List of characters and system of characters in Chekhov's drama. A.P

A.P. Chekhov wrote his famous play “The Cherry Orchard” in 1903. In this play, the central place is occupied not so much by the personal experiences of the characters, but by an allegorical vision of the fate of Russia. Some characters personify the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs, Varya), others - the future (Lopakhin, Trofimov, Anya). The characters in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" reflect the society of that time.

Main characters

The heroes of Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" are lyrical characters with special features. For example, Epikhodov, who was constantly unlucky, or Trofimov, an “eternal student.” Below will be presented all the characters of the play "The Cherry Orchard":

• Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, mistress of the estate.
• Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. I am not indifferent to Trofimov.
• Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. In love with Lopakhin.
• Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
• Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, a native of peasants, now a merchant. He likes Varya.
• Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, eternal student. He likes Anya, but he is above love.
• Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, a landowner who constantly has no money, but he believes in the possibility of unexpected enrichment.
• Charlotte Ivanovna, the maid, loves to show tricks.
• Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk, unlucky man. He wants to marry Dunyasha.
• Dunyasha, the maid, considers herself like a lady. In love with Yasha.
• Firs, an old footman, constantly takes care of Gaev.
• Yasha, Ranevskaya's spoiled lackey.

Images of the characters in the play

A.P. Chekhov always very accurately and subtly noticed his features in each character, be it appearance or character. This Chekhovian feature is also supported by the play “The Cherry Orchard” - the images of the heroes here are lyrical and even a little touching. Each has its own unique features. For convenience, the characteristics of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard can be divided into groups.

Old generation

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna appears as a very frivolous but kind woman who cannot fully understand that all her money has run out. She is in love with some scoundrel who left her without funds. And then Ranevskaya returns with Anya to Russia. They can be compared to people who left Russia: no matter how good it is abroad, they still continue to yearn for their homeland. The image chosen by Chekhov for his homeland will be written below.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the personification of the nobility, the wealth of past years, which during the author’s time began to decline. Both brother and sister cannot fully comprehend this, but nevertheless they feel that something is happening. And by the way they begin to act, you can see the reaction of Chekhov’s contemporaries - it was either a move abroad, or an attempt to adapt to new conditions.

Firs is an image of a servant who was always faithful to her masters and did not want any change in order, because they did not need it. If with the first main characters of “The Cherry Orchard” it is clear why they are considered in this group, then why can Varya be included here?

Because Varya occupies a passive position: she humbly accepts the developing position, but her dream is the opportunity to walk in holy places, and strong faith was characteristic of people of the older generation. And Varya, despite her seemingly vigorous activity, does not take an active part in conversations about the fate of the cherry orchard and does not offer any solutions, which shows the passivity of the wealthy class of that time.

Young generation

Representatives of the future of Russia will be considered here - these are educated young people who put themselves above any feelings, which was fashionable in the early 1900s. At that time, public duty and the desire to develop science came first. But one should not assume that Anton Pavlovich portrayed revolutionary-minded youth - this is, rather, a depiction of the majority of the intelligentsia of that time, who were only engaged in discussing lofty topics, putting themselves above human needs, but were not adapted to anything.

All this was embodied in Trofimov - the “eternal student” and “shabby gentleman”, who was never able to graduate from anything and had no profession. Throughout the play he only talked about various matters and despised Lopakhin and Varya, who was able to admit the idea of ​​his possible romance with Anya - he is “above love.”

Anya is a kind, sweet, still completely inexperienced girl who admires Trofimov and listens carefully to everything he says. She personifies youth, who have always been interested in the ideas of the intelligentsia.

But one of the most striking and characteristic images of that era was Lopakhin, a native of peasants who managed to make a fortune for himself. But, despite his wealth, he remained essentially a simple man. This is an active person, a representative of the so-called “kulaks” class - wealthy peasants. Ermolai Alekseevich respected work, and work always came first for him, so he kept postponing an explanation with Varya.

It was during that period that Lopakhin’s hero could appear - then this “rising” peasantry, proud of the realization that they were no longer slaves, showed a higher adaptability to life than the nobles, which is proven by the fact that it was Lopakhin who bought Ranevskaya’s estate.

Why was the characterization of the characters in The Cherry Orchard chosen specifically for these characters? Because it is on the characteristics of the characters that their internal conflicts will be built.

Internal conflicts in the play

The play shows not only the personal experiences of the characters, but also the confrontation between them, which makes the images of the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” brighter and deeper. Let's take a closer look at them.

Ranevskaya - Lopakhin

The most important conflict is in the pair Ranevskaya - Lopakhin. And it is due to several reasons:

• belonging to different generations;
• contrast of characters.

Lopakhin is trying to help Ranevskaya preserve the estate by cutting down the cherry orchard and building dachas in its place. But for Raevskaya this is impossible - after all, she grew up in this house, and “dachas are so vulgar.” And in the fact that it was Ermolai Alekseevich who bought the estate, she sees this as a betrayal on his part. For him, buying a cherry orchard is the resolution of his personal conflict: he, a simple man, whose ancestors could not go beyond the kitchen, has now become the owner. And this is where his main triumph lies.

Lopakhin - Trofimov

The conflict in a pair of these people occurs due to the fact that they have opposing views. Trofimov considers Lopakhin an ordinary man, rude, limited, who is not interested in anything other than work. The same one believes that Pyotr Sergeevich is simply wasting his mental abilities, does not understand how one can live without money, and does not accept the ideology that man is above all earthly things.

