The role of non-stage characters in the play The Cherry Orchard. "The Cherry Orchard"
There are no random and "useless" heroes. Each of them is like a small puzzle of one big image. Perhaps someone can be thrown away and considered superfluous, but then the very picture of what is happening will become incomplete.
Lackey Yasha, brought from Paris by Lyubov Ranevskaya, complements the image of his mistress. The man is completely spoiled. He is arrogant, self-confident and very well settled in life. Despite not the best of times, Ranevskaya continues to pay him decently, travel with him abroad, and even brings a lackey to the estate.
Yasha is irresponsible, he has a poor speech and a disgusting character. He is spoiled by the luxurious life of the hostess, and when trouble happens and the estate goes to auction, the man plaintively asks to take him with him to Paris. Ranevskaya's kindness is taken by Yasha for weakness.
Yasha is the exact opposite of Firs. Even the age of the characters is different. Yasha, young, full of strength and indifference to the owners. He is only interested in the financial side and his own comfort. Firs, on the other hand, is an old man who is over eighty years old.
The old footman lived permanently on the estate. He remained with his masters, even after the abolition of serfdom. The man became almost a member of the family. He took care of Lyubov and Gaev when they were small, and he continued to take care of them when they became adults. For the elder, “foreign” finances were never important. He was more concerned about the comfort and order that reigned in the estate.
Firs very responsible, pedantic, but meanwhile, open-hearted. He literally suffers from new laws, and most importantly, he does not understand what awaits him in the future. When the old man in a hurry and bustle is simply forgotten on the estate, he faithfully lies down on a bench and waits for them to return for him.
Dunyasha also serves on the estate. She is a reflection of Ranevskaya herself. The girl is very emotional, vulnerable and sensitive. Epikhodov is madly in love with Dunyasha. But she frivolously gives preference to Yasha. The girl is drawn to the intelligent, as it seemed to her, image of a foreign lackey. She will soon be very disappointed in her wrong hasty choice, since for Yasha, Dunyasha is an empty place. Epikhodov will remain to look after the estate when Lopakhin wins the auction.
The image of Epikhodov is both comical and tragic at the same time. A man is called "twenty-two misfortunes" because of his ability to get into various troubles, inadvertently break things, break dishes. It attracts bad luck like a magnet. So the man was clearly unlucky with his marriage to Dunyasha, because his chosen one preferred another. Epikhodov endures the "quarrel" very hard and does not even try to hide his emotions.
The image of Boris Simeon-Pishchik is also not accidental in the play. The man is very animated, as his life is full of different events. He is in constant search of money. A man, trying to take them even from the ruined Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Pishchik is an optimist in life. He believes that even from the most difficult situation, you can find a way out. His faith in the good models situations after which, although partially, he repays all his debts.
Chekhov in his play endowed even minor characters with special "features". Each of them, one way or another, completes the images of the main characters, while remaining unique.
The lyrical comedy by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" is one of the pinnacles of the writer's dramatic work. The images of the main characters he created have become textbook, but the images of the secondary characters are also of considerable importance. Of course, these characters do not make a serious contribution to the development of the overall plot, but they help the author draw and show viewers and readers a more complete and voluminous picture.
The key task of secondary characters is to summarize the main thoughts and opinions of the main characters. They seem to express what the main characters did not say in their speech. With the help of them, Chekhov shows the importance of the key points that are fundamental for understanding and understanding the play.
Chekhov practically does not describe the secondary characters in any way, all the traits of their characters can be seen through their remarks, which the author successfully and effectively “forces” them to pronounce.
Consider such a hero as Epikhodov. In his opinion, he is a very educated person, which is a strong exaggeration, since in fact, we see his narrow-minded mindset and pride. His speech is characterized by a jumble of words, not quite correct comparisons, he often inserts foreign words into speech that are inappropriate in this context. On the one hand, his speech is beautiful and good, but on the other hand, it is difficult to understand him:
“Strictly speaking, without touching on other subjects, I must express myself, among other things, that fate treats me without regret, like a storm treats a small ship. If, let's say, I'm wrong, then why do I wake up this morning, for example, say, I look, and I have a terrible size spider on my chest ... Here's one. (Shows with both hands.) And you will also take kvass to get drunk, and there, you see, something extremely indecent, like a cockroach.
Let's take a character like Yasha. This is a young man who picked up on the pernicious atmosphere of Parisian life, which is especially evident in his appeals to Dunyasha, whom he calls "Cucumber". Yasha speaks, but his speech does not make much sense, he is overly self-confident, cruel and vengeful person. This is especially evident in the episode when he brutally cracked down on Charlotte's dog that bit him right in front of her window. Yasha is a man without principles and without morality, but he is quite simple and understandable, and such people are needed everywhere, so he can use it.
There is another hero who is difficult to define as “secondary”, since, in fact, he practically plays the main role in The Cherry Orchard - Firs. He is little present on the stage, but the author put the final monologue summing up the play into his mouth. Firs is the “eternal serf”, who himself once renounced the long-awaited freedom.
I think it's unfair to call minor characters background, like pieces of furniture. They are the same important characters in the play, although they are given a little time. The characters can't emerge victorious under the circumstances of their lives, but they don't see it as a tragedy. They leave the stage brightly, spectacularly, memorable. It is important to understand that if the main characters are not able to overcome their longing and grief, and secondary characters seem to scare away all the bad things with their behavior, their laughter. This turns the play into a comedy, and in some places into a farce, which focuses attention on the fact that this is a dramatic work.
The social statuses of the heroes of the play - as one of the characteristics
In the final play A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" there is no division into main and secondary characters. They are all the main, even seemingly episodic roles are of great importance for revealing the main idea of the whole work. The characterization of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard begins with their social representation. After all, in people's heads, social status is already leaving its mark, and not only on stage. So, Lopakhin, a merchant, is already associated in advance with a noisy and tactless huckster, incapable of any subtle feelings and emotions, but Chekhov warned that his merchant was different from a typical representative of this class. Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik, designated as landowners, look very strange. After all, after the abolition of serfdom, the social statuses of the landowners remained in the past, since they no longer corresponded to the new social order. Gaev is also a landowner, but in the minds of the characters he is "Ranevskaya's brother", which suggests some kind of lack of independence of this character. With the daughters of Ranevskaya, everything is more or less clear. Anya and Varya have an age indicated, showing that they are the youngest characters in The Cherry Orchard.
