The prototypes of Ranevskaya, according to the author, were Russian ladies who lived idly in Monte Carlo, whom Chekhov observed abroad in 1900 and early 1901: “And what insignificant women... [about a certain lady. - V.K.] “she lives here with nothing to do, just eats and drinks...” How many Russian women die here” (from a letter from O.L. Knipper).
At first, Ranevskaya’s image seems sweet and attractive to us. But then it acquires stereoscopicity and complexity: the lightness of her stormy experiences is revealed, exaggeration in the expression of feelings: “I can’t sit still, I’m not able to. (Jumps up and walks around in great excitement.) I won’t survive this joy... Laugh at me, I’m stupid... The closet is my dear. (Kisses the closet.) My table...” At one time, the literary critic D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky even asserted, referring to the behavior of Ranevskaya and Gaev: “The terms “frivolity” and “emptiness” are no longer used here in a common and general way , and in a closer - psychopathological - sense, the behavior of these characters in the play “is incompatible with the concept of a normal, healthy psyche.” But the fact of the matter is that all the characters in Chekhov’s play are normal, ordinary people, only them ordinary life, everyday life is viewed by the author as if through a magnifying glass.
Ranevskaya, despite the fact that her brother (Leonid Andreevich Gaev) calls her a “vicious woman,” oddly enough, evokes respect and love from all the characters in the play. Even the footman Yasha, as a witness to her Parisian secrets and quite capable of familiar treatment, does not occur to him to be cheeky with her. Culture and intelligence gave Ranevskaya the charm of harmony, sobriety of mind, and subtlety of feelings. She is smart, capable of telling the bitter truth about herself and about others, for example, about Pete Trofimov, to whom she says: “You have to be a man, at your age you have to understand those who love. And you have to love yourself... “I am above love!” You are not above love, but simply, as our Firs says, you are a klutz.”
And yet, there is much that evokes sympathy in Ranevskaya. Despite all her lack of will and sentimentality, she is characterized by a breadth of nature and a capacity for selfless kindness. This attracts Petya Trofimov. And Lopakhin says about her: “She is a good person. An easy, simple person."
Ranevskaya’s double, but a less significant personality, is Gaev in the play; it is no coincidence that he is on the list characters he is represented by his sister’s affiliation: “Ranevskaya’s brother.” And he is sometimes able to say smart things, sometimes be sincere, self-critical. But the sister’s shortcomings - frivolity, impracticality, lack of will - become caricatures in Gaev. Lyubov Andreevna only kisses the closet in a fit of emotion, while Gaev makes a speech in front of him in “high style.” In his own eyes, he is an aristocrat of the highest circle, Lopakhina does not seem to notice and tries to put “this boor” in his place. But his contempt - the contempt of an aristocrat who ate his fortune "on candy" - is ridiculous.
Gaev is infantile and absurd, for example, in the following scene:
“Firs. Leonid Andreevich, you are not afraid of God! When should you sleep?
Gaev (swatting away Firs). So be it, I’ll undress myself.”
Gaev is another version of spiritual degradation, emptiness and vulgarity.
It has been noted more than once in the history of literature, the unwritten “history” of the reader’s perception of Chekhov’s works, that he allegedly experienced a special prejudice towards high society- to noble, aristocratic Russia. These characters - landowners, princes, generals - appear in Chekhov's stories and plays not only empty, colorless, but sometimes stupid and poorly mannered. (A.A. Akhmatova, for example, reproached Chekhov: “And how he described representatives of the upper classes... He didn’t know these people! He didn’t know anyone higher than the assistant station manager... Everything is wrong, wrong!”)
However, it is hardly worth seeing in this fact a certain tendentiousness of Chekhov or his incompetence; the writer had a lot of knowledge of life. This is not the point, it’s not a matter of social “registration” Chekhov's characters. Chekhov did not idealize representatives of any class, any social group; he was, as we know, outside of politics and ideology, outside of social preferences. All classes “got it” from the writer, and the intelligentsia too: “I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-mannered, lazy, I don’t believe even when it suffers and complains, because its oppressors come from its own depths.” .
With that high cultural, moral, ethical and aesthetic exactingness, with that wise humor with which Chekhov approached man in general and his era in particular, social differences lost their meaning. This is the peculiarity of his “funny” and “sad” talent. In The Cherry Orchard itself there are not only no idealized characters, but also certainly goodies(this applies to Lopakhin (“modern” Chekhov’s Russia), and to Anya and Petya Trofimov (Russia of the future).
One of the main characters of the work is Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother The main characters are the owner of the estate, Ranevskaya.
The writer presents Gaev as a lonely fifty-year-old man, a landowner who does not have his own family, living in an old estate under the guardianship of the old man Firs, who lost his family fortune due to an idle lifestyle in the form of his favorite pastime - playing billiards.