Trofimov - Varya

The confrontation is most likely based on personal hostility. Varya despises Peter because he is not busy with anything, and fears that with the help of his clever speeches he will make Anya fall in love with him. Therefore, Varya tries in every possible way to prevent them. Trofimov teases the girl “Madame Lopakhina,” knowing that everyone has been waiting for this event for a long time. But he despises her because she equated him and Anya with herself and Lopakhin, because they are above all earthly passions.

So, above it was briefly written about the characters of the heroes of Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”. We described only the most significant characters. Now we can move on to the most interesting thing - the image of the main character of the play.

The main character of "The Cherry Orchard"

The attentive reader has already guessed (or is guessing) that this is a cherry orchard. He personifies Russia itself in the play: its past, present and future. Why did the orchard itself become the main character of “The Cherry Orchard”?

Because it is to this estate that Ranevskaya returns after all the misadventures abroad, because it is because of him that the heroine’s internal conflict intensifies (fear of losing the garden, awareness of her helplessness, reluctance to part with it), and a confrontation arises between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin.

The Cherry Orchard also helps resolve Lopakhin’s internal conflict: it reminded him that he is a peasant, an ordinary man who miraculously managed to get rich. And the opportunity that arose with the purchase of the estate to cut down this garden meant that now nothing else in those parts could remind him of his origin.

What did the garden mean to the heroes?

For convenience, you can write the characters’ attitude towards the cherry orchard in a table.

Symbolism of the cherry orchard in the play

But how then is the image of the main character of “The Cherry Orchard” connected with the image of the Motherland? Through this garden, Anton Chekhov showed the past: when the country was rich, the class of nobles was in its prime, and no one thought about the abolition of serfdom. In the present, there is already a decline in society: it is divided, guidelines are changing. Russia was already on the threshold of a new era, the nobility was becoming smaller, and the peasants were gaining strength. And the future is shown in Lopakhin’s dreams: the country will be ruled by those who are not afraid to work - only those people will be able to lead the country to prosperity.

The sale of Ranevskaya's cherry orchard for debts and its purchase by Lopakhin is a symbolic transfer of the country from the rich class to ordinary workers. Debt here means debt for how their owners treated them for a long time, how they exploited the common people. And the fact that power in the country is passing to the common people is a natural result of the path along which Russia has moved. And the nobility had only to do what Ranevskaya and Gaev did - go abroad or go to work. And the younger generation will try to fulfill their dreams of a bright future.

Conclusion

Having carried out such a small analysis of the work, one can understand that the play “The Cherry Orchard” is a deeper creation than it might seem at first glance. Anton Pavlovich was able to masterfully convey the mood of society of that time, the situation in which it found itself. And the writer did this very gracefully and subtly, which allows this play to remain loved by readers for a long time.

“The Cherry Orchard” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the early 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning of a new era in the development of Russian theater.

The main theme of the play is autobiographical - a bankrupt family of nobles sells their family estate at auction. The author, as a person who has gone through a similar life situation, with subtle psychologism describes the mental state of people who will soon be forced to leave their home. The innovation of the play is the absence of division of heroes into positive and negative, into main and secondary ones. They are all divided into three categories:

• people of the past - noble aristocrats (Ranevskaya, Gaev and their lackey Firs);
• people of the present - their bright representative, the merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin;
• people of the future - the progressive youth of that time (Petr Trofimov and Anya).

History of creation

Chekhov began work on the play in 1901. Due to serious health problems, the writing process was quite difficult, but nevertheless, in 1903 the work was completed. The first theatrical production of the play took place a year later on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, becoming the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright and a textbook classic of the theatrical repertoire.

Play Analysis

Description of the work

The action takes place on the family estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who returned from France with her young daughter Anya. They are met at the railway station by Gaev (Ranevskaya's brother) and Varya (her adopted daughter).

The financial situation of the Ranevsky family is nearing complete collapse. Entrepreneur Lopakhin offers his own version of a solution to the problem - to divide the land into shares and give them to summer residents for use for a certain fee. The lady is burdened by this proposal, because for this she will have to say goodbye to her beloved cherry orchard, with which many warm memories of her youth are associated. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that her beloved son Grisha died in this garden. Gaev, imbued with his sister’s feelings, reassures her with a promise that their family estate will not be put up for sale.

The action of the second part takes place on the street, in the courtyard of the estate. Lopakhin, with his characteristic pragmatism, continues to insist on his plan to save the estate, but no one pays attention to him. Everyone turns to the teacher Pyotr Trofimov who has appeared. He delivers an excited speech dedicated to the fate of Russia, its future and touches on the topic of happiness in a philosophical context. The materialist Lopakhin is skeptical about the young teacher, and it turns out that only Anya is capable of being imbued with his lofty ideas.

The third act begins with Ranevskaya using her last money to invite an orchestra and organize a dance evening. Gaev and Lopakhin are absent at the same time - they went to the city for an auction, where the Ranevsky estate should go under the hammer. After a tedious wait, Lyubov Andreevna learns that her estate was bought at auction by Lopakhin, who does not hide his joy at his acquisition. The Ranevsky family is in despair.

The finale is entirely dedicated to the departure of the Ranevsky family from their home. The parting scene is shown with all the deep psychologism inherent in Chekhov. The play ends with a surprisingly deep monologue by Firs, whom the owners in a hurry forgot on the estate. The final chord is the sound of an axe. The cherry orchard is being cut down.

Main characters

A sentimental person, the owner of the estate. Having lived abroad for several years, she got used to a luxurious life and, by inertia, continues to allow herself many things that, given the deplorable state of her finances, according to the logic of common sense, should be inaccessible to her. Being a frivolous person, very helpless in everyday matters, Ranevskaya does not want to change anything about herself, while she is fully aware of her weaknesses and shortcomings.

