The Characters in The Cherry Orchard do not Learn. Or

The World of the Cherry Orchard is Consisting of People with Difference in their Behaviours.

The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov is a dramatic play set at a cherry orchard in Russia. Some of the characters that help set the dramatic setting of the play are Lyubov, Lopakhin, and Pishchik. These characters find life difficult because they fail to understand each other and because they passively submit to their environmental situations without making an effort to rise above them.

Lyubov is the owner of the cherry orchard, and has lived there her whole life. The estate has been handed down through the generations, and Lyubov has been left to take care of it. Since Lyubov has grown up wealthy, she has not learned to manage her money wisely. She wastefully spends and hands out money: "I haven’t any money, my dove…oh, very well…give it to him, Leonid." She does not know how to work in order to regain the money she has spent. She finds herself going into debt and not being able to pay the mortgage. These problems grow so severe that she is forced to sell the orchard.

Lopakhin offers to help Lyubov and her family to get them out of debt. He suggests several ideas such as tearing down buildings and the house, and renting homes on the land that the cherry orchard now grows. He cares not about the sentimental value the orchard holds, but the money that could be made selling it. When told the personal value of the orchard, Lopakhin replies: "the only remarkable thing about this cherry orchard is that it’s very big." He also says: "there’s a crop of cherries once every two years…that’s hard to get rid of…nobody buys them." Though this does not make Lopakhin a greedy or uncaring person, one might think this is quite awkward.

Pishtchik on the other hand is only out for himself. He too was once wealthy, but had problems spending his money. He begs for money instead of working or earning it, creating even larger debts. When he asks Lyubov for 240 roubles to pay for his mortgage, she agrees, but is turned away by Gayefs. Pishchik then relies on luck and a lottery ticket his wife gave him. Throughout the story, he refers to gimmicks in order to make money: "Well-a horse is a fine animal-You can sell a horse." He also talks about counterfeiting money in order to repay his debts. It is not until the end of the story when his luck pays off by finding a large sum of money, which he is able to pay all his debts.

The Cherry Orchard shows several examples of characters that do not learn or react to their mistakes and surroundings. Lyubov and Pishtchik both have problems spending and managing their money. Pishtchik, though, relies on luck. Lopakhin, on the other hand, is not sympathetic to people’s feelings and is out to make money. These characters find life difficult because they fail to understand each other and because they passively submit to their environmental situations without making an effort to rise above them.

The Use of Symbolism in ‘The Cherry Orchard’

"We don't see things as they are. We see them as we are." This citation by Anais Nin articulates an essential point of view for debate about the symbolic connotation of inanimate bits and pieces, since it is our personality and our memories, which determine our character and meanings. Our feelings towards certain objects are individual, as everyone associates different things in a different manner. Insofar, "we see them as we are", since they can mirror our past, pains, hopes and our ideals. Thus they become more than just an object, but a symbol for a certain part of someone's feelings and life.

This is also the case in "The Cherry Orchard": objects as the ‘nursery room’, ‘the bookcase’ and ‘the cherry orchard’ take on their own symbolic life. They all share one thing in common: each one reveals something of the characters' personalities, feelings and ideals. These inanimate objects are a reflection of the characters' inner states of being. The meanings of these inanimate objects are changing analogously with the characters' change of mood, perspective and state of mind. Thus one gets the inkling that the objects are more like persons, since it is only the characters' life, which makes and keeps them alive.

‘The nursery room’ may be for a stupendous person without any implicit significance, but for Lopakhin and Liuba it is a symbol for their childhood, background and past. The nursery room reminds Lopakhin of his origins. It makes him aware that he is "just a peasant"; no matter how rich he has become or how elegant he might be dressed, his social background still remains visible for other people. After all, one "can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", as his origins will be for good a part of his identity. For Lyuba the nursery room symbolizes her "innocent childhood". Being in this room, in which "she used to sleep when she was little" seems to bring her back to feel a part of that secure, carefree life and makes her feel "little again".

