Composition “The image-symbol in the minds of the heroes of the play by A. Chekhov“ The Cherry Orchard
Theme of the lesson: “Symbols in the play by A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard”
Lesson Objectives:
Educational: expanding the idea of A.P. Chekhov's work through the analysis of A.P. Chekhov's play; identification of symbolism in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard", determining their role in the text, the reasons for their use; consolidation of theoretical knowledge - image, symbol
Developing: development of associative, figurative thinking, the ability to analyze, generalize, draw conclusions;development of skills in working with a literary text and interpreting a dramatic work
Educational: formation of national self-consciousness, moral values; spiritual and aesthetic development of students
Lesson objectives: to consolidate students' knowledge of the literary concept of "symbol", to determine the role of symbols and the reasons for their use in the play "The Cherry Orchard".
Lesson type: lesson-conversation, lesson-research
Study methods: heuristic, reproductive, exploratory
Methodical methods: statement of the problem, a joint dialogue between the teacher and students, discussion, selection of arguments to confirm their own position.
Types of learning activities : reading a literary text, drawing up a table, conversation
Equipment: text of the work, computer, sound reproducing equipment, projector, blackboard, chalk.
During the classes
Epigraph: "All Russia is our garden." (A.P. Chekhov)
Organizing time
Hello guys! Today we continue to work with A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard". You already know that The Cherry Orchard is the last work of the writer, so it contains his innermost thoughts. This is the anxiety of a dying writer about the future of Russia, about the spiritual connection of generations, about national culture, about the Russian people.
Main part
First, let's remember what a symbol is? What is his artistic role in the work?
Symbol - a multi-valued allegorical image based on the similarity, similarity or commonality of objects and phenomena of life. A symbol can express a system of correspondences between different aspects of reality (the natural world and human life, society and the individual, real and unreal, earthly and heavenly, external and internal). In a symbol, identity or similarity with another object or phenomenon is not obvious, not fixed verbally or syntactically.
The image-symbol is multi-valued. He admits that the reader may have a variety of associations. In addition, the meaning of the symbol most often does not coincide with the meaning of the word - metaphor. The understanding and interpretation of a symbol is always wider than the similitudes or metaphorical allegories from which it is composed.
The correct interpretation of symbols contributes to a deep and correct reading of literary texts. Symbols always expand the semantic perspective of the work, allow the reader, based on the author's hints, to build a chain of associations that connects various phenomena of life. Writers use symbolization in order to destroy the illusion of lifelikeness that often arises among readers, to emphasize the ambiguity, the great semantic depth of the images they create.
In addition, the symbols in the work create more accurate, capacious characteristics and descriptions; make the text deeper and more multifaceted; allow you to touch on important issues without advertising it; evoke individual associations in each reader.
Let's talk about the symbolism of the name.
What is the role of the cherry orchard in the composition of the play?
What do we learn about the estate and the cherry orchard in the first act? How do events around the cherry orchard develop in the future?
At home, you had to write out quotes about the cherry orchard. What do the characters in the play say about him?
For clarity, let's make a table in your notebooks, and, having analyzed and comprehended the statements of the main characters, we briefly outline the attitude of each character to the cherry orchard.
Attitude to the Garden of Comedy Heroes
Ranevskaya
Gaev
Anya
Lopakhin
“If there is anything interesting, even remarkable, in the whole province, it is only our cherry orchard.”
The garden is the past, childhood, but also a sign of well-being, pride, a memory of happiness.
"And the Encyclopedic Dictionary mentions this garden."
The garden is a symbol of childhood, the garden is a home, but childhood has to be parted.
"Why do I no longer like the cherry orchard as before."
Garden - hope for the future.
"We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this."
The garden is a memory of the past: grandfather and father were serfs; hopes for the future - cut down, break into plots, rent out. The garden is a source of wealth, a source of pride.
Lopakhin: "If the cherry orchard ... then rent out for summer cottages, then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year income."
"Cherry is born every two years, and no one buys that one"
How do Firs and Petya Trofimov feel about the cherry orchard?
Try to summarize all of the above. How do you understand the image of the cherry orchard?
The image of cherry unites all the heroes of the play around itself. At first glance, it seems that these are only relatives and old acquaintances who, by chance, gathered at the estate to solve their everyday problems. But it's not. The writer connects characters of different ages and social groups, and they must somehow decide the fate of the garden, and hence their own fate.
And how does the author feel about the cherry orchard? What is the symbol of the cherry orchard for A.P. Chekhov?
The garden for the author embodies love for the native nature; bitterness because they cannot save her beauty and wealth; the author's thought about a person who can change life is important; the garden is a symbol of a lyrical, poetic attitude towards the Motherland.
plays sound recording: vocalization No. 5 Tenderness. Garden of Eden S.V. Rachmaninoff
What emotions does this song evoke in you? Can she act as a symbol?
Let's remember what sounds are spelled out in remarks.
In the works of A.P. Chekhov, not only things, objects and phenomena of the surrounding world acquire symbolic overtones, but also audio and visual range. Due to sound and color symbols, the writer achieves the most complete understanding of his works by the reader.
Find in the second act the moment where the owl's cry sounds. What do you think it symbolizes?
And the sound of a broken string? The sound of an ax? Other sounds? Comment.
Let's look at the table again.
Sound symbols
Owl cry - poses a real threat.
"Firs. It was the same way before the disaster; and the owl screamed, and the samovar hummed endlessly” (act II).
The sound of the flute - background design of tender feelings experienced by the character.
“Far beyond the garden, a shepherd is playing his flute. ... Trofimov (in emotion) My sun! My spring! (action I).
The sound of a broken string - the embodiment of impending disaster and the inevitability of death.
“Suddenly ..., the sound of a broken string, fading,
sad" (act II).
Ax sound - symbolizes the death of noble estates, the death of old Russia.
“I can hear how they knock on wood with an ax in the distance” (act IV).
Have you noticed which color is most often repeated in the play?
Of all the variety of colors in the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov uses only one - white, applying it in different ways throughout the first act.
“Gaev (opens another window). The garden is all white.
At the same time, the garden in the play has only just been named, it is shown only outside the windows, as the potential possibility of its death is outlined, but not specified. White color is a premonition of a visual image. The heroes of the work repeatedly talk about him: “Lyubov Andreevna. All, all white! O my garden! To the right, at the turn to the gazebo, a white tree leaned over, like a woman... What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers.
Let's continue the table:
color symbols
White color - a symbol of purity, light, wisdom.
“Gaev (opens another window). The garden is all white" (act I),
Lyubov Andreevna. All, all white! O my garden! (action I),
color spots - Details of the costume of the characters.
"Lopakhin. True, my father was a peasant, but here I am in a white waistcoat ”(act I),
"Charlotte Ivanovna in a white dress ... passage through the stage" (act II),
Lyubov Andreevna. Look ... in a white dress! (action I),
"Firs. Puts on white gloves” (act I).
Conclusion
Chekhov in the play "The Cherry Orchard" used almost the entire range of symbolic means of expression: sound, real, verbal symbolism. This helps him create a voluminous artistic canvas, bright and scenic, with its own “undercurrent”, depicting the death of noble nests.
The art of the writer, democratic in the highest sense of the word, was oriented towards the common man. The author trusts the mind, the subtlety of the reader, the ability to respond to poetry, to become a co-creator of the artist. Everyone finds something of their own in Chekhov's works. Therefore, he is read and loved so far.
You did a good job today. The following students received marks. (voice marks)
Homework: in preparation for the final essay on the play by A.P. Chekhov, in 7-8 sentences, comment on the epigraph of today's lesson: "All Russia is our garden."
The final chord of the outgoing era
The symbol of the garden in the play "The Cherry Orchard" occupies one of the central places. This work drew a line under all the work of A.P. Chekhov. It is with the garden that the author compares Russia, putting this comparison into the mouth of Petya Trofimov: “All of Russia is our garden.” But why is the orchard cherry, and not apple, for example? It is noteworthy that Chekhov placed special emphasis on the pronunciation of the name of the garden precisely through the letter “Ё”, and for Stanislavsky, with whom this play was discussed, the difference between the “cherry” and “cherry” garden did not immediately become clear. And the difference, according to him, was that cherry is a garden that can make a profit, and it is always needed, and cherry is the guardian of the outgoing aristocratic life, blooming and growing to delight the aesthetic tastes of its owners.
Chekhov's dramaturgy tends to involve not only the characters, but also the environment around them: he believed that only through the description of daily life and routine affairs it is possible to fully reveal the characters' characters. It was in Chekhov's plays that "undercurrents" appeared, giving movement to everything that happens. Another feature of Chekhov's plays was the use of symbols. Moreover, these symbols had two directions - one side was real, and had a very substantive outline, and the second side was elusive, it can only be felt at the subconscious level. This is what happened in The Cherry Orchard.
The symbolism of the play lies in the garden, and in the sounds heard behind the stage, and even in Epikhodov's broken billiard cue, and in the fall of Petya Trofimov from the stairs. But of particular importance in Chekhov's dramaturgy are the symbols of nature, which include manifestations of the surrounding world.
The semantics of the play and the attitude of the characters to the garden
The meaning of the cherry orchard symbol in the play is by no means accidental. In many nations, flowering cherry trees symbolize purity and youth. For example, in China, spring flowering, in addition to the above meanings, correlates with courage and female beauty, and the tree itself is a symbol of good luck and spring. In Japan, the cherry blossom is the emblem of the country and the samurai, and signifies prosperity and wealth. And for Ukraine, cherry is the second symbol after viburnum, denoting the feminine. Cherry is associated with a beautiful young girl, and the cherry garden in songwriting is a favorite place for walking. The symbolism of the cherry orchard near the house in Ukraine is huge, it is he who drives away the evil force from the house, playing the role of a talisman. There was even a belief: if there is no garden near the hut, then devils gather around it. When moving, the garden remained untouched, as a reminder of the origins of its kind. For Ukraine, cherry is a divine tree. But at the end of the play, a beautiful cherry orchard goes under the axe. Isn't this a warning that great trials lie ahead not only for the heroes, but for the entire Russian Empire?
