, that "everything is broken up." The existence of this person seems to remind the young that life began long ago, even before them. It is also characteristic that he is forgotten on the estate...
And the famous “sound of a broken string” is also a symbol. If stretched string- readiness, determination, efficiency, then a broken string is the end. True, there is still a vague hope, because the neighboring landowner Simeonov-Pishchik was lucky: he is no better than the others, and they found clay from him, then the railway passed ...
Life is both sad and fun. She is tragic, unpredictable, - this is what she says Chekhov in his plays. And that is why it is so difficult to define their genre - after all, the author simultaneously shows all aspects of our life...