The age is also indicated for the oldest character - Firs. Trofimov Petr Sergeevich is a student, and this is some kind of contradiction, because if a student, then he is young and it seems too early to ascribe a patronymic, but meanwhile it is indicated.
Throughout the entire action of the play The Cherry Orchard, the characters are fully revealed, and their characters are outlined in a form typical of this type of literature - in speech characteristics given by themselves or other participants.
Brief characteristics of the main characters
Although the main characters of the play are not singled out by Chekhov as a separate line, they are easy to identify. These are Ranevskaya, Lopakhin and Trofimov. It is their vision of their time that becomes the fundamental motive of the entire work. And this time is shown through the attitude to the old cherry orchard.
Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna- the main character of "The Cherry Orchard" - in the past, a rich aristocrat, accustomed to live at the behest of her heart. Her husband died quite early, leaving a lot of debts. While she indulged in new feelings, her little son tragically died. Considering herself guilty of this tragedy, she runs away from home, from her lover abroad, who, among other things, followed her and literally plundered her there. But her hopes for finding peace did not come true. She loves her garden and her estate, but she cannot save it. It is unthinkable for her to accept Lopakhin’s proposal, because then the centuries-old order in which the title of “landowner” is passed down from generation to generation carrying the cultural and historical heritage, inviolability and confidence in the worldview will be violated.
Lyubov Andreevna and her brother Gaev are characterized by all the best features of the nobility: responsiveness, generosity, education, a sense of beauty, the ability to sympathize. However, in modern times, all their positive qualities are not needed and are turned in the opposite direction. Generosity becomes irrepressible squandering, responsiveness and the ability to sympathize turn into slobbering, education turns into idle talk.
According to Chekhov, these two heroes do not deserve sympathy and their feelings are not as deep as it might seem.
In The Cherry Orchard, the main characters talk more than they do, and the only person is the action. Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, the central character, according to the author. Chekhov was sure that if his image failed, then the whole play would fail. Lopakhin is designated as a merchant, but the modern word "businessman" would be more suitable for him. The son and grandson of serfs became a millionaire thanks to his intuition, determination and intelligence, because if he were stupid and not educated, how could he achieve such success in his business? And it is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov speaks of his subtle soul. After all, only Ermolai Alekseevich realizes the value of the old garden and its true beauty. But his commercial streak overdoes, and he is forced to destroy the garden.
Trofimov Petya- an eternal student and a "shabby gentleman." Apparently, he also belongs to a noble family, but has become, in fact, a homeless tramp, dreaming of the common good and happiness. He talks a lot, but does nothing for the speedy onset of a brighter future. He is also unusual for deep feelings for the people around him and attachment to the place. He lives only in dreams. However, he managed to captivate Anya with his ideas.
Anya, daughter of Ranevskaya. Her mother left her in the care of her brother at the age of 12. That is, in adolescence, so important for the formation of personality, Anya was left to her own devices. She inherited the best qualities that are characteristic of the aristocracy. She is youthfully naive, perhaps that is why she was so easily carried away by Petya's ideas.
Brief characteristics of minor characters
The characters in the play "The Cherry Orchard" are divided into main and secondary only by the time of their participation in the actions. So Varya, Simeonov-Pishchik Dunyasha, Charlotte Ivanovna and the lackeys practically do not talk about the estate, and their worldview is not revealed through the garden, they are, as it were, cut off from it.
Varya- adopted daughter of Ranevskaya. But in essence, she is the housekeeper on the estate, whose duties include taking care of the masters and servants. She thinks at the everyday level, and her desire to devote herself to serving God is not taken seriously by anyone. Instead, they try to marry her off to Lopakhin, to whom she is indifferent.
Simeonov-Pishchik- the same landowner as Ranevskaya. Constantly in debt. But his positive attitude helps to overcome his difficult situation. So, he does not hesitate a bit when an offer is made to lease his lands. Thus solving their financial difficulties. He is able to adapt to a new life, unlike the owners of the cherry orchard.
Yasha- A young lackey. Having been abroad, he is no longer attracted by his homeland, and even his mother, who is trying to meet him, is no longer needed by him. Arrogance is his main feature. He does not respect the owners, he has no attachment to anyone.
Dunyasha- a young windy girl who lives one day and dreams of love.
Epikhodov- the clerk, he is a chronic loser, which he knows very well. In fact, his life is empty and aimless.
Firs- the oldest character for whom the abolition of serfdom was the greatest tragedy. He is sincerely attached to his masters. And his death in an empty house to the sound of a garden being cut down is very symbolic.
Charlotte Ivanovna- a governess and a circus performer in one person. The main reflection of the declared genre of the play.
The images of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard are combined into a system. They complement each other, thereby helping to reveal the main theme of the work.
Artwork test
A.P. Chekhov had a great influence on Russian culture, in particular on literature and theater. His works are filled with irony, symbolism and vitality. One of his best works was the comedy (by definition of the author) The Cherry Orchard, which he wrote shortly before his death. In it, the author revealed his views on the past, present and future of Russia.
According to many critics, Chekhov is the founder of the "new drama". His play is "plotless", the viewer is shown only the reactions of the characters to what is happening behind the scenes. The course of events is not important to the author, Chekhov pays more attention to the characters of his play, because through their characters, life, views on the world, one can understand the contemporary author of Russia. In different situations, certain characters think and act differently, which indicates another feature of Chekhov's play: his characters are not clearly divided into positive and negative (except for Yasha). In addition, there are a considerable number of minor characters in the play, who are just as important as the main ones. Their abundance is explained by the fact that through them the reader will be able to better understand the true face of this or that hero.
