Composition. Old and new owners of the cherry orchard
Old owners of the cherry orchard. Chekhov, unlike many of his predecessors, does not central character, around which the plot would be built. All characters are presented in complex interaction, and none of them, except Yasha, can be characterized unambiguously. The image of Ranevskaya is especially complex.
Some perceive Ranevskaya as an exponent of the sentiments of the decaying nobility, an empty, eccentric woman, confused in her personal life. Others believe that this image is tragic because it evokes pity for the hopeless and bitter fate of the heroine.
Lyubov Andreevna is loved by all the characters: her relatives, Lopakhin, and servants. And she, it would seem, loves everyone too. Her gentle smile and tender words are addressed to everyone without exception, even to the room: “Children’s room, my dear, beautiful room...” But already in the first act our perception of this sweet and charming woman changes. Lyubov Andreevna says: “God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying... However, I need to drink coffee.” With all the kindest attitude towards Ranevskaya, you feel awkward for such a sharp and unexpected transition from lofty speeches to coffee. And after this comes another significant episode. In response to Gaev’s words that the nanny died, Lyubov Andreevna, drinking coffee, remarks: “Yes, the kingdom of heaven. They wrote to me." The dryness of the heroine in this episode is amazing: she had warmer words for the nursery.
Ranevskaya's mood changes almost instantly. She either cries, or laughs, or acutely senses the impending threat, or consoles herself with groundless hopes for miraculous salvation. The ball scene in the third act, arranged at the insistence of Ranevskaya on the day of the auction, is very important in this regard. Her thoughts are all the time there, in the city, at the auction, she cannot forget about the fate of the cherry orchard for a minute, but she speaks out loud about something else, optional, random. This is what Ranevskaya is all about.
Her frivolity also affects her personal life. How could she love such an unworthy man, leaving her twelve-year-old daughter for him?
However, justice requires recognizing that Ranevskaya behaves nobly in love: when her chosen one fell ill, she “did not know rest for three years, day or night.” And now “he is sick, he is lonely, unhappy, and who will look after him, who will keep him from making mistakes, who will give him medicine on time?” As we see, Lyubov Andreevna is not thinking about herself. She rushes to help, as one rushes without hesitation to a dying person. Will she save him? Most likely not, just as they didn’t save Gaev and The Cherry Orchard.
Lopakhin kept wondering: why are they so indifferent to the fate of the estate, why aren’t they doing anything, why aren’t they in a hurry to cut down the cherry orchard and get a lot of money in the process? “Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people,” he says.
Yes, they are not business people, Ranevskaya and Gaev. Is it good or bad? Their behavior seems strange to Lopakhin from the position of sober calculation. Indeed, why did they never accept his proposals? For Lopakhin, the destruction of the cherry orchard is reasonable and expedient, because it is profitable. But he simply cannot understand that in this case the benefit is not of decisive importance for Ranevskaya and Gaev.
The old owners of the cherry orchard have one undoubted advantage that elevates them above all other characters: they understand what a cherry orchard is, they feel involved in beauty, firmly aware that beauty is not for sale. And yet they did not save the cherry orchard. And we are very sorry for Ranevskaya and her brother, who are losing everything. At the very end of the play we see an amazing scene. Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev were left alone. “They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, afraid not to be heard.” Gaev, in despair, repeats only two words: “My sister, my sister!” The cherry orchard personified youth, purity, and happiness for them. What lies ahead for them? It is unlikely that Gaev will be able to work. And Ranevskaya will very quickly spend the money sent by her grandmother. What happens next? It's scary to imagine. That’s why, knowing that they themselves are to blame for everything, we still feel sorry for them and cry with them.
The “old” owners of the cherry orchard are Gaev and Ranevskaya. The garden itself and the entire estate have belonged to them since childhood. The cherry orchard for them is just a memory of the past.