The bookcase has the same effect on her; all her troubles seem to be far away and she feels pure "happiness". Gayevs' 'relationship' to the bookcase is less personal, as he doesn't associate a particular personal memory with it. He considers it rather as an object, which has its own personality; hence, though it is "an inanimate object, true, but still – a bookcase"! The way he sees it is reminiscent of a hero, as it has for already hundred years "devoted itself to the highest ideals of goodness and justice" and has never deceived anyone. Being constantly and unshakably true to its 'principles', it was a source, from which "several generations of their family" have drawn courage and hope "in a better future". In the course of time a lot of things have changed: some people are dead, Gayev and Lyuba got adolescent, and the estate is probably going to be sold. However, the bookcase not being subject to any rules or changes thus becomes for Gayev a symbol of consistency and security.

The central symbol of "The Cherry Orchard", as the title might suggest, is the cherry orchard itself. The cherry orchard does not only represent an inanimate object, but it is the centre of the characters' world. Their lives could be divided into the era "before the cherry orchard was sold" and into the era after it. With this change the symbolic meaning of the cherry orchard before and after the sale also changes. The cherry orchard 'before the sale' plays a part in each of the characters' past; but it seems foremost to be part of Lyuba's mind, through which the cherry orchard takes on his own symbolic life, as its symbolic meaning changes with the changes in her mind. She "can't conceive to live without the cherry orchard", as almost her whole past and memories are connected to it. Looking at it seems to revive the memories of her "happy childhood" and makes time stand still, as if "nothing has changed" in her life. In those days her attitude towards life was innocent and "bold", as she wasn't yet "able to foresee or expect anything dreadful". She felt like the cherry orchard, "after the dark, stormy autumn and the cold winter, young and joyous again"; but now, she seems to have lost this "power of vision" and her naive view of life. That's might be the reason for her to see the cherry orchard in such an illusory light. It had become a refugee place, where she hides to escape from reality, her "problems" and "sins". The cherry orchard for her embodies a kind of paradise, into which her 'unhappy past' does not enter, but only her 'happy past'. She doesn't want to let go the cherry orchard, because she doesn't want to let go her 'happy past'. As long as the cherry orchard exists, her childhood feelings seem to continue to still exist for real. To sale the cherry orchard would mean to erase that beloved part of her life and thus sell her, too.

However, the irony is that she escapes from her 'unhappy past' to a place just like the cherry orchard, which magic only lives through the past itself. In as much as the cherry orchard represents a kind of 'Garden Eden' for her, it at the same time also is a "burden", which rests on her shoulders. As long as she continues to stick to the orchard, she won't "forget her past" and won't thus be able to create a new future.

"To begin to live in the present, one must first atone for his past and be finished with it". Unlike Lyuba, her daughter, Ania, already reached that conclusion and is willing to "leave" this burden behind her; her "love" for the cherry orchard has vanished, as it is part of her past life and has therefore nothing to do any longer with her present and future.

'The cherry orchard after the sale' thus becomes a symbol for renewal and a new beginning for the life of each character in the play: Lopakhin purchasing the estate got able to get rid of his origins. "Gay with life and wealth", he has freed himself from being only the grandson and son of serfs, who used to work on this estate. Now he has become the owner of that place and with the cutting down of the cherry orchard, he is going to leave his past and origins behind him, creating a "new living world". Also Lyuba's "burden" of the past seems now to have become lighter; "her nerves are better" and she is going to leave for Paris, since she might have recognized that it's finished long ago and that there is no turning back.

Gayev has finally "calmed down”, too and is going to be an employee of a bank. Varia is going to leave for a new job, and Ania and Trofimov are gladly stepping towards their "new life". Also the rest of the characters have to start a new life in a new place. When they leave there won't be a soul in this place anymore. May be not in this place, that's true, but for sure in another place, since there are in the world "many, many wonderful places", on which one can "plant a new orchard".

