The theme of the passing past in the play The Cherry Orchard. The past, present and future of Russia in Anton Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard

One of the most unique and interesting creations of Anton Pavlovich, in which he combined three periods of his life, is the play “The Cherry Orchard”. In this work, the author connected the past, present and future. The actions of the work show how the merchants are replacing the nobility. The past is represented by such characters as Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs. Very often their memories are of old times, when there were no worries and they did not worry about money. For them, something more sublime than money and material wealth was more important.

Ranevskaya could not even imagine that she would have to cut down the entire garden or sell it; for her this was unacceptable. After all, it was the cherry orchard that was memories of the past and her life.

Gaev was no less worried, every little thing was important to him. The author focuses on how Gaev turns to the old closet with tears. Firs, in turn, did not need the abolition of serfdom. He loved the family of Raevskaya and Gaev very much, whom he served and treated with respect. He was satisfied with the order that existed earlier, like other representatives of that time.

Lopakhin is one of those representatives for whom money is important, it was of great importance to him. He was born and raised in a simple family. His father was a simple shopkeeper. But this did not stop him from achieving great success and through his own efforts he amassed a huge fortune for himself. Like many others, the Cherry Orchard was just a source of material gain and nothing more.

Ermolai helps Ranevskaya get rid of her deplorable condition. Thanks to his intelligence and resourcefulness, he was able to create a huge project. For this generation, material gain was important. But this is not a reason to avoid the present that was overtaking them.

A.P. Chekhov shows how changeable and vague the future can be. The author attributes to this generation such characters as Anna, Varya, Peter, Dunya the maid and Yashka the footman. But despite the fact that the representatives of the past generation were similar in many ways, the coming generation was completely different. All these heroes were full vital energy and ideas. But many of them were only capable of eloquent words, which in fact could not change the present. One of these characters was Petya. In fact, he does nothing to change the future. Although he tells Anya that they are two hundred years behind in development. Of course, Anna was fascinated by Petya’s words and ideas, but this does not stop her from going her own way and arranging her own life.

It was in this unique work “The Cherry Orchard” that all 3 generations of the past, present and future were united.

Option 2

Chekhov's dramaturgy is deep and full of figurative personifications. Due to them, the author tried to show in his work the past, present and future in comparison. To do this, he conditionally divided all the heroes of the work into three corresponding camps.

The heroes of the past tense appear first before the reader: Ranevskaya, Gaev, servant Firs. Their conversations are full of nostalgia for the past; they speak with tenderness and joy about past times. For each of them, old things and household items, which are silent witnesses, play an important role. days gone by. At the very beginning of the play, the reader learns about a room called the “Children’s Room”, a hundred-year-old wardrobe and, of course, the cherry orchard - the main character of the play.

Gaev and Ranevskaya are typical representatives of the Russian aristocracy. This shows in their speech, mannerisms and lifestyle. They are used to living large, not counting their own expenses, receiving numerous guests on the estate, organizing holidays and celebrations. Even in better times their cash expenses remain unchanged, especially since you can always write a letter to a rich relative and ask for more money for current expenses. Ranevskaya can’t bear to hear about the need to cut down the cherry orchard and rent out plots of land for dachas. In her opinion, it is impossible to remain without a garden, not because there is any benefit from it, but because every tree in it reminds her of a happy time from the distant past.

Firs is a hereditary servant of the family, deeply old man. For him, the meaning of life lies in serving the masters. His care and love for them is boundless, he takes care of Ranevskaya and Gaev like small helpless children. But in fact, they are completely unsuited to practical life; they do not want to acknowledge the coming changes. Firs's busywork looks like an eccentricity, but he himself is convinced that his life's purpose lies only in caring for the masters.

The heroes of the present time in the work are represented by Lopakhin. According to the author, it is precisely such people who should “create” the present. They are active, purposeful, intelligent. They have no illusions that problems in life should be solved on their own. Lopakhin's fate is an example of how a man himself achieves everything in his life, without relying on his father's inheritance.

The future in the finale of the work is indicated very vaguely. Who will be his heroes? The author shows Petya and Anya as people of new times. However, the young man is also not well adapted to life; he is more occupied with endless thoughts about changes and dreams of a bright future. Anya is captivated by Petya’s ideas, she is ready to take action - to plant a new cherry orchard “even more beautiful than the previous one.”