According to the story, Ranevskaya is a kind, interesting, charming, carefree woman, her flaw is indecision, because of which she does not know how to manage her estate and her life. It is because of this quality that she loses the garden and hopes that someone else will save it.
Gaev did not show himself any better. The author says about the hero: “a klutz” and constantly shows his inability to make vital and everyday decisions. The fate of the cherry orchard in his hands is destructive, and he is certainly not able to save a piece of his estate.
Under the image of the garden, Chekhov depicts Russia, and under the above-described heroes - average inhabitants, mortally and meaninglessly living their lives.
Lopakhin became the “new” owner. The writer speaks extremely positively about him - he says that he is very “decisive”. This hero is a treasure best qualities, collected in one person. Energetic, active, decisive. The only, as it seems to many, “minus” of Lopakhin is his position in life - “time is money.” But it is precisely because of this that the hero looks at the cherry orchard as his future property, which he is ready to protect and defend. For him there are no beautiful poppies and the scent of cherries - for him this is just the territory that he needs.
Updated: 2017-10-30
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Old and new owners of the cherry orchard (Based on A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”)
The connection of times has broken down...
W. Shakespeare
In one of the books dedicated to the work of A.P. Chekhov, I read that the image of Hamlet helped him understand a lot about the appearance of his contemporaries. Literary scholars have paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will note what struck me in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” this “swan song” of the great playwright: like the Prince of Denmark, Chekhov’s characters feel lost in the world, bitter loneliness. In my opinion, this applies to all the characters in the play, but above all to Ranevskaya and Gaev, the former owners of the cherry orchard, who turned out to be “superfluous” people both in their own home and in life. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that every hero of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is looking for support in life. For Gaev and Ranevskaya, it is the past, which cannot be a support. Lyubov Andreevna will never understand her daughter, but Anya will never truly understand her mother’s drama. Lopakhin, who passionately loves Lyubov Andreevna, will never be able to understand her disdainful attitude towards the “practical side of life,” but Ranevskaya does not want to let him into the world of her feelings: “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything.” All this brings a special drama to the play. “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letter to Stanislavsky.
What's in the past? Youth, family life, a blooming cherry orchard - it’s all over. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose. And then the irreparable happened: son Grisha died. For Ranevskaya, the feeling of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt. She runs away from home, from memories, that is, she tries to abandon the past. However, there was no new happiness. And Ranevskaya takes a new step. She returns home, tears up a telegram from her lover: it’s over with Paris! However, this is just another return to the past: to your pain, to your melancholy, to your cherry orchard. But at home, where five “Parisian years” were faithfully waiting for her, she is a stranger. Everyone condemns her for something: for frivolity, for loving a scoundrel, for giving a coin to a beggar.
On the list characters Ranevskaya is designated by one word: “landowner”. But this landowner never knew how to manage her estate and could not save her beloved cherry orchard from destruction. The role of the landowner is “played out.”
But Ranevskaya is also a mother. However, this role is also in the past: Anya goes to new life, where there is no place for Lyubov Andreevna, even gray Varya managed to settle down in her own way.
By returning to stay forever, Ranevskaya is only completing her past life. All her hopes that she would be happy at home (“God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying”), that she would be lifted “from my shoulders... a heavy stone,” are in vain. The return did not take place: in Russia she is superfluous. Neither the generation of modern “business people”, nor the romantic youth, all looking to the future, can understand it. Returning to Paris is, albeit imaginary, but still salvation, although it is a return to yet another past. And in Ranevskaya’s favorite cherry orchard the ax is knocking!
Gaev is another character who can be classified as “ extra people" Leonid Andreevich, an elderly man who has already lived most of his life, looks like an old boy. But all people dream of preserving their young soul! Why is Gaev sometimes annoying? The fact is that he is simply infantile. It was not his youth with its romance and rebellion that he retained, but his helplessness and superficiality.
The sound of billiard balls, like a favorite toy, can instantly heal his soul (“With a doublet... of yellow in the middle...”).