A successful merchant, he owes a lot to the Ranevsky family. His image is ambiguous - he combines hard work, prudence, enterprise and rudeness, a “peasant” beginning. At the end of the play, Lopakhin does not share Ranevskaya’s feelings; he is happy that, despite his peasant origins, he was able to afford to buy the estate of his late father’s owners.

Like his sister, he is very sensitive and sentimental. Being an idealist and romantic, to console Ranevskaya, he comes up with fantastic plans to save the family estate. He is emotional, verbose, but at the same time completely inactive.

Petya Trofimov

An eternal student, a nihilist, an eloquent representative of the Russian intelligentsia, advocating for the development of Russia only in words. In pursuit of the “highest truth,” he denies love, considering it a petty and illusory feeling, which immensely upsets Ranevskaya’s daughter Anya, who is in love with him.

A romantic 17-year-old young lady who fell under the influence of the populist Peter Trofimov. Recklessly believing in a better life after the sale of her parents' estate, Anya is ready for any difficulties for the sake of shared happiness next to her lover.

An 87-year-old man, a footman in the Ranevskys' house. The type of servant of old times, surrounds his masters with fatherly care. He remained to serve his masters even after the abolition of serfdom.

A young lackey who treats Russia with contempt and dreams of going abroad. A cynical and cruel man, he is rude to old Firs and even treats his own mother with disrespect.

Structure of the work

The structure of the play is quite simple - 4 acts without dividing into separate scenes. The duration of action is several months, from late spring to mid-autumn. In the first act there is exposition and plotting, in the second there is an increase in tension, in the third there is a climax (the sale of the estate), in the fourth there is a denouement. A characteristic feature of the play is the absence of genuine external conflict, dynamism, and unpredictable twists in the plot line. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. The artistic realism of the play is achieved through the alternation of dramatic and comic scenes.

(Scene from a modern production)

The development of the emotional and psychological plane dominates in the play; the main driver of the action is the internal experiences of the characters. The author expands the artistic space of the work by introducing a large number of characters who will never appear on stage. Also, the effect of expanding spatial boundaries is given by the symmetrically emerging theme of France, giving an arched form to the play.

Final conclusion

Chekhov's last play, one might say, is his “swan song.” The novelty of her dramatic language is a direct expression of Chekhov’s special concept of life, which is characterized by extraordinary attention to small, seemingly insignificant details, and a focus on the inner experiences of the characters.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the author captured the state of critical disunity of Russian society of his time; this sad factor is often present in scenes where the characters hear only themselves, creating only the appearance of interaction.

Social statuses of the characters in the play - as one of the characteristics

In the final play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" there is no division into main and secondary characters. They are all major, even seemingly episodic roles, and are of great importance for revealing the main idea of ​​the entire work. The characterization of the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” begins with their social representation. After all, social status already leaves an imprint in people’s heads, and not only on stage. Thus, Lopakhin, a merchant, is already associated in advance with a loud and tactless merchant, incapable of any subtle feelings and experiences, but Chekhov warned that his merchant is 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 landowners remained a thing of 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 Ranevskaya’s daughters, everything is more or less clear. Anya and Varya have their ages indicated, showing that they are the youngest characters in The Cherry Orchard.

The age of the oldest character, Firs, is also indicated. Trofimov Petr Sergeevich is a student, and there is some kind of contradiction in this, because if he is a student, then he is young and it seems too early to assign a middle name, 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 for 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 highlighted 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 relationship to the old cherry orchard.

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna– the main character of “The Cherry Orchard” is a former rich aristocrat, accustomed to living according to the dictates of her heart. Her husband died quite early, leaving a lot of debts. While she was indulging in new feelings, her little son tragically died. Considering herself guilty of this tragedy, she runs away from home, from her lover abroad, who also followed her and literally robbed her there. But her hopes of finding peace were not realized. She loves her garden and her estate, but cannot save it. It is unthinkable for her to accept Lopakhin’s offer, because then the centuries-old order in which the title of “landowner” is passed down from generation to generation will be violated, carrying with it the cultural and historical heritage, inviolability and confidence in the worldview.

Lyubov Andreevna and her brother Gaev are characterized by all the best traits 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 spending, 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 experiences are not as deep as they might seem.

In the play “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 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 instincts, determination and intelligence, because if he were stupid and uneducated, how could he have achieved such success in his business? And it is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov talks about his subtle soul. After all, only Ermolai Alekseevich realizes the value of the old garden and its true beauty. But his commercial spirit goes too far, 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 essentially become a homeless vagabond, dreaming of the common good and happiness. He talks a lot, but does nothing for the speedy onset of a bright future. He also lacks deep feelings for the people around him and attachment to a 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 age 12. That is, in adolescence, which is 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, which is perhaps 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 according to 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 seem to be cut off from it.

Varya- adopted daughter of Ranevskaya. But essentially she is the housekeeper of the estate, whose responsibilities include taking care of the owners and servants. She thinks on an everyday level, and her desire to devote herself to serving God is not taken seriously by anyone. Instead, they are trying to marry her off to Lopakhin, who is indifferent to her.

Simeonov-Pishchik- the same landowner as Ranevskaya. Constantly in debt. But his positive attitude helps him overcome his difficult situation. So, he doesn’t hesitate a bit when he receives an offer to rent out his lands. Thus, solving your financial difficulties. He is able to adapt to a new life, unlike the owners of the cherry orchard.

Yasha- young footman. 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 his owners, he has no attachment to anyone.

Dunyasha– a young, flighty girl who lives one day at a time and dreams of love.

Epikhodov- a clerk, he is a chronic loser, which he knows very well. In essence, his life is empty and aimless.