Not without reason, after all, Russia is compared with this garden.
For each character, the symbol of the garden in the comedy The Cherry Orchard has its own meaning. The action of the play begins in May, when the cherry orchard, whose fate is to be decided by the owners, blooms, and ends in late autumn, when all nature freezes. Flowering reminds Ranevskaya and Gaev of their childhood and youth, this garden has been with them all their lives, and they simply cannot imagine how it can not be. They love it, they admire and are proud of it, saying that their garden is listed in the book of sights of the area. They understand that they are capable of losing their estates, but they cannot figure out in their heads how it is possible to cut down a beautiful garden and set up some summer cottages in its place. And Lopakhin sees the profit that he can bring, but this is only a superficial attitude towards the garden. After all, having bought it for a lot of money, without leaving competitors at the auction the slightest chance to take possession of it, it is recognized that this cherry orchard is the best that he has ever seen. The triumph of the purchase is connected, first of all, with his pride, because the illiterate man, as Lopakhin considered himself, became the master where his grandfather and father "were slaves."
Petya Trofimov is most indifferent to the garden. He admits that the garden is beautiful, it delights the eye, attaches some importance to the life of its owners, but every twig and leaf tells him about hundreds of serfs who worked to make the garden flourish and that this garden is a relic of serfdom that needs to be put an end to. . He is trying to convey the same to Anya, who loves the garden, but not as much as her parent, ready to hold on to him to the last. And Anya understands that it is impossible to start a new life by preserving this garden. It is she who calls on the mother to leave in order to lay a new garden, implying that it is necessary to start another life that will fit into the realities of the time.
Firs is also closely connected with the fate of the estate and the garden, having served in it all his life. He is too old to start something anew, and he had such an opportunity when serfdom was abolished and they wanted to marry him, but getting freedom for him would be a misfortune, and he speaks directly about it. He is deeply attached to the garden, to the house, to the owners. He is not even offended when he finds that he was forgotten in an empty house, either because he no longer has the strength and is indifferent to him, or because he understands that the old existence has ended, and in the future there is nothing for him. And how symbolic the death of Firs looks to the sounds of a garden being cut down, this is due to the fact that in the final scene the role of symbols is intertwined - the sound of a broken string drowns in the sounds of ax blows, showing that the past has irretrievably gone.
The future of Russia: a contemporary view
Throughout the play, it is clear that the characters are connected with the cherry orchard, some more, some less, but it is through their attitude to him that the author tried to reveal their meaning in the temporary space of the past, present and future. The symbol of the cherry orchard in Chekhov's play is a symbol of Russia, which is at the crossroads of its development, when ideologies and social strata are mixed up and many people simply have no idea what will happen next. But this is so unobtrusively shown in the play that even M. Gorky, in whom the production did not arouse high appreciation, admitted that it aroused in him a deep and inexplicable longing.
An analysis of the symbolism, a description of the role and meaning of the main symbol of the play, which were performed in this article, will help 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “The symbol of the garden in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard””.
Artwork test
The play "The Cherry Orchard" was written by Chekhov shortly before his death. It is impossible to imagine a person who would not know this play. In this touching work, Chekhov, as it were, says goodbye to the world, which could be more merciful and humane.
Studying Chekhov's work "The Cherry Orchard", I would like to note one feature of his heroes: they are all ordinary people, and not one of them can be called a hero of his time, although almost every one of them is a symbol of the time. The landowner Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik and Firs can be called a symbol of the past. They are weighed down by the legacy of serfdom, in which they grew up and were brought up, these are the types of the outgoing Russia. They cannot imagine any other life, just like Firs, who cannot imagine life without masters. Firs considers the liberation of the peasants a misfortune - "the peasants are with the masters, the gentlemen are with the peasants, and now everything is scattered, you will not understand anything." The symbol of the present is associated with the image of Lopakhin, in which two principles are fighting. On the one hand, he is a man of action, his ideal is to make the earth rich and happy. On the other hand, there is no spirituality in it, and in the end the thirst for profit takes over. The symbol of the future was Anya - the daughter of Ranevskaya and the eternal student of Trofimov. They are young and the future belongs to them. They are obsessed with the idea of creative work and liberation from slavery. Petya calls to quit everything and be free like the wind.
So who is the future? For Petya? For Anya? For Lopakhin? This question could be rhetorical if history did not give Russia a second attempt to solve it. The end of the play is very symbolic - the old owners leave and forget the dying Firs. So, the logical finale: inactive consumers in the social sense, the servant - lackey, who served them all his life, and the cherry orchard - all this irrevocably goes into the past, to which there is no way back. History cannot be returned.
I would like to note the cherry orchard as the main symbol in the play. Trofimov's monologue reveals the symbolism of the garden in the play: “The whole of Russia is our garden. The land of the giant is beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it. Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf-owners who owned living souls, and is it possible that from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, human beings do not look at you, do you really not hear voices ... Own living souls, because it has reborn all of you who lived before and are living now, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you live in debt at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let further than the front .. .” All the action takes place around the garden, the characters of the heroes and their destinies are highlighted on its problems. It is also symbolic that the ax raised over the garden caused a conflict between the heroes and in the souls of most heroes the conflict is not resolved, just as the problem is not solved after cutting down the garden.
On stage, The Cherry Orchard goes on for about three hours. The characters live for five months during this time. And the action of the play covers a more significant period of time, which includes the past, present and future of Russia.
Content
Introduction ................................................ ................................................. ................3
1. Symbol as a literary phenomenon .............................................. .........................7
1.1 The concept of a symbol............................................... ...............................7
1.2 The formation of the concept of "symbol" .............................................. .................8
1.3 Symbol concepts............................................................... ...............................10
1.4 The study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov..............................14
2. Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" ..............................................16
2.1 Polysemy of the symbol of the garden in Chekhov's drama.................................................16
2.2 Symbolic details in Chekhov's drama……….................................................20
2.3 Sound Symbols in Drama............................................................... ......................22
Conclusion................................................. ................................................. ..........26
List of references .............................................................................. ....................28
Introduction
Chekhov is one of the most amazing phenomena of our culture. The appearance of Chekhov the classic was unexpected and somehow, at first glance, at first glance, unusual: in any case, everything in him contradicted the whole experience of Russian classical literature.
The work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is devoted to many works of both domestic and Western dramaturgy. Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet Czech studies have accumulated extensive experience in research, textual and commentary work. Already in the pre-revolutionary years, articles appeared in which Chekhov's prose and dramaturgy received a deep interpretation (articles by M. Gorky, V.G. Korolenko, N.K. Mikhailovsky, F.D. Batyushkov).
In Soviet times, a huge work was launched to collect and publish the literary heritage of A.P. Chekhov, to study his life and work. Here we should mention the works of S.D. Balukhaty (Questions of Poetics. - L., 1990), which substantiates theoretical approaches to the analysis of a new psychological-realistic drama. Book G.P. Berdnikov “A.P. Chekhov: Ideological and Moral Quests" from the series "The Life of Remarkable People" is today considered one of the most authoritative biographies of Chekhov. In addition, here the works of Chekhov are revealed in the context of public life in 18980-1900. In his other book, Chekhov the Playwright: Traditions and Innovation in Chekhov's Drama, G.P. Berdnikov focuses his attention on the history of the formation of Chekhov's innovative dramaturgy, as well as on the most important features of Chekhov's innovative dramatic system as a whole. At the same time, the book makes an attempt to clarify the living connection between Chekhov's dramaturgy and the traditions of Russian realistic theater. Thus, the main issue in the work is the question of tradition and innovation in the Chekhov theater and its place in the history of Russian realistic drama, more broadly - in the history of Russian realistic theater. The study is carried out sequentially chronologically, and each play is considered as a new stage in the formation of Chekhov's innovative dramatic system as a whole.
Articles by A.P. Skaftymov "On the unity of form and content in Chekhov's Cherry Orchard", "On the principles of the construction of Chekhov's plays" have already become classics. Here, as in his other works, the scientist recreates the personal creative truth and the spiritual, moral ideal of the artist through a holistic interpretation of the work of art. The above articles present a systematic analysis of the plot and compositional features of Chekhov's plays.
Z.S. Paperny, in his book “Against All Rules…”: Chekhov's Plays and Vaudevilles, speaks of the impossibility of saying everything about Chekhov's work. In the work of the Soviet literary critic, the artistic nature of Chekhov's plays and vaudevilles is studied in its connections with the contemporary reality of the writer.
Monographs A.P. Chudakov's "Chekhov's Poetics" and "Chekhov's World: Emergence and Approval" were a new word in Czech studies. And although the first work was published back in 1971, it already shows a break from the traditional formulations for Soviet literary criticism. The development of new approaches to the writer's work is developed in the next work of the researcher, in which the system-synchronous analysis of Chekhov's work was continued by the historical-genetic analysis.
In the book of V.I. Kamyanov "Time against timelessness: Chekhov and the present" contains a new approach to the analysis of the work of the Russian writer. The author proposes to consider Chekhov's works in an inseparable unity and, at the same time, from different points of view: the passage of time in stories, novels and plays, issues of religious faith in artistic coverage, the image of nature as the basis for the harmony of the world. At the same time, Kamyanov was one of the first to raise the question of the influence of Chekhov's work on Russian literature in the second half of the 20th century.
At present, the collections "Chekhov's Bulletin" and "Young Researchers of Chekhov" are regularly published, where articles by young Chekhov scholars are published. Mostly these studies of any individual aspects of the writer's work.
At the same time, there are no separate works devoted to the study of images-symbols in Chekhov's dramaturgy. At the same time, now in literary criticism much attention is paid to the study of unexplored levels of Chekhov's works. Therefore, we can talk about the relevance of this work.
The purpose of our study is to study the images-symbols in the dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov (on the example of the play "The Cherry Orchard"), their place and role in the artistic system of works.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
1. Define the concept of "symbol" and present its basic concepts;
2. Identify the symbols most characteristic of A.P. Chekhov;
3. Determine the place and role of symbols in the artistic system of Chekhov's dramaturgy.
The historical and cultural method is the most suitable for solving the set tasks.