Anton Chekhov as a Modern Dramatist. Or

The Cherry Orchard is an Epitome of Modern Theatrical Technicalities

Chekhov is one of Russia's many important literary figures, and one of the greatest playwrights of modern times. He won the Pushkin Prize and he is known for his short stories and his plays, works that often combine elements of both comedy and tragedy. While works reflect the frequently turbulent developments specific to his homeland, their lasting appeal lies in Chekhov's talent for exploring universally human situations with such grace and dexterity. Many foreign readers and viewers admired his works as Bernard Shaw said that “hearing Chekhov’s plays makes me want to tear up my own”.

Chekhov’s virtuosity has been interpreted as psychological but his psychology turns a blind eye to individual. Chekhov’s dramatic oeuvre possesses the very element as his narrative work. His opus comprises of multitudinous one act play, which were awfully admired by the Russians as they were on an elevated artistic level. Chekhov became wondrously Flabbergast prolific. He got plaudits ahead of schedule and eminent demand for his account stimulated him to see it through. His fabulous artistic mental giant was glutted with contrivance. In this way, we find a top-notch variety of themes and characters in his stories and plays. Some of his treasured themes are communication problems, situation verses desire, Conflict and tensions born of changing social, economic and political ins and outs, humour arising out of situation or oddity of character.

Traditionally, humour and tragedy have been kept separate in dramatic works. Although Chekhov is certainly not the first playwright to mix comic and tragic elements onstage, he develops this tendency by creating a play that defies classification as either one of these two dramatic genres. Works such as The Cherry Orchard, which cannot be subjected to the traditional standards of classification, have helped build new modern literary traditions through their innovation in genre.

Chekhov changed the theatrical world with his plays. He was often disappointed when his plays were performed as tragedies; although each work has sad elements in it, Chekhov believed that this darker side of the plays should in no way undercut the immensely funny comic elements, which pervade even in the seemingly darkest moments. This confusion of the comic and tragic genres is one of Chekhov's important contributions not only to theatre, but also to literature in general.

Indirect Action is a technique Chekhov was most famous for. It involves action important to the play's plot occurring off-stage, not on. Instead of seeing such action happens, the audience learns about it by watching characters react to it onstage. Lopakhin's speech at the end of Act III, recounting the sale of the cherry orchard, is the most important example of indirect action in the play: although the audience does not see the sale, the entire play revolves around this unseen action.

Anya's criticism of her mother's overspending in France is one of The Cherry Orchard's many examples of indirect action. The action described in the speech has not taken place on the stage, and is therefore indirect; the play revolves around the character's on-stage reactions to such off-stage action, for although this sort of action is not seen, it actually drives the plot. Lopakhin's opening speech is another example of indirect action, which both informs the audience of the past and manoeuvres the development of the action.

Irony appears in many instances throughout the play, and when it is not used for purely comic effect, it is tightly bound to the theme of blindness. On the one hand, the positions of the character's themselves are ironic. For example, the opposite circumstances of Lopakhin, Firs, and Dunyasha point out the irony in the now supposedly free-moving class system; characters talk about and praise a system of economic mobility. Still, they cannot see the contradiction in the situations of those around them that have no opportunity to improve their standing or are criticized for attempting to do so. In other cases, the play erects ironic moments, where the power in a given scene comes from a combination of two different images. For example, in Act II, Madame Ranevsky complains loudly about how she cannot control her money, while in the same breath she allows Yasha, the most untrustworthy character, to pick up her spilled purse. The fact that she is able to talk about her weakness and neglect the safety of her money in the same breath indicates that, despite her complaints, she is still blind to much of her problem.

Symbolism is also a major tool in the hands of the playwright. In “The Cherry Orchard” many symbols are employed for thematic clarification. The keys at Barbara's waist symbolize her practicality and her power. Gay's imaginary billiards game symbolizes his desire to escape. The cherry orchard symbolizes the old social order, the aristocratic home, and its destruction symbolizes change. Firs himself is a figure of time; Anya is a figure of hope. The symbols in this play are too numerous to count, but many of them hinge on the idea of the changing social order or the specific circumstance of a given character.