Firs- the oldest character for whom the abolition of serfdom became the greatest tragedy. He is sincerely attached to his owners. And his death in an empty house to the sound of the garden being cut down is very symbolic.

Charlotte Ivanovna- governess and circus performer rolled into one. 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.

Work test

Characters

“Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.
Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.
Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.
Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.
Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.
Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk.
Dunyasha, maid.
Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.
Yasha, a young footman.
Passerby.
Station manager.
Postal official.
Guests, servants” (13, 196).

As we can see, the social markers of each role are preserved in the list of characters in Chekhov’s last play, and just like in previous plays, they are of a formal nature, without predetermining either the character of the character or the logic of his behavior on stage.
Thus, the social status of landowner/landowner in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries actually ceased to exist, not corresponding to the new structure of social relations. In this sense, Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik find themselves in the play persona non grata; their essence and purpose in it are not at all connected with the motive of owning souls, that is, other people, and in general, owning anything.
In turn, Lopakhin’s “thin, gentle fingers”, his “thin, gentle soul” (13, 244) are by no means predetermined by his first author’s characterization in the list of characters (“merchant”), which is largely thanks to the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky acquired a very definite semantic aura in Russian literature. It is no coincidence that Lopakhin's first appearance on stage is marked by such a detail as a book. The eternal student Petya Trofimov continues the logic of the discrepancy between social markers and the stage realization of characters. In the context of the characteristics given to him by other characters, Lyubov Andreevna or Lopakhin, for example, his author's name in the poster sounds like an oxymoron.
Next in the playbill are: a clerk discussing in the play about Buckle and the possibility of suicide; a maid who constantly dreams of extraordinary love and even dances at the ball: “You are very tender Dunyasha,” Lopakhin will tell her. “And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hair” (13, 198); a young footman who has not the slightest respect for the people he serves. Perhaps, only Firs’ behavior model corresponds to the status declared in the poster, however, he is also a lackey under masters who no longer exist.
The main category that forms the system of characters in Chekhov’s last play now becomes not the role (social or literary) that each of them plays, but the time in which each of them feels himself. Moreover, it is the chronotope chosen by each character that explicates his character, his sense of the world and himself in it. From this point of view, a rather curious situation arises: the vast majority of the characters in the play do not live in the present time, preferring to remember the past or dream, that is, rush into the future.
Thus, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev feel the house and garden as a beautiful and harmonious world of their childhood. That is why their dialogue with Lopakhin in the second act of the comedy is carried out in different languages: he tells them about the garden as a very real object of sale and purchase, which can easily be turned into dachas, they, in turn, do not understand how harmony can be sold, sell happiness:
“Lopakhin. Forgive me, I have never met such frivolous people like you, gentlemen, such unbusinesslike, strange people. They tell you in Russian, your estate is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand.
Lyubov Andreevna. What should we do? Teach what?
Lopakhin.<…>Understand! Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved.
Lyubov Andreevna. Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry.
Gaev. I completely agree with you.
Lopakhin. I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can't! You tortured me!” (13, 219).
The existence of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the world of childhood harmony is marked not only by the place of action designated by the author in the stage directions (“a room that is still called the nursery”), not only by the constant behavior of the “nanny” Firs in relation to Gaev: “Firs (cleans Gaev with a brush , instructively). They put on the wrong pants again. And what should I do with you! (13, 209), but also by the natural appearance of the images of father and mother in the characters’ discourse. Ranevskaya sees “the late mother” in the white garden of the first act (13, 210); Gaev remembers his father going to church on Trinity Sunday in the fourth act (13, 252).
The children's model of behavior of the characters is realized in their absolute impracticality, in the complete absence of pragmatism, and even in a sharp and constant change in their mood. Of course, one can see in Ranevskaya’s speeches and actions a manifestation of an “ordinary person” who, “submitting to his not always beautiful desires and whims, deceives himself every time.” One can also see in her image “an obvious profanation of the role-playing way of life.” However, it seems that it is precisely the unselfishness, lightness, immediacy of the attitude towards existence, very reminiscent of a child’s, the instant change of mood that brings all the sudden and absurd, from the point of view of the other characters and many comedy researchers, actions of both Gaev and Ranevskaya into a certain system. Before us are children who never became adults, who did not accept the model of behavior established in the adult world. In this sense, for example, all of Gaev’s serious attempts to save the estate look exactly like playing at being an adult:
“Gaev. Shut up, Firs (the nanny temporarily withdraws - T.I.). Tomorrow I need to go to the city. They promised to introduce me to a general who could give me a bill.
Lopakhin. Nothing will work out for you. And you won’t pay interest, rest assured.
Lyubov Andreevna. He's delusional. There are no generals” (13, 222).
It is noteworthy that the characters’ attitude towards each other remains unchanged: they are forever brother and sister, not understood by anyone, but understanding each other without words:
“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 that they will not be heard.
Gaev (in despair). My sister, my sister...
Lyubov Andreevna. Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!..” (13, 253).
Adjacent to this micro-group of characters is Firs, whose chronotope is also the past, but a past that has clearly defined social parameters. It is no coincidence that specific time markers appear in the character’s speech:
“Firs. In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be…” (13, 206).
His past is the time before the misfortune, that is, before the abolition of serfdom. In this case, we have before us a version of social harmony, a kind of utopia based on a rigid hierarchy, on an order established by laws and tradition:
“Firs (not hearing). And still. The men are with the gentlemen, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything” (13, 222).
The second group of characters can be conditionally called characters of the future, although the semantics of their future will be different each time and does not always have a social connotation: these are, first of all, Petya Trofimov and Anya, then Dunyasha, Varya and Yasha.
Petit’s future, like Firs’s past, acquires the features of a social utopia, which Chekhov could not give a detailed description for censorship reasons and probably did not want to for artistic reasons, generalizing the logic and goals of many specific socio-political theories and teachings: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront” (13, 244).