Who is the real master of life in this world?
Unlike the previous owners of the cherry orchard, whose feelings are directed to the past, Lopakhin is entirely in the present. “Boor,” Gaev unambiguously characterizes him. According to Petya, Lopakhin has a “subtle and gentle soul,” and “fingers like an artist.” Interestingly, both are right. And in this correctness lies the paradox of Lopakhin’s image.
“A man is a man,” despite all the wealth that he earned through sweat and blood, Lopakhin works continuously and is in constant business fever. The past (“My dad was a man..., he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk...”) echoes in him with stupid words, inappropriate jokes, falling asleep over a book.
But Lopakhin is sincere and kind. He takes care of the Gaevs, offering them a project to save them from ruin.
But this is where it starts dramatic conflict, which lies not in class antagonism, but in a culture of feelings. When uttering the words “demolish”, “cut down”, “clean”, Lopakhin cannot even imagine the emotional shock he plunges his former benefactors into.
The more actively Lopakhin acts, the deeper the gap becomes between him and Ranevskaya, for whom selling the garden means death: “If you really need to sell, then sell me and the garden.” And in Lopakhin there is a growing feeling of some kind of deprivation, incomprehension.
Let us remember how clearly the former and new masters of life appear in the third act of the play. Lopakhin and Gaev left for the city for the auction. And there's fun in the house! A small orchestra plays, but there is nothing to pay the musicians. The fate of the heroes is decided, and Charlotte shows tricks. But then Lopakhin appears, and under the bitter cry of Ranevskaya, his words are heard: “I bought it!.. Let everything be as I wish!.. I can pay for everything!...”. The “master of life” instantly turns into a boor who boasts of his wealth.
Lopakhin did everything to save the owners of the cherry orchard, but he did not have enough basic emotional tact to preserve their dignity: after all, he was in such a hurry to clear the “past” from the site for the “present.”
But Lopakhin’s triumph is short-lived, and now something else is heard in his monologue: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
So the life of the cherry orchard ended to the “sound of a broken string, fading and sad,” and the immortality of the “sad comedy” of the great Russian playwright began, exciting the hearts of readers and spectators for a hundred years.
The connection of times has broken down...
W. Shakespeare
In one of the books dedicated to the work of A.P. Chekhov, I read that the image of Hamlet helped him understand a lot about the appearance of his contemporaries. Literary scholars have paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will note what struck me in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” this “swan song” of the great playwright: like the Prince of Denmark, Chekhov’s characters feel lost in the world, bitter loneliness. In my opinion, this applies to all the characters in the play, but above all to Ranevskaya and Gaev, the former owners of the cherry orchard, who turned out to be “superfluous” people both in their own home and in life. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that every hero of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is looking for support in life. For Gaev and Ranevskaya, it is the past, which cannot be a support. Lyubov Andreevna will never understand her daughter, but Anya will never truly understand her mother’s drama. Lopakhin, who passionately loves Lyubov Andreevna, will never be able to understand her disdainful attitude towards the “practical side of life,” but Ranevskaya does not want to let him into the world of her feelings: “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything.” All this brings a special drama to the play. “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letter to Stanislavsky.
What's in the past? Youth, family life, a blooming cherry orchard - it was all over. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose. And then the irreparable happened: son Grisha died. For Ranevskaya, the feeling of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt. She runs away from home, from memories, that is, she tries to abandon the past. However, there was no new happiness. And Ranevskaya takes a new step. She returns home, tears up a telegram from her lover: it’s over with Paris! However, this is just another return to the past: to your pain, to your melancholy, to your cherry orchard. But at home, where five “Parisian years” were faithfully waiting for her, she is a stranger. Everyone condemns her for something: for frivolity, for loving a scoundrel, for giving a coin to a beggar.
In the list of characters, Ranevskaya is designated by one word: “landowner.” But this landowner never knew how to manage her estate and could not save her beloved cherry orchard from destruction. The role of the landowner is “played out.”