Chekhov is also known for the emphasis he places on dialogue and off-stage action, otherwise known as "indirect action." The most important events in Chekhov's plays do not necessarily occur on Chekhov's stage; often, the audience experiences some of the most pivotal and dramatic action not by seeing it, but by hearing about it from the characters. In this concept of indirect action is an innovation on the part of Chekhov, whose impact on theatre and literature continues even today.

Significance of the Title of the Play Or

The Relationship between Lyubov and ‘The Cherry Orchard’

Anton Chekhov’s play The Cherry Orchard introduces readers to a pre-Revolution Russian family faced with the impending sale of their estate, the Cherry Orchard. The major character Lyubov Andreyevna in the play is the possessor of the Cherry Orchard. It is in the play that Lyubov must ultimately decide whether to allow her Cherry Orchard to be cut down to make room for villas or to sell the entire estate to pay off her debts. It is her unconditional love for both the Cherry Orchard and what it symbolizes to her that allows her to put the estate up for sale rather than have the Cherry Orchard cut down.

Although she is a constituent of the Russian upper class, Lyubov is hopelessly out of touch with reality and very irresponsible when it comes to finances. She often throws money around as though there are no consequences to her actions. After her husband died and her boy was tragically drowned at the Cherry Orchard, she fled to Paris and bought a villa, which she soon had to sell to pay off her debts. Lyubov dines lavishly and tips handsomely when in all actuality she hasn’t a dime to spare. She throws parties and hires orchestras she knows she cannot pay for. It is this type of behaviour that put Lyubov deep enough into debt to where her beloved estate has been put at risk.

To Lyubov the Cherry Orchard means so much more than the acres and acres of beautiful cherry trees and rivers; so much more than the piece of land that was featured in the encyclopaedia. To her it represents her sense of nostalgia, a longing for the past. It is the place where her grandparents lived. Her mother and father lived there as well. It reminds Lyubov of her youth. When she looks at the cherry trees she does not just see branches and blossoms, she sees a time when she walked through the orchard with her mother as a young girl. She says “I used to sleep here when I was little…and here I am like a child again.” Lyubov’s innocence also remains a part of the Cherry Orchard, for as a child she did not own serfs or squander her family’s money. Even though the Cherry Orchard invokes thoughts of her lost husband and son, she still treasures it. The Cherry Orchard is a piece of Lyubov’s heart.

Because the Cherry Orchard means so much to Lyubov, it is especially hard for her to come to grips with the fact that she has two options neither of which suits her liking. Because of all the debt that she acquired so irresponsibly, it has become inevitable that her relationship with the Cherry Orchard will never be the same. Lyubov will only be able to maintain ownership of the Cherry Orchard if she has the cherry trees cut down and builds summer villas in their place. Her other option would be to sell the Cherry Orchard. Since she has lived on the estate all her life and loves it so dearly, Lyubov never even considers cutting down the Cherry Orchard. In fact, she believes that to be a “vulgar” notion. Not only would the land that belonged to her family be trodden on by hundreds of visitors every summer, but also the orchard that held her childhood memories as well as those of the rest of her family would exist no longer. Because Lyubov refuses to insult the integrity of the estate by means of summer villas, the Cherry Orchard ultimately goes up for sale. Lyubov can live with this only because she assures herself that the condition of the estate will be maintained. In essence, Lyubov cares more about the Cherry Orchard than herself and her family. If she were more concerned for herself and her family then she would have built the villas.

Unfortunately for Lyubov, her hopes to keep the Cherry Orchard intact were dashed when she found out that Lopakhin bought it and planned to have the villas built anyway. She was so crushed when she learned of this that she could barely stand up. She wept bitterly, consoled only by the fact that she could return to Paris and that she and her daughter, Anya, would be able to begin a new life together. Had Lyubov not loved the Cherry Orchard so dearly, she would have allowed the cherry trees to be cut down and the villas built, but because she did love it so, she risked her own welfare to keep it intact. Although the Cherry Orchard ultimately came down anyway, where it not for Lyubov’s love it would have never even had a chance.