This work consists of an Introduction, two chapters, a Conclusion and a List of References, consisting of 51 titles. The first chapter of the work "Symbol as a literary phenomenon" considers the formation of a symbol as a literary, art and philosophical term. The same chapter characterizes the main approaches to the study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov.
In the second chapter “Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"" shows the role and meaning of symbols in Chekhov's dramaturgy, using the play "The Cherry Orchard" as an example.
The source for this work was the Collected Works of A.P. Chekhov in 12 volumes:
Chekhov, A.P. Collected works in 12 volumes. Vol. 9: Plays 1880-1904 / A.P. Chekhov. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 712 p.
1. Symbol as a literary phenomenon
1.1 Symbol concept
The concept of a symbol is multifaceted. It is no coincidence that M.Yu. Lotman defined it as "one of the most ambiguous in the system of semiotic sciences", and A.F. Losev noted: "The concept of a symbol both in literature and in art is one of the most vague, confused and contradictory concepts." This is explained, first of all, by the fact that the symbol is one of the central categories of philosophy, aesthetics, cultural studies, and literary criticism.
A symbol (Greek symbolon - a sign, an identifying sign) is a universal aesthetic category, revealed through comparison, on the one hand, with related categories of an artistic image, on the other hand, a sign and an allegory. In a broad sense, we can say that a symbol is an image taken in the aspect of its symbolism, and that it is a sign endowed with all the organicity and inexhaustible ambiguity of the image. S.S. Averintsev writes: “The objective image and deep meaning also act as two poles in the structure of the symbol, unthinkable one without the other, but also divorced from each other and generating a symbol. Turning into a symbol, the image becomes “transparent”: the meaning “shines through” through it, being given precisely as a semantic depth, a semantic perspective.
The authors of the Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary see the fundamental difference between a symbol and an allegory in the fact that “the meaning of a symbol cannot be deciphered by a simple effort of the mind, it is inseparable from the structure of the image, does not exist as some kind of rational formula that can be “inserted” into the image and then extracted from it” . Here one has to look for the specifics of the symbol in relation to the category of the sign. If for a purely utilitarian sign system polysemy is only a hindrance that harms the rational functioning of the sign, then the symbol is the more meaningful, the more it is polysemantic. The very structure of the symbol is aimed at giving a holistic image of the world through each particular phenomenon. Objects, animals, known phenomena, signs of objects, actions can serve as a symbol.
The semantic structure of the symbol is multi-layered and is designed for the active internal work of the perceiver. The meaning of a symbol objectively realizes itself not as a presence, but as a dynamic tendency; it is not given, but given. This meaning, strictly speaking, cannot be explained by reducing it to an unambiguous logical formula, but can only be explained by correlating it with further symbolic chains, which will lead to greater rational clarity, but will not reach pure concepts.
The interpretation of a symbol is dialogically a form of knowledge: the meaning of a symbol really exists only within human communication, outside of which only the empty form of the symbol can be observed. The "dialogue" in which the comprehension of the symbol is carried out can be broken as a result of the false position of the interpreter.
I. Mashbits-Verov notes that “the origin of the symbol is very ancient, although under specific historical conditions new symbols appear or the meaning of old ones changes (for example, the swastika is an ancient symbol of the tree of life, now it is a symbol of fascism)” .
1.2 The formation of the concept of "symbol"
Although the symbol is as ancient as human consciousness, philosophical and aesthetic understanding comes relatively late. The mythological worldview presupposes an undivided identity of the symbolic form and its meaning, excluding any reflection of the symbol, therefore, any view that comprehends the nature of the symbol is excluded.
A new situation arises in ancient culture after Plato's experiments in constructing a secondary, i.e. "symbolic" in the proper sense, philosophical mythology. It was important for Plato to limit, first of all, the symbol from the pre-philosophical myth. Despite the fact that Hellenistic thinking constantly confuses symbol with allegory, Aristotle created a classification of symbols: he divides them into conditional (“names”) and natural (“signs”).
In the Middle Ages, this symbolism coexisted with didactic allegorism. The Renaissance sharpened intuitive perception in its open polysemy, but did not create a new theory of the symbol, and the revival of the taste for learned book allegory was picked up by the Baroque and Classicism.
The separation of allegory and symbol finally took shape only in the era of romanticism. During periods of actualization of the opposition of allegory and symbol, and this is mainly romanticism and symbolism, the symbol is given the place of an artistic ideal. Significant observations on the nature of the symbol are found in the work of Carl Philipp Moritz. He owns the idea that beauty cannot be translated into another form: “We ourselves exist - this is our most sublime and noblest thought.” All the characteristic features of the manifestation of art are concentrated in a single concept, which the romantics later designated by the word symbol.
In the multi-volume work of F. Kreutzer "Symbolism and Mythology of Ancient Peoples ..." (1810-12), a classification of types of symbols was given ("a mystical symbol", which explodes the closedness of the form for the direct expression of infinity, and a "plastic symbol", striving to contain semantic infinity in closed form). For A.V. Schlegel’s poetic creativity is “eternal symbolization”, the German romantics relied in understanding the symbol on the mature I.W. Goethe, who understood all forms of natural human creativity as meaningful and speaking symbols of living eternal becoming. Unlike the romantics, Goethe connects the elusiveness and indivisibility of the symbol not with mystical otherworldliness, but with the vital organicity of the beginnings expressed through the symbol. G.W.F. Hegel, (opposing the romantics, emphasized in the structure of the symbol a more rationalistic, symbolic side (“a symbol is, first of all, a certain sign”) based on “conventionality”.
Understanding the symbol acquires a special role in symbolism. The Symbolists considered synthesis and suggestion to be one of the most important principles of symbolic poetry; a symbol should have these qualities. It seems paradoxical that, despite the absolutization of the concept of a symbol, symbolism did not give a clear idea of \u200b\u200bthe difference between a symbol and other categories. In the symbolist environment, the word "symbol" had many meanings. In particular, it has been confused many times with allegory and myth. The era of symbolism also gave impetus to the "academic", strictly scientific study of the symbol. To one degree or another, the scientific consciousness of the twentieth century develops the ideas of the symbol, reflected in the aesthetics of the symbolists.
1.3 Symbol concepts
The systematic study of symbolism, carried out by the direct successors of that era - the philologists of the next generation, can be considered the beginning of a proper scientific approach to the symbol. Here, first of all, we should mention the works of V.M. Zhirmunsky and other scientists of the St. Petersburg school.
V.M. Zhirmunsky defined a symbol in his work “Metaphor in the Poetics of Russian Symbolists” (June 1921) as follows: “A symbol is a special case of metaphor - an object or action (that is, usually a noun or verb) taken to denote emotional experience.” Later, he reproduced this formulation almost literally in the article “The Poetry of Alexander Blok”: “We call a symbol in poetry a special type of metaphor - an object or action of the external world, denoting the phenomenon of the spiritual or spiritual world according to the principle of similarity.” There is no doubt that V.M. Zhirmunsky was well aware that “a special kind of metaphor” is far from all that a symbol carries. The limitations of his formulation made themselves felt from the very beginning. And first of all stylistically. According to Zhirmunsky, the symbol is actually a pre-symbolist symbol that has existed for centuries both in folk song and in religious literature (liturgical poetry and even mystical lyrics).
One of the most detailed and generalizing concepts of the symbol in terms of its role and significance in human life, created largely under the influence of Russian symbolists, belongs to the German philosopher of the first half of the 20th century, E. Cassirer. In his work "Experience about man: An introduction to the philosophy of human culture. What is a man? (1945) he wrote: “In man, between the system of receptors and effectors that all animal species have, there is a third link, which can be called a symbolic system.” According to Cassirer, the symbolic space of human life unfolds and expands in connection with the progress of the race, with the development of civilization: “All human progress in thinking and experience refines and at the same time strengthens this network.”
As K.A. Svasyan, “the question of whether there is a reality apart from the symbol is characterized by Cassirer (as philosophically irrelevant and mystical.<...>Cassirer does not deny the intentional nature of the symbol as pointing to "something". However, by this “something” he means the unity of the function of the formation itself, that is, the rules of symbolic functioning. As if continuing the thoughts of Cassirer, a prominent linguist of the twentieth century, E. Sapir wrote in 1934: “... The individual and society, in an endless mutual exchange of symbolic gestures, build a pyramidal structure called civilization. There are very few “bricks” that underlie this structure.
A.F. Losev distinguishes between a symbol and other categories close to it. Let us dwell on the difference between a symbol and a sign and from an allegory. The symbol, according to Losev, is an infinite sign, i.e. a sign with an infinite number of meanings.
A.F. Losev believes that one of the main characteristics of a symbol is the identity of the signified and the signifier. The symbol is the arena of the meeting of the signifier and the signified, which have nothing in common with each other. The presence of the symbolized in the symbol at one time became one of the central ideas of P. Florensky's philosophy of the word. “The meaning transferred from one object to another merges so deeply and comprehensively with this object that it is no longer possible to distinguish them from one another. The symbol in this case is the complete interpenetration of the ideological imagery of the thing with the thing itself. In the symbol we necessarily find the identity, the mutual permeability of the signified thing and its signifying ideological imagery.
According to Losev, the symbol as an artistic image strives for realism. However, if we assume realism as the only criterion for a symbol, the line between the symbol and the artistic image will be erased. In fact, any image is symbolic.
Lotman's theory of the symbol organically complements Losev's theory. According to Lotman, "as an important mechanism of cultural memory, symbols transfer texts, plot schemes and other semiotic formations from one layer of culture to another" . A symbol can belong not only to individual creativity. This property of the symbol determines its proximity to the myth.
