The cherry orchard is the main problem. Cherry orchard problems

The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written by A.P. Chekhov in 1903, at the junction of eras, when the expectation of major and decisive changes was felt in all classes in Russia. And in his last work, A.P. Chekhov reflects on the fate of Russia, its future. “The Cherry Orchard” is called the writer’s swan song, and in this work his innovation was especially fully demonstrated.

This play has a rather simple plot, since the whole action revolves around the problem of who will get the cherry orchard. The characters of the play are united precisely by this image - the symbol of the garden, which is a kind of embodiment of their past, present or future life. As the plot develops, the character of the characters in the play is gradually revealed, and this leisurely, unhurried nature allows the author to show the inner conflict of the human soul.

The play takes place on the estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. The social conflict of the play is the conflict between the departing nobility and the bourgeoisie that replaced it. Another plot line is socio-romantic. A.P. Chekhov himself says through the lips of his heroes: “All of Russia is our garden.” But Anya and Petya Trofimov’s dream is shattered by Lopakhin’s practicality, by whose will the cherry orchard is cut down. The nobility, which was accustomed to living idlely, spending, but not making money, was unable to adapt to the new conditions after the abolition of serfdom. And Ranevskaya’s estate was mortgaged and remortgaged; she “lost” her fortune long ago, but due to habit she cannot change her wasteful lifestyle. Ranevskaya does not understand that the coming time requires constant efforts from her, but Lyubov Andreevna lives with emotions, memories of the past, she is confused, broken by everything that is happening and most likely is simply afraid to think about the present. But she is just a woman, spoiled by many years of idle life, and she can be understood, but her brother Gaev is a mixture of stupid conceit and complete insignificance in everything. An important detail in describing Gaev’s character is that at his age his old lackey Firs continues to put on his pants. Gaev declares that he “ate away all his fortune on candy,” he makes long speeches, and this is just a parody of a cultured and educated person. In Russian classical literature, Gaev became the final stage in the gallery of “extra people.”

Lopakhin, a “beast of prey,” according to Petya Trofimov’s definition, becomes a clear contrast to the owners of the cherry orchard. Lopakhin's energy and economic determination are contrasted with the carelessness and impracticality of the old owners of the cherry orchard. He is a descendant of serfs, those “whose faces look out from every cherry tree in the garden,” and therefore he passes by buying an estate. Petya Trofimov says about Lopakhin: “Just as in the sense of metabolism a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that comes in its way, so you are needed.”

Ranevskaya’s tears shock Lopakhin, he understands that not everything can be bought and sold, but the practicality of the “man” wins over him. His soul will sooner or later harden, because the “businessman” in him will always prevail.

The heroes see their future differently. Ranevskaya believes that her life is over. Anya and Petya see this as a chance to start a new life and grow their own garden. The cherry orchard has become a vivid symbol of the past, and with it go both Ranevskaya and old Firs, who is forgotten in the empty, boarded-up house.

Both the plot, the characters, and the problems of the play show us Russia at a crossroads, a Russia in which the past has not yet been completely eradicated, where the present has not yet finally arrived, but the future is already visible. The passive dreamer and idealist Petya Trofimov is unlikely to be able to change his life; it’s not for nothing that he is called the “shabby gentleman.” But, according to A.P. Chekhov, it is Petya who should replace Lopakhin, because it is in his mouth that the author puts the idea that “all of Russia is our garden.” A.P. Chekhov was deeply convinced that a person needs the entire globe to be free. A storm was approaching, and A.P. Chekhov foresaw and waited for it.

The play “The Cherry Orchard” was the result of the writer’s creative path. With this play, with the help of plot, characters and issues, A.P. Chekhov completed the ideological debunking of the nobility, begun by Turgenev in the novel “Fathers and Sons.” Over the many years that have passed since the abolition of serfdom, the nobility has largely lost its economic position; it gradually disappeared from the historical arena. The new owner of the cherry orchard is also not a positive hero for A.P. Chekhov. Although he is, of course, more viable and has a strong grip, in the pursuit of profit, people like him, undoubtedly, unfortunately, destroy spiritual values.

One of the most brilliant directors of the play in the 1970s, Anatoly Efors, said:

“We left the usual lyrical life and opened the way to the strange tragedy that is inherent in this play. Pure, even naive tragedy. Children’s disagreement in a moment of impending danger.”

