In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard", it would seem that there is no pronounced conflict. There are no open quarrels and clashes between the characters. And yet, behind their usual remarks, the presence of a hidden (internal) confrontation is felt.
From my point of view, the main conflict of the play is the mismatch of times, the mismatch of a person with the era in which he lives. There are three planes of time in the play: past, present and future. At first glance, the personification of the past is Gaev and Ranevskaya, the hero of today is Lopakhin, and the people of the future are Anya and Petya Trofimov. But is it?
Indeed, Gaev and Ranevskaya carefully keep the memory of the past, love their home, the cherry orchard, which in the work is also specific garden, and in an image symbolizing something beautiful, as well as Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling from contemplating the death of the cherry orchard, the death of beauty. Gaev and Ranevskaya, on the one hand, have a sense of beauty, they seem to be graceful, refined people, radiating love for others. On the other hand, in fact, it was Ranevskaya who led her estate to collapse, and Gaev "ate a fortune on candy". In fact, both of them turn out to be people who live only in memories of the past. The present does not suit them, and they do not want to think about the future. Therefore, both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about real plan saving the cherry orchard, do not take Lopakhin's practical proposals seriously - in other words, they hope for a miracle, they do not try to change anything.
In human life, the past is the roots. Therefore, it must be remembered. But the one who, living in the past, does not think about the present and the future, comes into conflict with time. At the same time, a person who has forgotten about the past has no future - this, it seems to me, is the main idea of the author. It is precisely such a person that appears in Chekhov's play as the new "master of life" - Lopakhin.
He is completely immersed in the present - the past does not concern him. The Cherry Orchard interests him only insofar as he can profit from it. Of course, he does not think about the fact that a flowering garden symbolizes the connection between the past and the present, and this is his main mistake. Thus, Lopakhin also has no future: having forgotten about the past, he came into conflict with time, although for a different reason than Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Finally, young people remain - Anya and Petya Trofimov. Can we call them the people of the future? Don't think. Both have abandoned both their past and the present, they live only in a dream of the future - the conflict of times is obvious. What do they have besides faith? Anya is not sorry for the garden - in her opinion, ahead whole life full of joyful labor for the common good: “We will plant new garden more luxurious than this. However, neither eternal student"Petya, nor the very young Anya, do not know true life, they look at everything too superficially, they try to rebuild the world on the basis of ideas alone and, of course, have no idea how much work it takes to grow in reality (in deed, not in words ) a real cherry orchard.
Is it possible to trust Anya and Petya with the future, about which they talk so beautifully and constantly? In my opinion, this would be reckless. I think that the author is not on their side. Petya does not even try to save the cherry orchard, and it is this problem that worries the author.
Thus, in Chekhov's play there is a classic conflict - like in Shakespeare, "the connection of times was interrupted", which is symbolically expressed in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see a hero in Russian life who could become the real owner of the cherry orchard, the keeper of its beauty.
The dispute of generations
The play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" is unusual and amazing. Unlike other works of the playwright, she puts at the center of all events not a person, but lyrical image beautiful cherry orchard. He is like the personification of the beauty of Russia of the past. In the work, several generations are intertwined at once and, accordingly, the problem of a difference in thinking, perception of reality arises. cherry orchard plays a fundamental role. It is becoming a meeting place for the past, present and future of a country that is on the verge of grandiose changes.
This drama is an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian art. It has no sharp social conflicts, none of the main characters enter into an open argument and yet the conflict exists. What is it connected with? In my opinion, this is a dispute between generations that do not hear or do not want to hear each other. The past appears before us in the form of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are inveterate nobles who are unable to change their habits even for the sake of saving the estate, which still belonged to their parents and grandparents. Ranevskaya has long squandered her fortune and continues to overspend. Gaev hopes to receive an inheritance from a rich aunt living in Yaroslavl.
Will such people be able to keep their property - a family estate and a luxurious cherry orchard? Based on this description, no. One of the most prudent characters in the play is a representative of the current generation Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This is the son and grandson of serfs, who suddenly became rich and became a wealthy merchant. This hero achieved everything himself, with his work and perseverance, and as a poet he deserves respect. Unfortunately, it cannot be classified as happy people, since he himself is not happy about the opportunity to redeem Ranevskaya's beloved cherry orchard. For this reason, at the very beginning of the play, he recommends that she break it into sections and hand it over to summer residents, but the frivolous bourgeois do not even want to hear about this.