Lyubov Ranevskaya is the main character of Chekhov's work. At first, her image may evoke sympathy in the reader. Many heroes call her a good person, "easy, simple." She is not a sharply negative character, so she seems harmless, but in fact she is not. Ranevskaya, like most other heroes, is perceived ambiguously, and secondary characters help to understand this.
In the second act, Lyubov Andreevna and the other characters sat on the bench, thinking. It was already evening, they were about to leave, but Passer-by approached them. After some pretext, he turns to Varya: "Mademoiselle, let the hungry Russian thirty kopecks ...". She was frightened, Lopakhin considered the passer-by's request an "outrage", but Ranevskaya, despite her plight, nevertheless gives the Passer-by. She is used to overspending, she does not know how to save, although she notices this behind herself, she cannot do anything about it: “I have always overspent money without restraint, like crazy.” The episode with this “random” character once again confirms that Ranevskaya is a frivolous and unbusinesslike woman, but at the same time that she has a soul, her responsiveness and attention to the usual “hungry Russian” are manifested.
Throughout the play, Lyubov Ranevskaya is affectionate with the footman Firs, she called him "my old man." This is an elderly man who sincerely loves his owners. He still served Ranevskaya's father, and remained with the masters after the abolition of serfdom in 1861. Upon Lyubov Andreevna's return, Firs rejoiced with tears in his eyes. When the estate was bought by Lopakhin, Ranevskaya and other heroes were about to leave, no one noticed the presence of Firs, and closed it in an empty house. Although Ranevskaya is devoted to memories of the past, she values everything connected with her cherry orchard, childhood, and therefore the lackey Firs, eventually forgets about him. This gives the reader a reason to doubt the strength and depth of her experiences about the past, and this is what, in my opinion, is important for the image of Firs.
In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" has a lot of secondary characters, but they are just as important as the main ones. Using the example of Ranevskaya, one can understand that she reveals different sides of her personality through interactions with “random” characters. This is their main “function”, which determines their abundance: to show how versatile certain characters are.
Updated: 2018-04-26
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Deliberately depriving the play of "events", Chekhov directed all his attention to the state of the characters, their attitude to the main fact - the sale of the estate and the garden, to their relationships, collisions. The teacher should draw students' attention to the fact that in a dramatic work the author's attitude, the author's position is the most hidden. In order to clarify this position, in order to understand the playwright's attitude to the historical phenomena of the life of the motherland, to the characters and the event, the viewer and reader need to be very attentive to all the components of the play: the system of images carefully thought out by the author, the arrangement of characters, the alternation of mise-en-scenes, the interlocking of monologues, dialogues, individual replicas of the characters, the author's remarks.
Sometimes Chekhov consciously exposes the clash of dreams and reality, the lyrical and comic beginnings in the play. So, while working on The Cherry Orchard, he introduced into the second act after the words of Lopakhin (“And living here we ourselves should really be giants ...”) Ranevskaya’s response: “You needed giants. They are only good in fairy tales, otherwise they frighten. To this Chekhov added another mise-en-scène: the ugly figure of the “klutz” Epikhodov appears in the depths of the stage, clearly contrasting with the dream of giant people. To the appearance of Epikhodov, Chekhov specially attracts the attention of the audience with two remarks: Ranevskaya (thoughtfully) "Epikhodov is coming." Anya (thoughtfully) "Epikhodov is coming."
In the new historical conditions, Chekhov the playwright, following Ostrovsky and Shchedrin, responded to Gogol's call: “For God's sake, give us Russian characters, give us ourselves, our rogues, our eccentrics! To their stage, to the laughter of everyone! Laughter is a great thing! ("Petersburg Notes"). "Our eccentrics", our "stupid" seeks to lead Chekhov to ridicule the public in the play "The Cherry Orchard".
The author's intention to arouse the viewer's laughter and at the same time make him think about modern reality is most clearly expressed in the original comic characters - Epikhodov and Charlotte. The function of these "clunkers" in the play is very significant. Chekhov makes the viewer catch their inner connection with the central characters and thereby denounces these eye-catching faces of the comedy. Epikhodov and Charlotte are not only ridiculous, but also pathetic with their unfortunate "fortune" full of inconsistencies and surprises. Fate, in fact, treats them "without regret, like a storm to a small ship." These people are ruined by life. Epikhodov is shown as insignificant in his meager ambition, miserable in his misfortunes, in his pretensions and in his protest, limited in his "philosophy". He is proud, painfully proud, and life has put him in the position of a half-lackey and a rejected lover. He claims to be “educated”, lofty feelings, strong passions, and life “prepared” for him daily “22 misfortunes”, petty, ineffectual, offensive.
Chekhov, who dreamed of people in whom “everything would be beautiful: both the face, and the clothes, and the soul, and thoughts”, saw so far many freaks who have not found their place in life, people with a complete confusion of thoughts and feelings, whose actions and words are devoid of logic and meaning: “Of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, let me put it this way, excuse my frankness, completely led me into a state of mind.”
The source of Epikhodov's comedy in the play also lies in the fact that he does everything inopportunely, out of time. There is no correspondence between his natural data and behavior. Close-minded, tongue-tied, he is prone to lengthy speeches, reasoning; clumsy, mediocre, he plays billiards (breaking his cue), sings "terribly like a jackal" (by Charlotte's definition), darkly accompanying himself on the guitar. At the wrong time he declares his love to Dunyasha, inappropriately asks thoughtful questions (“Have you read Buckle?”), inappropriately uses many words: “Only people who understand and older can talk about that”; “and so you look, something extremely indecent, like a cockroach”, “recover from me, let me express myself, you cannot.”
The function of Charlotte's image in the play is close to that of Epikhodov's image. The fate of Charlotte is absurd, paradoxical: a German, a circus actress, an acrobat and a conjurer, she turned out to be a governess in Russia. Everything is uncertain, accidental in her life: the appearance at the Ranevskaya estate is accidental, and the departure from it is accidental. Charlotte is always in for the unexpected; how her life will be determined further after the sale of the estate, she does not know how incomprehensible the purpose and meaning of her existence is: “All alone, alone, I have no one and ... who I am, why I am unknown.” Loneliness, unhappiness, confusion constitute the second, hidden underlying basis of this comic character of the play.