This naive tragedy is especially noticeable in the example of the 3rd act: a ball is held in the house on the very day when the fate of the cherry orchard is decided at auction. Varya dances, crying, Ranevskaya and Petya talk about what it means Above or below love, showering each other with reproaches, and at the same time moving on, And then Petya, angrily walking away after the conversation, falls down the stairs. This is a manifestation of the very principle by which Chekhov plans to write a vaudeville that ends in death. This is how a genre originality arises, which makes it possible to convey pity for the characters, and anger, and sympathy for them, and their condemnation - everything that flowed from the ideological and artistic intention of the author.

A special feature of Chekhov's plays is their apparent lack of conflict. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no sharp confrontation of characters, the entertaining elements of the plot are weakened, the play is based on an action-packed dramatic action.

In the cherry orchard, there are no obvious disasters in the lives of the characters - except for the auction, which, however, everyone knows about in advance. The play takes place over 6 months. What are the heroes doing? Ranevskaya, Gaev, Anya, Petya Trofimov? Only by talking. Only Lopakhin and Varya are working, and then somewhere behind the scenes. Nothing happens. Heroes go with the flow. There are no events, and life is broken. Why? Who is guilty? It seems like no one, but at the same time, everyone.

1. Problems of A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”.

2. Features of the genre of the play.

3. The main conflict of the play and its characters:

a) the embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya, Gaev;

b) exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin;

c) heroes of the future - Anya and Petya.

4. The tragedy of the era is a break in the connection of times.

1. The play “The Cherry Orchard” was completed by A.P. Chekhov in 1903. And although it reflects real social phenomena of those years, the play turned out to be in tune with the sentiments of subsequent generations - primarily because it touches on eternal problems: dissatisfaction with life and the desire to change it, the destruction of harmony between people, their mutual alienation, loneliness, weakening of family connections and loss of spiritual roots.

2. Chekhov himself believed that his play was a comedy. It can be classified as a lyrical comedy, where the funny is intertwined with the sad, the comic with the tragic, just like in real life.

3. The central image of the play is the cherry orchard, which unites all the characters. The Cherry Orchard is both a concrete garden, common for estates, and an image-symbol - a symbol of the beauty of Russian nature, Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling from the death of the beautiful cherry orchard.

In the play we do not see a clear conflict; everything, it would seem, goes on as usual. The characters in the play behave calmly, there are no open quarrels or clashes between them. And yet one feels the existence of a conflict, but hidden, internal. Behind ordinary conversations, behind the calm attitude of the characters in the play towards each other, their misunderstanding of each other is hidden. The main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is misunderstanding between generations. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future.

The older generation is Ranevskaya, Gaev, half-ruined nobles who personify the past. Today, the middle generation, is represented by Lopakhin. The youngest generation, whose fate is in the future, is represented by Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter, and Petya Trofimov, a commoner, teacher of Ranevskaya’s son.

a) The owners of the cherry orchard seem to us to be graceful, sophisticated people, full of love for others, capable of feeling the beauty and charm of nature. They carefully preserve the memory of the past, love their home: “I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning...” recalls Lyubov Andreevna. Once upon a time, Lyubov Andreevna, then still a young girl, consoled Ermolai Lopakhin, a fifteen-year-old “peasant” who was punched in the face by his shopkeeper father. Lopakhin cannot forget the kindness of Lyubov Andreevna, he loves her “like his own... more than his own.” She is affectionate with everyone: she calls the old servant Firs “my old man,” she is happy to meet him, and when leaving, she asks several times whether he has been sent to the hospital. She is generous not only to her loved one, who deceived her and robbed her, but also to a random passer-by, to whom she gives the last gold. She herself is penniless and asks to lend money to Semyonov-Pishchik. Relationships between family members are imbued with compassion and delicacy. No one blames Ranevskaya, who actually led to the collapse of her estate, or Gaev, who “ate his fortune on candy.” The nobility of Ranevskaya is that she does not blame anyone but herself for the misfortune that befell her - this is punishment for the fact that “we have sinned too much...”. Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not even want to think about the future. Chekhov considers Ranevskaya and Gaev to be the culprits of their tragedy. They behave like little children who close their eyes in fear when they are in danger. That’s why both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about the real plan of salvation put forward by Lopakhin, hoping for a miracle: if Anya married a rich man, if the Yaroslavl aunt sent money... But neither Ranevskaya nor Gaev are trying anything change. Speaking about the “beautiful” old life, they seem to have come to terms with their misfortune, letting everything take its course, giving in without a fight.

b) Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a man of the present. On the one hand, this is a person with a subtle and gentle soul, who knows how to appreciate beauty, is faithful and noble; he is a hard worker, works from morning to night. But on the other hand, the world of money has already subjugated him. Businessman Lopakhin has conquered his “subtle and gentle soul”: he cannot read books, he is incapable of love. His businesslike nature has eroded the spirituality in him, and he himself understands this. Lopakhin feels like the master of life. “The new owner of the cherry orchard is coming!” “Let everything be as I wish!” - he says. Lopakhin has not forgotten his past, and now the moment of his triumph has come: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai” bought “an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world,” an estate “where his father and grandfather were slaves.”

But Ermolai Lopakhin remained a “peasant”, despite the fact that he came out into the public eye. He is not able to understand one thing: the cherry orchard is not only a symbol of beauty, it is a kind of thread connecting the past with the present. You can't cut down your own roots. And the fact that Lopakhin does not understand this is his main mistake.

At the end of the play, he says: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” But he knows how to do this only in words. But in reality, he is cutting down the garden in order to build summer cottages there, thereby destroying the old, which his time has come to replace. The old has been destroyed, “the connecting thread of days has broken,” but the new has not yet been created, and it is unknown whether it will ever be created. The author is in no hurry to draw conclusions.

c) Petya and Anya, replacing Lopakhin, represent the future. Petya is an “eternal student”, always hungry, sick, unkempt, but proud; lives by labor alone, educated, smart. His judgments are profound. Denying the past, he predicts the short duration of Lopakhin's stay, as he sees his predatory essence. He is full of faith in a new life: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront!” Petya managed to inspire in Anya the desire to work and live at her own expense. She no longer feels sorry for the garden, because ahead of her is a life full of joyful work for the common good: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this one...” Will her dreams come true? Unknown. After all, she doesn’t yet know life to change it. But Petya looks at everything too superficially: not knowing real life, he tries to rebuild it on the basis of ideas alone. And in the whole appearance of this hero one can see some kind of insufficiency, shallowness, lack of healthy vitality. The author cannot trust him. that beautiful future he talks about. Petya doesn’t even try to save the garden; he doesn’t care about the problem that worries the author himself.

4. There is no connection between times in the play; the gap between generations is heard in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the “cherry orchard”, the guardian of its beauty.

“The Cherry Orchard” is a social play by A.P. Chekhov about the death and degeneration of the Russian nobility. It was written by Anton Pavlovich in the last years of his life. Many critics say that it is this drama that expresses the writer’s attitude towards the past, present and future of Russia.

Initially, the author planned to create a light-hearted and funny play, where the main driving force of the action would be the sale of the estate under the hammer. In 1901, in a letter to his wife, he shared his ideas. Previously, he had already raised a similar topic in the drama “Fatherlessness,” but he considered that experience unsuccessful. Chekhov wanted to experiment, and not resurrect stories buried in his desk. The process of impoverishment and degeneration of the nobles passed before his eyes, and he watched, creating and accumulating vital material to create artistic truth.

The history of the creation of “The Cherry Orchard” began in Taganrog, when the writer’s father was forced to sell his family nest for debts. Apparently, Anton Pavlovich experienced something similar to Ranevskaya’s feelings, which is why he so subtly delved into the experiences of seemingly fictional characters. In addition, Chekhov was personally familiar with Gaev’s prototype - A.S. Kiselev, who also sacrificed his estate in order to improve his shaky financial situation. His situation is one of hundreds. The entire Kharkov province, where the writer visited more than once, became shallow: the nests of the nobility disappeared. Such a large-scale and controversial process attracted the attention of the playwright: on the one hand, the peasants were liberated and received the long-awaited freedom, on the other, this reform did not increase anyone’s well-being. Such obvious tragedy could not be ignored; the light comedy conceived by Chekhov did not work out.

Meaning of the name

Since the cherry orchard symbolizes Russia, we can conclude that the author devoted the work to the question of its fate, just as Gogol wrote “Dead Souls” for the sake of the question “Where is the bird-troika flying?” In essence, we are not talking about selling the estate, but about what will happen to the country? Will they sell it off, will they cut it down for profit? Chekhov, analyzing the situation, understood that the degeneration of the nobility, the supporting class for the monarchy, promised troubles for Russia. If these people, called by their origin to be the core of the state, cannot take responsibility for their actions, then the country will sink. Such gloomy thoughts awaited the author on the other side of the topic he touched on. It turned out that his heroes were not laughing, and neither was he.

