(482 words) "The Cherry Orchard" - the last play by A.P. Chekhov. It was written by him in 1903, shortly before the 1905 revolution. The country then stood at a crossroads, and in the work the author skillfully conveyed the atmosphere of that time through events, characters, their characters and actions. The Cherry Orchard is the embodiment of pre-revolutionary Russia, and the heroes of different ages are the personification of the past, present and future of the country.

Ranevskaya and Gaev represent the old times. They live in memories and absolutely do not want to solve the problems of the present. Their house is under threat, but instead of making any attempt to save it, they do everything to avoid talking to Lopakhin on this subject. Lyubov Andreevna constantly wastes money that could be used to buy a house. In the second act, she first complains: “Oh, my sins ... I have always been overflowing with money without restraint, like crazy ...” - and literally a minute later, having heard the Jewish orchestra, she offers to “call him somehow, arrange an evening.” There is a feeling that before us are not adult, experienced, educated heroes, but unintelligent children who are unable to exist independently. They hope that their problem will be solved in a miraculous way, they themselves do not take any action, leaving everything to their fate. In the end, they are deprived of all the past that they held dear.

The present time is personified by the merchant Yermolai Lopakhin. He is a representative of the growing class in Russia - the bourgeoisie. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, he is not infantile, but very hardworking and enterprising. It is these qualities that help him eventually buy the estate. He grew up in a family of serfs who used to serve Gaev, so he is very proud of himself: "... beaten, illiterate Yermolai ... bought an estate where grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen." For Yermolai, the garden is not a memory of the past, the site for him is only a means to earn money. He without any doubt cuts it down, thereby destroying the old, but at the same time, without creating anything new.

Anya and Petya Trofimov are the heroes of the future. They both talk about the future as something unconditionally bright and beautiful. But in fact, for the two of them, it is rather vague. Petya talks a lot, but does little. At the age of 26, he still did not graduate from the university, for which he received the nickname "eternal student." He criticizes the nobility and supports the bourgeoisie, calling people to work, but he himself is not capable of anything. Of all the characters in the play, only Anya supports him. She is still a 17-year-old girl who is the personification of youth, inexhaustible strength and the desire to do good. Her future is also unknown, but it is she who reassures her mother: "We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this." She has no doubt that the loss of the estate is not the worst tragedy and that you can plant a new garden, just like you can start a new life. Although the author does not claim anything, it is possible that Anya is the true future of Russia.

A.P. Chekhov showed readers the heroes of different generations, classes and views on the life of that time, but he could not give an unambiguous answer, behind whom the future of the country stands. But still, he sincerely believed that Russia's future would certainly be bright and beautiful, like a blooming cherry orchard.

Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy

Before Anton Chekhov, the Russian theater was in crisis, it was he who made an invaluable contribution to its development, breathing new life into it. The playwright snatched small sketches from the everyday life of his characters, bringing the dramaturgy closer to reality. His plays made the viewer think, although there were no intrigues or open conflicts in them, but they reflected the internal anxiety of a critical historical time, 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 will happen to them after. So the past, present, future in the play "The Cherry Orchard" miraculously mixed up by connecting people not so much of different generations as of 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 past, present and future meet on the pages of The Cherry Orchard? Chekhov, as it were, divided all the heroes into these three categories, portraying them very vividly.

The past in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is represented by Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs - the oldest character in the whole action. It is they who speak most of all about what was, for them the past is a time in which everything was easy and beautiful. There were masters and servants, each had its own place and purpose. For Firs, the abolition of serfdom was 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 the aristocrats Lyubov Andreevna and her brother, the past is the time when they did not have to think about such base things as money. They enjoyed life, doing what brings pleasure, being able to appreciate the beauty of intangible things - it is difficult for them to adapt to the new order, in which material values ​​replace high moral values. It is humiliating for them to talk about money, about ways to earn it, and Lopakhin's real proposal to rent out the land occupied, in fact, by a 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 serve in a bank. The death of Firs at the end of the play is very symbolic, as if to say that the aristocracy as a social class has outlived itself, and there is no place for it, in the form in which it was before the abolition of serfdom.