It is significant in this regard that, while continuing to work on the image of Charlotte during rehearsals of the play at the Art Theater, Chekhov did not retain the previously planned additional comic episodes (tricks in Acts I, III, IV) and, on the contrary, strengthened the motif of Charlotte's loneliness and unhappy fate: at the beginning of Act II, everything from the words: "I want to talk so much, and not with anyone ..." to: "Why I am unknown" - was included by Chekhov in the final re daccia.
"Happy Charlotte: Sing!" Gaev says at the end of the play. With these words, Chekhov also emphasizes Gaev's misunderstanding of Charlotte's position and the paradoxical nature of her behavior. At a tragic moment in her life, even as if she were aware of her situation (“so you, please find me a place. I can’t do this ... I have nowhere to live in the city”), she shows tricks, sings. Serious thought, awareness of loneliness, unhappiness is combined in her with buffoonery, buffoonery, a circus habit of amusing.
In Charlotte's speech, there is the same bizarre combination of different styles, words: along with purely Russian ones, there are distorted words and constructions (“I want to sell. Does anyone want to buy?”), foreign words, paradoxical phrases (“These clever people are all so stupid”, “You, Epikhodov, are a very smart person and very scary; women should love you madly. Brrr! ..”).
Chekhov attached great importance to these two characters (Epikhodov and Charlotte) and was concerned that they be correctly and interestingly interpreted in the theater. The role of Charlotte seemed to the author the most successful, and he advised the actresses Knipper, Lilina to take her, and wrote about Epikhodov that this role was short, "but the real one." With these two comic characters, the author, in fact, helps the viewer and reader not only understand the situation in the life of the Epikhodovs and Charlotte, but also extend to the rest of the characters the impressions that he receives from the convex, pointed image of these "stupid people", makes him see the "wrong side" of life phenomena, notice in some cases the "unfunny" in the comic, in other cases - to guess the funny behind the outwardly dramatic.
We understand that not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik "exist for who knows what". To these idle inhabitants of the ruined noble nests, living "at someone else's expense", Chekhov added faces not yet acting on the stage and thereby strengthened the typicality of the images. The serf master, the father of Ranevskaya and Gaev, corrupted by idleness, the morally lost second husband of Ranevskaya, the despotic Yaroslavl grandmother-countess, showing class arrogance (she still cannot forgive Ranevskaya that her first husband was "not a nobleman") - all these "types", together with Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik, "have already become obsolete." To convince the viewer of this, according to Chekhov, neither malicious satire nor contempt was needed; it was enough to make them look at them through the eyes of a person who had gone a considerable historical distance and was no longer satisfied with their living standards.
Ranevskaya and Gaev do nothing to save, save the estate and the garden from destruction. On the contrary, it is precisely because of their idleness, impracticality, carelessness that the “nests” so “holy loved” by them are being ruined, poetic beautiful cherry orchards are being destroyed.
Such is the price of these people's love for their homeland. “God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly,” says Ranevskaya. Chekhov makes us confront these words with actions and understand that her words are impulsive, do not reflect a constant mood, depth of feeling, and are at odds with actions. We learn that Ranevskaya left Russia five years ago, that she was “suddenly drawn to Russia” from Paris only after a catastrophe in her personal life (“there he robbed me, left me, got along with another, I tried to poison myself ...”), and we see in the finale that she still leaves her homeland. No matter how sorry Ranevskaya is about the cherry orchard and the estate, she pretty soon “calmed down and cheered up” in anticipation of leaving for Paris. On the contrary, Chekhov throughout the play says that the idle anti-social nature of the life of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik testifies to their complete oblivion of the interests of their homeland. He creates the impression that, with all their subjectively good qualities, they are useless and even harmful, since they do not contribute to creation, not to “multiplying the wealth and beauty” of the homeland, but to destruction: Pishchik thoughtlessly rents a piece of land to the British for 24 years for the predatory exploitation of Russian natural wealth, the magnificent cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev is dying.
By the actions of these characters, Chekhov convinces us that one cannot trust their words, even spoken sincerely, excitedly. “We’ll pay the interest, I’m convinced,” Gaev bursts out without any reason, and he already excites himself and others with these words: “By my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! .. I swear by my happiness! Here's my hand, then call me a lousy, dishonorable person if I let you go to the auction! I swear with all my being!” Chekhov compromises his hero in the eyes of the viewer, showing that Gaev "allows the auction" and the estate, contrary to his oaths, is sold.
Ranevskaya in Act I resolutely tears, without reading, telegrams from Paris from the person who insulted her: "It's over with Paris." But Chekhov, in the further course of the play, shows the instability of Ranevskaya's reaction. In the following acts, she is already reading telegrams, tends to reconcile, and in the finale, reassured and cheerful, she willingly returns to Paris.
Combining these characters according to the principle of kinship and social affiliation, Chekhov, however, shows both similarities and individual traits of each. At the same time, he makes the viewer not only question the words of these characters, but also think about the justice, the depth of other people's opinions about them. “She is good, kind, nice, I love her very much,” Gaev says about Ranevskaya. “She is a good person, an easy, simple person,” Lopakhin says about her and enthusiastically expresses his feeling to her: “I love you like my own ... more than my own.” Anya, Varya, Pishchik, Trofimov, and Firs are attracted to Ranevskaya like a magnet. She is equally kind, delicate, affectionate with her own, and with her adopted daughter, and with her brother, and with the "man" Lopakhin, and with the servants.