The characteristic features of the hero are his aristocratic education, combined with a weak-willed nature, which is expressed in the inability and unwillingness to make important life decisions and defend his own position. But at the same time, Gaev is distinguished by his artistry and sincerity in expressing his thoughts, as well as sentimentality and romanticism.
When participating in conversations, Leonid Andreevich is verbose, often rants not on the substance of the conversation and sometimes he himself notices that he is speaking off topic and inappropriately inserts expressions that are not entirely clear to his interlocutors.
Gaev is characterized loving attitude to his household and loved ones, he sincerely cares for the happiness of his sister and his nieces, hoping to successfully marry one of the girls, Anna, to a worthy and wealthy nobleman. Gaev is very attached to old Firs, he cannot do without him even while preparing for bed, but at the end of the play he does not even remember the old man.
Naively believing that there is a possibility of saving the estate from sale and preserving the cherry orchard, which has for him great value However, as for all family members, Gaev’s dreams represent receiving an unrealistic inheritance. In fact, Leonid Andreevich does not want to realize the accomplished fact of losing the family estate, although he says goodbye to the garden with tears in his eyes, but deep feelings and suffering is not common to this hero. Therefore, he enters the service with a small annual salary in a men’s club, although, according to his relatives and the merchant Lopakhin, Gaev’s work will not last long, since Leonid Andreevich is not disciplined in work and is lazy.
Describing the image of Gaev in the play, the writer caricaturesly reveals the essence of the devastation of the noble class of that time, the spinelessness and lack of initiative of the aristocracy, idealizing the events taking place, which are already being actively replaced by representatives of commerce and business merchants in the form of Lopakhin, striving for a dominant position in society.
Option 2
Leonid Alekseevich Gaev is one of the heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard” by the great Russian writer and playwright Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. In his image, as in Ranevskaya, the author depicted the past of Russia. He is a representative of the nobility, an aristocrat, and at the same time, wanting to show that their time is over, the author purposefully makes Gaev a bankrupt landowner.
Gaev is already 51 years old, but at the same time he is absolutely not independent. The old servant Firs still dresses and undresses him, like a little child, carefully watching that the master does not catch a cold. Gaev is infinitely lazy. When the question of selling the Cherry Orchard at auction arises, he only makes long, pathetic and solemn speeches, swearing that under no circumstances will he allow the sale... But that’s all. In practice, no action was taken or even weak attempts to do anything. Gaev is an example of pure egoism. Caring only about himself, he really doesn’t care what happens to the Cherry Orchard. At the end of the play, he forgets about his old devoted servant Firs.
Gaev's hobby is playing billiards, and he also likes to eat candy. The passion for games and sweets emphasizes the character’s infantilism. After selling the garden, Leonid Alekseevich will get a job at a bank, but no one believes that this will last long. Everyone knows his inconstancy and laziness.
Chekhov contrasts Gaev with Lopakhin, who is a typical representative of the merchant class of that time. Leonid Alekseevich speaks poorly of Lopakhin, considers him a boor and a brute. He rejects his business proposal to rent out the Cherry Orchard for dachas, which in reality could have saved the garden, citing the mythical vulgarity of such a deal. At the same time, Gaev does not consider it shameful to beg for money from others. In the play, he says that it would be nice to go to his aunt-countess - to ask for money to cover debts or receive an inheritance, or to marry Anya, his niece, to a rich man
The purpose of creating “The Cherry Orchard” was to display the division of society of that time into the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev), present (Lopakhin) and future of Russia (Petya Trofimov, Anya). Gaev is an image of the outdated noble past of Russia. He is helpless and absolutely not adapted to modern life.
Essay Image and characteristics of Gaev
The play The Cherry Orchard still remains relevant; many of the characters are written with incredible texture and represent collective images different human types. One of the main acting heroes is Leonid Andreevich Gaev, who throughout his entire existence was a landowner and was always ready for everything. When the time comes for a new time and need arises, Gaev does not know what to do.
In fact, you need to consider this hero as the antithesis of Lopakhin and vice versa. From birth, Gaev remained in bliss; he was constantly cared for and accustomed to the wealth and habits of people of the upper class. In turn, Lopakhin represents a man, as they say in America, “who made himself.” He is somewhat similar, for example, to Stolz from Goncharov’s novel, he is also an active, mostly materialist who strives to achieve everything.
Gaev is a spacious and mostly dreamy, inactive nature. He literally cannot take care of his estate himself, but can only think about how good it would be to receive some kind of indulgence, some kind of contentment from other people. Having lived like this until he was 50 years old, he can no longer choose anything else, and only at the end of the play do we learn about how Leodnid Andreevich gets a job as a bank employee.
As Lopakhin says, Gaev will not be able to hold out at this job, since he is very lazy and this really makes sense. Lopakhin, of course, treats the landowner with contempt in many respects and does not miss the opportunity to tease him, but he gives very clear definitions that correspond to reality.