Lopakhin became the representative of the present in the play The Cherry Orchard. “A man is a man”, as he says about himself, thinking in a new way, able to earn money using his mind and instinct. Petya Trofimov even compares him with a predator, but with a predator with a subtle artistic nature. And this brings Lopakhin a lot of emotional experiences. He is well aware of all the beauty of the old cherry orchard, which will be cut down at his will, but he cannot do otherwise. His ancestors were serfs, his father owned a shop, and he became a "white-summer", having made a considerable fortune. Chekhov placed special emphasis on the character of Lopakhin, because he was not a typical merchant, who was treated with disdain by many. 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 the desire to change their lives. But, that's just, Petya is a master of talking and reasoning about a wonderful and just future, but he does not know how to expose his speeches into action. This is what prevents him from graduating from university or at least somehow arranging his life. Petya denies all attachments - be it 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 is also Yasha and Dunyasha, and they, too, are the future. Moreover, if Dunyasha is just a stupid peasant girl, then Yasha is already a completely different type. Gaev and Ranevsky are being replaced by the Lopakhins, but the Lopakhins will also have to be replaced by someone. If you remember the story, then 13 years after the writing of this play, it was precisely such 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, only they were united not by an inner desire to be together and exchange their dreams, desires, experiences. The old garden and house holds them, and as soon as they disappear, the connection between the characters and the time they reflect is broken.

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 norms are also subject to rethinking. Human life is not possible without the memory of the past, inaction in the present, and without faith in the future. One generation is replaced by another, some build, others destroy. So it was in Chekhov's time, so 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 to the very root.

The author's reasoning about the past, present and future in comedy, about people and generations, about Russia makes us think even today. These thoughts will be useful for grade 10 when writing an essay on the topic "Past, present, future in the play" The Cherry Orchard "".

Artwork test

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 vividly expressed his thoughts on 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 had taken place in the country. As one famous critic said, the main character of the play, in fact, is time. Almost everything depends on it. Throughout the work, the author focuses on the transience and ruthlessness of time.

The action of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is developed in the family estate of the former nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev. The plot of the comedy is connected with the sale of this estate for the debts of the owners. And with it, a blooming marvelous garden will go under the hammer, which is the personification of beauty and the desire for a better life. The play intertwines the lives of the past and the present generation. The main characters, the owners of the estate, belong to the old time. They could not get used to a new life after the abolition of serfdom. Ranevskaya and Gaev live one day. For them, time has stopped. They do not understand that if they do not act, they will lose everything.

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

The new time is 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" with the owners of the estate. And now he's got rich and bought the estate himself. In the person of Yermolai Lopakhin, the author portrayed the emerging bourgeoisie, which replaced the nobility. With his diligence, 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 heightened sense of justice, philosophizes a lot about how things should be, but does little to act. He scolds the nobility for idleness and sees the future for the bourgeoisie. Petya encourages Anya to follow him, as he is sure of 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 for who this future is 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 who would be able to grow a new cherry orchard, as a symbol of the eternal renewal of life.

Past, present and future in A.P. Chekhov "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 emerged, and the future had not yet been determined.

II. main part

1. The past is represented in the play by the characters of the older generation: Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs, but other characters of 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., as, 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 “freedom” as a misfortune. There were many 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, has a transitional, unstable character. It appears in the same way in Chekhov's play. The main spokesman of the present is Lopakhin, but one should not forget about other heroes (Epikhodov, footman Yasha, Varya). The image of Lopakhin is very controversial. On the one hand, he, a merchant who has broken out of the former serfs, is the master of the present; it is no coincidence that he gets the cherry orchard. This is his pride: “beaten, illiterate Yermolai /…/ bought an estate, more beautiful than 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 delicate person by nature, he understands that he is destroying beauty, but he does not know how to 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. Serious doubts arise that Trofimov will be able to build the happy future he is talking about. First of all, because he does absolutely nothing, but only speaks. When it is necessary to show the ability to at least minimal practical action (to console Ranevskaya, take care of Firs), he turns out to be untenable. But the main thing is the attitude to the key image of the play, to the cherry orchard. Petya is indifferent to his beauty, he urges Anya not to spare the cherry orchard, to forget about the past altogether. “We will plant a new garden,” says Trofimov, and this one, then, let it die. Such an attitude to the past does not allow one 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 composition

Chekhov gave his last play the subtitle "Comedy". But in the first production of the Moscow Art Theater during the life of the author, the play appeared as a heavy drama, even a tragedy. Who is right? It must be borne in mind that drama is a literary work designed for stage life. Only on the stage will the drama acquire a full-fledged existence, reveal all the meanings inherent in it, including genre definition, so the last word in the answer to 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, not immediately.