But Ranevskaya is also a mother. However, this role is also in the past: Anya leaves for a new life, where there is no place for Lyubov Andreevna, even gray Varya managed to settle down in her own way.
By returning to stay forever, Ranevskaya is only completing her past life. All her hopes that she would be happy at home (“God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying”), that she would be lifted “from my shoulders... a heavy stone,” are in vain. The return did not take place: in Russia she is superfluous. Neither the generation of modern “business people”, nor the romantic youth, all looking to the future, can understand it. Returning to Paris is, albeit imaginary, but still salvation, although it is a return to yet another past. And in Ranevskaya’s favorite cherry orchard the ax is knocking!
Gaev is another character who can be classified as “extra people”. Leonid Andreevich, an elderly man who has already lived most of his life, looks like an old boy. But all people dream of preserving their young soul! Why is Gaev sometimes annoying? The fact is that he is simply infantile. It was not his youth with its romance and rebellion that he retained, but his helplessness and superficiality.
The sound of billiard balls, like a favorite toy, can instantly heal his soul (“With a doublet... of yellow in the middle...”).
Who is the real master of life in this world?
Unlike the previous owners of the cherry orchard, whose feelings are directed to the past, Lopakhin is entirely in the present. “Boor,” Gaev unambiguously characterizes him. According to Petya, Lopakhin has a “subtle and gentle soul,” and “fingers like an artist.” Interestingly, both are right. And in this correctness lies the paradox of Lopakhin’s image.
“A man is a man,” despite all the wealth that he earned through sweat and blood, Lopakhin works continuously and is in constant business fever. The past (“My dad was a man..., he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk...”) echoes in him with stupid words, inappropriate jokes, falling asleep over a book.
But Lopakhin is sincere and kind. He takes care of the Gaevs, offering them a project to save them from ruin.
But it is precisely here that a dramatic conflict ensues, which lies not in class antagonism, but in a culture of feelings. When uttering the words “demolish”, “cut down”, “clean”, Lopakhin cannot even imagine the emotional shock he plunges his former benefactors into.
The more actively Lopakhin acts, the deeper the gap becomes between him and Ranevskaya, for whom selling the garden means death: “If you really need to sell, then sell me and the garden.” And in Lopakhin there is a growing feeling of some kind of deprivation, incomprehension.
Let us remember how clearly the former and new masters of life appear in the third act of the play. Lopakhin and Gaev left for the city for the auction. And there's fun in the house! A small orchestra plays, but there is nothing to pay the musicians. The fate of the heroes is decided, and Charlotte shows tricks. But then Lopakhin appears, and under the bitter cry of Ranevskaya, his words are heard: “I bought it!.. Let everything be as I wish!.. I can pay for everything!...”. The “master of life” instantly turns into a boor who boasts of his wealth.
Lopakhin did everything to save the owners of the cherry orchard, but he did not have enough basic emotional tact to preserve their dignity: after all, he was in such a hurry to clear the “past” from the site for the “present.”
But Lopakhin’s triumph is short-lived, and now something else is heard in his monologue: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
So the life of the cherry orchard ended to the “sound of a broken string, fading and sad,” and the immortality of the “sad comedy” of the great Russian playwright began, exciting the hearts of readers and spectators for a hundred years.
Old and new owners of the cherry orchard
In Chekhov's comedy “The Cherry Orchard” we see a combination of dramatic and comic, which is connected with the problems of the work.
The play shows the passage of time: past, present and future.
The central characters are Ranevskaya and Gaev. But can they be called the main characters? Of course not. They live in the past, they have neither present nor future. Everything is illusory in their minds.
They are the owners of the cherry orchard, the estate where the heroes were born, grew up, and seemed to be happy. But can they be called the real owners of the cherry orchard? No, you can’t, although they sometimes evoke sympathy for themselves.