Ranevskaya is cordial, emotional, her soul is open to beauty. But Chekhov will show that these qualities, combined with carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, very often (although regardless of the will and subjective intentions of Ranevskaya) turn into their opposite: cruelty, indifference, carelessness towards people. Ranevskaya will give the last gold to a random passerby, and at home the servants will live from hand to mouth; she will say to Firs: “Thank you, my dear,” kiss him, sympathetically and affectionately inquire about his health and ... leave him, a sick, old, devoted servant, in a boarded-up house. With this final chord in the play, Chekhov deliberately compromises Ranevskaya and Gaev in the eyes of the viewer.
Gaev, like Ranevskaya, is gentle and receptive to beauty. However, Chekhov does not allow us to fully trust Anya's words: "Everyone loves you, respects you." "How good you are, uncle, how smart." Chekhov will show that Gaev’s gentle, gentle treatment of close people (sister, niece) is combined with his estate disregard for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a peasant and a boor” (by his definition), with a contemptuous-squeamish attitude towards servants (Yasha “smells like chicken”, Firs is “tired”, etc.). We see that, along with the lordly sensitivity, grace, he absorbed the lordly swagger, arrogance (Gaev’s word is characteristic: “whom?”), Conviction in the exclusivity of people of his circle (“white bone”). He feels more than Ranevskaya himself and makes others feel his position as a gentleman and the advantages associated with it. And at the same time, he flirts with proximity to the people, claims that he “knows the people”, that “the man loves” him.
Chekhov clearly makes one feel the idleness, idleness of Ranevskaya and Gaev, their habit of "living on credit, at someone else's expense." Ranevskaya is wasteful ("littering with money"), not only because she is kind, but also because money easily gets to her. Like Gaev, she does not rely on her own labors and siush, but only on occasional help from outside: either she will receive an inheritance, or Lopakhin will lend, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send to pay her debt. Therefore, we do not believe in the possibility of Gaev's life outside the family estate, we do not believe in the prospect of the future, which captivates Gaev like a child: he is a "bank servant". Chekhov is counting on the fact that, like Ranevskaya, who knows her brother well, the viewer will smile and say: What kind of financier is he, an official! “Where are you! Sit down!"
Having no idea about work, Ranevskaya and Gaev go completely into the world of intimate feelings, refined, but confused, contradictory experiences. Ranevskaya not only devoted her whole life to the joys and sufferings of love, but she attaches decisive importance to this feeling and therefore feels a surge of energy whenever she can help others experience it. She is ready to act as an intermediary not only between Lopakhin and Varya, but also between Trofimov and Anya (“I would gladly give Anya for you”). Usually soft, compliant, passive, she only once actively reacts, revealing both sharpness, and anger, and harshness, when Trofimov touches this holy world for her and when she guesses in him a person of a different, deeply alien to her in this respect warehouse: “At your age, you need to understand those who love and you need to love yourself ... you need to fall in love! (angrily). Yes Yes! And you have no cleanliness, and you are just a clean, funny eccentric, freak ... "I am higher than love!" You are not above love, but simply, as our Firs says, you are a klutz. At your age, do not have a mistress! ..".
Outside the sphere of love, Ranevskaya's life turns out to be empty and aimless, although in her statements, frank, sincere, sometimes self-flagellation and often verbose, there is an attempt to express interest in general issues. Chekhov puts Ranevskaya in a ridiculous position, showing how her conclusions, even her teachings, diverge from her own behavior. She reproaches Gaev for being "inopportune" and talking a lot in the restaurant ("Why talk so much?"). She teaches others: “You ... should look at yourself more often. How gray you all live, how much you say unnecessary things. She herself also talks a lot and inopportunely. Her sensitive enthusiastic appeals to the nursery, to the garden, to the house are quite in tune with Gaev's appeal to the closet. Her verbose monologues, in which she tells close people her life, that is, what they have long known, or exposes her feelings and experiences to them, are usually given by Chekhov either before or after she reproached those around her for verbosity. So the author brings Ranevskaya closer to Gaev, in whom the need to “speak out” is most clearly expressed.
Gaev's anniversary speech in front of the closet, farewell speech at the end, discussions about decadents addressed to restaurant servants, generalizations about people of the 80s expressed by Anya and Varya, a laudatory word to "mother nature" uttered in front of a "walking company" - all this breathes with enthusiasm, ardor, sincerity. But behind all this Chekhov makes us see empty liberal phrase-mongering; hence in Gaev's speech such vague, traditionally liberal expressions as: "bright ideals of goodness and justice." The author shows the self-admiration of these characters, the desire to quench their insatiable thirst to express “beautiful feelings” in “beautiful words”, their appeal only to their inner world, their experiences, isolation from “external” life.
Chekhov emphasizes that all these monologues, speeches, honest, disinterested, sublime, are not needed, they are delivered “inopportunely”. He draws the viewer's attention to this, constantly forcing Anya and Varya, albeit gently, to interrupt Gaev's beginning rantings. The word inopportunely turns out to be a leitmotif not only for Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Inopportunely speeches are made, inopportunely they arrange a ball at the very time when the estate is being sold at auction, inopportunely at the moment of departure they start an explanation of Lopakhin and Varya, etc. And not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya and Gaev turn out to be "stupid". Charlotte's unexpected remarks no longer seem surprising to us: "My dog eats nuts." These words are no more inappropriate than the "arguments" of Gaev and Ranevskaya. Revealing in the central characters the similarities with the "secondary" comedians - Epikhodov and Charlotte - Chekhov subtly exposed his "noble heroes".
The same was achieved by the author of The Cherry Orchard by the rapprochement of Ranevskaya and Gaev with Simeonov-Pishchik, another comedic character in the play. The landowner Simeonov-Pishchik is also kind, gentle, sensitive, impeccably honest, childishly trusting, but he is also inactive, "stupid". His estate is also on the verge of death, and the plans for preserving it, like those of Gaev and Ranevskaya, are unrealistic, they feel a calculation for chance: Dashenka’s daughter will win, someone will lend, etc.