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

"The Cherry Orchard" is a farewell of the owners, now former, with their family noble nest. This theme was repeatedly raised in Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century, both tragically, dramatically and comically. What are the features of Chekhov's incarnation of this theme?

In many respects, it is determined by Chekhov's attitude to the nobility that is disappearing into social oblivion and the capital that is coming to replace it, which manifested itself in the images of Ranevskaya and Lopakhin. In both estates and their interaction, Chekhov saw the continuity of the bearers of national culture. The nest of nobles for Chekhov is first of all 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 the noble estate, first of all, 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 hostess returned, and the house came to life, the former inhabitants, who seemed to have left it forever, were drawn into it.

Lopakhin suits her. This is a poetic nature, he, as Petya Trofimov says, has "thin, tender fingers, like an artist's ... a thin, tender 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 vulgar merchant, begins to boast of his democratic origin and flaunt his lack of culture (and this was considered prestigious in the then "advanced circles"), but he, too, is waiting for Ranevskaya to be cleansed around her, to be reborn. Such an image of the capitalist was based on real facts, because many Russian merchants and capitalists helped Russian art. Mamontov, Morozov, Zimin kept 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 very considerable.

Lopakhin is just that. Therefore, his marriage to Vara did not succeed, they are not a couple to each other: the subtle, poetic nature of a rich merchant and the mundane, everyday-ordinary, adopted daughter of Ranevskaya, completely mired in everyday 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 reborn socially, also to 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 secondary character, Charlotte Ivanovna, carries a 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 am from and who I am - I don’t know ... Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married ... not I know. I so want to talk, but with whom ... I don’t have anyone ... 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, one life will end with the death of the cherry orchard, and whether there will be another is unknown.

The former owners and their entourage (that is, Ranevskaya, Varya, Gaev, Pishchik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs) behave ridiculously, and in the light of the social non-existence approaching them, stupid, unreasonable. They pretend that everything is the same, nothing has changed and will not change. This is a deception, self-deception and mutual deception. But this is the only way they can resist the inevitability of inevitable fate. Lopakhin is sincerely grieving, he does not see class enemies in Ranevskaya and even in Gaev, who treats him, for him these are dear, dear people.

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

And how do young people behave at this time? Badly! Anya, due to her infancy, has the most indefinite and at the same time rosy idea of ​​the future that awaits her. She is delighted with the chatter of Petya Trofimov. 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 infantilism and, most surprisingly, the general recognition he enjoys. Ranevskaya cruelly but rightly scolded him, 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 we, 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 premiere of the play and its creator died, Petya’s words, his dreams of a new life, Anya’s desire to plant another garden - all of us this should lead to more serious conclusions about the essence of Petya's image. Chekhov was always indifferent to politics; both the revolutionary movement and the struggle against it passed him by. Silly girl Anya believes these speeches. Other characters chuckle, ironically: this Petya is too big a fool to be afraid of him. And the garden was cut down not by him, but by a merchant who wants to arrange dachas on this site. Chekhov did not live to see other dachas built in the open spaces of his and our long-suffering homeland by the successors of the work of Petya Trofimov. Fortunately, most of the characters in The Cherry Orchard did not have to "live in this beautiful time" either.

Chekhov is characterized by an objective manner of narration, in his prose the voice of the author is not heard. It is impossible to hear him in the drama at all. And yet - comedy, drama or tragedy "The Cherry Orchard"? Knowing how Chekhov disliked certainty and, consequently, the incompleteness of the coverage of a life phenomenon with all its complexities, one should cautiously answer: everything at once. The theatre, however, will have the last word on this issue.