E.K. Sozina considers “the most perfect and at the same time generalizing that line of symbolology that, through Plato, stretches from ancient times to the present day”, the concept of M.K. Mamardashvili and A.M. Pyatigorsky, proposed by them in their 1982 work “Symbol and Consciousness. Metaphysical reflections on consciousness, symbolism and language". The authors seek to interpret the symbol "in the sense of consciousness." They understand a symbol as a thing, “which with one end “protrudes” in the world of things, and with the other end “is drowned” in the reality of consciousness” . At the same time, the symbol in their understanding is practically pointless: “any meaningfulness of the symbol acts as a completely empty shell, within which only one content is constituted and structured, which we call “the content of consciousness” ”. Due to the content of consciousness that fills the symbol, it is a thing. In addition, Mamardashvili and Pyatigorsky distinguish 2 main types of symbols: primary and secondary. The primary symbols (and the primary myths correlated with them) “lie at the level of the spontaneous life of consciousness and the spontaneous relation of individual psychic mechanisms to the contents of consciousness”, i.e. they correspond with the cosmic consciousness and do not have an adequate human expression. Secondary symbols “figure at the level of the mythological system, which, as a system itself, is the result of ideological (scientific, cultural, etc.) study, interpretation”, they arise in language, culture, and society. Mamardashvili and Pyatigorsky paid great attention to the problem of multiple interpretation of a symbol, related to the problem of "understanding - knowledge": "multiplicity of interpretations is a way of being (and not expressing!) The content that is symbolized" .
1.4 The study of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov
For the first time, the problem of the symbol in the work of A.P. Chekhov was posed by A. Bely in the article "Chekhov" (1907). He notes that, despite the continuation of the traditions of Russian realists, in Chekhov's work "the dynamite of true symbolism is laid, which is capable of blowing up many intermediate currents of Russian literature" . Speaking about the pseudo-realistic and pseudo-symbolic tendencies of Russian literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Bely calls Chekhov's creative method "transparent" realism, involuntarily fused with symbolism.
Continues the assertion of Chekhov as a realist-symbolist A. Bely in the collection of essays "Green Meadow" (1910). Here, the main attention of the Russian symbolist is drawn to identifying common features in the work of Chekhov and Maurice Maeterlinck, but at the same time, Chekhov's symbols are “thinner, more transparent, less deliberate. They have grown into life, without a trace embodied in the real. In the same article, A. Bely proves that true symbolism coincides with true realism, because "a symbol is only an expression of experience, and experience (personal, collective) is the only reality."
D.P. also speaks about the closeness of Chekhov’s creative method to Maeterlinck. Mirsky. He also notes that all the works of the Russian writer "are symbolic, but in most of their symbolism is expressed not so concretely, bewitchingly vague<…>But Chekhov's symbolism reached its greatest development in his plays, starting with The Seagull.
A.P. Chudakov is probably one of the few in Soviet literary criticism who directly declared the symbolism of Chekhov's details. He also gives a brief description of these details-symbols: “He does not serve as symbols for some “special” objects that can be a sign of a hidden “second plan” already by their fixed or easily guessed meaning. In this capacity, ordinary objects of the everyday environment act. Chudakov also noted another important detail of the symbols: “Chekhov's symbolic object belongs to two spheres at once - the “real” and the symbolic - and neither of them is more than the other. It does not burn with one even light, but flickers - sometimes with a symbolic light, sometimes with a “real” one.
In modern literary criticism, the presence of symbols in the works of A.P. Chekhov is no longer disputed. At present, Chekhov scholars are interested in certain issues of symbolism in the writer's work.
Thus, the symbol is one of the oldest phenomena in culture and literature. Since ancient times, it has attracted the attention of both writers and researchers. The difficulty in studying the concept of "symbol" is caused by its ambiguity and multiple classifications. According to literary critics, in Russian realistic literature, with their emphasis on symbolic details, the works of A.P. Chekhov.
2. Symbols in the drama of A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
2.1 Polysemy of the garden symbol in Chekhov's drama
The main character of the play A.P. Chekhov is not a person, but a garden, and not just any, but the most beautiful garden on Earth, which is even mentioned in the Encyclopedic Dictionary. The visual symbolism of the garden determines the structure of the play, its plot, but the symbol of the garden itself cannot be interpreted unambiguously. The central core of the work is a cherry orchard - from the time of flowering to being sold by auction: “the plot covers about half a year from a long biography of the garden, mentioned even in an encyclopedia, - the last six months expiring along the course of the plot,” writes V.I. Kamyanov. The image of the cherry orchard is comprehensive; the plot, characters, and relationships are focused on it. The image of the cherry orchard is comprehensive; the plot, characters, and relationships are focused on it.
In Chekhov's last play, all the elements of the plot are concentrated on this symbol: the plot (“... your cherry orchard is being sold for debts, auctions are scheduled for August 22 ...”), the climax (Lopakhin's message about the sale of the cherry orchard) and, finally, denouement (“Oh, my dear, my gentle, beautiful garden! .. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! ..”).
In The Cherry Orchard, the symbol is constantly expanding its semantics. He appears already on the first pages of the play, and, according to V.A. Koshelev, “the symbolic features of this image are initially presented in a “worldly” guise” . For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden is their past:
“Lyubov Andreevna (looks out the window at the garden). Oh, my childhood, my purity! I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then it was exactly like that, nothing has changed. (Laughs with joy.) All, all white! Oh my garden! After a dark, rainy autumn and a cold winter, you are young again, full of happiness, the angels of heaven have not left you ... ".
The Cherry Orchard for Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev is a family nest, a symbol of youth, prosperity and former elegant life. The owners of the garden love it, although they do not know how to save or save it. For them, the cherry orchard is a symbol of the past.
In the first act, it is mentioned that Gaev is fifty-one years old. That is, during his youth, the garden had already lost its economic significance, and Gaev and Ranevskaya got used to appreciating it, first of all, for its unique beauty. The symbol of this generous natural beauty, which cannot be perceived in terms of profitability, is a bouquet of flowers, in the first act brought from the garden into the house in anticipation of the arrival of the owners. I.V. Gracheva recalls that Chekhov considered harmonious unity with nature "one of the necessary conditions for human happiness."
Ranevskaya, looking at the garden, comes into joyful admiration: “What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers, blue sky ... ". Anya, tired from a long journey, dreams before going to bed: “Tomorrow morning I will get up, run to the garden ...”. Even businesslike, always preoccupied with something, Varya for a moment succumbs to the charm of the spring renewal of nature: “... What wonderful trees! My God, air! The starlings sing!” . Nature appears in the play not only as a landscape, but as a socialized symbol of nature.
The cherry orchard is not only a symbol of perfect happiness, childhood and innocence, but also a symbol of fall, loss and death. A river flows through the cherry orchard, in which the seven-year-old son of Ranevskaya drowned:
Anna (thoughtfully). Six years ago my father died, and a month later my brother Grisha, a pretty seven-year-old boy, drowned in the river. Mom couldn’t bear it, she left, left without looking back ... ".
Lopakhin has a completely different attitude to the garden, whose father was a serf for his grandfather and father Gaev. The garden for him is a source of profit: “Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, a railway passed nearby, and if the cherry orchard and the land along the river are divided into summer cottages and then leased out for summer cottages, then you will have the least twenty thousand a year income. He evaluates this garden only from a practical point of view:
"Lopakhin. The only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large. Cherry is born every two years, and there is nowhere to put it, no one buys it.
The poetry of the cherry orchard is not interesting for Lopakhin. V.A. Koshelev believes that “he is attracted by something new and colossal, like a “thousand acres” of the income-generating poppy.<…>The flowering of the traditional “garden” is not interesting for him precisely because it is “traditional”: the new owner of life is accustomed to looking for new twists and turns in everything - including aesthetic ones.
In the very construction of the play, the garden - the recognized sign of this "poetic" beginning of being - thus becomes an inevitable symbol associated with tradition. And as such, it appears throughout the rest of the play. Here Lopakhin once again recalls the sale of the estate: “I remind you, gentlemen: on August 22, the cherry orchard will be sold.”
He recently argued the unprofitability of this garden and the need to destroy it. The garden is doomed to destruction - and in this sense it also becomes a symbol, because the result of this destruction is nothing more than providing a better life for posterity: "We will set up summer cottages, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here ...". At the same time, for Lopakhin, the purchase of the estate and the cherry orchard becomes a symbol of his success, a reward for many years of work: “The cherry orchard is mine now! My! (Laughs.) My God, Lord, my cherry orchard! Tell me that I'm drunk, out of my mind, that all this seems to me ... (Stomps his feet.)<…>I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. I sleep, it only seems to me, it only seems to me ... ".
Another meaning of the symbolic image of the garden is introduced in the play by student Petya Trofimov:
"Trofimov. All Russia is our garden. The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it. Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were serf-owners who owned living souls, and is it possible that from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, human beings do not look at you, do you really not hear voices ... Own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you who lived before and are living now, so that your mother, you, uncle, no longer notice that you live on credit, at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let further than the front. ..” .
Z.S. Paperny notes that “where Ranevskaya sees her dead mother, Petya sees and hears tortured serf souls;<…>So why pity such a garden, this feudal vale, this realm of injustice, the lives of some at the expense of others, the destitute. From this point of view, the fate of the whole of Russia, its future, can be seen in the fate of Chekhov's cherry orchard. In a state where there is no serfdom, there are traditions and remnants of serfdom. Petya, as it were, is ashamed of the country's past, he calls "first to redeem our past, to end it, and it can only be redeemed by suffering" in order to go towards the future. In this context, the death of the cherry orchard can be perceived as the death of Russia's past and movement towards its future.
The garden is an ideal symbol of the characters' feelings; external reality corresponding to their internal essence. A blossoming cherry orchard is a symbol of a pure, immaculate life, and cutting down a garden means departure and the end of life. The garden stands at the center of the collision of various mental warehouses and public interests.
The symbolism of the garden is due to its tangible embodiment, and it disappears after the garden is cut down. People are deprived not only of the garden, but also through it - of the past. The cherry orchard is dying, and its symbolism is dying, linking reality with eternity. The last sound is the sound of a breaking string. The image of the garden and its death is symbolically ambiguous, not reducible to visible reality, but there is no mystical or unreal content here.