Essay 3

When a writer creates his own work, he draws on the current situation or past experience, and can also extend his gaze to the future. In general, a rather banal phrase, however, this fact should be noted.

What the author will concentrate his attention on depends on his creative and ideological orientation. For example, Chekhov’s contemporary Bryusov, as is known, instructed his poet followers “not to live in the present,” because “only the future is the domain of the poet.” There were also those who were guided by the high ideals of antiquity or other previous eras.

In my opinion, Chekhov did not make separate accents and in fact wrote about the eternal and timeless. This fact is easily confirmed when you read his play. I was simply amazed how accurately some dialogues and phrases describe and current state not only affairs, but also human souls, in particular those who found their bodies in Russia.

Of course, in this sense, Chekhov, so to speak, is not new. He does his job, he simply does it efficiently and it’s easy to remember the same Saltykov-Shchedrin with his “drink and steal”, a bit of a lengthy forecast, but accurate, just like about “fools and roads”, which in the current situation are manifested surprisingly clearly and talk here there is no need to talk about the extensiveness of the forecast even with its globality and generalization.

Chinese wisdom considers the era of change to be a rather negative situation. For Russia, the previous one and a half hundred years for the most part seem to be an era of change, which is diluted by apathetic periods of stagnation. Here Chekhov found himself in a period that could be more than interesting for a writer.

No matter how the reforms of previous times were and how rich history may seem, through the prism of the Cherry Orchard we see quite obvious time layers that appear as: a long and stable patriarchal past, stable and large-scale; a shaky present with outdated landowners and nobles; the tragic and sad future that will change the country will lead to shredding and vulgarity.

Triumph little man, which Chekhov sees through the transformation of gardens into summer cottages, really took place. Moreover, the author quite rightly pointed out the overall lack of meaning in this transformation. Has the person who settled the dacha plots in that garden, where previously he could only come to work, changed? It’s a rhetorical question, and, in fact, he also works in this garden, only now fruit trees don’t always grow there, but more often it just smells like manure and a chanson sounds mixed with empty chatter and swearing.

Of course, Anton Pavlovich, being like any reasonable creative person, as if above the situation, I saw where Russia was heading. Of course, not all the nobles whom he so criticizes in the person of the weak-willed Ranevskaya and Gaev will turn out to be helpless, someone will become part of the white movement and not only in words, but also in deeds will prove their intention to fight for the ideals and, in fact, the preservation of the homeland, the safety of something valuable. Nevertheless, many of these people will not understand, even the Lopakhins, just as in the end they do not even understand themselves.

The play “The Cherry Orchard” was published at the very beginning of the 20th century and is a kind of final work by A.P. Chekhov. In this work, he most clearly expressed his thoughts about the past, present and future of Russia. He was able to masterfully show the real situation in society on the eve of the first revolution and the changes that took place in the country. As one famous critic said, the main character of the play, in fact, is time. Almost everything depends on him. Throughout the entire work, the author focuses on the transience and mercilessness of time.

The action of the play “The Cherry Orchard” develops on the family estate of former nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev. The plot of the comedy is related to the sale of this estate for the debts of the owners. And along with it, a wonderful blooming garden will go under the hammer, which is the personification of beauty and the desire for better life. The play intertwines the lives of the past and present generations. The main characters, the owners of the estate, belong to the old days. They were never able to get used to the new life after the abolition of serfdom. Ranevskaya and Gaev live one day at a time. For them, time has stopped. They don't understand that if they don't act, they will lose everything.

Ranevskaya also loves to waste money on everything, despite the fact that she has almost no money left. And to the merchant Lopakhin’s proposal to turn the garden into summer cottages and make money on it so as not to lose the estate, both Ranevska and Gaev respond negatively. As a result, they lose both their garden and their estate. In this act one can see carelessness, lack of practicality and unwillingness of the owners to make any efforts. However, another driving force was their heightened sense of beauty. They simply could not cut down the garden, in which every leaf was a reminder of a happy childhood.

New times are represented by young characters. First of all, this is the businesslike merchant Lopakhin, who himself grew up under the tutelage of Ranevskaya. His ancestors wore “muzhiks” for the owners of the estate. And now he has become rich and bought the estate himself. In the person of Ermolai Lopakhin, the author depicted the emerging bourgeoisie, which replaced the nobility. With his hard work, practicality, ingenuity and enterprise, he managed to firmly establish himself in modern society.