The third generation, the so-called "future" of the country, is represented by Ranevskaya's seventeen-year-old daughter and her son's former teacher. Anya and Petya are fighters for the "new life", and therefore they are little concerned about the fate of the cherry orchard. They think they can plant a new garden better than the old one. Trofimov is a talented student, but, alas, he talks more than he does, and therefore the future with such young people scares the older generation. Anya is drawn to us as the brightest and most uncomplicated character. She took over best features from the nobility and continued to confidently keep pace with the times towards changes. Confidence in a positive outcome never left her. It is through her that the author expresses his hopes for a brighter future.
In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard» Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected to the garden like the others. characters, for them he does not play so significant role, because of which they somehow fall out of common system characters. However, in the work of a playwright of Chekhov's level there is no place for accidents; therefore, the isolation of Petya and Anya is not accidental either. Let's take a closer look at these two characters.
Among critics, the interpretation of the images of Anya and Petya brought out in the play "The Cherry Orchard" as a symbol younger generation Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; generation, which is replacing the long-obsolete "Ranev" and "Gaev", as well as the creations of the turning point of the era "Lopakhin". In Soviet criticism, this statement was considered undeniable, since the play itself was usually considered in a strictly defined vein - based on the year of writing (1903), critics associated its creation with social changes and the impending revolution of 1905. Accordingly, the understanding of the cherry orchard as a symbol of the "old", pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the "dying off" nobility, Lopakhin - the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov - the raznochintsy intelligentsia. From this point of view, the play was seen as a work about the search for a "savior" for Russia, in which inevitable changes are brewing. Lopakhin, as the bourgeois master of the country, should be replaced by the commoner Petya, full of transformative ideas and aimed at a brighter future; the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, will social revolution. Anya here symbolizes the "repentant" nobility, which takes an active part in these transformations.
Such a "class approach", inherited from ancient times, reveals its failure already in the fact that many characters do not fit into this scheme: Varya, Charlotte, Epikhodov. In their images, we do not find a "class" overtones. In addition, Chekhov was never known as a propagandist, and, most likely, he would not have written such an unambiguously deciphered play. Do not forget that the author himself defined the genre of The Cherry Orchard as a comedy and even a farce - not the most successful form for demonstrating high ideals ...
Based on the foregoing, it is impossible to consider Anya and Petya in the play The Cherry Orchard solely as an image of the younger generation. Such an interpretation would be too superficial. Who are they for the author? What role do they play in his design?
It can be assumed that the author deliberately brought out two characters who are not directly related to the main conflict as "outside observers". They have no vital interest in the auction and the garden, there is no clear symbolism associated with it. For Anya and Petya Trofimov, the cherry orchard is not a painful attachment. It is the lack of affection that helps them survive in the general atmosphere of devastation, emptiness and meaninglessness, so subtly conveyed in the play.
The general characterization of Anya and Petya in The Cherry Orchard inevitably includes a love line between the two characters. The author indicated it implicitly, half-hint, and it is difficult to say for what purposes he needed this move. Perhaps this is a way to show a collision in the same situation of two qualitatively different characters We see a young, naive, enthusiastic Anya, who has not yet seen life and at the same time full of strength and readiness for any transformations. And we see Petya, full of brave, revolutionary ideas, an inspired speaker, a sincere and enthusiastic person, moreover, absolutely inactive, full of internal contradictions, because it is ridiculous and sometimes funny. It can be said that love line brings two extremes together: Anya - a force without a vector, and Petya - a vector without a force. Anya's energy and determination are useless without guidance; passion and ideological Petya without inner strength are dead.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the images of these two heroes in the play today, unfortunately, are still considered in the traditional "Soviet" vein. There is reason to believe that a fundamentally different approach to the system of characters and Chekhov's play as a whole will allow us to see much more shades of meaning and reveal a lot of interesting moments. In the meantime, the images of Anya and Petya are waiting for their unbiased critic.
Artwork test
The future of Russia is represented by the images of Anya and Petya Trofimov.