2.2 Symbolic details in Chekhov's drama
In Chekhov's last comedy, a detail clearly comes to the fore - the dominant of the character's appearance. Particularly important is the detail that accompanies his first appearance, since it is precisely this detail that becomes an ideological sign, a kind of allegory of the character's attitude to the world. E.S. Dobin believes that "the detail becomes the core of the psychological characteristics and even the course of events." Being plot significant, everyday details become symbolic.
So, at the beginning of the play, Chekhov points to a seemingly insignificant detail in the image of Varya: “Varya enters, she has a bunch of keys on her belt.” In the above remark, Chekhov emphasizes the role of the housekeeper, housekeeper, mistress of the house, chosen by Varya. At the same time, it is through the symbol of the keys that the connection between Vari and the house is transmitted. She feels herself accountable for everything that happens on the estate, but her dreams are not connected with the cherry orchard: “I would go to the desert, then to Kiev ... to Moscow, and so I would go to holy places ... I would go would have walked. Grace! .. ".
It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov, calling Anya to action, tells her to throw away the keys: “If you have from the household, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free as the wind."
Chekhov skillfully uses the symbolism of the keys in the third act, when Varya, having heard about the sale of the estate, throws the keys on the floor. Lopakhin explains this gesture of hers: “She threw the keys, she wants to show that she is no longer the mistress here ...”. According to T.G. Ivleva, Lopakhin, who bought the estate, took away her housekeepers.
There is another symbol of the owner in the drama. Throughout the play, the author mentions Ranevskaya's purse, for example, "looks in the purse." Seeing that there is little money left, she accidentally drops it and scatters the gold. In the last act, Ranevskaya gives her wallet to the peasants who came to say goodbye:
"Gaev. You gave them your wallet, Luba. You can not do it this way! You can not do it this way!
Lyubov Andreevna. I could not! I could not!" .
At the same time, only in the fourth act does the wallet appear in Lopakhin's hands, although the reader knows from the very beginning of the play that he does not need money.
Another important detail characterizes the image of Lopakhin - a watch. Lopakhin is the only character in the play whose time is scheduled by the minute; it is fundamentally concrete, linear and, at the same time, continuous. His speech is constantly accompanied by the author's remarks: "looking at the clock." T.G. Ivleva believes that “The situational - psychological - meaning of the remark is due to the imminent departure of the character, his natural desire not to miss the train; this meaning is explicated in Lopakhin's remarks. The ideological semantics of the remark is largely predetermined by the specifics of the very image of the watch as an allegory established in the human mind. It is noteworthy that it is Lopakhin who tells Ranevskaya the date of the sale of the estate - the twenty-second of August. Thus, Lopakhin's watch becomes not just a detail of his costume, but a symbol of time.
In general, time is constantly present in Chekhov's drama. The perspective from the present to the past is opened by almost every actor, although to different depths. Firs has been muttering for three years now. Six years ago, her husband died and Lyubov Andreevna's son drowned. About forty-fifty years ago, they still remembered how to process cherries. The closet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And the stones, which were once gravestones, are quite reminiscent of the gray-haired antiquity. Petya Trofimov, on the contrary, constantly talks about the future, the past is of little interest to him.
Insignificant details in the artistic world of Chekhov, being repeatedly repeated, acquire the character of symbols. Combining with other images in the work, they go beyond the scope of a specific play and rise to the universal level.
2.3 Sound symbols in drama
A play by A.P. Chekhov is filled with sounds. A flute, a guitar, a Jewish orchestra, the sound of an axe, the sound of a broken string - sound effects accompany almost every significant event or image of a character, becoming a symbolic echo in the reader's memory.
According to E.A. Polotskaya, the sound in Chekhov's dramaturgy is "a continuation of poetic images that have been realized more than once" . At the same time, T.G. Ivleva notes that "the semantic significance of the sound remark in Chekhov's last comedy becomes, perhaps, the highest" .
The sound creates the general mood, the atmosphere of any particular scene or action as a whole. Such, for example, is the sound that ends the first act of the piece:
“Far beyond the garden, a shepherd is playing his flute. Trofimov walks across the stage and, seeing Varya and Anya, stops.<…>
Trofimov (in emotion). My sun! Spring is mine! .
The high, clear and gentle sound of the flute is here, first of all, the background design of the tender feelings experienced by the character.
In the second act, the sound of the guitar becomes the leitmotif, and the mood is created by the sad song played and sung by Epikhodov.
An unexpected sound also serves to build up the atmosphere - “as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string”. Each of the characters in their own way tries to determine its source. Lopakhin, whose mind is occupied with some things, believes that it was far away in the mines that a tub broke off. Gaev thinks that this is the cry of a heron, Trofimov - an owl. The author’s calculation is clear: it doesn’t matter what kind of sound it was, it’s important that Ranevskaya became unpleasant, and he reminded Firs of the times before the “misfortune”, when the owl also screamed, and the samovar screamed endlessly. For the South Russian flavor of the area in which the action of The Cherry Orchard takes place, the episode with the torn off bucket is quite appropriate. And Chekhov introduced it, but deprived it of everyday certainty.
And the sad nature of the sound, and the uncertainty of its origin - all this creates some kind of mystery around it, which translates a specific phenomenon into the rank of symbolic images.
But the strange sound appears more than once in the play. The second time "the sound of a broken string" is mentioned in the final remark to the play. Two strong positions assigned to this image: the center and the final - speak of its special significance for understanding the work. In addition, the repetition of the image turns it into a leitmotif - according to the meaning of the term: a leitmotif (a repeated image that "serves as a key to revealing the writer's intention").
The repetition of the sound at the end of the piece in the same expressions frees it even from the supposed everyday interpretation. For the first time, the remark corrects the versions of the characters, but so far it itself appears only as a version. For the second time, in the finale, in the remark about the “distant sound”, all earthly motivations are eliminated: there can not even be an assumption about any fallen “tub” or the cry of a bird. "The author's voice in this case does not specify, but cancels all other positions, except for its own, final one: the sound seems to come from unearthly spheres and goes there too" .
A broken string acquires an ambiguous meaning in the play, which cannot be reduced to the clarity of any abstract concept or fixed in one, precisely defined word. A bad omen heralds a sad end, which the actors - contrary to their intentions - cannot prevent. Chekhov shows how little opportunity for action remains for a person in a historical situation, when the external determining forces are so crushing that internal impulses can hardly be taken into account.
The changing meaning of the sound of a broken string in The Cherry Orchard, its ability to do without everyday motivation, separate it from the real sound that Chekhov could hear. The variety of meanings turns the sound in the play into a symbol.
At the very end of the play, the sound of a broken string obscures the sound of an ax, symbolizing the death of noble estates, the death of old Russia. The old Russia was replaced by an active, dynamic Russia.
Next to the real blows of an ax on cherry trees, the symbolic sound “as if from heaven, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad” crowns the end of life on the estate and the end of a whole strip of Russian life. Both the harbinger of trouble and the assessment of the historical moment merged into one in The Cherry Orchard - in the distant sound of a broken string and the sound of an ax.
Conclusion
Chekhov is one of the most beloved and widely read classics of Russian literature. A writer who most closely matched the dynamism of his time. The appearance of Chekhov the classic was unexpected and somehow, at first glance, unusual; everything in him contradicted the entire experience of Russian literature.
Chekhov's dramaturgy was formed in an atmosphere of timelessness, when, together with the onset of reaction and the collapse of revolutionary populism, the intelligentsia found itself in a state of impassability. The public interests of this environment did not rise above the tasks of partial improvement of life and moral self-improvement. During this period of social stagnation, the worthlessness and hopelessness of existence was most clearly manifested.
Chekhov discovered this conflict in the lives of people in the environment known to him. Striving for the most correct expression of this conflict, the writer creates new forms of dramaturgy. He shows that not events, not exclusively prevailing circumstances, but the usual everyday everyday state of a person is internally conflicting.
The Cherry Orchard is one of the most harmonious, integral works of Chekhov, in the full sense of the final creation of the artist, the pinnacle of Chekhov's dramaturgy. And at the same time, this play is so ambiguous and even mysterious that from the first days of its existence to the present day, a well-established, generally accepted reading of this play does not exist.
However, in order to better understand the content of Chekhov's plays, it is not enough to confine ourselves to analyzing only its external plot. Details play a huge role in the artistic space of Chekhov's works. Repeatedly repeated in the text of the play, the details become leitmotifs. Repeated use of the same detail deprives it of everyday motivation, thereby turning it into a symbol. So, in Chekhov's last play, the sound of a broken string combined the symbolism of life and the motherland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and time flowing over it, about something familiar, eternally sounding over Russian expanses, accompanying countless comings and goings of new generations. .
The cherry orchard becomes the central image-symbol in the analyzed play by Chekhov. It is to him that all the plot threads are drawn. Moreover, in addition to the real meaning of the cherry orchard, this image has several more symbolic meanings: a symbol of the past and former prosperity for Gaev and Ranevskaya, a symbol of beautiful nature, a symbol of loss, for Lopakhin the garden is a source of profit. You can also talk about the cherry orchard as an image of Russia and its fate.
That is, in the play of the same name, the image of the cherry orchard rises to a poetic symbol of human life and is filled with a deep, symbolic meaning.
Thus, images-symbols play an important role in understanding the work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.
List of used literature
1. Bakhtin, M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity / M.M. Bakhtin. – M.: Art, 1979 p. – 424 p.
2. Bely, A. Symbolism as a worldview / A. Bely. - M.: Respublika, 1994. - 528 p.
3. Berdnikov, G.P. Chekhov the playwright: Traditions and innovation in Chekhov's dramaturgy / G.P. Berdnikov. - L.-M.: Art, 1957. - 246 p.
4. Introduction to literary criticism. Literary work: basic concepts and terms: textbook / L.V. Chernets, V.E. Khalizev: ed. L.V. Chernets. - M .: Higher school; publishing center "Academy", 2004. - 680 p.
5. Volchkevich, M. How to study Chekhov? Czech studies in questions, exclamations, conjunctions and prepositions… / M. Volchkevich. // Young researchers of Chekhov. 4: Proceedings of the international scientific conference (Moscow, May 14-18, 2001). - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. - P.4-12.
