The end of the nineteenth - the beginning of the twentieth - a time of change. At the turn of the century, people live on the eve. On the eve of what, few people understand. People of a new generation are already appearing, while people of the past continue to exist. A generational conflict arises. Turgenev already depicted something similar in his novel “Fathers and Sons.” For him, this is a vivid conflict, often resolved by disputes. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov took a different look at the problem. He has no external conflicts, but the reader feels a deep inner tragedy. Connections between generations are being broken, and, worst of all, they are being broken routinely. For the new generation, which Anya and Petya represent in the play, those values ​​no longer exist without which the life of the elder, that is, Ranevskaya, Gaev, makes no sense.
These values ​​in the play are personified by the cherry orchard. He is a symbol of the past, over which the ax has already been raised. The life of Lyubov Andreevna and her brother cannot exist separately from the cherry orchard, but at the same time they cannot do anything to preserve it. Ranevskaya is simply running away from her problems. After the death of her son, she leaves everything for Paris. After breaking up with her lover, she returns to Russia again, but, having discovered insoluble problems in her homeland, she again wants to flee to France. Gaev is strong only in words. He talks about the rich aunt, about many other things, but in reality he understands that many recipes are offered only with incurable disease. Their time has already passed, and the time has come for those for whom beauty lies only in usefulness.
This was Lopakhin. They talk about him in different ways: sometimes he is a “predator”, sometimes he is “thin and gentle soul" It combines the incompatible. A person who loves Lyubov Andreevna, sympathizes with her with all his soul, does not understand the charm of the cherry orchard. He offers to rent out the estate, divide it into dachas,
not realizing that this would be the end of not only the cherry orchard, but also its owners. Two opposites fought in this man, but in the end the rationalistic grain won. He cannot contain his joy that he, a former slave, becomes the owner of a cherry orchard. He begins to knock him out without any regret. Lopakhin overcame his love for Ranevskaya; he did not have the courage to marry Vara.
Varya, Ranevskaya's adopted daughter, was essentially the mistress of the cherry orchard during her mother's long absences. She has the keys to the estate. But she, who in principle could become a mistress, does not want to live in this world. She dreams of monasticism and wanderings.
Anya could be considered the actual heir of Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev. But, unfortunately, she is not. Anya and Petya personify the future. He is an “eternal student”, reminiscent of Gaev with his philosophical speeches; she is an educated girl, his bride. Anya is greatly influenced by Petya’s speeches. He tells her that the cherry orchard is in the blood, that it should be hated, not loved. She agrees with Petya in everything and admires his intelligence. And what a terrible outcome sounds like Anya’s question: “Why don’t I love the cherry orchard anymore?” Anya, Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev - all of them, in essence, betray their garden, a garden that they have tamed, but for which they are not able to stand up. The tragedy of the older generation is its inability to protect its past. The tragedy of the present and future generations is their inability to appreciate and understand the values ​​of the past. After all, it’s impossible for an ax to become a symbol of an entire generation. In the play, Chekhov described three generations and revealed to the reader the tragedy of each of them. These problems are also relevant in our time. And at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, Chekhov’s work acquires the connotation of a certain warning.

Essay on literature.

Here it is - an 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 - central image, uniting heroes 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 income summer cottages, 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 of the future have a wonderful life. And it seems that it was not Trofimov, no, it was Chekhov who took the 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!”

Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy

Before Anton Chekhov, Russian theater was going through a crisis; it was he who made an invaluable contribution to its development, breathing new life into it. The playwright snatched small sketches from Everyday life their heroes, bringing dramaturgy closer to reality. His plays made the viewer think, although they did not contain intrigues or open conflicts, but they reflected the internal anxiety of a turning point in history, when society froze in anticipation of imminent changes, and all social strata became heroes. The apparent simplicity of the plot introduced the stories of the characters before the events described, making it possible to speculate what would happen to them after. In this way, the past, present, and future were mixed in an amazing way in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” by connecting people not so much from different generations, but different eras. And one of the “undercurrents” characteristic of Chekhov’s plays was the author’s reflection on the fate of Russia, and the theme of the future took center stage in “The Cherry Orchard.”

Past, present and future on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”

So how did the past, present and future meet on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”? Chekhov seemed to divide all the heroes into these three categories, depicting them very vividly.