Giving in the fate of Pishchik another option: he is saved from ruin, his estate is not yet sold at auction. Chekhov emphasizes both the temporary nature of this relative well-being and its unstable source, which is not at all dependent on Pishchik himself, that is, he emphasizes even more the historical doom of the owners of noble estates. In the image of Pishchik, the isolation of the nobles from the "external" life, their limitedness, their emptiness is even clearer. Chekhov deprived him even of the outward cultural gloss. Pishchik's speech, reflecting the squalor of his inner world, is subtly mockingly brought closer by Chekhov to the speech of other noble characters and, thus, the tongue-tied Pishchik is equated with Gaev's rhetoric. Pishchik's speech is also emotional, but these emotions also only cover up the lack of content (it is not without reason that Pishchik himself falls asleep and snores during his "speech"). Pishchik constantly uses epithets in superlatives: “a man of the greatest mind”, “the most worthy”, “the greatest”, “the most wonderful”, “the most respectable”, etc. The poverty of emotions is revealed primarily in the fact that these epithets apply equally to Lopakhin, and to Nietzsche, and to Ranevskaya, and to Charlotte, and to the weather. Neither give nor take Gaev's exaggerated "emotional" speeches addressed to the closet, to the genitals, to mother nature. Pishchik's speech is also monotonous. "You think!" - with these words Pishchik reacts both to Charlotte's tricks and to philosophical theories. His actions and words are also out of place. Inopportunely, he interrupts Lopakhin's serious warnings about the sale of the estate with questions: “What's in Paris? How? Have you eaten frogs? Inopportunely asks Ranevskaya for a loan of money when the fate of the owners of the cherry orchard is being decided, inappropriately, obsessively constantly refers to the words of his daughter Dashenka, vaguely, vaguely, conveying their meaning.
Strengthening the comedic nature of this character in the play, Chekhov, in the process of working on him, added episodes and words to the first act that created a comic effect: an episode with pills, a conversation about frogs.
Revealing the ruling class - the nobility - Chekhov persistently thinks himself and makes the viewer think about the people. This is the strength of Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard. We feel that the author has such a negative attitude towards the idleness, idle talk of the Ranevskys, Gaevs, Simeonovs-Pishchikov, because he guesses the connection of all this with the difficult situation of the people, defends the interests of the broad masses of working people. It was not for nothing that the censorship threw out of the play at one time: “Workers eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, thirty, forty in one room, bugs everywhere, stench.” "To own living souls - after all, it has reborn all of you who lived before and are living now, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you live on credit, at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let go further than the front."
In comparison with Chekhov's previous plays, in The Cherry Orchard the theme of the people sounds much stronger, it is also clearer that the author denounces the "masters of life" in the name of the people. But here, too, the people are mainly “non-stage”.
Without making the working man either an open commentator or a positive hero of the play, Chekhov, however, sought to arouse reflection about him, about his position, and this is the undoubted progressiveness of The Cherry Orchard. The constant references to the people in the play, the images of the servants, especially Firs, acting on the stage, make you think.
Showing just before his death a glimpse of consciousness in the slave - Firs, Chekhov deeply sympathizes with him and gently reproaches him: “Life has passed, as if it had not lived ... You don’t have Silushka, there’s nothing left, nothing ... Eh, you ... fool."
In the tragic fate of Firs, Chekhov blames his masters even more than himself. He speaks of the tragic fate of Firs not as a manifestation of the evil will of his masters. Moreover, Chekhov shows that not bad people - the inhabitants of a noble nest - even seem to take care that the sick servant Firs is sent to the hospital. - "Has Firs been sent to the hospital?" “Did Firs get taken to the hospital?” "Did they take Firs to the hospital?" “Mom, Firs has already been sent to the hospital.” Outwardly, Yasha turns out to be the culprit, who answered the question about Firs in the affirmative, as if he misled those around him.
Firs is left in a boarded up house - this fact can also be regarded as a tragic accident in which no one is to blame. And Yasha could be sincerely sure that the order to send Firs to the hospital had been carried out. But Chekhov makes us understand that this “accident” is natural, it is an everyday phenomenon in the life of the frivolous Ranevskys and Gaevs, who are not deeply concerned about the fate of their servants. In the end, the circumstances would have changed little if Firs had been sent to the hospital: all the same, he would have died, alone, forgotten, away from the people to whom he had given his life.
There is a hint in the play that Firs' fate is not isolated. The life and death of the old nanny, the servants of Anastasius were just as inglorious and just as passed by the consciousness of their masters. The soft, loving Ranevskaya, with her characteristic frivolity, does not at all react to the message about the death of Anastasia, about leaving the estate for the city of Petrushka Kosogo. And the death of the nanny did not make a big impression on her, she does not remember her with a single kind word. We can imagine that Ranevskaya will respond to the death of Firs with the same meaningless, vague words that she responded to the death of her nanny: “Yes, the kingdom of heaven. They wrote to me."
Meanwhile, Chekhov lets us know that wonderful possibilities are hidden in Firs: high morality, selfless love, folk wisdom. Throughout the play, among idle, inactive people, he is an 87-year-old old man - alone is shown as an eternally preoccupied, troublesome worker ("one for the whole house").
Following his principle of individualizing the speech of the characters, Chekhov gave the words of old Firs, for the most part, paternally caring and grouchy intonations. Avoiding pseudo-folk turns, not abusing dialectisms (“lackeys should speak simply, without letting go and without now” vol. XIV, p. 362), the author endowed Firs with pure folk speech, which is not devoid of specific, characteristic only for him catchphrases: “stupid”, “scattered”.
Gaev and Ranevskaya utter long coherent, elevated or sensitive monologues, and these "speeches" turn out to be "out of place". Firs, on the other hand, mutters incomprehensible words that seem to others, which no one listens to, but it is his words that the author uses as well-aimed words that reflect the experience of life, the wisdom of a person from the people. The word Firs "klutz" is heard many times in the play, it characterizes all the characters. The word “scattered” (“now everything is broken up, you won’t understand anything”) indicates the nature of post-reform life in Russia. It defines the relationship between people in the play, the alienation of their interests, misunderstanding of each other. The specificity of the dialogue in the play is also connected with this: everyone speaks about his own, usually without listening, without thinking about what his interlocutor said:
Dunyasha: And to me, Yermolai Alekseich, to confess, Epikhodov made an offer.