In addition to Lopakhin, the new generation is represented by Petya Trofimov and Anya - people who want to work for the good of society in order to atone for the sins of inactive ancestors. Petya Trofimov is twenty-six or twenty-seven years old, and he is still studying. He was nicknamed "the eternal student." This character demonstrates a keen sense of justice, philosophizes a lot about how things should be, but acts little. He scolds the nobility for idleness and sees the future behind the bourgeoisie. Petya encourages Anya to follow him, as he is confident in a happy future. Although he calls for work, he himself is not capable of creation.

The future of Russia remains uncertain in Chekhov's play. He does not give a specific answer to who the future belongs to and what will happen next. It is only clear that the writer sincerely hoped that the coming century would be fruitful, and that people would finally appear capable of growing a new cherry orchard, as a symbol of the eternal renewal of life.

Chekhov gave his last play the subtitle “comedy.” But in the first production of the Moscow Art Theater, during the author’s lifetime, the play appeared as a heavy drama, even a tragedy. Who is right? It must be kept in mind that drama is literary work, designed for stage life. Only on stage will drama acquire a full-fledged existence, will reveal all the meanings inherent in it, including gaining genre definition, so the last word in answering the question posed will belong to the theater, directors and actors. At the same time, it is known that the innovative principles of Chekhov the playwright were perceived and assimilated by theaters with difficulty and not immediately.

Although the Moscow Art Theater, sanctified by the authority of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, the traditional interpretation of “The Cherry Orchard” as a dramatic elegy was entrenched in the practice of domestic theaters, Chekhov managed to express dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with “his” theater with their interpretation.

“The Cherry Orchard” is the farewell of the now former owners to their ancestral noble nest. This topic has been repeatedly raised in Russian literature. half of the 19th century centuries both tragically-dramatically and comically. What are the features of Chekhov's embodiment of this theme?

In many ways, it is determined by Chekhov’s attitude towards the nobility, which is disappearing into social oblivion and the capital that is replacing it, which manifested itself in the images of Ranevskaya and Lopakhin. In both classes and their interaction, Chekhov saw the continuity of bearers of Russian culture. Noble nest for Chekhov, first of all, it is a center of culture. Of course, this is also a museum of serfdom, and this is mentioned in the play, but the playwright sees in noble estate After all, it is first and foremost a historical place. Ranevskaya is his mistress, the soul of the house. That is why, despite all her frivolity and vices, people are drawn to her. The mistress returned, and the house came to life; the former inhabitants, who had apparently left it forever, began to flock into it.

Lopakhin matches her. This is a poetic nature, he has, as Petya Trofimov says, “thin, gentle fingers, like an artist... a subtle, gentle soul.” And in Ranevskaya he feels the same kindred spirit. The vulgarity of life comes at him from all sides, he acquires the features of a rakish merchant, begins to boast of his democratic origins and flaunt his lack of culture (and this was considered prestigious in the “advanced circles” of that time), but he is also waiting for Ranevskaya to cleanse himself and be reborn around her. This portrayal of a capitalist was based on real facts, because many Russian merchants and capitalists helped Russian art. Mamontov, Morozov, Zimin maintained theaters, the Tretyakov brothers founded an art gallery in Moscow, the merchant son Alekseev, who took the stage name Stanislavsky, brought to the Art Theater not only creative ideas, but also his father’s wealth, and quite a lot.

Lopakhin is exactly like that. That is why his marriage to Vara did not work out; they are not a match for each other: the subtle, poetic nature of a rich merchant and the down-to-earth, everyday, everyday adopted daughter of Ranevskaya, completely immersed in the everyday life of life. And now comes another socio-historical turning point in Russian life. The nobles are thrown out of life, their place is taken by the bourgeoisie. How do the owners of the cherry orchard behave? In theory, you need to save yourself and the garden. How? To be socially reborn, to also become a bourgeois, which is what Lopakhin proposes. But for Gaev and Ranevskaya this means changing themselves, their habits, tastes, ideals, life values. And so they silently reject the offer and fearlessly go towards their social and life collapse.