A premonition of the future, a feeling of being on the eve of a dream come true, also characterizes Dunyasha. “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I’m dreaming,” she says to Epikhodov, who constantly reminds her of the not-so-beautiful present (13, 238). Her dream, like the dream of any young lady, as she feels herself, is love. It is characteristic that her dream does not have specific, tangible outlines (the lackey Yasha and “love” for him are only the first approximation to the dream). Her presence is marked only by a special feeling of dizziness, included in the semantic field of the dance motif: “... my head is spinning from dancing, my heart is beating, Firs Nikolaevich, and now the official from the post office told me something that took my breath away” (13, 237 ).
Just as Dunyasha dreams of extraordinary love, Yasha dreams of Paris as an alternative to a funny and unreal, from his point of view, reality: “This champagne is not real, I can assure you.<…>It’s not for me here, I can’t live... nothing can be done. I’ve seen enough of ignorance—that’s enough for me” (13, 247).
In the designated group of characters, Varya occupies an ambivalent position. On the one hand, she lives in a conditional present, in momentary problems, and in this feeling of life she is close to Lopakhin: “Only I can’t do nothing, mommy. I need to do something every minute” (13, 233). That is why her role as housekeeper in her adoptive mother’s house naturally continues now with strangers:
“Lopakhin. Where are you going now, Varvara Mikhailovna?
Varya. I? To the Ragulins... I agreed to look after the housekeeping for them... as housekeepers, or something” (13, 250).
On the other hand, in her sense of self, the desired future is also constantly present as a consequence of dissatisfaction with the present: “If I had money, even a little, even a hundred rubles, I would give up everything, move away. I would have gone to a monastery” (13, 232).
The characters of the conditional present include Lopakhin, Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik. This characteristic of the present time is due to the fact that each of the named characters has his own image of the time in which he lives, and, therefore, there is no single concept of the present time, common to the entire play, as well as the time of the future. Thus, Lopakhin’s time is the present concrete time, representing an uninterrupted chain of daily “deeds” that give visible meaning to his life: “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I I exist" (13, 246). It is no coincidence that the character’s speech is replete with indications of the specific time of occurrence of certain events (it is curious that his future tense, as follows from the remarks given below, is a natural continuation of the present, essentially already realized): “I am now, at five o’clock in the morning, at Kharkov to go" (13, 204); “If we don’t come up with anything and come to nothing, then on the twenty-second of August both the cherry orchard and the entire estate will be sold at auction” (13, 205); “I’ll see you in three weeks” (13, 209).
Epikhodov and Simeonov-Pishchik form an oppositional pair in this group of characters. For the first, life is a chain of misfortunes, and this character’s belief is confirmed (again from his point of view) by Buckle’s theory of geographical determinism:
“Epikhodov.<…>And you also take kvass to get drunk, and then, lo and behold, there is something extremely indecent, like a cockroach.
Pause.
Have you read Buckle? (13, 216).
For the second, on the contrary, life is a series of accidents, ultimately happy ones, which will always correct any current situation: “I never lose hope. Now, I think, everything is lost, I’m dead, and lo and behold, the railroad passed through my land, and... they paid me. And then, look, something else will happen not today or tomorrow” (13, 209).
The image of Charlotte is the most mysterious image in Chekhov's last comedy. The character, episodic in its place in the list of characters, nevertheless acquires extraordinary importance for the author. “Oh, if only you played a governess in my play,” writes Chekhov O.L. Knipper-Chekhov. “This is the best role, but I don’t like the rest” (P 11, 259). A little later, the question about the actress playing this role will be repeated by the author three times: “Who, who will play my governess?” (P 11, 268); “Also write who will play Charlotte. Is it really Raevskaya? (P 11, 279); "Who plays Charlotte?" (P 11, 280). Finally, in a letter to Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, commenting on the final distribution of roles and, undoubtedly, knowing who will play Ranevskaya, Chekhov still counts on his wife’s understanding of the importance of this particular role for him: “Charlotte is a question mark<…>this is the role of Mrs. Knipper” (P 11, 293).
The importance of the image of Charlotte is emphasized by the author and in the text of the play. Each of the character's few appearances on stage is accompanied by a detailed author's commentary concerning both his appearance and his actions. This attentiveness (focus) of the author becomes all the more obvious since Charlotte’s remarks, as a rule, are kept to a minimum in the play, and the appearance of the more significant characters on stage (say, Lyubov Andreevna) is not commented on by the author at all: the stage directions give only numerous psychological details of her portrait.
What is the mystery of Charlotte's image? The first and rather unexpected observation worth making is that the character’s appearance emphasizes both feminine and masculine features at the same time. At the same time, the selection of portrait details itself can be called autoquoting. Thus, the author accompanies Charlotte’s first and last appearance on stage with a repeated remark: “Charlotte Ivanovna with a dog on a chain” (13, 199); “Yasha and Charlotte leave with the dog” (13, 253). It is obvious that in Chekhov’s artistic world the detail “with the dog” is significant. She, as is well known, marks the image of Anna Sergeevna - a lady with a dog - a very rare poetic image of a woman capable of truly deep feeling in Chekhov’s prose. True, in the context of the stage action of the play, the detail receives a comic realization. “My dog ​​even eats nuts,” Charlotte says to Simeonov-Pishchik (13, 200), immediately separating herself from Anna Sergeevna. In Chekhov's letters to his wife, the semantics of the dog are even more reduced, but it is precisely this version of the stage embodiment that the author insists on: “... in the first act the dog is needed, shaggy, small, half-dead, with sour eyes” (P 11, 316); “Schnapp, I repeat, is no good. We need that shabby little dog you saw” (P 11, 317-318).
In the same first act there is another comic remark-quote containing a description of the character’s appearance: “Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress, very thin, tight-fitted, with a lorgnette on her belt, walks across the stage” (13, 208). Taken together, the three details mentioned by the author create an image that is very reminiscent of another governess - the daughter of Albion: “Beside him stood a tall, thin Englishwoman<…>She was dressed in a white muslin dress, through which her skinny yellow shoulders were clearly visible. A gold watch hung on a golden belt” (2, 195). The lornet instead of a watch on Charlotte’s belt will probably remain as a “memory” of Anna Sergeevna, because it is this detail that will be emphasized by the author in both the first and second parts of “The Lady with the Dog.”
Gryabov’s subsequent assessment of the Englishwoman’s appearance is also typical: “And the waist? This doll reminds me of a long nail” (2, 197). A very thin detail sounds like a sentence on a woman in Chekhov’s own epistolary text: “The Yartsevs say that you have lost weight, and I really don’t like that,” Chekhov writes to his wife and a few lines below, as if in passing, continues, “Sofya Petrovna Sredina she became very thin and very old” (P 11, 167). Such an explicit game with such multi-level quotes makes the character’s character vague, blurred, and lacking semantic unambiguity.