Lopakhin: Ah!
Dunyasha: I don't know how... He's an unhappy man, something happens every day. They tease him like that among us: twenty-two misfortunes ...
Lopakhin (listens): Here, it seems, they are coming ....
For the most part, the words of one character are interrupted by the words of others, leading away from the thought just expressed.
Chekhov often uses the words of Firs to show the movement of life and the current loss of former strength, the former power of the nobles as a privileged class: “In the past, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, and now we send for the postal official and the head of the station, and even they do not go hunting.”
Firs, with his every-minute concern for Gaev, like a helpless child, destroys the viewer's illusions that he could have based on Gaev's words about his future as a "bank servant", "financier". Chekhov wants to leave the viewer with the consciousness of the impossibility of reviving these unearned people to any kind of activity. Therefore, it is only necessary for Gaev to say the words: “I am offered a place in a bank. Six thousand a year ... ”, as Chekhov reminds the viewer of the unviability of Gaev, his helplessness. Firs appears. He brings a coat: "If you please, sir, put it on, otherwise it's damp."
Showing other servants in the play: Dunyasha, Yasha, Chekhov also denounces the "noble" landowners. He makes the viewer understand the pernicious influence of the Ranevskys, Gaevs on the people of the working environment. The atmosphere of idleness, frivolity has a detrimental effect on Dunyasha. From the masters, she learned sensitivity, hypertrophied attention to her “delicate feelings” and experiences, “refinement” ... She dresses like a young lady, is absorbed in questions of love, constantly listens warily to her “refinedly tender” organization: “I became anxious, I worry about everything ... I became tender, so delicate, noble, I’m afraid of everything ... "" Hands are shaking." "I got a headache from the cigar." "It's a little damp in here." “Dancing makes me dizzy, my heart beats,” etc. Like her masters, she developed a passion for “beautiful” words, for “beautiful” feelings: “He loves me madly,” “I fell in love with you passionately.”
Dunyasha, like her masters, does not have the ability to understand people. Epikhodov seduces her with sensitive, albeit incomprehensible, words, Yasha - "education" and the ability to "argue about everything." Chekhov exposes the absurd comedy of such a conclusion about Yasha, for example, by forcing Dunyasha to express this conclusion between two replicas of Yasha, testifying to Yasha's ignorance, narrow-mindedness and inability to think, reason and act in any way logically:
Yasha (kisses her): Cucumber! Of course, every girl should remember herself, and what I dislike most of all is if a girl has bad behavior ... In my opinion, this is how: if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral ...
Like his masters, Dunyasha both speaks inappropriately and acts inappropriately. She often says about herself what people like Ranevskaya and Gaev think about themselves and even make others feel, but do not directly express in words. And this creates a comic effect: "I'm such a delicate girl, I'm terribly fond of gentle words." In the final version, Chekhov strengthened these features in the image of Dunyasha. He added: "I'm going to faint." "It's all cold." "I don't know what will happen to my nerves." "Now leave me alone, now I'm dreaming." "I am a gentle being."
Chekhov attached great importance to the image of Dunyasha and was worried about the correct interpretation of this role in the theater: “Tell the actress playing the maid Dunyasha to read The Cherry Orchard in the Knowledge edition or in proofreading; there she will see where to powder, and so on. and so on. Let him read it by all means: in your notebooks everything is mixed up and smeared. The author makes us think more deeply into the fate of this comic character and see that this fate, in essence, is also tragic by the grace of the "masters of life". Torn off from her work environment ("I'm out of the habit of a simple life"), Dunyasha lost ground ("does not remember herself"), but did not acquire a new life support either. Its future is predicted in the words of Firs: "You will spin."
The destructive influence of the world of the Ranevskys, Gaevs, and Pishchikovs is also shown by Chekhov in the image of the footman Yasha. A witness to the easy, carefree and vicious life of Ranevskaya in Paris, he is also infected with indifference to his homeland, people and a constant desire for pleasure. Yasha expresses more directly, sharper, more rudely what, in essence, is the meaning of Ranevskaya's actions: gravitation to Paris, a casually contemptuous attitude towards an “uneducated country”, an “ignorant people”. He, like Ranevskaya, is bored in Russia ("yawns" - the author's insistent remark for Yasha). Chekhov makes it clear to us that Yasha was corrupted by Ranevskaya's careless inexperience. Yasha robs her, lies to her and others. An example of the easy life of Ranevskaya, her mismanagement was developed in Yasha by claims and desires that are not possible: he drinks champagne, smokes cigars, orders expensive dishes in a restaurant. Yasha's mind is just enough to adapt to Ranevskaya and take advantage of her weaknesses for personal gain. Outwardly, he retains devotion to her, behaves politely and attentively. In dealing with a certain circle of people, he adopted a “well-mannered” tone and the words: “I cannot but agree with you,” “let me ask you.” Valuing his position, Yasha seeks to create a better impression of himself than he deserves, he is afraid of losing Ranevskaya's trust (hence the author's remarks: “looks around”, “listens”). Hearing, for example, that “the gentlemen are coming,” he sends Dunyasha home, “otherwise they will meet and think about me, as if I were on a date with you. I can't stand it."
Chekhov at the same time, thus, exposes both the deceitful lackey Yasha and the gullible, thoughtless Ranevskaya, who keeps him near her. Chekhov accuses not only him, but also the masters, of the fact that Yasha found himself in the absurd position of a man who "does not remember kinship", who lost his environment. The peasants, the servants, the mother-peasant for Yasha, removed from his native element, are already people of the "lower order"; he is harsh or selfishly indifferent towards them.
Yasha is infected by his masters and has a passion for philosophizing, “speaking out”, and, like theirs, his words diverge from life practice, with behavior (relationship with Dunyasha).