In this regard, the figure of a minor character, Charlotte Ivanovna, carries deep meaning. At the beginning of the second act, she says about herself: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am... where I come from and who I am, I don’t know... Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... not I know. I want to talk so much, but with whom... I don’t have anyone... I’m all alone, alone, I don’t have anyone and... and who I am, why I am, is unknown.” Charlotte personifies the future of Ranevskaya - all this will soon await the owner of the estate. But both of them, in different ways, of course, show amazing courage and even maintain good spirits in others, because for all the characters in the play, with the death of the cherry orchard, one life will end, and whether there will be another is unknown.

The former owners and their entourage (that is, Ranevskaya, Varya, Gaev, Pischik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs) behave funny, and in the light of the social oblivion approaching them, stupid and unreasonable. They pretend that everything is going on as before, nothing has changed and will not change. This is deception, self-deception and mutual deception. But this is the only way they can resist the inevitability of inevitable fate. Lopakhin sincerely grieves, he does not see class enemies in Ranevskaya and even in Gaev, who bullies him, for him these are dear, dear people.

The universal, humanistic approach to man dominates in the play over the class-class one. The struggle in Lopakhin’s soul is especially strong, as can be seen from his final monologue of the third act.

How are young people behaving at this time? Badly! Due to her young age, Anya has the most uncertain and at the same time rosy idea about the future awaiting her. She is delighted with Petya Trofimov’s chatter. The latter, although 26 or 27 years old, is considered young and seems to have turned his youth into a profession. There is no other way to explain his immaturity and, most surprisingly, the general recognition he enjoys. Ranevskaya cruelly but rightly scolded him, and in response he fell down the stairs. Only Anya believes his beautiful speeches, but her youth excuses her.

Much more than what he says, Petya characterizes his galoshes, “dirty, old.”

But for us, who know about the bloody social cataclysms that shook Russia in the 20th century and began literally immediately after the applause died down at the play’s premiere and its creator died, Petya’s words, his dreams of a new life, Anya’s desire to plant another garden - we are all this should lead to more serious conclusions about the essence of Petit’s image. Chekhov was always indifferent to politics; both the revolutionary movement and the fight against it passed him by. Stupid girl Anya believes these words. Other characters chuckle and sneer: this Petya is too big of a klutz to be afraid of him. And it was not he who cut down the garden, but a merchant who wanted to build summer cottages on this site. Chekhov did not live to see the other dachas built in the vast expanses of his and our long-suffering homeland by the successors of Petya Trofimov’s work. Fortunately, most of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” did not have to “live in this wonderful time.”

Chekhov is characterized by an objective manner of narration; in his prose the author’s voice is not heard. It is generally impossible to hear it in drama. And yet, is “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy, drama or tragedy? Knowing how much Chekhov did not like certainty and, therefore, incomplete coverage of a life phenomenon with all its complexities, one should carefully answer: everything at once. Last word The theater will still have a say in this matter.

Past, present and future in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"

I. Introduction

“The Cherry Orchard” was written in 1903, in an era that was in many ways a turning point for Russia, when the crisis of the old order had already become apparent, and the future had not yet been determined.

II. Main part

1. The past is represented in the play by characters of the older generation: Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs, but other characters in the play also talk about the past. It is associated primarily with the nobility, which by the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century was experiencing a clear decline. The past is ambiguous. On the one hand, it was a time of serfdom, social injustice, etc., which, for example, Lopakhin and Petya Trofimov talk about. On the other hand, the past seems to be a happy time not only for Ranevskaya and Gaev, but also, in particular, for Firs, who perceives “will” as misfortune. There was a lot of good things in the past: goodness, order, and most importantly - beauty, personified in the image of a cherry orchard.

2. The present in Russia is vague, transitional, and unstable. This is how it appears in Chekhov’s play. The main exponent of the present is Lopakhin, but we should not forget about other heroes (Epikhodov, lackey Yasha, Varya). The image of Lopakhin is very contradictory. On the one hand, he, a merchant who emerged from the former serfs, is the master of the present; It is no coincidence that he gets the cherry orchard. This constitutes his pride: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai /.../ bought an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world /.../ bought an estate where his father and grandfather were slaves.” But, on the other hand, Lopakhin is unhappy. He is a subtle person by nature, he understands that he is ruining beauty, but he cannot live otherwise. The feeling of his own inferiority is especially evident in his monologue at the end of the third act: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”