Anya is 17 years old, she breaks with her past and convinces the weeping Ranevskaya that there is a whole life ahead: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this, you will see it, understand it, and joy, quiet, deep joy will descend on your soul.” The future in the play is unclear, but it captivates and beckons purely emotionally, as always attractive and promising youth. The image of a poetic cherry orchard, of a young girl welcoming a new life, is the author's own dreams and hopes for the transformation of Russia, for turning it into a flowering garden in the future. The garden is a symbol of the eternal renewal of life: “The new life”, Anya exclaims enthusiastically in the fourth act. The image of Anya is festive and joyful in spring. "My sun! My spring, ”Petya says about her. Anya condemns her mother for the lordly habit of overspending, but she understands her mother's tragedy better than others and severely reprimands Gaev for bad words about mother. Where did a seventeen-year-old girl get this life wisdom and tact, not available to her far from young uncle?! Her determination and enthusiasm are attractive, but they threaten to turn into disappointment judging by how recklessly she believes Trofimov and his optimistic monologues.
At the end of the second act, Anya turns to Trofimov: “What have you done to me, Petya, why I no longer love the cherry orchard as before. I loved him so tenderly, it seemed to me that there was no better places like our garden."
Trofimov answers her: "All Russia is our garden."
Petya Trofimov, like Anya, represents young Russia. He former teacher the drowned seven-year-old son of Ranevskaya. His father was a pharmacist. He is 26 or 27 years old, he is an eternal student who has not completed the course, wears glasses and resonates that we need to stop admiring ourselves, but “just work”. True, Chekhov clarified in his letters that Petya Trofimov did not graduate from the university against his will: “After all, Trofimov is in exile every now and then, he is constantly expelled from the university, but how do you portray these things.”
Petya most often speaks not on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the new generation of Russia. Today for him is “...dirt, vulgarity, Asianism”, the past is “feudal lords who owned living souls”. “We are at least two hundred years behind, we still have absolutely nothing, we have no definite attitude to the past, we only philosophize, complain about melancholy or drink vodka. After all, it is so clear that in order to begin to live in the present, we must first redeem our past, put an end to it, and it can only be redeemed by suffering, only by extraordinary, uninterrupted labor.
Petya Trofimov - from Chekhov's intellectuals, for whom things, tithes of land, jewelry, money do not represent highest value. Refusing Lopakhin's money, Petya Trofimov says that they do not have the slightest power over him, that's like fluff that floats in the air. He is “strong and proud” in that he is free from the power of the worldly, material, materialized. Where Trofimov speaks of the disorder of the old life and calls for a new life, the author sympathizes with him.
For all the “positivity” of the image of Petya Trofimov, he is doubtful precisely as a positive, “author's” hero: he is too literary, his phrases about the future are too beautiful, his calls to “work” are too general, etc. Chekhov's distrust of loud phrases, of any exaggerated manifestation of feelings is known: he "could not stand phrase-mongers, scribes and Pharisees" (I.A. Bunin). Petya Trofimov is characterized by something that Chekhov himself avoided and which is manifested, for example, in the following monologue of the hero: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront!”; “To get around that petty and illusory thing that prevents us from being free and happy – that is the goal and meaning of our life. Forward! We are advancing irresistibly towards the bright star that burns there in the distance!”
Chekhov's "new people" - Anya and Petya Trofimov - are also polemical in relation to the tradition of Russian literature, as well as Chekhov's images"small" people: the author refuses to recognize as unconditionally positive, to idealize "new" people just because they are "new", because they act as debunkers of the old world. Time requires decisions and actions, but Petya Trofimov is not capable of them, and this brings him closer to Ranevskaya and Gaev. In addition, on the way to the future, lost human qualities: “We are above love,” he happily and naively assures Anya.
Ranevskaya rightly reproaches Trofimov for ignorance of life: “You boldly decide everything important questions but, tell me, my dear, is it not because you are young, that you have not had time to suffer through a single one of your questions? .. ”But this is what attracts young heroes: hope and faith in a happy future. They are young, which means that everything is possible, there is a whole life ahead ... Petya Trofimov and Anya are not spokesmen for a certain program of reorganization future Russia, they symbolize the hope for the revival of Russia-garden...
Three generations in A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" 1. "The Cherry Orchard" - Chekhov's "swan song". 2. Ranevskaya and Gaev are representatives of the outgoing life. 3. Lopakhin is the personification of the present. 4. Petya Trofimov and Anya as representatives of a new generation, the future of Russia.
A.P. Chekhov turned to the genre of dramaturgy already in early work. But his real success as a playwright began with the play The Seagull. The play "The Cherry Orchard" is called Chekhov's swan song. She was completed creative way writer. In The Cherry Orchard, the author expressed his beliefs, thoughts, and hopes. Chekhov believes that the future of Russia belongs to people like Trofimov and Anya. In one of his letters, Chekhov wrote: “Students and female students are good and honest people. This is our hope, this is the future of Russia.” It is they, according to Chekhov, who are the true owners of the cherry orchard, which the author identified with his homeland. “The whole of Russia is our garden,” says Petya Trofimov.