6. Hegel, G.W.F. Aesthetics: in 4 volumes. T. 2. / G.V.F. Hegel. - M.: Art, 1969. - 493 p.
7. Golovacheva, A.G. “What is that sound in the twilight of the evening? God knows…”: Image-symbol in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" / A.G. Golovachev. // Literature lessons. - 2007. - No. 10. - P. 1-5.
8. Gracheva I.V. Man and nature in the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" / I.V. Grachev. // Literature at school. - 2005. - No. 10. - S. 18-21.
9. Gusarova, K. "The Cherry Orchard" - images, symbols, characters ... / K. Gusarova. // Literature. - 2002. - No. 12. - P. 4-5.
10. Dobin E.S. Plot and reality. Art of detail / E.S. Dobin. - L .: Soviet writer, 1981. - 432 p.
11. Zhirmunsky, V.M. Poetics of Russian poetry / V.M. Zhirmunsky. - St. Petersburg: ABC-classics. - 2001. - 486 p.
12. Ivleva, T.G. Author in dramaturgy A.P. Chekhov / T.G. Ivlev. - Tver: Tver.gos.un-t, 2001. - 131 p.
13. Kamyanov, V.I. Time against timelessness: Chekhov and the present / V.I. Kamyanov. - M.: Soviet writer, 1989. - 384 p.
14. Kataev, V.B. The dispute about Chekhov: the end or the beginning? / V.B. Kataev. // Chekhoviana: Melikhovsky Works and Days. - M.: Nauka, 1995. - S. 3-9.
15. Kataev, V.B. Complexity of simplicity: Stories and plays by Chekhov / V.B. Kataev. - 2nd ed. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1999. - 108 p.
16. Cassirer, E. Experience about man: An introduction to the philosophy of human culture. What is a person? / E. Cassirer // The problem of man in Western philosophy: Sat. translations from English, German, French. / Comp. and last P.S. Gurevich. M.: Progress, 1988. - S. 3 - 30.
17. Koshelev, V.A. The mythology of the "garden" in Chekhov's last comedy / V.A. Koshelev. // Russian literature. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 40-52.
18. Kuleshov, V.I. Life and work of A.P. Chekhov: Essay / V.I. Kuleshov. - M.: Children's literature, 1982. - 175 p.
19. Literary encyclopedia of terms and concepts / ed. A.N. Nikolyukin. - M .: NPK "Intelvak", 2003. - 1600 st.
20. Literary encyclopedic dictionary / ed. ed. V.M. Kozhevnikova, P.A. Nikolaev. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987. - 752 p.
21. Losev, A.F. Dictionary of ancient philosophy: selected articles / A.F. Losev. - M .: World of Ideas, 1995. - 232 p.
22. Losev, A.F. The problem of the symbol and realistic art / A.F. Losev. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M.: Art, 1995. - 320 p.
23. Lotman, Yu.M. Selected articles. In 3 volumes. Vol. 1: Articles on semiotics and typology of culture / Yu.M. Lotman. - Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. - 480 p.
24. Mamardashvili, M.K. Symbol and consciousness. Metaphysical reflections on consciousness, symbolism and language. / M.K. Mamardashvili, A.M. Pyatigorsky. - M .: School "Languages of Russian Culture", 1999. - 224 p.
25. Minkin, A. Gentle soul / A. Minkin. // Russian art. - 2006. - No. 2. - S. 147-153.
26. Mirsky, D.P. Chekhov / D.P. Mirsky. // Mirsky D.P. History of Russian literature from ancient times to 1925 / Per. from English. R. Grain. - London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd, 1992. - S. 551-570.
27. Nichiporov, I. A.P. Chekhov in the assessment of Russian symbolists / I. Nichiporov. // Young researchers of Chekhov. 4: Proceedings of the international scientific conference (Moscow, May 14-18, 2001). - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. P. 40-54.
28. Paperny, Z.S. "Contrary to all the rules ...": Chekhov's plays and vaudevilles / Z.S. Paperny. - M.: Art, 1982. - 285 p.
29. Paperny, Z.S. A.P. Chekhov: essay on creativity / Z.S. Paperny. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 304 p.
30. Polotskaya, E.A. A.P. Chekhov: the movement of artistic thought / E.A. Polotsk. - M.: Soviet writer, 1979. - 340 p.
31. Journey to Chekhov: Tales. Stories. Piece / Intro. article, comp. V.B.Korobova. Moscow: School-press. 1996. - 672 p.
32. Revyakin, A.I. "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov: a guide for teachers / A.I. Revyakin. - M .: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1960. - 256 p.
33. Svasyan, K.A. The problem of the symbol in modern philosophy: Criticism and analysis / K.A. Svasyan. - Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR, 1980. - 226 p.
34. Semanova, M.L. "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov / M.L. Semanov. - L .: Society for the dissemination of political and scientific knowledge of the RSFSR, 1958. - 46 p.
35. Semanova, M.L. Chekhov the artist / M.L. Semanov. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976. - 196 p.
36. Senderovich, S. "The Cherry Orchard" - Chekhov's last joke / S. Senderovich. // Questions of Literature. - 2007. - No. 1. – S. 290-317.
37. Sapir, E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies: Per. from English. / E. Sapir. – M.: Progress, 1993. – 656 p.
38. Skaftymov, A.P. Moral searches of Russian writers: Articles and research on Russian classics / A.P. Skaftymov. - M.: Art literature, 1972. - 544 p.
39. Dictionary of literary terms / ed. - comp. L.I. Timofeev, S.V. Turaev. – M.: Enlightenment, 1974. – 509 p.
40. Sozina, E.K. Theory of the symbol and the practice of artistic analysis: A textbook for a special course. - Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 1998. - 128 p.
41. Sukhikh, I.N. Problems of poetics of A.P. Chekhov / I.N. Dry. - L .: Leningrad Publishing House. state un-ta, 1987. - 180, p.
42. Tamarchenko, N.D. Theoretical poetics: Introduction to the course / N.D. Tamarchenko. – M.: RGGU, 2006. – 212 p.
43. Todorov, Ts. Theory of the symbol. Per. from fr. B. Narumova / Ts. Todorov. – M.: House of Intellectual Books, 1998. – 408 p.
44. Fadeeva, I.E. Artistic text as a phenomenon of culture. Introduction to literary criticism: textbook. - Syktyvkar: Publishing house of Komi ped. in-ta, 2006. - 164 p.
45. Fesenko, E.Ya. Theory of literature: textbook for universities. - M.: Academic project; Fund "Mir", 2008. - 780 p.
46. Hainadi, Z. Archetypal topos / Z. Hainadi. // Literature. - 2004. - No. 29. - P. 7-13.
47. Khalizev, V.E. Theory of Literature: A Textbook for University Students / V.E. Khalizev. - M.: Higher school, 2005. - 405 p.
48. Chekhov, A.P. Collected works in 12 volumes. Vol. 9: Plays 1880-1904 / A.P. Chekhov. - M .: State publishing house of fiction, 1960. - 712 p.
49. A.P. Chekhov: pro et contra: A.P. Chekhov's work in Russian. thoughts of the late XIX - early. XX century: Anthology / Comp., foreword, total. ed. Sukhikh I.N. - St. Petersburg: RKHGI, 2002. - 1072 p.
50. Chudakov, A.P. Poetics of Chekhov / A.P. Chudakov. – M.: Nauka, 1971. – 292 p.
51. Chudakov, A.P. Chekhov's World: Emergence and Approval / A.P. Chekhov. - M.: Soviet writer, 1986. - 354 p.
E.Yu. Vinogradova
THE DEATH OF A SYMBOL (The Cherry Orchard: Reality and Symbolism)
Strehler, director of the famous The Cherry Orchard, considered the image of the garden to be the most difficult in the play. “Not showing it, just implying it is a mistake. To show, to make one feel is another mistake. The garden must be, and it must be something that can be seen and felt.<...>but it cannot be just a garden, it must be all at once. This Chekhov symbol is special, completely different elements live in it on an equal footing - realities and mystics; it is both an object that has its own quite tangible shell, and a myth that stores the memory of the past. But its peculiarity is not only in this dual structure, but in its very destiny - the cherry orchard, as a symbol, lives exactly as long as its shell lives.
The Cherry Orchard is not a trifle, like Ox's Meadows. Let us recall that the argument about Luzhki easily turns into an argument about Skattay's "bridling". In vaudeville, whether the characters were talking about the land or the dog, that's not the point. The Cherry Orchard is a symbol indispensable in the play, since it is on it that the plot is built. But even if we compare the symbols in Chekhov's last play and, for example, in The Wild Duck or Ibsen's Doll's House, the difference in scale and function will also be visible. The image of the cherry orchard is comprehensive; the plot, characters, and relationships are focused on it. Ibsen's symbols have the function of semantic generalization, but are not plot-forming, as in The Cherry Orchard. This play is unique among other dramatic works of Chekhov.
In Chekhov's last play, all elements of the plot are concentrated on the symbol: the plot ("... your cherry orchard is being sold for debts, on August 22
auction is scheduled...”), culmination (“the cherry orchard is sold”) and, finally, the denouement (“Oh, my dear, my tender, beautiful garden! .. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! ..” )2.
In The Cherry Orchard, the symbol constantly expands its semantics: the garden, white and blooming, is beautiful, it seems that only bright and happy memories are associated with it (“... the angels of heaven have not left you ...”), but nearby in the pond six years ago, the little son of Ranevskaya drowned. Lopakhin says that “the remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large. Cherries are born once every two years, and even that has nowhere to go, no one buys ”(I act). Petya Trofimov convinces Anya: “All of Russia is our garden ... Think, Anya: your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were feudal lords who owned living souls, and really, from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk, do they not look at you human beings, don’t you hear voices… It’s so clear that in order to start living in the present, you must first redeem our past, put an end to it…” (II act). And now, in Anya's words, a new hypothetical garden appears, which will be planted in place of the old, cut down one (III act). Chekhov combines so many contradictory features in the symbol, and none of them obscures the others, they all coexist and interact, as well as numerous allusions to other gardens.