A.P. Chekhov saw in life and reproduced in the play another version of the fate of a man from the people. We learn that Lopakhin's father - a peasant, a serf, who was also not allowed even into the kitchen - after the reform, he "made it into the people", became rich, became a shopkeeper, an exploiter of the people.
In the play, Chekhov shows his son - a bourgeois of a new formation. This is no longer a "grimy", not a tyrant merchant, despotic, rude, like his father. Chekhov specifically warned the actors: "Lopakhin, it is true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he must behave quite decently, intelligently." “Lopakhin should not be played as a screamer ... He is a gentle person.”
While working on the play, Chekhov even strengthened in the image of Lopakhin the features of softness, external "decency, intelligence." So, he made the final edition of Lopakhin's lyrical words addressed to Ranevskaya: "I would like ... your amazing, touching eyes to look at me as before." Chekhov added to the characterization given to Lopakhin by Trofimov, the words: “After all, I still love you. You have thin, tender fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, tender soul ... "
In Lopakhin's speech, Chekhov emphasizes sharp, commanding and instructive intonations when he addresses the servants: “Leave me alone. Tired." "Bring me kvass." "We must remember ourselves." In Lopakhin's speech, Chekhov crosses various elements: one can feel in it the life practice of Lopakhin the merchant (“gave forty”, “the smallest”, “net income”) and peasant origin (“if”, “basta”, “he made a fool”, “tear his nose”, “with a pig snout in a kalash row”, “hang out with you”, “was drunk”), and the influence of lordly, pathetically sensitive speech: “I think:“ Lord, you have given us ... immense fields, the deepest horizons ... "" I would only like you to believe me as before, so that your amazing, touching eyes look at me as before. Lopakhin's speech takes on various shades depending on his attitude to the audience, to the very subject of the conversation, depending on his state of mind. Lopakhin speaks seriously and excitedly about the possibility of selling the estate, warns the owners of the cherry orchard; his speech at this moment is simple, correct, clear. But Chekhov shows that Lopakhin, feeling his strength, even his superiority over the frivolous, impractical nobles, flirts a little with his democracy, deliberately contaminates book expressions (“a fruit of your imagination, covered in the darkness of the unknown”), deliberately distorts the grammatical and stylistic forms superbly known to him. By this, Lopakhin is also ironic at the same time over those who “seriously” use these stamped or incorrect words and phrases. So, for example, along with the word: “goodbye”, Lopakhin says “goodbye” several times; along with the word “huge” (“Lord, you gave us huge forests”) he pronounces “huge” - (“a bump, however, a huge one will jump”), and the name Ophelia is probably deliberately distorted by Lopakhin, who memorized Shakespeare's text and almost paid attention to the sound of the word Ophelia: “Okhmeliya, O nymph, remember me in your prayers.” "Okhmelia, go to the monastery."
Creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov experienced certain difficulties, understanding the possible censorship attacks: “I was mainly frightened ... by the unfinished business of some student Trofimov. After all, Trofimov is in exile every now and then, he is constantly expelled from the university, but how do you portray these things? In fact, the student Trofimov appeared before the audience at a time when the public was agitated by student "riots". Chekhov and his contemporaries were witnesses of a fierce but fruitless struggle waged against "recalcitrant citizens" for several years by "... the government of Russia... with the help of its numerous troops, police and gendarmes."
In the image of the "eternal student" - raznochinets, the son of the doctor - Trofimov, Chekhov showed the superiority of democracy over the noble-bourgeois "nobility". To the anti-social, anti-patriotic idle life of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik, the destructive "activities" of the acquirer-owner Lopakhin, Chekhov contrasts the search for social truth by the Trofimovs, who ardently believe in the triumph of a just social life in the near future. Creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov wanted to preserve the measure of historical justice. Therefore, on the one hand, he opposed the conservative circles of the nobility, who saw modern democratic intellectuals as immoral, mercantile, ignorant "grimy", "cook's children" (see the image of the reactionary Rashevich in the story "In the Estate"); on the other hand, Chekhov wanted to avoid idealizing Trofimov, as he perceived a certain limitation of the Trofimovs in creating a new life.
In accordance with this, the democratic student Trofimov is shown in the play as a man of exceptional honesty and disinterestedness, he is not constrained by established traditions and prejudices, mercantile interests, addiction to money, to property. Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but categorically refuses to "live at someone else's expense", to borrow money. Trofimov’s observations and generalizations are broad, intelligent, and objectively fair: the nobles “live on credit, at someone else’s expense,” temporary “masters,” “predatory beasts”—the bourgeois make limited plans for the reorganization of life, the intellectuals do nothing, seek nothing, the workers live badly, “they eat disgustingly, sleep ... thirty to forty in one room.” Trofimov's principles (work, live for the sake of the future) are progressive and altruistic; his role - the herald of the new, the enlightener - should arouse the respect of the viewer.
But with all this, Chekhov shows in Trofimov some features of limitation, inferiority, and the author finds in him the features of a "stupid" that bring Trofimov closer to other characters in the play. The breath of the world of Ranevskaya and Gaev also affects Trofimov, despite the fact that he fundamentally does not accept their way of life and is confident in the hopelessness of their situation: "there is no turning back." Trofimov indignantly speaks of idleness, “philosophizing” (“We only philosophize”, “I’m afraid of serious conversations”), while he himself also does little, talks a lot, loves teachings, a ringing phrase. In Act II, Chekhov forces Trofimov to refuse to continue the idle, abstract "yesterday's conversation" about the "proud man", while in Act IV he forces Trofimov to call himself a proud man. Chekhov shows that Trofimov is also not active in life, that his existence is also subject to elemental forces (“fate is chasing him”), and he himself unreasonably denies himself even personal happiness.
In the play "The Cherry Orchard" there is no such positive hero who would fully correspond to the pre-revolutionary era. Time required a writer-propagandist whose loud voice would sound both in open denunciation and in the positive beginning of works. Chekhov's remoteness from the revolutionary struggle muffled his authorial voice, softened his satire, and expressed itself in the insufficient concreteness of his positive ideals.
