1

On January 31, 1901, the premiere of the play “Three Sisters” took place at the Art Theater. The play was a major success, although all its significance and beauty were realized by many spectators later. March 1 Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko telegraphed Chekhov from St. Petersburg: “We played “Three Sisters”, the success was the same as in Moscow... they played wonderfully... The first act, the challenges were hot. The second and third ones are depressed. The last standing ovation." At the beginning of March of the same year, M. Gorky informed him about the performance seen in St. Petersburg: “And “Three Sisters” is going on - amazing! Better than "Uncle Vanya". Music, not a game."

But the play, which was a great event in theatrical life, still left a difficult impression on the audience. “I don’t know of a work,” wrote theater critic P. Yartsev, “that would be more capable of “infecting” with a heavy, obsessive feeling... “Three Sisters” falls like a stone on the soul.”

Chekhov wanted to create a work that was cheerful and joyful.

In the first half of 1901, in the minds of the playwright, neither the idea, nor the plot, nor the characters of the future play had yet acquired any clarity. He hasn't even found a title for it yet. The only clear thing was the desire to write a funny play, a comedy. On March 7, 1901, the writer reported to O.L. Knipper: “The next play I write will certainly be funny, very funny, at least in concept” (P., vol. 9, p. 220). On April 22, 1901, he confirmed: “For minutes, I am overcome with a strong desire to write a 4-act vaudeville or comedy for the Art Theater. And I will write, if nothing interferes, but I will give it to the theater no earlier than the end of 1903.” (P., vol. 10, p. 15).

At one of the rehearsals that Chekhov attended during this visit to Moscow, the artists of the Art Theater persistently begged him to write a new play. “It seemed to him,” recalls K.S. Stanislavsky, - an open window, with a branch of white cherry blossoms climbing into the room from the garden. Artyom had already become a footman, and then, out of the blue, a manager. His master, and sometimes it seemed to him that it was his mistress, is always without money, and in critical moments she turns for help to her lackey or manager, who has quite a lot of money saved up from somewhere.

Then a group of billiard players appeared. One of them is the most ardent amateur, armless, very cheerful and cheerful, always screaming loudly... Then a bosquet room appeared, then it was again replaced by a billiard room” (ibid., p. 353).

On December 18, 1901, complaining of forced idleness due to ill health, Chekhov wrote to his wife: “And I keep dreaming of writing a funny play where the devil walks with a yoke” (P., vol. 10, p. 143).

In the second half of April, Stanislavsky visited Chekhov in Yalta, and when “he pestered him with reminders about a new play, Chekhov would say: “But here, here...” - and at the same time he took out a small piece of paper covered with small, small handwriting "(Stanislavsky, vol. 5, p. 357). On July 6, 1902, Chekhov asked his sister M.P. Chekhov to send him this leaflet from Yalta to Moscow. He wrote: “Unlock my desk, and if in the front of the drawer there is an eighth of paper (or 1/3 of a sheet of notepaper) with fine writing for a future play, then send it to me in a letter. On this sheet of paper, by the way, there are many names written down” (P., vol. 10, p. 241).

By the summer of 1902, the general outlines of the plot became clear to the playwright, and he even became confident that he would finish the play by August 1.

Chekhov also found a title for it. He carefully hid this title even from those closest to him. He was afraid that the title would not be revealed prematurely. The writer first named him under special circumstances. At the beginning of June, O.L., who had already recovered, became seriously ill again. Knipper. “Chekhov did not leave her bedside. Once, in order to entertain the patient and distract her from thoughts about her illness, he said: “Do you want me to tell you what the play will be called?” He knew that this would lift his spirits and overcome his despondency. He leaned towards Olga Leonardovna’s ear and whispered quietly, so that, God forbid, someone else would not hear, although there was no one in the room except the two of them: “The Cherry Orchard.”

At the end of 1902, Chekhov told the title of the play (under the strictest confidence!) to his sister M.P. Chekhova, who talks about it like this: “I just returned from Moscow. We sat with Ant. Pavel. in his office. He was at his desk, I was near the window... I said that in Moscow they were waiting for plays from him... Antosha listened silently... Then, smiling, he said quietly, shyly: “I’m writing, I’m writing...”. I became interested in the title of the play. He didn’t want to say anything for a long time, and then, tearing off a piece of paper, he wrote something and handed it to me. I read: “The Cherry Orchard.”