The symbolic meaning of the title of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is to convey to the reader the idea of ​​the work - the search for answers to questions about the fate of Russia. Without this sign, we would perceive the comedy as a family drama, a drama from private life, or a parable about the problem of fathers and children. That is, an erroneous, narrow interpretation of what was written would not allow the reader even a hundred years later to understand the main thing: we are all responsible for our garden, regardless of generation, beliefs and social status.

Why did Chekhov call the play “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy?

Many researchers actually classify it as a comedy, since along with tragic events (the destruction of an entire class), comic scenes constantly occur in the play. That is, it cannot be unambiguously classified as a comedy; it would be more correct to classify “The Cherry Orchard” as a tragifarce or tragicomedy, since many researchers attribute Chekhov’s dramaturgy to a new phenomenon in the theater of the 20th century - antidrama. The author himself stood at the origins of this trend, so he did not call himself that. However, the innovation of his work spoke for itself. This writer has now been recognized and introduced into the school curriculum, but then many of his works remained misunderstood, as they were out of the general rut.

The genre of “The Cherry Orchard” is difficult to determine, because now, given the dramatic revolutionary events that Chekhov did not see, we can say that this play is a tragedy. An entire era dies in it, and hopes for revival are so weak and vague that it’s somehow impossible to even smile in the finale. An open ending, a closed curtain, and only a dull knock on wood is heard in my thoughts. This is the impression of the performance.

main idea

The ideological and thematic meaning of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is that Russia finds itself at a crossroads: it can choose the path to the past, present and future. Chekhov shows the mistakes and inconsistency of the past, the vices and predatory grip of the present, but he still hopes for a happy future, showing exalted and at the same time independent representatives of the new generation. The past, no matter how beautiful it may be, cannot be returned; the present is too imperfect and wretched to accept it, so we must invest every effort in ensuring that the future lives up to bright expectations. To achieve this, everyone must try now, without delay.

The author shows how important action is, but not the mechanical pursuit of profit, but spiritual, meaningful, moral action. It’s him that Pyotr Trofimov is talking about, it’s him that Anechka wants to see. However, we also see in the student the harmful legacy of past years - he talks a lot, but has done little for his 27 years. And yet the writer hopes that this age-old slumber will be overcome on a clear and cool morning - tomorrow, where the educated, but at the same time active descendants of the Lopakhins and Ranevskys will come.

Theme of the work

1. The author used an image that is familiar to each of us and understandable to everyone. Many people still have cherry orchards to this day, but back then they were an indispensable attribute of every estate. They bloom in May, beautifully and fragrantly defend the week allotted to them, and then quickly fall off. Just as beautifully and suddenly, the nobility, once the support of the Russian Empire, fell into disgrace, mired in debt and endless polemics. As a matter of fact, these people were unable to live up to the expectations placed on them. Many of them, with their irresponsible attitude to life, only undermined the foundations of Russian statehood. What should have been a centuries-old oak forest was just a cherry orchard: beautiful, but quickly disappearing. The cherry fruits, alas, were not worth the space they occupied. This is how the theme of the death of noble nests was revealed in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.
2. The themes of the past, present and future are realized in the work thanks to a multi-level system of images. Each generation symbolizes the time allotted to it. In the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev, the past dies away, in the image of Lopakhin the present rules, and the future awaits its day in the images of Anya and Peter. The natural course of events takes on a human face, the change of generations is shown in specific examples.
3. The theme of time also plays an important role. Its power turns out to be destructive. Water wears away a stone - so time erases human laws, destinies and beliefs into powder. Until recently, Ranevskaya could not even imagine that her former serf would settle in the estate and cut down the garden that had been passed on by the Gaevs from generation to generation. This unshakable order of social structure collapsed and sank into oblivion, in its place capital and its market laws were installed, in which power was ensured by money, and not by position and origin.