A Critical Analysis of the Character of Lyubov Ranevsky

Mrs. Lyuba Ranevsky is the protagonist figure of Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”. She is a mature Russian lady, the owner of the estate and the Cherry Orchard around which the story revolves. Lyubov’s life as well as her nature has alleviation of multi shades. She has stood in the way of hard realities of life many times and rather endeavoured to avert them.

A keen study of “The Cherry Orchard” denudes many facets of her personality. Anton Chekhov presents her before us as a representative of Feudal order. By the last breaths of 19^th century, feudalism was dwindling and was replaced by commercialism. So, being a representative of feudalism, she must have to face penury, melancholy and misery. As the descendant of landlords, the current miseries are no less than an ordeal for her.

Her first name “Lyuba” means “Love” in Russian. She seems to personify love with her generosity, magnanimity, corporeal attractiveness and hedonistic nature. She is the only character in the play with suitor. But her amorous feelings waver her judgment frequently. She is sanctimoniously kind hearted and genteel as well as affectionate and sincere to all. She even adores her adopted daughter Varya and courteously behaves eve with her servants.

She has to support a large family that proves her a generous lady by nature. Her family includes her brother Leonid Gayev who has several intriguing verbal habits. Varya, her adopted daughter who is at the apex of her youth, her biological daughter who is a teenager, Charlotte, Anya the governess girls an old servant, Yasha, a young man servant and Dunyasha, a maid servant. She also splurges money on the beggars munificently. She was thrown from the sky to the earth due to her lavish habits. In act IV, Gayer advises her, “There was no need to give them your purse Lyuba. You should not have done that you really should not”. Lyubov replies, “I could not help myself! I could not help it!”

Improvidence and carefree nature are major drawbacks in Lyubov’s character as people of the feudal class generally have. Neither she has made any plan for the rainy season nor is she distracted for the present financial exigency. Lyubov persists in spending as bountifully as ever, borrowing the money he needs. Speaking for her in a letter to his wife, Chekhov said, “Nothing but death could subdue a woman like that.” He described her as, “Tastefully, but not gorgeously dressed, intelligent, very good natured, absent-minded, friendly and gracious to everyone.”

The descriptions declare Lyubov inane and daft as she does not do any valuable or perspicacious works which might be esteemed as brainy. She allows everyone to consummate their desires. Her love affair with a con-man is the nuttiest slip up a lady could ever commit. Yet she is in a frantic haste to elope with her good for nothing love. She is incapable of sedate outlook. We can either call it as doltishness or callousness for Varya as she was leaving her in the lurch. If anybody deserved her bounty then they these two persons who had been in her service in the worst of times on the level.

Lyubov, time and again seems to eat her heart out and sobbing over her only son’s demise who met his maker by immersing in river in his childhood. When she comes across Trofimov, teacher of her son, she snivels.

“My Grisha…….., my boy….., my little boy was drowned why? ….… Why my friend?” She has very soft corner for her son in her heart and still recalls that mishap,

Her solicitude for cherry orchard is also conspicuous. She does not want to suffer the loss of it at all. On hearing about its auction, she becomes down in the dumps. She is forced because the sale of cherry orchard has become a necessary evil as there is no way out to release the heavy debt. Her last words for orchard are unforgettable, “Oh my dear…… My gentle, beautiful orchard!...... my life ..…. my you ……. My happiness… goodbye …. Farewell!” Her love for aesthetic beauty has been manifested through her love for cheery orchard.

To wind up her character, we can assert her with veracious representative figure of feudalism in Russia in the last breaths of 19^th century. The most touching figure in a comedy also stimulates the reader’s commiseration. Lyubov’s character is the one and only character that fabricates the play as “a blend of smiles and tears.”

Is ‘The Cherry Orchard’ a Comedy?

The Cherry Orchard serves as a glimpse into the lives of upper middle-class Russians at the turn of the century. The play at times seems to be a regretful account of past mistakes, but at other times it seems very comedic. The final outcome tends to classify it primarily as a tragedy with no shortage of light hearted moments. It invokes many feelings within the reader: joy, regret, pity, and anger are all expressed among the interactions of several characters with rich and complicated personalities. The reader finds some parts of the characters appealing and some parts disgraceful. This complexity enhances the authenticity of the roles and in turn augments the reader's emotional involvement.