Chekhov spent July and August near Moscow, in Lyubimovka. He was delighted with the wonderful nature of this area. He was pleased by the silence and the almost complete absence of annoying visitors who had so burdened him in Yalta. He thought well. It was here that the general outline of the plot of the new dramatic work was finally formed. Chekhov was pleased with the plot and found it “magnificent” (P., vol. 11, p. 28).

The heads of the Art Theater, whom Chekhov introduced in the most general terms to the plot of his new play, with its main characters, were already beginning to design its production: they were choosing possible performers; made the first thoughts about the scenery. But for all that, Chekhov had not yet started writing the text.

On October 1, he notified K.S. Alekseev (Stanislavsky): “On October 15 I will be in Moscow and I will explain to you why my play is still not ready. There is a plot, but there is still not enough gunpowder” (ibid., p. 54). On December 14, 1902, to his wife’s questions about the play, he answered: “When I sit down at The Cherry Orchard, I will write to you” (ibid., p. 91). Ten days later, sharing his thoughts about a new dramatic work, he informed her: “My “The Cherry Orchard” will be in three acts. So it seems to me, but I haven’t finally decided yet. Once I get better, I’ll start deciding again, but now I’ve given up on everything” (ibid., p. 101).

2

Reflecting on the play “The Cherry Orchard,” Chekhov began to gradually select and form the cast of its characters. To do this, he made extensive use of his stock of old impressions and what surrounded him, what he saw and heard every day. Chekhov observed the life of ancient, ruined estates and the customs of their inhabitants from the late 70s, while still a high school student, making trips to the Don steppes, to visit his student P. Kravtsov.

In May 1888 he lived in the estate of A.V. Lintvareva in the Kharkov province, from where he wrote that there “nature and life are built according to the very template that is now so outdated and rejected by editors: not to mention the nightingales that sing day and night, the barking of dogs that is heard from afar, old neglected gardens, about tightly packed, very poetic and sad estates in which the souls of beautiful women live, not to mention old, dying lackeys-serfs, about girls thirsting for the most stereotyped love ... "(P., vol. 2 , p. 277). This letter, in fact, already tells the plot of “The Cherry Orchard” not only in its main event (packed tightly poetic estates), individual characters (servant lackeys), but even in private episodes (compare, for example, “the souls of beautiful women” with Ranevskaya’s remark: “Look, the late mother is walking through the garden... in a white dress!”) (S., vol. 13, p. 210).

In 1892, Chekhov bought his own Melikhovo estate in the Serpukhov district of the Moscow province and lived in it until 1899. Zemstvo and medical activities gave him the opportunity to visit many landowners of the district and get acquainted with their estates, furnishings, and customs. Based on his impressions of the life of the landed nobility, Chekhov created a number of prose works: “Belated Flowers” ​​(1882), “Drama on the Hunt” (1884), “On the Estate” (1894). In the story “With Acquaintances” (1898), Chekhov gave birth to not only the plot of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” but also individual characters, for example, Losev, who resembles Gaev.

At the end of 1900 and at the beginning of 1901, Chekhov traveled abroad. There he had ample opportunity to observe the idle life of the Russian bar, wasting their fortunes. On January 6, 1901 he wrote to O.L. Knipper: “And what insignificant women, oh, darling, how insignificant! One has 45 winning tickets, she lives here with nothing to do, she just eats and drinks, she often goes to Monte-Carlo, where she plays cowardly, and on January 6th she doesn’t go to play, because tomorrow is a holiday! How much Russian money is lost here, especially in Monte-Carlo” (P., vol. 9, p. 176). It is interesting to note that initially Chekhov called the old landowner, i.e. Ranevskaya, “the landowner from Monte Carlo.”

For the image of Gaev, as for Ranevskaya, Chekhov had no shortage of real prototypes. He assured Stanislavsky: ““After all, this is reality! It happened. I didn’t make it up...” And he told about some old gentleman who lay in bed all day because his lackey left the village for the city, without taking out the master's trousers. And the trousers were hanging in the closet nearby.”

The basis for the image of Epikhodov, in all likelihood, was an old acquaintance of the writer A.I. Ivanenko, a big loser in life. M.P. Chekhov, the writer’s brother, directly calls him “the prototype of Epikhodov.” According to his memoirs, “he was a kind, unhappy little guy who didn’t get along with his father in Little Russia and emigrated to Moscow to study.” Here he took the exam for the piano class at the conservatory, passed, but there was not enough instrument for him, and he had to study the flute. Ivanenko met Chekhov’s family, and remained with them completely. “He was a pitiful man, loving, gentle, affectionate. He spoke at unusual length and was not offended when they did not listen to him.” Chekhov called him “klutz.” Some properties of Epikhodov, his nickname “twenty-two misfortunes” were borrowed by Chekhov from a certain juggler. At the beginning of the summer of 1902, the writer, living in Moscow, occasionally visited the Aquarium, where he liked the dexterous juggler. “He was,” recalls Stanislavsky, “a big man in a tailcoat, fat, a little sleepy, excellently, with great humor, playing the loser among his juggling exercises. “Twenty-two misfortunes” happened to him... I think,” K.S. finishes. Stanislavsky - that it was Epikhodov’s prototype. Or one of the prototypes."