Ranevskaya is a kind, generous, charming, emotional woman. But she is careless, impractical, and her words do not match her deeds. She is indecisive; cannot control not only his estate, but also his own destiny.
She loves the cherry orchard as her past, as a symbol of the beautiful and good in her heart. But she cannot do anything to save the estate. She hopes that Lopakhin, the Yaroslavl grandmother, and even Gaev will help her.
Her fate is dramatic, she herself feels it, that she has “a stone around her neck.” But the heroine wastes money when the servants have nothing to eat, and organizes a ball with an orchestra when the fate of the cherry orchard is decided.
Ranevskaya says that she loves her homeland. But can one trust her when she lives almost all the time in Paris?
I feel sorry for her when, having learned that the cherry orchard has been sold, she cries, hugging her brother. But Ranevskaya will go to Paris again, forgetting about old Firs.
Gaev is shown even more impractically in the play. This is truly a “klutz” who does not know how to live, make decisions, or serve. This is a phrase-monger giving a speech in front of a closet. How can he decide the fate of the cherry orchard when he cannot dress himself?
He is comical, pronounces some words, reminiscent of Epikhodov. So Ranevskaya and Gaev cannot be the real owners of the cherry orchard. Moreover, by the image of the cherry orchard, Chekhov means the image of the Motherland.
But then comes the “new owner” of the cherry orchard - Lopakhin. Energetic, active, decisive. There's a lot in it positive qualities: he is kind, generous, respectful towards Ranevskaya and Petya Trofimov. He is ready to help Ranevskaya and Gaev, but they different people and don't understand each other.
Lopakhin “makes money” from everything. Time for him is money. Blooming poppy - money. And he looks at the cherry orchard as an owner, an acquirer.
Buying a cherry orchard, he says: “Come everyone and watch Ermalai Lopakhin take an ax to the cherry orchard.”
He does not notice the beauty of the blooming poppy, the charm of the cherry orchard. He doesn’t even really feel sorry for Ranevskaya, since they haven’t left yet, and the sound of an ax can already be heard in the cherry orchard.
Can he be called the real owner of the cherry orchard, a representative of the present time in the play? No. He, of course, is the owner, but he is the acquirer; you cannot trust him with the beauty of the cherry orchard, which he destroys. He couldn’t even marry Vara. He has no time. With him, time is money. He is rather a “beast of prey”, but not a “tender soul”, according to Trofimov’s definition.
The play gives images of the younger generation. This is Anya and Petya Trofimov. They are focused on the future, Petya calls Anya to throw away the keys to the farm and follow him into a bright future. Petya's monologues are optimistic, inviting, even pathetic. “All of Russia is our garden.” He's right about that. The future of Russia seems bright and wonderful to Chekhov. He loves Anya. These scenes are lyrical, emotional, and feature wonderful landscapes.
But Petya is sometimes comical. Calling on Anya to work, he hardly knows what this work, this future, will be like. And most importantly, what is his role in this.
Will Petya reach a bright future? “I’ll get there or show others how to get there.”
Rather, he will show the way to others. Just like Anya.
Anya is morally superior to Petya. This is the personification of purity, beauty, tenderness. But she believes Petya’s monologues, she is more decisive. I want to believe that she will find the right path in life and reach a bright future.
Chekhov wanted to see a beautiful Russia and believed in its future. And the real owners of the cherry orchard are people who go forward for happiness. People like Anya. Anya says goodbye to the cherry orchard, her past. “Goodbye old life! Hello, new life!
“We will plant a garden more luxurious than this...”
Chekhov believed in the future of Russia.
- What documents should an individual entrepreneur have?
- Accounting for individual entrepreneurs - rules and features of independent reporting under different tax regimes Primary documentation for individual entrepreneurs
- Accounting for individual entrepreneurs: features of accounting in individual entrepreneurs?
- How to privatize an apartment, everything about privatization List of documents for privatization of an apartment