Whether “The Cherry Orchard” is a comedy or tragedy, is a serious and a bit ambiguous question about this play. Notwithstanding, some lavishly humorous situations, characters and dialogues, “The Cherry Orchard” is barely like a comedy in the known sense. And yet Chekhov exhorted that it was a comedy and in places even a force. In his billet-doux addressed to M.P. Lilina, wife of Stanishlavsky says Chekhov, “Not a drama but a comedy has emerged from me; in places even a farce”, while, Stanislavsky challenged his view in an epistle to Chekhov. “It is not a comedy or a farce as you wrote, it is a tragedy, whatever you way out, you may have found for a better life in the last act.”

As per principles of tragedies of different ages, “The Cherry Orchard” is not up to them. The play, in the point of fact, conforms entirely to Aristotle’s definition of comedy; “As an imitation of characters of a lower stratum, which are not internally inferior, but whose faults and shortcomings possess something ludicrous.”

The polemics over the interpretation of “The Cherry Orchard” is certainly one of the most intriguing problems. The comedy, in the play, is more implied than stated. Such specimen of laughter through tars is rarely witnessed. The situation presents in the play, is at heart pathetic. A family is going to be deprived of their estate. Once affluent landlords, the owner of the house are now surviving with borrowed money. And that to pay back their debt they have to auction their estate under the law. Though the waggish elements in the play have to be looked for deeper but some of the situations and remarks are humorous beyond the shadow of doubt. Yepichodov’s melancholies, for instance, do make us roll on the floor with laughter. So do Pishchik’s concern and Gayer’s billiards cues which he employs as conclusion of even some of his most sober speeches, “Pot the yellow in the middle”.

And though, pathetic it appears to be, Lyubov’s affair de Coeur seems ludicrous in essence. So is Yepichodov’s love for Dunyasha, her love for Yasha, Pishchik’s honeyed words to lyubov, his style for begging a loan, Trofimov’s inability to be head over heels, Anya’s eulogy for his high flown outlook, ignoring her need of his heartfelt love, Lopakhin’s inaptitude to proposes to Varya and Yasha’s derelict remarks for Russians.

Trofimov’s articulate speeches on socio-political theme in response to Anya’s ferrent expression of affection are truly farcical. Yasha, too, behaves in the same soft-headed way in response to Dunyasha’s amorous advances Lopokhin’s sole concern remains strictly confined to his ambition of business projects.

For example, no character could be more ludicrous then a patrician like Gayev, whose characteristics according to Chekhov is “suavity and elegance”. It is not the fact that Gayev becomes a bank official that is laughable but that sense the beginning of the play it is made quite clear that he would not be able to hold a job for even a month. It is also ironic that Gayev would become a bank official considering that it is obvious that he and the rest of his family are all terrible with money. Along with Gayev his sister’s ability to understand business and budget their money is completely ludicrous. Throughout the play Ranyevskaya continuously spends money although the family is broke and losing everything they own. She has Leonid give Pishchik two hundred and forty rubles although she has told Pishchik “I have no money, my sweet.” This is ridiculous and the reader has to laugh at the ignorance of this family.

Even more ludicrous is Ranyevskaya concern for the loss of her belongs but makes no attempt to save them. After Lopakhin has spent act one and some of act two explaining how to save the land Ranyevskaya is ably to ask, “what can we possibly do? Tell us.” This leaves Lopakhin to make a comical comment about this family “such a strange unbusiness like people.” Although tragic events are taking place throughout the play, the characters’ actions and dialect are comical.

The symbolism of the sale of the cherry orchard can be sent as comical; it turns out to be a seminal icon for the memories of the family. This play is generated on seminal values of this family. No one in the family wants to see the cherry orchard go but it is ludicrous that the family does not see that the cherry orchard is going either by sale or development. The view of the cherry orchard as a seminal object also effects the true objective of the cherry orchard. Firs says: “In the old days, forty, fifty years ago, they used to dry the cherries, they used to soak them, they used to pickle them, they used to make jam out of them, and year after year.”