In the same year, living in Lyubimovka, the estate of K.S.’s mother. Stanislavsky, Chekhov met an employee, from whom he also took certain features for the image of Epikhodov. “Chekhov often talked with him, convinced him that he needed to study, he needed to be a literate and educated person. To become one, Epikhodov’s prototype first of all bought himself a red tie and wanted to study French” (Stanislavsky, vol. 1, p. 267). In creating the image of Epikhodov, the writer also used his observations of the footman Yegor, who was very awkward and unlucky. The writer began to convince him that “serving as a footman is insulting to a person,” advised him to learn bookkeeping and become a clerk somewhere. Yegor did just that. Anton Pavlovich “...was very pleased.” It is possible that Chekhov noticed some features of Epikhodov in the appearance of I.G. Witte, a zemstvo doctor-surgeon, familiar to Chekhov from his medical activities in the Serpukhov district. In his notebook, Chekhov noted: “Witte - Epikhodov” (S., vol. 17, p. 148).

The real prototype of the image of Charlotte was an Englishwoman whom Chekhov met while living in Lyubimovka (Stanislavsky, vol. 1, pp. 226-267). But Chekhov also used his observations of other women of this kind known to him. He drew a type. And that’s why he was so excited when Stanislavsky, who recognized Lyubimov’s Englishwoman in Charlotte, decided to make up the actress playing the role of Charlotte to look like this Englishwoman. Chekhov saw in this the danger of naturalism, copying an individual personality, and assured the director that Charlotte “must certainly be German, and certainly thin and big, like the artist Muratova, completely different from the Englishwoman from whom Charlotte was based” (ibid., p. 267).

Chekhov had no shortage of materials for the image of Trofimov. He himself was a student at Moscow University and knew the student environment very well. Chekhov's apartment was often visited by students - comrades and friends of the writer's sister and brothers. In the summer of 1888, while living in the Lintvarev estate, Chekhov met daily with P.M. Lintvarev, expelled from the 4th year of the university. Chekhov treated students with great sympathy. In 1899, while in Taganrog, he said: “They say a lot that students have now become worse than in our time. I don't agree with this. In my opinion, they are much better... they work much more and drink less.” At the beginning of the same year, Chekhov in a letter to I.I. Orlov wrote: “Students and female students are honest, good people, they are our hope, they are the future of Russia” (P., vol. 8, p. 101). One of the real prototypes of Trofimov was the son of a maid on the estate of Stanislavsky’s mother. Anton Pavlovich convinced him to “quit the office, prepare for the matriculation exam and go to university!” Chekhov's advice was carried out. Some features of this young man: “angularity”, “cloudy appearance” - the writer “introduced into the image of Petya Trofimov.”

Drawing images of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” Chekhov used for them some words, expressions and phrases that were in his notebooks. For example, for Trofimov - “an eternal student” (C., vol. 17, p. 14); for Lopakhin - “this is a figment of your imagination, covered in the darkness of the unknown” (ibid., pp. 43, 156); for Pishchik - “a hungry dog ​​believes only in meat” (ibid., p. 44, 156), “he got into the pack, don’t bark, but wag his tail” (p. 157); for Firs - “Klutz!” (ibid., p. 94); for Gaev - “a man loves me” (ibid., p. 95); for Ranevskaya - “is this music playing? - I don’t hear” (p. 149).

In the notebook we also find part of the dialogue between Firs and his masters, which takes place in the second act: “Firs: before the misfortune there was such a buzz. Before what misfortune? - Before the will” (S., vol. 17, p. 148). Chekhov's notebooks also contained other materials that were extracted by the writer and developed in the play. So, in the first book there is an entry: “the cabinet has been standing for a hundred years, as can be seen from the papers; officials are seriously celebrating his anniversary” (ibid., p. 96). This recording was used for the role of Gaev. There are also fragments of Trofimov’s speeches: “we must work with only the future in mind” (ibid., p. 17), “the intelligentsia are worthless because they drink a lot of tea, talk a lot, the room is smoky, there are empty bottles.” Probably, the basis for Ranevskaya’s remark “tablecloths smell of soap” was the entry: “Russian taverns stink of clean tablecloths” (ibid., p. 9). In Chekhov's notebooks there are references to an estate going under the hammer (ibid., p. 118), a villa near Menton, and others that Chekhov could have used for his play. The title of the play was also extracted from here (ibid., p. 122).