The remark preceding the second act of the play further complicates the image of Charlotte, because now, when describing her appearance, the author emphasizes the traditionally masculine attributes of the character’s clothing: “Charlotte is wearing an old cap; she took the gun off her shoulders and adjusted the buckle on her belt” (13, 215). This description can again be read as an autoquote, this time from the drama “Ivanov”. The remark preceding its first act ends with the significant appearance of Borkin: “Borkin in big boots, with a gun, appears in the depths of the garden; he is tipsy; seeing Ivanov, tiptoes towards him and, having caught up with him, takes aim at his face<…>takes off his cap" (12, 7). However, as in the previous case, the detail does not become characterizing, since, unlike the play “Ivanov,” in “The Cherry Orchard” neither Charlotte’s gun nor Epikhodov’s revolver will ever fire.
The remark included by the author in the third act of the comedy, on the contrary, completely neutralizes (or combines) both principles recorded in the appearance of Charlotte earlier; now the author simply calls her a figure: “In the hall, a figure in a gray top hat and checkered trousers waves his arms and jumps, shouting: “Bravo, Charlotte Ivanovna!” (13, 237). It is noteworthy that this leveling - the game - with the masculine/feminine principle was quite consciously incorporated by the author into the semantic field of the character: “Charlotte speaks not broken, but pure Russian,” Chekhov writes to Nemirovich-Danchenko, “only occasionally she replaces b at the end of a word pronounces Kommersant and confuses adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders” (P 11, 294).
This game also explicates Charlotte’s dialogue with her inner voice, blurring the boundaries of the gender identification of its participants:
"Charlotte.<…>What good weather today!
A mysterious female voice answers her, as if from under the floor: “Oh yes, the weather is magnificent, madam.”
You are so good, my ideal...
Voice: “I also really liked you, madam” (13, 231).
The dialogue goes back to the model of small talk between a man and a woman; it is no coincidence that only one side of it is named madam, but the dialogue is carried out by two female voices.
Another very important observation concerns Charlotte's behavior on stage. All her remarks and actions seem unexpected and are not motivated by the external logic of a particular situation; They are not directly related to what is happening on stage. Thus, in the first act of the comedy, she denies Lopakhin the ritual kiss of her hand only on the grounds that later he may want something more:
“Charlotte (removing her hand). If I allow you to kiss my hand, then you will then wish on the elbow, then on the shoulder...” (13, 208).
In the most important for the author, the second act of the play, at the most pathetic moment of her own monologue, which we have yet to talk about, when the other characters are sitting, thoughtful, involuntarily immersed in the harmony of being, Charlotte “takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats it” (13, 215 ). Having completed this process, she makes a completely unexpected and not confirmed by the text of the comedy compliment to Epikhodov: “You, Epikhodov, are a very smart person and very scary; Women must love you madly” (13, 216) - and leaves the stage.
The third act includes Charlotte's card and ventriloquist tricks, as well as her illusionary experiments, when either Anya or Varya appear from under the blanket. It is noteworthy that this plot situation formally slows down the action, as if interrupting, dividing in half, Lyubov Andreevna’s single remark: “Why has Leonid been gone for so long? What is he doing in the city?<…>But Leonid is still missing. I don’t understand what he’s been doing in the city for so long!” (13; 231, 232).
And finally, in the fourth act of the comedy, during the touching farewell of the remaining characters to the house and garden
“Charlotte (takes a knot that looks like a curled up baby). My baby, bye, bye.<…>
Shut up, my good, my dear boy.<…>
I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the bundle into place)” (13, 248).
This mechanism for constructing a stage was known to the poetics of Chekhov's theater. Thus, the first act of “Uncle Vanya” includes Marina’s remarks: “Chick, chick, chick<…>Pestrushka left with the chickens... The crows wouldn’t drag them around...” (13, 71), which directly follow Voinitsky’s phrase: “In this weather it’s good to hang oneself...” (Ibid.). Marina, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in the system of characters in the play personifies a reminder to a person about the logic of events that is external to him. That is why she does not participate in the struggles of the other characters with circumstances and with each other.
Charlotte also occupies a special place among other comedy characters. This feature was not only noted by the author, as mentioned above; it is realized and felt by the character himself: “These people sing terribly” (13, 216), says Charlotte, and her remark perfectly correlates with the phrase of Dr. Dorn from the play “The Seagull”, also from the outside looking in at what is happening: “People are boring "(13, 25). Charlotte's monologue, which opens the second act of the comedy, explicates this feature, which is realized, first of all, in the absolute absence of social markers of her image. Her age is unknown: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it still seems to me that I’m young” (13, 215). Her nationality is also unknown: “And when dad and mom died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me.” Nothing is also known about the origin and family tree of the character: “Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know” (13, 215). Charlotte’s profession also turns out to be random and unnecessary in the play, since the children in the comedy have formally grown up a long time ago.
All the other characters in “The Cherry Orchard,” as noted above, are included in one or another conventional time; it is no coincidence that the motive of memories or hope for the future becomes the main one for most of them: Firs and Petya Trofimov represent the two poles of this self-perception of the characters. That is why “everyone else” in the play feels like they are in some kind of virtual rather than real chronotope (cherry orchard, new garden, Paris, dachas). Charlotte finds herself outside of all these traditional ideas a person has about himself. Its time is fundamentally non-linear: it has no past, and therefore no future. She is forced to feel herself only now and only in this specific space, that is, in a real unconditional chronotope. Thus, we have before us the personification of the answer to the question of what a person is, modeled by Chekhov, if we consistently, layer by layer, remove absolutely all – both social and even physiological – parameters of his personality, free him from any determination by the surrounding world . In this case, Charlotte is left, firstly, with loneliness among other people with whom she does not and cannot coincide in space/time: “I really want to talk, and there is no one with whom... I have no one” (13, 215) . Secondly, absolute freedom from the conventions imposed on a person by society, subordination of behavior only to one’s own internal impulses:
“Lopakhin.<…>Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick!
Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me a trick!
Charlotte. No need. I want to sleep. (Leaves)" (13, 208-209).
The consequence of these two circumstances is the character’s absolute peace. There is not a single psychological note in the play that would mark the deviation of Charlotte’s emotions from absolute zero, while other characters can speak through tears, indignant, joyful, scared, reproachful, embarrassed, etc. And, finally, this character’s perception of the world finds its logical conclusion in a certain model of behavior - in free circulation, play, with reality familiar and unchanged for all other characters. This attitude towards the world is explicated by her famous tricks.
“I’m doing salto mortale (like Charlotte - T.I.) on your bed,” Chekhov writes to his wife, for whom climbing to the third floor without a “car” was already an insurmountable obstacle, “I stand upside down and, picking you up, turn over several times and, throwing you up to the ceiling, I pick you up and kiss you” (P 11, 33).