It seems to me that in the image of Gaev, Chekhov depicted the crisis of the aristocratic class and the crisis among the landowners.
As is known, in order to maintain power, one must have clear and strong beliefs, as well as the opportunity to defend these beliefs in fact. Leonid Andreevich, in turn, is an aristocrat only in name; he is a landowner by inheritance, but in fact he would not be able to achieve the privileges that he has.
In my opinion, the figure of Gaev is sad and even to some extent tragic, although it does not evoke sympathy.
Several interesting essays
- The main characters of Hoffmann's Nutcracker
Hoffmann's fairy tale "The Nutcracker and mouse king"is one of the symbols of Christmas and New Year. Even the ballet of the same name is the highlight of the theater program at this time.
- Essay Conflict of generations in the novel Fathers and Sons of Turgenev
In the novel “Fathers and Sons” by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, the conflict is written about different generations. Main character Evgeny Bazarov is a very hardworking person. He likes exact sciences
- Azamat in the novel Hero of Our Time Lermontov's characterization and image
Azamat is a young highlander who strives to imitate Kazbich in everything. Probably Azamat is spoiled and lacks the true pride and dignity of a prince’s son
Most people live without noticing how many beautiful things surround us. You need to have special qualities to see beauty in simple things. If you find it difficult to see a miracle, just look around, most miracles are provided to us by nature.
In our family, sport has become a good tradition that can unite us and unite us in the most difficult times.
The system of images of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is unconventional: there are no main and minor, positive and negative characters in it. It is customary to divide all comedy images into three groups: “heroes of the past”, “heroes of the present” and “heroes of the future”. Leonid Andreevich Gaev and his sister Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya are the owners of the cherry orchard, nobles by origin. These are very ambiguous images.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya suffered a lot in her life: her husband drank and “did nothing but debts,” her seven-year-old son drowned in the river a month after her husband’s death, the lover with whom she went to France robbed her and abandoned her. But Lyubov Andreevna remained sensitive, kind person, whom everyone around him loves. At the same time, she is selfish, her understanding of beauty often turns into tearful sentimentality, and abstract kindness towards random passers-by is combined with indifference towards loved ones, including her own daughter. She is generous to the point of extravagance, accustomed to idleness, she does not limit herself to anything - she only knows how to spend. Her brother, Leonid Andreevich Gaev, is also helpless. He is well educated and eloquent, but this has not resulted in any specific activity. Gaev goes to the club, to restaurants, plays billiards, and has idle conversations. Having “spent his fortune on lollipops,” he finds himself facing financial ruin but unable to do anything. Giving Anya empty promises, swearing “with honor and life” that the garden will not be sold, he can only dream of how nice it would be to receive an inheritance from someone or marry Anya to a very rich man.
For both Gaev and Ranevskaya, cutting down the garden is unacceptable - the destruction of beauty, memory, everything connected with their childhood and youth. But they cannot change anything and meekly accept the news of the sale of the garden. How can they, accustomed to living at someone else’s expense, fit into the new conditions? Ranevskaya goes to Paris again, intending to live on the money sent by her Yaroslavl grandmother to buy an estate, “and this money will not last long.” Gaev received a position at the bank for six thousand a year, but, according to Lopakhin, “he won’t be able to sit still, he’s very lazy.”
The fate of Ranevskaya and Gaev is typical of the entire noble class, which has lost ground under its feet. That is why they are considered “heroes of the past.” The ending of the play is full of understatement and uncertainty. “Life has passed, as if he had never lived,” says the forgotten Firs in the last scene, and his words are accompanied by the sound of an ax in the cherry orchard. This scene has a deeply symbolic meaning - the passing of nobility, the collapse of hopes and an unclear future in which there is no place for sentimental memories of better times.
Gaev Leonid Andreevich - one of the main characters in Chekhov's play " Cherry Orchard", brother of the landowner Ranevskaya. He is a man of the old school, like his sister - sentimental. He is very worried about the sale of the family estate and the loss cherry orchard.
By nature, Gaev is an idealist and romantic. He is not particularly adapted to the “new” life. He considers himself to be a people of the 80s of the 19th century. He is artistic and sincere. He can even confess his love to a closet, which for him has been the guardian of the family for almost a century. He talks a lot, sometimes not to the point. Therefore, he realizes that what he said was inappropriate, but then repeats everything from the beginning. To hide his worries about the estate, he often inserts words into his speech like “who?” or "from the ball to the right into the corner" (an expression used in billiards).
They make unrealistic plans about preserving the cherry orchard and keep dreaming that someone will leave them a rich inheritance. And also, he dreams of marrying off his niece Anya. But this is only in words, but in reality, he did not lift a finger to save the estate.