Issues

1. The problem of human happiness in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is manifested in all the fates of the heroes. Ranevskaya, for example, experienced many troubles in this garden, but is happy to return here again. She fills the house with her warmth, remembers her native lands, and feels nostalgic. She doesn’t care at all about debts, the sale of her estate, or her daughter’s inheritance, in the end. She is happy with forgotten and relived impressions. But the house is sold, the bills are paid off, and happiness is in no hurry with the arrival of a new life. Lopakhin tells her about calm, but only anxiety grows in her soul. Instead of liberation comes depression. Thus, what is happiness for one is misfortune for another, all people understand its essence differently, which is why it is so difficult for them to get along together and help each other.
2. The problem of preserving memory also worries Chekhov. The people of the present are mercilessly cutting down what was the pride of the province. Noble nests, historically important buildings, are dying from inattention, being erased into oblivion. Of course, active businessmen will always find arguments to destroy unprofitable junk, but this is how historical monuments, cultural and artistic monuments will perish ingloriously, which the Lopakhins’ children will regret. They will be deprived of connections with the past, continuity of generations, and will grow up as Ivans who do not remember their kinship.
3. The problem of ecology in the play does not go unnoticed. The author asserts not only the historical value of the cherry orchard, but also its natural beauty and its importance for the province. All the residents of the surrounding villages breathed in these trees, and their disappearance is a small environmental disaster. The area will be orphaned, the gaping lands will become impoverished, but people will fill every patch of inhospitable space. The attitude towards nature must be as careful as towards humans, otherwise we will all be left without the home that we love so much.
4. The problem of fathers and children is embodied in the relationship between Ranevskaya and Anechka. The alienation between relatives is visible. The girl feels sorry for her unlucky mother, but does not want to share her lifestyle. Lyubov Andreevna pampers the child with tender nicknames, but cannot understand that in front of her is no longer a child. The woman continues to pretend that she doesn’t understand anything yet, so she shamelessly builds her personal life to the detriment of her interests. They are very different, so they make no attempt to find a common language.
5. The problem of love for the homeland, or rather, its absence, can also be seen in the work. Gaev, for example, is indifferent to the garden, he only cares about his own comfort. His interests do not rise above consumer interests, so the fate of his father’s house does not bother him. Lopakhin, his opposite, also does not understand Ranevskaya’s scrupulousness. However, he also does not understand what to do with the garden. He is guided only by mercantile considerations; profits and calculations are important to him, but not the safety of his home. He clearly expresses only his love for money and the process of obtaining it. A generation of children dreams of a new kindergarten; they have no use for the old one. This is also where the problem of indifference comes into play. Nobody needs the Cherry Orchard except Ranevskaya, and even she needs memories and the old way of life, where she could do nothing and live happily. Her indifference to people and things is expressed in the scene where she calmly drinks coffee while listening to the news of her nanny's death.
6. The problem of loneliness plagues every hero. Ranevskaya was abandoned and deceived by her lover, Lopakhin cannot establish relations with Varya, Gaev is an egoist by nature, Peter and Anna are just beginning to get closer, and it is already obvious that they are lost in a world where there is no one to give them a helping hand.
7. The problem of mercy haunts Ranevskaya: no one can support her, all the men not only do not help, but do not spare her. Her husband drank himself to death, her lover abandoned her, Lopakhin took away her estate, her brother doesn’t care about her. Against this background, she herself becomes cruel: she forgets Firs in the house, they nail him inside. In the image of all these troubles lies an inexorable fate that is unmerciful to people.
8. The problem of finding the meaning of life. Lopakhin clearly does not satisfy his meaning in life, which is why he rates himself so low. For Anna and Peter, this search is just ahead, but they are already meandering, unable to find a place for themselves. Ranevskaya and Gaev, with the loss of material wealth and their privilege, are lost and cannot find their way again.
9. The problem of love and selfishness is clearly visible in the contrast between brother and sister: Gaev loves only himself and does not particularly suffer from losses, but Ranevskaya has been looking for love all her life, but did not find it, and along the way she lost it. Only crumbs fell to Anechka and the cherry orchard. Even a loving person can become selfish after so many years of disappointment.
10. The problem of moral choice and responsibility concerns, first of all, Lopakhin. He gets Russia, his activities can change it. However, he lacks the moral foundations to understand the importance of his actions for his descendants and to understand his responsibility to them. He lives by the principle: “After us, even a flood.” He doesn’t care what will happen, he sees what is.

Symbolism of the play

The main image in Chekhov's play is the garden. It not only symbolizes estate life, but also connects times and eras. The image of the Cherry Orchard is a noble Russia, with the help of which Anton Pavlovich predicted the future changes that awaited the country, although he himself could no longer see them. It also expresses the author’s attitude to what is happening.