In the play we are interested in by A.P. Chekhov's system of images is represented by three main groups. Let us briefly consider each of them, after which we will dwell in detail on the image of Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This hero of "The Cherry Orchard" can be called the most striking character in the play.

Below is a photo of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, the great Russian playwright, creator of the work that interests us. The years of his life are 1860-1904. For more than a hundred years, various of his plays, especially The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters and The Seagull, have been staged in many theaters around the world.

People of the noble era

The first group of characters consists of people from the noble era, which is a thing of the past. This is Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and Leonid Andreevich Gaev, her brother. These people own a cherry orchard. They are not old at all in age. Gaev is only 51 years old, and his sister is probably 10 years younger than him. It can also be assumed that the image of Varya also belongs to this group. This is Ranevskaya's adopted daughter. This also includes the image of Firs, the old footman, who is, as it were, part of the house and all the passing life. This is, in general terms, the first group of characters. Of course, this is only a brief description of the heroes. "The Cherry Orchard" is a work in which each of these characters plays a role, and each of them is interesting in its own way.

The most important person

Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, the new owner of the cherry orchard and the entire estate, is very different from these heroes. He can be called the most active person in the work: he is energetic, active, moving steadily towards his intended goal, which is to buy a garden.

Young generation

The third group is represented by Anya, the daughter of Lyubov Andreevna, and Petya Trofimov, who is the former teacher of Ranevskaya’s son, who recently died. Without mentioning them, the characterization of the heroes would be incomplete. "The Cherry Orchard" is a play in which these characters are lovers. However, in addition to the feeling of love, they are also united by their aspiration away from dilapidated values ​​and all old life towards a wonderful future, which in Trofimov’s speeches is depicted as ethereal, although shining.

Relationships between the three groups of characters

In the play, these three groups are not opposed to each other, although they have different concepts and values. The main characters of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” despite all their differences in worldview, love each other, show sympathy, regret the failures of others, and are even ready to help. The main feature that separates them and determines their future life is their attitude towards the cherry orchard. In this case, it is not just part of the estate. This is a certain value, almost an animated face. During the main part of the action, the question of his fate is decided. Therefore, we can say that there is another hero of “The Cherry Orchard”, the suffering one and the most positive one. This is the cherry orchard itself.

The role of minor characters in the play "The Cherry Orchard"

The main characters were introduced in general terms. Let's say a few words about the other participants in the action taking place in the play. They are not just minor characters needed by the plot. These are companion images of the main characters of the work. Each of them carries a certain trait of the main character, but only in an exaggerated form.

Elaboration of characters

The different degrees of character development in the work “The Cherry Orchard” are striking. The main characters: Leonid Gaev, and especially Lyubov Ranevskaya - are given to us in the complexity of their experiences, the combination of sins and spiritual virtues, frivolity and kindness. Petya Trofimov and Anya are more outlined than depicted.

Lopakhin - the brightest hero of "The Cherry Orchard"

Let us dwell in more detail on the most striking character in the play, who stands apart. This hero of The Cherry Orchard is Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. According to Chekhov's description, he is a merchant. The author, in letters to Stanislavsky and Knipper, explains that Lopakhin is assigned a central role. He notes that this character is a gentle person, decent in every sense. He must behave intelligently, decently, not petty, without any tricks.