Any symbol does not appear from scratch and has an extensive, "going back into the depths of centuries" pedigree. The meaning of the symbol is fundamentally dynamic, since it initially strives for ambiguity. “The structure of the symbol is aimed at immersing each particular phenomenon in the element of “originals” and giving through it a holistic image of the world”3. The archetypal basis of the Garden lies mainly in the fact that it is a “cultivated” space “with controlled entry and exit”4. “The concept of a garden, first of all, includes its belonging to the sphere of culture: a garden does not grow by itself - it is grown, processed, decorated.
The first gardener and caretaker of the garden is a god who can transfer his skill to a cultured hero5.<...>The aesthetic side of the garden requires that it be materially disinterested. This is not contradicted by the fact that a person derives benefit from the garden: it is secondary and exists only in combination with aesthetic pleasure. The mythological center of the garden is easily recoded into a spiritual value - be it stars and heavenly bodies, golden apples, the tree of life, or, finally, the garden itself as a carrier of a special mood and state of mind. Speaking of ancient poetry and the lyric poetry of the Renaissance oriented towards ancient samples, T. Tsivyan points to the mythological basis of the image of the garden, “since it is included in the mythopo-
ethical picture of the world.
The garden lives in its own separate time (vegetative cycle), which initially coincided with the time of the people involved in it, but later missed it. Christian culture has reinterpreted this eternal cycle: “Winter symbolizes the time preceding the baptism of Christ; spring is the time of baptism, which renews man at the threshold of his life; in addition, spring symbolizes the resurrection of Christ. Summer is a symbol of eternal life. Autumn is a symbol of the last judgment; this is the harvest time that Christ will reap in the last days of the world, when man will reap what he has sown. According to Chekhov, in the spring a man does not sow anything, and in the fall he is expelled from the garden, which is dying.
The time of the owners of the cherry orchard diverged from the time of the orchard, it is divided into before and after, and the critical point is August 22 - the date on which the auction is scheduled. The garden can no longer continue to exist separately from people (as it used to be); the garden is destined to submit to someone else's will.
The symbol is multi-valued, and the meanings contained within the symbol are capable of arguing with each other: another garden, a garden of the distant Christian past, is one of the reproachful ghosts of the cherry orchard.
But reality in the image of the cherry orchard was no less than symbolism. “Until the end of the century, notices of biddings and auctions were printed in Russian newspapers: ancient estates and fortunes floated away, went under the hammer. For example, the Golitsyn estate with a park and ponds was divided into plots and rented out as dachas”9. A good friend of Chekhov M.V. Kiseleva wrote in December 1897 about her estate Babkino, where the writer repeatedly rested in the summer: "... in Babkino, much is being destroyed, starting with the owners and ending with the buildings ..." (13; 482). It is known that Babkino was soon sold for debts, the former owner of the estate got a place on the board of the bank in Kaluga, where the family moved.
Chekhov's contemporary B. Zaitsev writes about this time in connection with The Cherry Orchard as follows: “The life of Anton Pavlovich was ending, a huge strip of Russia was ending, everything was on the threshold of a new one. No one then foresaw what this new thing would be, but that the former - lordly-intelligent, stupid, carefree and nevertheless created the Russian XIX century was coming to an end, many felt it. Chekhov too. And I felt my end.
The garden has long been overgrown with weeds, both in Russian life and in Russian literature. Only before it was not perceived tragically:
“While they were laying the bugger for me, I went to wander around a small, once fruity, now wild garden, which surrounded the outbuilding on all sides with its fragrant, juicy wilderness. Oh, how good it was in the free air, under the clear sky, where the larks fluttered, from where the silver beads of their sonorous voices poured! (I.S. Turgenev, “Living Powers”)11.
Sometimes Turgenev does not pay attention to the garden at all, which is often no more than a background detail: “They were not rich people; their very old house, wooden, but comfortable, stood on a hill, between a decayed garden and an overgrown courtyard”12 (“Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district.”) For Turgenev,
as for all literature of the middle of the 19th century, an overgrown garden does not necessarily mean abandoned, orphaned. If the garden is “tidy”, then this is a clear sign of prosperity and love for the order of its owners:
Nikolskoe<...>there she had a magnificent, well-decorated house, a beautiful garden with greenhouses<...>The dark trees of the old garden adjoined the house on both sides;
“... this garden was large and beautiful, and kept in excellent order: hired workers scraped the paths with shovels; in the bright green of the bushes flashed red scarves on the heads of peasant girls armed with rakes”14 (“Nov”, Ch. VIII).
By the turn of the century, much had changed, a whole “class” of summer residents appeared, and “noble nests” fell into disrepair. The age-old manor culture was dying, its autumn came:
I was walking home<...>
all around the forest was full of colors,
But here on the pass, beyond the hollow,
The orchard turned red with leaves,
And he looked at the outbuilding as a gray ruin.
Gleb opened the doors to the balcony for me,
He spoke to me in a sedate pose,
A gentle and sad moan poured out.
I sat in an armchair, by the window, and, resting,
Watched him fall silent.
And I looked at the maples by the balcony,
On the cherry tree, reddening under the mound ...
And harpsichords darkened against the wall.
I touched them - and mournfully in the silence there was a sound. Trembling, romantic,
He was pathetic, but with my familiar soul I caught the melody of my own soul in him ...
A mute silence torments me.
The native nest is tormented by desolation.
I grew up here. But looks out the window Decayed garden. Smoldering flies over the house.
I'm waiting for the cheerful sounds of an ax,
Waiting for the destruction of audacious work,
I'm waiting for life, even in brute force,
Blossomed again from the dust on the grave.15
How strangely similar and at the same time unlike this description of the old estate to Ranevskaya's estate in the Cherry Orchard. Bunin wrote this poem at the end of 1903, and published it at the beginning of 1904 under the title Over the Eye. Subsequently, the poem was published under the title "Desolation"16. Did he know Chekhov's play then? It is known that when Chekhov arrived in Moscow in December 1903 to attend rehearsals at the Art Theater, they saw each other several times and had long conversations with Bunin. It is likely that at that time Bunin did not perceive this play by Chekhov in the way he began to treat it later.
It is known from the memoirs that Bunin did not approve of Chekhov's last play: “I thought and think that he should not have written about the nobles, about the landowners' estates - he did not know them. This was especially evident in his pied-
sah - in "Uncle Vanya", in "The Cherry Orchard". The landowners there are very bad... And where were the landowner's gardens, which consisted entirely of cherries? "Cherry Orchard" was only at Khokhlatsky huts. And why did Lopa-khin need to cut down this “cherry orchard”? To build a factory, perhaps, on the site of a cherry orchard?”17. Bunin knew estate life too well, kept so many memories of it, and, probably, to perceive the image of the old landowner's garden as a symbol seemed to him impossible and blasphemous. Bunin, unlike Chekhov, could not be "cold as ice"18 when writing about his passing world. He did not like Chekhov's garden, apparently, for its abstract, symbolic generalization. Bunin's gardens are filled with play of flowers, smells of Antonov apples, honey and autumn freshness. The dense, decayed garden was not, like Turgenev’s, an indispensable evidence of the extinction of local life: “Aunt’s garden was famous for its neglect ...”19.
Another reminiscence, earlier, "Dead Souls" by Gogol. Let us recall the lengthy and poetic description of Plyushkin's garden:
“The old, vast garden stretching behind the house, overlooking the village and then disappearing into the field, overgrown and decayed, it seemed that alone refreshed this vast village and alone was quite picturesque in its picturesque desolation. Green clouds and irregular quivering domes lay on the celestial horizon, the connected tops of trees that had grown in freedom. A colossal white birch trunk, devoid of a top broken off by a storm or a thunderstorm, rose from this green thicket and rounded in the air, like a regular marble sparkling column; its oblique pointed break, with which it ended upwards instead of a capital, darkened against its snowy whiteness, like a hat or a black bird<... >In places, green thickets parted, illuminated by the sun, and showed an unlit depression between them, gaping like a dark mouth.<... >and, finally, a young branch of a maple, stretching its green la-
dust-sheets, under one of which, having climbed God knows how, the sun suddenly turned it into a transparent and fiery one, shining wonderfully in this thick darkness<...>In a word, everything was fine, as neither nature nor art can invent, but as it happens only when they are united together, when, according to the piled up, often useless, labor of man, nature will pass with its final incisor, lighten heavy masses, destroy grossly sensible correctness and beggarly gaps, through
which peeps through not a hidden, naked plan, and will give a wonderful warmth
everything that was created in the coldness of measured cleanliness and tidiness.
It is interesting that the description of Plyushkin's garden is preceded by a lyrical digression, which ends with the words “Oh my youth! O my freshness! (Later, Turgenev called one of his prose poems this way.) Intonally and semantically, this exclamation “rhymes” with the words of Ranevskaya when she “looks out the window at the garden”: “Oh my childhood, my purity!”
The important thing is that the garden in "Dead Souls", abandoned and not wanted by anyone, is beautiful. The fates of the garden and its owner are different, the garden seemed to be separated by a wall of weeds and weeds from the house, which lives the same life with the owner.
Chekhov's house and garden are semantically the same. Lopakhin is going to cut down not only the garden, but also to break the house, "which is no longer good for anything." For a new economy, a "new garden", this is necessary. The garden in Chekhov's last play is more than a garden, it is a house; a ghost belonging to the house appears in the garden (“the dead mother ... in a white dress”). The garden is connected to the house, as one link is connected to another in the "chain of being", and if the house gets sick, the garden gets sick too. Interestingly, despite the inseparability of the house and the garden, everyone looks at the garden from afar. It is a kind of symbolic projection of the house. “The fate of the garden is constantly discussed in the play, but the garden itself never becomes a direct place of action.
wiya.<...>The garden just does not fulfill its traditional function as an area of unfolding events. His special, ideal nature is highlighted.