The episodes depict ordinary everyday situations, “little things in life,” through which we learn about the main events of the play. Chekhov mixes the tragic and the comic, for example, in the third act Trofimov philosophizes and then absurdly falls down the stairs. In this one can see a certain symbolism of the author’s attitude: he is ironic at the characters, casting doubt on the veracity of their words.

The system of images is also symbolic, the meaning of which is described in a separate paragraph.

Composition

The first action is exposition. Everyone is waiting for the arrival of the owner of the estate, Ranevskaya, from Paris. In the house, everyone thinks and talks about their own things, without listening to others. The disunity located under the roof illustrates the discordant Russia, where people so different from each other live.

The beginning - Lyubov Andreeva and her daughter enter, gradually everyone learns that they are in danger of ruin. Neither Gaev nor Ranevskaya (brother and sister) can prevent it. Only Lopakhin knows a tolerable rescue plan: cut down the cherries and build dachas, but the proud owners do not agree with him.

Second action. During sunset, the fate of the garden is once again discussed. Ranevskaya arrogantly rejects Lopakhin's help and continues to remain inactive in the bliss of her own memories. Gaev and the merchant constantly quarrel.

Third act (climax): while the old owners of the garden are throwing a ball, as if nothing had happened, the auction is going on: the estate is acquired by the former serf Lopakhin.

Act four (denouement): Ranevskaya returns to Paris to squander the rest of her savings. After her departure, everyone goes their separate ways. Only the old servant Firs remains in the crowded house.

Innovation of Chekhov - playwright

It remains to be added that it is not without reason that the play cannot be understood by many schoolchildren. Many researchers attribute it to the theater of the absurd (what is this?). This is a very complex and controversial phenomenon in modernist literature, debates about the origin of which continue to this day. The fact is that Chekhov's plays, according to a number of characteristics, can be classified as the theater of the absurd. The characters' remarks very often do not have a logical connection with each other. They seem to be directed into nowhere, as if they are being uttered by one person and at the same time talking to himself. The destruction of dialogue, the failure of communication - this is what the so-called anti-drama is famous for. In addition, the alienation of the individual from the world, his global loneliness and life turned to the past, the problem of happiness - all these are features of the existential problems in the work, which are again inherent in the theater of the absurd. This is where the innovation of Chekhov the playwright manifested itself in the play “The Cherry Orchard”; these features attract many researchers in his work. Such a “provocative” phenomenon, misunderstood and condemned by public opinion, is difficult to fully perceive even for an adult, not to mention the fact that only a few people involved in the world of art managed to fall in love with the theater of the absurd.

Image system

Chekhov does not have telling names, like Ostrovsky, Fonvizin, Griboyedov, but there are off-stage characters (for example, a Parisian lover, a Yaroslavl aunt) who are important in the play, but Chekhov does not bring them into “external” action. In this drama there is no division into good and bad heroes, but there is a multifaceted system of characters. The characters in the play can be divided:

• on the heroes of the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs). They only know how to waste money and think, not wanting to change anything in their lives.
• on the heroes of the present (Lopakhin). Lopakhin is a simple “man” who, with the help of work, got rich, bought an estate and is not going to stop.
• on the heroes of the future (Trofimov, Anya) - this is the young generation dreaming of the highest truth and the highest happiness.

The heroes of The Cherry Orchard constantly jump from one topic to another. Despite the apparent dialogue, they do not hear each other. There are as many as 34 pauses in the play, which are formed between many “useless” statements of the characters. The phrase “You are still the same” is repeated repeatedly, which makes it clear that the characters do not change, they stand still.

The action of the play “The Cherry Orchard” begins in May, when the fruits of the cherry trees begin to bloom, and ends in October. The conflict does not have a pronounced character. All the main events that decide the future of the heroes take place behind the scenes (for example, estate auctions). That is, Chekhov completely abandons the norms of classicism.

Classical Russian literature has always willingly raised universal themes. This is understandable: the reader is most interested and easiest to empathize with those characters who are somewhat similar to them. The strongest feelings in people are awakened by those characters who live the same life as they do. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in his short play “The Cherry Orchard” raises several themes: greed, family vicissitudes.

Philosophical arguments, the problem of happiness and questions of will

But the most important theme, which runs like a red line through the entire work and “glues” its parts together, is precisely the theme of happiness. The problem of human happiness, oddly enough, is not raised very often. It would seem, what could be more important? After all, if a person is unhappy, he does not value life, and this is the most serious problem that can only come to a person. The fact is that the problem of human happiness is not a resolved issue, because everyone interprets the very concept of happiness differently. For some it is an abundance of money, for others it is the joyful faces of relatives at the festive table. For Chekhov, this is a cherry orchard.