Why did the author believe that Lopakhin’s role in the work was central? Chekhov emphasized that he did not look like a typical merchant. Let's find out what are the motives for the actions of this character, who can be called the killer of the cherry orchard. After all, he was the one who knocked him out.

Peasant past

Ermolai Lopakhin does not forget that he is a man. One phrase was etched in his memory. It was uttered by Ranevskaya, consoling him, still a boy at that time, after Lopakhin was beaten by his father. Lyubov Andreevna said: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding.” Lopakhin cannot forget these words.

The hero we are interested in is tormented, on the one hand, by the awareness of his past, but on the other hand, he is proud that he managed to become one of the people. For his former owners, he is also a person who can become a benefactor and help them unravel a tangle of insoluble problems.

Lopakhin's attitude towards Ranevskaya and Gaev

Every now and then Lopakhin offers Gaev and Ranevskaya various rescue plans. He talks about the possibility of giving the land they own to plots for summer cottages, and cutting down the garden, since it is completely useless. Lopakhin is sincerely upset when he realizes that these heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard” do not perceive his reasonable words. He cannot comprehend how one can be so careless on the verge of one’s own death. Lopakhin directly says that he has never met such frivolous, strange, unbusinesslike people as Gaev and Ranevskaya (heroes of Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard). There is not a shadow of deceit in his desire to help them. Lopakhin is extremely sincere. Why does he want to help his former masters?

Perhaps because he remembers what Ranevskaya did for him. He tells her that he loves her like his own. Unfortunately, the good deeds of this heroine remain outside the play. However, one can guess that due to her nobility and gentle character, Ranevskaya respected Lopakhin and pitied him. In a word, she behaved like a real aristocrat - noble, cultured, kind, generous. Perhaps it is precisely the awareness of such an ideal of humanity, its inaccessibility, that forces this hero to commit such contradictory actions.

Ranevskaya and Lopakhin are the two centers in the work "The Cherry Orchard". The images of the heroes described by the author are very interesting. The plot develops in such a way that the interpersonal relationships between them are not the most important thing. What comes first is what Lopakhin does as if involuntarily, surprising himself.

How is Lopakhin's personality revealed at the end of the work?

The third action takes place in nervous tension. Everyone expects that Gaev will soon arrive from the auction and bring news about the further fate of the garden. The owners of the estate cannot hope for the best; they can only hope for a miracle...

Finally, the fateful news was announced: the garden was sold! Ranevskaya is struck as if by thunder by the answer to a completely meaningless and helpless question: “Who bought it?” Lopakhin exhales: “I bought it!” This action of Ermolai Alekseevich decides the future of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard. It seems that Raevskaya did not expect this from him. But it turns out that the estate and garden are Ermolai Alekseevich’s lifelong dream. Lopakhin could not do otherwise. In it, the merchant avenged the peasant and defeated the intellectual. Lopakhin seems to be in hysterics. He doesn’t believe in his own happiness and doesn’t notice Ranevskaya, who is heartbroken.

Everything happens according to his passionate desire, but against his will, because a minute later, noticing the unfortunate Ranevskaya, the merchant unexpectedly utters words that contradict his delight a minute earlier: “My poor, good one, you won’t bring me back now...” But the very next moment the former peasant and merchant in Lopakhino raise their heads and shout: “Music, play clearly!”

Petya Trofimov’s attitude towards Lopakhin

Petya Trofimov says about Lopakhin that he is needed “in the sense of metabolism,” like a predatory beast that eats what comes in its way. But suddenly Trofimov, who dreams of a just structure of society and assigns the role of exploiter to Yermolay Alekseevich, says in the fourth act that he loves him for his “subtle, gentle soul.” - a combination of predatory skills with a gentle soul.

The inconsistency of the character of Ermolai Alekseevich

He passionately craves purity, beauty, and is drawn to culture. In the work, Lopakhin is the only character appearing with a book in his hand. Although this hero falls asleep while reading it, other characters throughout the play do not hold books in their hands at all. However, the merchant's calculation, common sense, and earthly principles turn out to be stronger in him. Realizing that he is proud of his possession, Lopakhin is in a hurry to knock him out and arrange everything according to his own understanding of happiness.

Ermolai Alekseevich argues that the summer resident will multiply to an extraordinary extent in 20 years. For now he is just drinking tea on the balcony. But one day it may happen that he will start farming on his tithe. Then the cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev will become luxurious, rich, and happy. But Lopakhin is wrong about this. A summer resident is not the person who will preserve and multiply the beauty that he has inherited. Its purely practical, predatory. It excludes all impractical things, including culture. Therefore, Lopakhin decides to cut down the garden. This merchant, who has a “subtle soul,” does not realize the main thing: you cannot cut the roots of culture, memory, and beauty.

The meaning of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"

The intelligentsia from a serf, submissive, downtrodden slave created a talented, free, creatively active person. However, she herself was dying, and her creation was dying along with her, since without roots a person cannot exist. "The Cherry Orchard" is a drama about the loss of spiritual roots. This ensures it is up to date at all times.

The play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov shows the attitude of people to the events taking place at the turn of the era. This was the time when the capitalization of society and the death of Russian feudalism took place. Such transitions from one socio-economic formation to another are always accompanied by the death of the weak and the intensified struggle of various groups for survival. Lopakhin in the play is a representative of a new type of people. Gaev and Ranevskaya are characters of a dying era, who are no longer able to correspond to the changes taking place, to fit into them. Therefore they are doomed to failure.