Chekhov is able to illustrate that the core of humanity is full of preposterous emotions and ideas. Apart from the elusive humour in “The Cherry Orchard”, Chekhov was a top-Notch humorist in his own right. He came to be known early for his divergent humour.  As a critic purposes, “Throughout, The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov places the action on a knife edge between laughter and tears. But he intends to weigh on the side of the comic, not against it.” Another critic writes about Russians, “Russians very frequently laugh where one ought to weep.”

The play, it is true, has plenty of emotional undercurrents but they are all of hilarious nature. Some of the critics have come up with sound reasons for labelling this play a comedy. To wind up the discussion, it may be concluded that there are arguments on either side. But the writer’s word counts more than what the critics say. Since Chekhov called the play on comedy, the conclusion should certainly weigh that way.

The Major Themes of “The Cherry Orchard”

Change is the law of the cosmos. The clock of time moves on persons, and things come into existence, grow up, mature, decline and go to their resting place. So is the schedule with the socio-political orders and systems. Clash between feudalism and capitalism, tradition and modernity as well as aesthetic beauty and commercialism is central to “The Cherry Orchard.”

“The Cherry Orchard” turned over its new leaf as a debut on the stage in 1904. At that time Russia was ruled over by the Tsar dynasty. Only thirteen years later, the Tsar was overthrown through a putsch.

The process of socio-political u-turns in Russia, as in the rest of the world, had kicked off showing conspicuous indications of great vicissitude in keeping with the times. The old order of feudal supremacy was on its last breaths. Agro-based economy amalgamated the Business or Agro-based economy commingled with the industrialism. The balance of power was shifting from feudal sway to industrialism/ commercialism. Huge estates and plazas were selling out and were being put to commercial use.

In “The Cherry Orchard”, the change has been symbolized in the sale of Gayev family’s cherished and renowned cherry orchard. With the passage of time, when Chekhov started jotting down this play unlike his contemporaries, he gave this theme a hilarious twist by highlighting the ludicrous facet of the ongoing process of socio-political change in Russia. Speaking of the social custom, Firs, the old servant of Lyubov laments: “That’s it! The peasants belonged to the masters and masters belonged to the peasants. You knew where you were. Now, its all topsy-turvy can’t make any sense of it.” The revolution and the war metamorphosed everything. The post war Russia was an innovative Russia with a new political and social setup. Symptoms of the imminent revolution make “The Cherry Orchard” a political play.

Lopakhin, who comes of a serf family, represents the whole plebeian who was emerging into an industrialist class. Lyubov and her family with all its pages represent the feudal class that is, at recent times, eradicated in Russia and is not struggling for its survival on its own.

Lyubov’s ménage and clan is under the obligation of their creditors. They are to pay their debt, which they cannot so their sole asset “The Cherry Orchard” is going to be sold under the law Gayev says that they are expecting some funds from Yeroslavl. On Lopakhin’s enquiry, he reveals that the money is in the region of ten or fifteen thousand roubles. The amount is evidently like a drop in the bucket, which have now run into seven digits. This exasperates Lopakhin as he cries out, “……With all due respect, you are the most frivolous, unbusiness like people I have ever met in my life.” Lopakhin’s statement makes his sharp sagacity apparent in business field and impotence of the feudalism that was prevailing at that time.

In the present case, the renunciation is the penalty, Gayev’s clan ought to reimburse for their reckless and lavish spending. It would not unjust to say that in the present case, the loss of tradition and estates came as a blessing, otherwise they would be soon put behind the bars. Chekhov wants to convey the moral persuasion through his theme that sacrifice of aesthetic value is a necessary evil for the gratification in the recent world. “The Cherry Orchard” is a superb source of aesthetic enjoyment that is going to be put to havoc for purely materialistic interests. It is to be hewed down for building dachas. This gloomy transition reflects the ongoing socio-political transition in Russia that is the striking theme of “The Cherry Orchard.”