The inseparability of the destinies of the garden and people was metaphorically expressed in Hamlet, Chekhov's favorite Shakespearean play. E.V. Kharitonova, in her article on the motive of illness in the tragedy Hamlet, writes: “For Shakespeare, nature not only lost its former perfection, it turned out to be vulnerable, unprotected from adverse influences. This is due to the fact that nature is inseparable from man - it reflects all the painful processes that occur with him. In tragedy, nature is associated with the multi-valued image of the garden, which is included in the material and spiritual levels of the “disease motif”, the main and plot-forming motif in Hamlet.22
The garden-world metaphor appears in Hamlet's first monologue (I, 2):
Despicable world, you are an empty garden
Worthless herbs empty property.
(Translated by A. Kroneberg);
Life! what you? Garden, stalled
Under the wild, barren grasses...
(Translated by N. Polevoy).
The metaphor of the garden, combined with the motif of illness, runs through the whole tragedy. So, "... after the death of her father, Ophelia, as if for the first time, leaves the walls of the castle into the garden and there collects real flowers in bouquets." According to E. Kharitonova, the metaphor of a sick garden also affects the plot level: “The garden in which Ophelia finds herself infects her with her terrible disease”25; having hung the flowers of the garden, "garlands of daisies, nettles, buttercups and purple flowers ...", which the "strict virgins" call the "dead man's hand" (IV, 7) (from the translation of K.R.), Ophelia dies.
In the famous scene of Hamlet's conversation with Gertrude, the metaphor of the "deserted garden" overgrown with weeds is once again recalled:
Don't fertilize bad grass
So that she does not grow in excess of strength ...
(translated by A. Kroneberg).
After tracing the development of the garden metaphor in Hamlet, E. Kharitonova concludes: “A garden is not only a model of the macrocosm, a garden also exists inside a person, and its wild state indicates chaos inside human consciousness”26.
The closest genealogy of the cherry orchard goes back, of course, to the gardens of Russian literature and culture and does not include the Hamletian connotation of ugliness; the cherry orchard is beautiful. However, in its symbolic essence, the last garden of Chekhov's play is close to the metaphor of the garden-world in Hamlet. “The broken connection of times” is the reason for the desolation and then the death of the garden-house, and, as once in Hamlet, death precedes this disintegration between the past, present and future. In Chekhov's play, this is the death of a child, after which the mother, Ranevskaya, fled, leaving everything behind; and return proved impossible. There will be no "new garden" for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Lopakhin, with less faith than Anya, hopes for the existence of other country gardens. But the cherry orchard, the most remarkable "in the whole province" and in Russian literature, will disappear, and with it the memory of everything with which the garden was associated and that it kept.
Hamlet's famous metaphor "the time is out of joint"27 could be the epigraph of The Cherry Orchard. Although we must make a reservation: Chekhov would never put such an epigraph - too pathetic for a comedy. The sound of a broken string - "fading, sad ... as if from the sky" - non-verbally expresses the same feeling of time torn from tension.
The sale of the estate is terrible not only in itself, but as the loss of that “general idea” that Treplev did not have, in which his uncle was disappointed
Vanya, whom the three sisters searched in vain and whom Ranevskaya and Gaev saw (or were accustomed to seeing) in their white cherry alleys. This "general idea" is illusory and does not seem to contain anything specific within itself, its meaning is inexpressible. Chekhov did not like to give definite answers to "eternal" questions. In order not to say "God", his heroes spoke - "general idea"28. Two and a half months before his death (April 20, 1904), Chekhov wrote to O.L. Knipper: “You ask: what is life? It's like asking: what is a carrot? A carrot is a carrot, and nothing else is known.
Andrei Bely in his article “Chekhov”, comparing the Chekhov theater and Maeterlinck's theater, writes about the tendentiousness of the latter's symbols: “... he subordinates the presence of insight to trends. Such tendentiousness only then receives its full justification when the revelation of the artist spills over beyond the limits of art into life. Chekhov's revelations never left life, so his images were never perceived as speculative. The symbol of the cherry orchard is saturated not only with myths, but, above all, with reality, life. And "true symbolism coincides with true realism<...>both about the real”30. The central symbol of Chekhov's last play seems to consist of two layers joined together; using Bely's definition, "... in it Turgenev and Tolstoy come into contact with Maeterlinck and Hamsun"31.
The symbolism of the garden is due to its tangible embodiment, and it disappears after the garden is cut down. It's like an instrument and music, one is impossible without the other. People are deprived not only of the garden, but also through its beautiful three-dimensionality - the past and God. After the death of the garden, they begin a lonely life in a cold world, where there are no living, not invented, but given, as it were, symbols from above. Reality no longer hears
echo of the past. The present turns out to be an isolated time compartment into which a person without a “general idea” falls. The cherry orchard is dying, and its symbolism is dying, linking reality with eternity. The last sound is the sound of a breaking string.
I Strehler J. "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekhov (1974) // Chekhoviana. The sound of a broken string: To the 100th anniversary of the play "The Cherry Orchard". M., 2005. S. 225.
All quotes from the works of A.P. Chekhov and references to notes are given according to the following edition: Chekhov A.P. Complete collection of works and letters: In 30 volumes. T. 13. M., 1986.
3 Aesthetics: Dictionary. M., 1989. S. 312
4 Tsivyan T.V. Verg. Georg. I.Y. 116-148: To the mythology of the garden // Text: semantics and structure. M., 1983. S. 148.
5 Ibid. S. 141.
6 Ibid. S. 147.
7 Ibid. pp. 149-150.
8 Likhachev D.S. Poetics of ancient Russian literature. L., 1967. S. 159.
9 Gromov M. Chekhov. M., 1993. S. 355-356.
10 Zaitsev B. Zhukovsky; Life of Turgenev; Chekhov. M., 1994. S. 497.
II Citation. according to the edition: Turgenev I.S. Hunter's Notes. M., 1991. S. 238. (Literary monuments).
12 Ibid. S. 196.
13 Turgenev I.S. the day before; Fathers and Sons; Steppe King Lear. L., 1985. S. 194, 196. (Classics and contemporaries).
14 Turgenev I.S. Smoke; Nov; Spring waters. M., 1986. S. 209.
15 Bunin I.A. Collected works: In 8 vols. T. 1. M., 1993. pp. 115-117.
16 The similarity of this poem by Bunin and The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov was noted in the article: Kuzicheva A.P. Echo of the “broken string” in the poetry of the “Silver Age” // Chekhoviana: Chekhov and the “Silver Age” M., 1996. P. 141-142. Kuzicheva also mentions that Chekhov most likely read "Over the Eye", since the poem was published together with Bunin's story "Chernozem", about which Chekhov expressed his opinion to the author. The researcher quite rightly notes that “the plot and poetic echo of the two works<...>typologically interesting - regardless of whether Bunin's poem was inspired by meetings and conversations with Chekhov or not. This mood and intonation distinguish Bunin's previous works” (Ibid., p. 142).
17 Bunin I.A. Poetry and prose. M., 1986. S. 360.
Bunin recalls that Chekhov once told him: "You only need to sit down to write when you feel as cold as ice ...". There. S. 356.
19 Bunin I.A. Sobr. cit.: In 8 vols. Vol. 2. Antonovskie apples. M., 1993. S. 117.
20 Gogol N.V. Collected works: In 9 vols. T. 5. M., 1994. S. 105-106.
21 Goryacheva M.O. The Semantics of the "Garden" in the Structure of Chekhov's Artistic World // Russian Literature. 1994. No. XXXV-II (February 15). P. 177.
Kharitonova E.V. The concept of a tragic motive in Shakespeare's dramaturgy: "the motive of illness" in the tragedy "Hamlet" // English -1. M., 1996. S. 57-58.
23 The Yalta Chekhov Museum has three translations of Hamlet - by Kroneberg and Polevoi, with pencil marks in the margins, and by K.R. Apparently, the first two books
accompanied Chekhov since the 80s. In 1902, the author presented Chekhov with a three-volume set of works by K.R., including the translation of Hamlet.
24 The problem of Shakespearean images in The Cherry Orchard was considered in detail in the article by A.G. Golovacheva: Golovacheva A.G. "The sound of a broken string." Unread pages of the history of the "Cherry Orchard" // Literature at school. 1997. No. 2. S. 34-45.
25 Ibid. S. 58.
26 Ibid. S. 62.
27 The connection of times has fallen (Kroneberg's translation), The chain of times has broken (K.R.'s translation). Field translation omitted the time is out of joint.
28 The professor in "A Boring Story" said: "Each feeling and every thought lives in me separately, and in all my judgments about science, theater, literature, students and in all the pictures that my imagination draws, even the most skillful analyst will not find that , which is called the general idea, or the god of the living man. And if this is not there, then it means that there is nothing.”
29 Bely A. Chekhov // Bely A. Symbolism as a worldview. M., 1994. S. 374-375 For the first time A. Bely published the article “A.P. Chekhov" in the magazine "In the World of Arts" (1907. No. 11-12). V. Nabokov had a similar perception of Chekhov's symbols, who called Chekhov's symbols "unobtrusive" (see: Nabokov V. Lectures on Russian Literature. M., 1996, p. 350). Modern Chekhov scholars V.B. Kataev and A.P. Chudakov, often recalling Bely's articles, noted the peculiarity of the Chekhov symbol, which "belongs to two spheres at once -" real "and symbolic - and none of them to a greater extent than the other" (Chudakov A.P. Poetics Chekhov, Moscow, 1971, p. 172). See also: Kataev V.B. Literary connections of Chekhov. M., 1989. S. 248-249. You can also name the monograph by A.S. Sobennikova: Sobennikov A.S. Artistic symbol in the dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov: Typological comparison with the Western European "new drama". Irkutsk, 1989. Many Western scholars also wrote about Chekhov's special symbolism, for example: Chances E. Chekhov's Seagull: Ethereal creature or stuffed bird? // Chekhov's art of writing. A collection of critical essays / Ed. P. Debreczeny and T. Eekman. Columbus, Ohio. 1977.
30 Bely A. Decree. op. S. 372.