Internal conflict against the background of external

But why do literary scholars believe that “The Cherry Orchard” is a work about happiness? What arguments do they make? The problem of happiness in the play is connected with almost every character. For example, Ranevskaya believes that she will lose the last joy in life if her beloved cherry orchard, in which she spent almost her entire life, is cut down. Her daughter Anya dreams of getting married - in this she sees happiness for herself. Old Firs is also glad that he can take care of his masters, and this brings him sincere joy. Lopakhin is an excellent example of a person who is in search of mercantile happiness. So, the problem of happiness in The Cherry Orchard is not only the internal conflict of each character. This is also the main idea, which at the same time remains rather elusive. There is a widespread opinion among literary critics that the cherry orchard itself symbolizes the unattainable thing that each character dreams of, but in the end this unattainable dream leaves them. She leaves because few people made enough efforts to keep her. These are the main arguments. The problem of happiness is a very broad topic, and Chekhov was able to masterfully reveal it, putting only a few successful lines into the mouths of the characters.

Humanity is above all

It's interesting that each character behaves very humanly. In The Cherry Orchard there is not a single character who could be called too picturesque or stereotyped. For example, old Firs is found in every third family - such an elderly compassionate man who is ready to give his last shirt, even if he himself has nothing. The author shows him as if in passing, but it is this character that evokes the most compassion. The reader does not know what Firs wants, and he sees only the boundless care and love that he shows to his masters. But Lopakhin causes irritation. The man who initially tried to support the family ends up stabbing them in the back. It is clear that he repents a little, but most of his repentance is still feigned. Lopakhin is an ideal businessman, that's why he has such petty arguments. The problem of happiness seems absurd to him, because he puts material wealth first, but can you compare them with ephemeral happiness?

The tragedy of Ranevskaya

Everyone wants to grab their little piece of life, but not everyone succeeds smoothly. The problem of happiness in works of Russian literature is raised through the depiction of ordinary Russian people who live a simple life. Unlucky Ranevskaya is trying to find her happiness in another country, where she flees after the tragic death of her son. But she cannot find the long-awaited peace there, because she brought her prejudices and naive character there too. She still returns to Russia, left with virtually no means of subsistence. Amazingly, her cherry orchard existed without her for five whole years, and she did not think about it abroad. However, when there was a real threat of destruction of this garden, a symbol of her former happy life, she panicked. A person is weak because he becomes attached not only to other people, but also to territory and things, and Ranevskaya cannot imagine that the symbol of her past happiness will suddenly disappear somewhere.

Love that saves the world

Many Russian writers raise the topic of finding one’s own place in life and being satisfied with this very life. Poets, on the other hand, focus much more attention on For example, the problem of happiness in Anna Akhmatova’s “Poem without a Hero” and in the poem called “You Invented Me” grows precisely from the lyrical hero’s awareness of his misfortune in the field of love.

In “The Cherry Orchard” the theme of love is also raised, and it is also connected with happiness. Ranevskaya’s daughter Anya dreams of getting married and starting her own family, so she experiences the loss of the cherry orchard much easier than her mother. She does not understand how dear and symbolic this piece of land planted with trees is for Ranevskaya, because at her age the priorities are completely different. She is young and looking to the future, and Ranevskaya has already outlived her best years, so the past means so much to her. Perhaps with this Chekhov is trying to hint to the reader that good things are only ahead of us, and it is stupid to worry about the years we have lived.

Such different happiness for everyone

It is not for nothing that literary critics present their irrefutable arguments: the problem of happiness in “The Cherry Orchard” is a very controversial topic. Critics are still discussing this work, and have not come to a consensus. When this work is examined in a school or university, it is best to allow pupils and students the opportunity to think freely and not confine them to any restrictions. Probably, Chekhov would even like the fervor with which the younger generation talks about the problem of happiness - a question to which humanity has not been able to find a unanimous answer for many centuries. If it is ever discovered, the discoverer will never share the discovery, because happiness is something very individual and local. What seems precious to Ranevskaya has practically no value in the eyes of her daughter, and the difference between them is only one generation. The main thing is that people never get tired of looking for the answer to this important question: “What should I do to become happy?”