The owners of the cherry orchard are the hereditary nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev. The estate and the garden have been the property of their family for many years, but they can no longer be in charge here. They are the personification of Russia's past, there is no future behind them. Why?
Gaev and Ranevskaya are helpless, idle people, incapable of any active actions. They admire the beauty of the blooming garden, it evokes nostalgic memories in these people, but that's all. Their estate is ruined, and these people cannot and do not try to do anything in order to somehow improve the situation. The price of such "love" is small. Although Ranevskaya says: “God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly.” But the question arises, what kind of love is this if she left Russia five years ago and returned now only because she failed in her personal life. And in the finale of the play, Ranevskaya again leaves her homeland.
Of course, the heroine gives the impression of a person with open mind, she is cordial, emotional, impressionable. But these qualities are combined with such traits of her character as carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, bordering on callousness and indifference to others. We see that in fact Ranevskaya is indifferent towards people, even sometimes cruel. How else to explain the fact that she gives the last gold to a passerby, and the servants in the house are left to live from hand to mouth. She thanks Firs, asks about his health, and... leaves an old, sick man in a boarded up house, simply forgetting about him. It's monstrous to say the least!
Like Ranevskaya, Gaev has a sense of beauty. I would like to note that he, more than Ranevskaya, gives the impression of a gentleman. Although this character can be called exactly the same inactive, careless and frivolous as his sister. as if Small child, Gaev cannot give up his habit of sucking lollipops and counts on Firs even in small things. His mood changes very quickly, he is a fickle, windy person. Gaev is upset to tears because the estates are being sold, but as soon as he heard the sound of balls in the billiard room, he immediately cheered up, like a child.
Of course, Gaev and Ranevskaya are the embodiment of the past passing life. Their habit of living “in debt, at the expense of others” speaks of the idleness of the existence of these heroes. They are definitely not the masters of life, because even their material well-being depends on some accidents: either it will be an inheritance, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send them money in order to pay off their debts, or Lopakhin will lend money. People like Gaev and Ranevskaya are being replaced by a completely different type of people: strong, enterprising, dexterous. One of these people is another character in the play, Lopakhin.
Lopakhin embodies the present of Russia. Lopakhin's parents were serfs, but after the abolition of serfdom, the fate of this man changed. He made his way into the people, got rich, and is now able to buy the estate of those who were once his masters. Lopakhin feels his superiority over Ranevskaya and Gaev, and they treat him with respect, because they are aware of their dependence on this person. It is clear that Lopakhin and people like him will very soon oust the well-born nobles.
However, Lopakhin gives the impression of a person who is the "master of life" only in a given, short period of time. He is not the owner of the cherry orchard, but only its temporary owner. He is going to cut down the cherry orchard and sell the land. It seems that, having increased his capital from this enterprise that is beneficial to him, he still will not occupy a dominant place in the life of the state in the future. In the image of this character, Chekhov masterfully managed to portray a bizarre and contradictory combination of features of the past and the present. Lopakhin, although he is proud of his current position, does not forget for a second about his low origin, his resentment for life is too strong in him, which, as it seems to him, was unfair to him. Very soon the reader and viewer realizes that Lopakhin is just an intermediate step between the past and future generations.
In the play Chekh'ba we also see characters opposed to the destructive activity of Lopakhin and the inaction of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This is Anya and Petya Trofimov. It is for such people, according to the author, the future of Russia. Trofimov is an ardent seeker of truth, who sincerely believes in the triumph of a just life in the near future. Student Petya Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but as an honest person he refuses to live at the expense of others. He talks a lot about the need for a reorganization of society, but he has not yet taken real actions. But he is a great propagandist. This is one of those who are followed by young people, who are trusted. Anya is carried away by Trofimov's call to change life, and at the end of the play we hear her words calling for "planting a new garden." The author does not give us the opportunity to see the fruits of the activities of the representatives of the new generation. He only leaves us hope that the words of Petya Trofimov and Anya will not diverge from deeds.
Chekhov depicted three generations of people in his play The Cherry Orchard, and each character personifies the life of Russia: Ranevkaya and Gaev - the past, Lopakhin - the present, Trofimov and Anya - the future. Time has shown that Chekhov was absolutely right - in the near future, the Russian people were expecting a revolution, and it was people like Trofimov who made history.