The past in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is represented by Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs - the oldest character in the entire performance. They are the ones who talk most about what happened; for them, the past is a time in which everything was easy and wonderful. There were masters and servants, each had their own place and purpose. For Firs, the abolition of serfdom became the greatest grief; he did not want freedom, remaining on the estate. He sincerely loved the family of Ranevskaya and Gaev, remaining devoted to them until the very end. For aristocrats Lyubov Andreevna and her brother, the past is a time when they did not need to think about such base things as money. They enjoyed life, doing what brings pleasure, knowing how to appreciate the beauty of intangible things - it is difficult for them to adapt to the new order, in which highly moral values ​​are replaced by material values. For them, it is humiliating to talk about money, about ways to earn it, and Lopakhin’s real proposal to rent out land occupied by an essentially worthless garden is perceived as vulgarity. Unable to make decisions about the future of the cherry orchard, they succumb to the flow of life and simply float along it. Ranevskaya, with her aunt’s money sent for Anya, leaves for Paris, and Gaev goes to work in a bank. The death of Firs at the end of the play is very symbolic, as if saying that the aristocracy as a social class has outlived its usefulness, and there is no place for it, in the form in which it was before the abolition of serfdom.

Lopakhin became a representative of the present in the play “The Cherry Orchard”. “A man is a man,” as he says about himself, a thinking in a new way who knows how to make money using his mind and instincts. Petya Trofimov even compares him to a predator, but a predator with a subtle artistic nature. And this brings Lopakhin a lot of emotional distress. He is well aware of the beauty of the old cherry orchard, which will be cut down according to his will, but he cannot do otherwise. His ancestors were serfs, his father owned a shop, and he became a “white farmer”, amassing a considerable fortune. Chekhov placed special emphasis on the character of Lopakhin, because he was not a typical merchant, whom many treated with disdain. He made himself, paving the way with his work and desire to be better than his ancestors, not only in terms of financial independence, but also in education. In many ways, Chekhov identified himself with Lopakhin, because their pedigrees are similar.

Anya and Petya Trofimov personify the future. They are young, full of strength and energy. And most importantly, they have a desire to change their lives. But, it’s just that Petya is a master at talking and reasoning about a wonderful and fair future, but he doesn’t know how to turn his speeches into action. This is what prevents him from graduating from university or at least somehow organizing his life. Petya denies all attachments - be it to a place or another person. He captivates the naive Anya with his ideas, but she already has a plan for how to arrange her life. She is inspired and ready to “plant a new garden, even more beautiful than the previous one.” However, the future in Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is very uncertain and vague. In addition to the educated Anya and Petya, there are also Yasha and Dunyasha, and they, too, are the future. Moreover, if Dunyasha is just a stupid peasant girl, then Yasha is a completely different type. The Gaevs and Ranevskys are being replaced by the Lopakhins, but someone will also have to replace the Lopakhins. If you remember history, then 13 years after this play was written, it was precisely these Yashas who came to power - unprincipled, empty and cruel, not attached to anyone or anything.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the heroes of the past, present and future were gathered in one place, but they were not united by an internal desire to be together and exchange their dreams, desires, and experiences. Old Garden and the house holds them, and as soon as they disappear, the connection between the heroes and the time they reflect is severed.

Connection of times today

Only the greatest creations are able to reflect reality even many years after their creation. This happened with the play “The Cherry Orchard”. History is cyclical, society develops and changes, moral and ethical standards are also subject to rethinking. Human life is not possible without memory of the past, inaction in the present, and without faith in the future. One generation is replaced by another, some build, others destroy. This is how it was in Chekhov’s time, and this is how it is now. The playwright was right when he said that “All of Russia is our garden,” and it depends only on us whether it will bloom and bear fruit, or whether it will be cut down at the very root.

The author's discussions about the past, present and future in comedy, about people and generations, about Russia make us think even today. These thoughts will be useful for 10th graders when writing an essay on the topic “Past, present, future in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.”

Work test

The play “The Cherry Orchard,” the last dramatic work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, can be considered a kind of testament of the writer, which reflected Chekhov’s cherished thoughts, his thoughts about the past, present and future of Russia.

The plot of the play is based on the history of a noble estate. As a result of the changes taking place in Russian society, the former owners of the estate are forced to give way to new ones. This plot outline is very symbolic; it reflects important stages in the socio-historical development of Russia. The destinies of Chekhov's characters turn out to be connected with the cherry orchard, in the image of which the past, present and future intersect. The characters remember the past of the estate, about those times when the cherry orchard, cultivated by serfs, still generated income. This period coincided with the childhood and youth of Ranevskaya and Gaev, and they remember these happy, carefree years with involuntary nostalgia. But serfdom canceled long ago, the estate is gradually falling into disrepair, the cherry orchard is no longer profitable. The time of telegraphs is coming and railways, the era of business people and entrepreneurs.

The representative of this new formation in Chekhov's play is Lopakhin, who comes from the Ranevskaya family of former serfs. His memories of the past are of a completely different nature; his ancestors were slaves on the very estate of which he now becomes the owner.

Conversations, memories, disputes, conflicts - all the external action of Chekhov's play is centered around the fate of the estate and the cherry orchard. Immediately after Ranevskaya’s arrival, conversations begin about how the mortgaged and remortgaged estate can be saved from auction. As the play progresses, this problem will become increasingly acute.