After Lopakhin buys their house and garden, he gets a job at a bank for six thousand a year. At the end of the work, Lopakhin says that this will not last long, since Gaev is terribly lazy.
Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy
Before Anton Chekhov, Russian theater was going through a crisis; it was he who made an invaluable contribution to its development, breathing into it new life. The playwright snatched small sketches from everyday life their heroes, bringing dramaturgy closer to reality. His plays made the viewer think, although they did not contain intrigues or open conflicts, but they reflected the internal anxiety of a turning point in history, when society froze in anticipation of imminent changes, and all social strata became heroes. The apparent simplicity of the plot introduced the stories of the characters before the events described, making it possible to speculate what would happen to them after. In this way, the past, present, and future were mixed in an amazing way in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” by connecting people not so much from different generations, but different eras. And one of the “undercurrents” characteristic of Chekhov’s plays was the author’s reflection on the fate of Russia, and the theme of the future took central place in the Cherry Orchard.
Past, present and future on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”
So how did the past, present and future meet on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”? Chekhov seemed to divide all the heroes into these three categories, depicting them very vividly.
The past in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is represented by Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs - the oldest character in the entire performance. They are the ones who talk most about what happened; for them, the past is a time in which everything was easy and wonderful. There were masters and servants, each had their own place and purpose. For Firs, the abolition of serfdom became the greatest grief; he did not want freedom, remaining on the estate. He sincerely loved the family of Ranevskaya and Gaev, remaining devoted to them until the very end. For the aristocrats Lyubov Andreevna and her brother - past this is a time when they did not need to think about such base things as money. They enjoyed life, doing what brings pleasure, knowing how to appreciate the beauty of intangible things - it is difficult for them to adapt to the new order, in which material values replace highly moral values. For them, it is humiliating to talk about money, about ways to earn it, and Lopakhin’s real proposal to rent out land occupied by an essentially worthless garden is perceived as vulgarity. Unable to make decisions about the future of the cherry orchard, they succumb to the flow of life and simply float along it. Ranevskaya, with her aunt’s money sent for Anya, leaves for Paris, and Gaev goes to work in a bank. The death of Firs at the end of the play is very symbolic, as if saying that the aristocracy as a social class has outlived its usefulness, and there is no place for it, in the form in which it was before the abolition of serfdom.
Lopakhin became a representative of the present in the play “The Cherry Orchard”. “A man is a man,” as he says about himself, a thinking in a new way who knows how to make money using his mind and instincts. Petya Trofimov even compares him to a predator, but a predator with a subtle artistic nature. And this brings Lopakhin a lot of emotional distress. He is perfectly aware of the beauty of the old cherry orchard, which will be cut down according to his will, but he cannot do otherwise. His ancestors were serfs, his father owned a shop, and he became a “white farmer”, amassing a considerable fortune. Chekhov placed special emphasis on the character of Lopakhin, because he was not a typical merchant, whom many treated with disdain. He made himself, paving the way with his work and desire to be better than his ancestors, not only in terms of financial independence, but also in education. In many ways, Chekhov identified himself with Lopakhin, because their pedigrees are similar.
Anya and Petya Trofimov personify the future. They are young, full of strength and energy. And most importantly, they have a desire to change their lives. But, it’s just that Petya is a master at talking and reasoning about a wonderful and fair future, but he doesn’t know how to turn his speeches into action. This is what prevents him from graduating from university or at least somehow organizing his life. Petya denies all attachments - be it to a place or to 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 new garden, even more beautiful than before.” However, the future in Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is very uncertain and vague. In addition to the educated Anya and Petya, there are also Yasha and Dunyasha, and they, too, are the future. Moreover, if Dunyasha is just a stupid peasant girl, then Yasha is a completely different type. The Gaevs and Ranevskys are being replaced by the Lopakhins, but someone will also have to replace the Lopakhins. If you remember history, then 13 years after this play was written, these are the 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 collected in one place, but they were not united inner desire be together and exchange your dreams, desires, experiences. Old Garden and the house holds them, and as soon as they disappear, the connection between the heroes and the time they reflect is severed.
Connection of times today
Only the greatest creations are able to reflect reality even many years after their creation. This happened with the play “The Cherry Orchard”. History is cyclical, society develops and changes, moral and ethical standards are also subject to rethinking. Human life is not possible without memory of the past, inaction in the present, and without faith in the future. One generation is replaced by another, some build, others destroy. This is how it was in Chekhov’s time, and this is how it is now. The playwright was right when he said that “All of Russia is our garden,” and it depends only on us whether it will bloom and bear fruit, or whether it will be cut down at the very root.
The author's discussions about the past, present and future in comedy, about people and generations, about Russia make us think even today. These thoughts will be useful for 10th graders when writing an essay on the topic “Past, present, future in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.”
Work test