3. The future in the play is completely vague and uncertain. It would seem that it belongs to the younger generation - Trofimov and Anya. It is they, especially Trofimov, who speak passionately about the future, which seems to them, of course, wonderful. But Anya is still just a girl, and how her life will turn out, what her future will be, is completely unclear. There are serious doubts that Trofimov will be able to build the happy future he is talking about. First of all, because he does absolutely nothing, but only talks. When it is necessary to demonstrate the ability to perform at least minimal practical action (comfort Ranevskaya, take care of Firs), he turns out to be incompetent. But the main thing is the attitude towards key image plays, to the cherry orchard. Petya is indifferent to its beauty, he urges Anya not to regret the cherry orchard, to forget about the past altogether. “We will plant a new garden,” says Trofimov, and that means let this one die. This attitude towards the past does not allow us to seriously hope for the future.

III. Conclusion

Chekhov himself believed that the future of his country would be better than its past and present. But in what ways this future will be achieved, who will build it and at what cost - the writer did not give specific answers to these questions.

Searched here:

• past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard
• past present and future in the play The Cherry Orchard
• past present and future in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard essay

Essay on literature.

Here she is - open secret, the secret of poetry, life, love!
I. S. Turgenev.

The play "The Cherry Orchard", written in 1903, - last piece Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, completing it creative biography. In it, the author raises a number of problems characteristic of Russian literature: the problems of fathers and children, love and suffering. All this is united in the theme of the past, present and future of Russia.

The Cherry Orchard is the central image that unites the characters in time and space. For the landowner Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev, the garden is a family nest, an integral part of their memories. It’s as if they have grown together with this garden; without it they “don’t understand their life.” To save the estate, decisive action is needed, a change in lifestyle - otherwise the magnificent garden will go under the hammer. But Ranevskaya and Gaev are unaccustomed to all activities, impractical to the point of stupidity, unable to even seriously think about the impending threat. They betray the idea of ​​the cherry orchard. For landowners, he is a symbol of the past. Firs, Ranevskaya’s old servant, also remains in the past. He considers the abolition of serfdom a misfortune, and is attached to his former masters as to his own children. But those whom he devotedly served all his life abandon him to his fate. Forgotten and abandoned, Firs remains a monument to the past in a boarded-up house.

Currently represented by Ermolai Lopakhin. His father and grandfather were serfs of Ranevskaya, and he himself became a successful merchant. Lopakhin looks at the garden from the point of view of the “circulation of the matter.” He sympathizes with Ranevskaya, but the cherry orchard itself is doomed to death in the plans of a practical entrepreneur. It is Lopakhin who brings the agony of the garden to its logical conclusion. The estate is divided into profitable dacha plots, and “you can only hear how far away in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

The future is personified by the younger generation: Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. Trofimov is a student working hard to make his way into life. His life is not easy. When winter comes, he is “hungry, sick, anxious, poor.” Petya is smart and honest, understands the difficult situation the people live in, and believes in a bright future. “All of Russia is our garden!” - he exclaims.

Chekhov puts Petya in ridiculous situations, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic. Trofimov is a “shabby gentleman”, an “eternal student”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with ironic remarks. But the student’s thoughts and dreams are close to the author’s. The writer, as it were, separates the word from its “carrier”: the significance of what is spoken does not always coincide with the social significance of the “carrier”.

Anya is seventeen years old. For Chekhov, youth is not only a sign of age. He wrote: “...that youth can be considered healthy, which does not put up with the old orders and... fights against them.” Anya received the usual upbringing for nobles. Trofimov had a great influence on the formation of her views. The girl’s character contains sincerity of feelings and mood, spontaneity. Anya is ready to start new life: pass exams for the gymnasium course and break ties with the past.

In the images of Anya Ranevskaya and Petya Trofimov, the author embodied all the best features inherent in the new generation. It is with their lives that Chekhov connects the future of Russia. They express the ideas and thoughts of the author himself. The sound of an ax is heard in the cherry orchard, but young people believe that the next generations will plant new orchards, more beautiful than the previous ones. The presence of these heroes enhances and strengthens the notes of vivacity that sound in the play, the motives for a future wonderful life. And it seems - not Trofimov, no, it was Chekhov who came on stage. “Here it is, happiness, here it comes, coming closer and closer... And if we don’t see it, don’t know it, then what’s the harm? Others will see him!”