But, as is most often the case with Chekhov, there is no real struggle, no real clash between the former and future owners of the cherry orchard in the play. Just the opposite. Lopakhin is doing everything possible to help Ranevskaya save the estate from sale, but a complete lack of business skills prevents the hapless owners of the estate from taking advantage of useful tips; they are enough only for complaints and empty rantings. It is not the struggle between the emerging bourgeoisie and the nobility that is giving way to it that interests Chekhov; the fate of specific people, the fate of all of Russia, is much more important to him.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are doomed to lose the estate that is so dear to them and with which it is connected

so many memories, and the reason for this is not only their inability to heed practical advice Lopakhina. The time is coming to pay old bills, but the debt of their ancestors, the debt of their family, the historical guilt of their entire class has not yet been atoned for. The present stems from the past, their connection is obvious, it’s not for nothing that Lyubov Andreevna dreams of her late mother in a white dress in a blooming garden. This reminds us of the past itself. It is very symbolic that Ranevskaya and Gaev, whose fathers and grandfathers did not allow those at whose expense they fed and lived, even into the kitchen, are now entirely dependent on Lopakhin, who has become rich. In this Chekhov sees retribution and shows that the lordly way of life, although it is covered in a poetic haze of beauty, corrupts people, destroys the souls of those who are involved in it. This is, for example, Firs. For him, the abolition of serfdom is a terrible misfortune, as a result of which he, useless and forgotten by everyone, will be left alone in an empty house... The same lordly way of life gave birth to the footman Yasha. He no longer has the devotion to masters that distinguishes old man Firs, but without a twinge of conscience he enjoys all the benefits and conveniences that he can derive from his life under the wing of the kindest Ranevskaya.

Lopakhin is a man of a different type and a different formation. He is businesslike, has a strong grip and firmly knows what and how to do today. It is he who gives specific advice on how to save the estate. However, being a businesslike and practical person, and differing favorably from Ranevskaya and Gaev, Lopakhin is completely devoid of spirituality and the ability to perceive beauty. The magnificent cherry orchard is interesting to him only as an investment, it is remarkable only because it is “very large”; and based on purely practical considerations, Lopakhin proposes to cut it down in order to rent out the land for summer cottages - this is more profitable. Disregarding the feelings of Ranevskaya and Gaev (not out of malice, no, but simply because of a lack of spiritual subtlety), he orders the garden to begin to be cut down, without waiting for the former owners to leave.

It is noteworthy that in Chekhov's play there is not a single happy person. Ranevskaya, who came from Paris to repent of her sins and find peace in the family estate, is forced to return back with old sins and problems, since the estate is being auctioned off and the garden is being cut down. The faithful servant Firs is buried alive in a boarded-up house, where he served all his life. Charlotte's future is unknown; years pass without bringing joy, and dreams of love and motherhood are never realized. Varya, who did not wait for Lopakhin’s offer, is hired by some Ragulins. Perhaps Gaev's fate turns out a little better - he gets a place in the bank, but it is unlikely that he will become a successful financier.

The cherry orchard, in which the past and present intersect so intricately, is also associated with thoughts about the future.

Tomorrow, which, according to Chekhov, should be better than the day of today, are personified in the play by Anya and Petya Trofimov. True, Petya, this thirty-year-old “eternal student”, is hardly capable of real deeds and actions; he only knows how to talk a lot and beautifully. Another thing is Anya. Realizing the beauty of the cherry orchard, she at the same time understands that the garden is doomed, just as her past slave life is doomed, just as the present, full of unspiritual practicality, is doomed. But in the future, Anya is sure, there must be a triumph of justice and beauty. In her words: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this,” there is not only a desire to console her mother, but also an attempt to imagine a new, future life. Inheriting Ranevskaya’s spiritual sensitivity and sensitivity to beauty, Anya is at the same time full of a sincere desire to change and remake life. She is focused on the future, ready to work and even sacrifice in its name; she dreams of a time when the whole way of life will change, when it will turn into a blooming garden, giving people joy and happiness.

How to arrange such a life? Chekhov does not give recipes for this. Yes, they cannot exist, because it is important that every person, having experienced dissatisfaction with what is, is fired up with a dream of beauty, so that he himself seeks the path to a new life.

“All of Russia is our garden” - these significant words are heard repeatedly in the play, turning the story of the ruin of the estate and the death of the garden into a capacious symbol. The play is full of thoughts about life, its values, real and imaginary, about the responsibility of each person for the world in which he lives and in which his descendants will live.

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 still sees the noble estate primarily as 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 in order 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 art gallery in Moscow, the merchant son Alekseev, who took the stage name Stanislavsky, brought to 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, and 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 approach. 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 much of a klutz to be afraid of. 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 Chekhov did not like certainty and, therefore, incompleteness of coverage life phenomenon with all its complexities, we should carefully answer: all at once. The theater will have the last word on this issue.