Life impressions, deposited in Chekhov’s consciousness, served as the basis for the setting of The Cherry Orchard, down to individual details. But at the same time he did not copy them. He selected and transformed his observations in accordance with his characteristic view of life and the tasks of art and subordinated them to the ideological concept of this work.

According to Stanislavsky’s memoirs, an Englishwoman familiar to Chekhov, who served as the prototype for Charlotte, was distinguished by her cheerfulness and eccentricity. Charlotte retained the eccentricity of the Englishwoman, but the writer also gave her the bitterness of loneliness, dissatisfaction with her broken and unsettled fate.

Ivanenko, apparently the main prototype of Epikhodov, was a kind, good, obliging person, whose failures aroused universal sympathy. In creating the image of Epikhodov, the writer endowed him with very confused views, rudeness, arrogance and other traits of a typical klutz who has acquired a household meaning.

K.S. Stanislavsky, once characterizing Chekhov’s creative process, said that “he imagines a high, high rock, on the top of which Chekhov sits. Below, people are swarming, little people; He bends down and examines them intently. I saw Epikhodov - grab it! He caught him and put him near him; then Firs, Gaev, Lopakhin, Ranevskaya, etc. And then he arranges them, breathes life into them, and they start moving, and he just makes sure that they don’t stop, don’t fall asleep, and most importantly, they act.”

3

The play “The Cherry Orchard,” conceived by Chekhov as a comedy and already represented by him in its main characters, for a long time did not acquire the necessary, well-thought-out event connection in all its parts. Without completely resolving all the plot relationships of the characters, without understanding the entire composition of the play, the playwright could not begin to write it. On January 1, 1903, he promised Stanislavsky: “I’ll start the play in February, that’s what I’m counting on at least. I’ll come to Moscow with a finished play” (P., vol. 11, p. 110). Chekhov was working at this time on prose works, in particular on the story “The Bride,” but reflections on the play “The Cherry Orchard,” its images, plot and composition did not stop and captured the writer with increasing force.

Thoughts about “The Cherry Orchard” and all other activities of the writer were interrupted by a painful condition. He was tormented by pleurisy. He was forced to remain inactive. This led to a loss of confidence in their capabilities. On January 23, he notified O.L. Knipper: “I received a letter from Nemirovich today... asking about my play. That I will write my play is as sure as two and two are four, unless, of course, I am healthy; but whether it will succeed, whether anything will come of it, I don’t know” (P., vol. 11, p. 129). Uncertainty was also evident in the letter to V.F. Komissarzhevskaya, who asked the writer about a play for the theater she was opening. On January 27, Chekhov answered her: “About the play I will say the following: 1) The play is conceived, however, I already have its title (“The Cherry Orchard” - but this is a secret for now), and I will start writing it, probably no later than the end of February, if, of course, I’m healthy; 2) in this play the central role is old women!! - to the great regret of the author...” (ibid., p. 134).

As soon as relief from the illness came, Chekhov immediately began to work. He regained faith in his own strength. Already on January 30, he firmly promised O.L. Knipper: “I will write a play” (P., vol. 11, p. 138). It seemed to him that the play, already thought out in its main features, would not require more than a month to write. On February 5, he informed Stanislavsky: “...after February 20, I expect to sit down to the play and finish it by March 20. In my head it’s already ready. It's called "The Cherry Orchard", four acts, in the first act you can see cherry blossoms through the windows, a solid white garden. And ladies in white dresses. In a word, Vishnevsky will laugh a lot - and, of course, it is unknown for what reason” (ibid., p. 142).

On February 11, Chekhov, promising O.L. Knipper, who would begin writing the play on February 21, expressed his assumption that she would play the “silly one” (i.e. Varya - A.R.), and asked, “who will play the old woman - the mother?” (P., vol. 11, p. 151). On February 27, he finished the story “The Bride” and on March 1, he informed his wife: “...for the play, I have already laid out the paper on the table and written the title” (ibid., p. 168). Chekhov did not begin writing the play either in March or even in May 1903. But all this time he was intensely thinking about its characters, clarifying their relationships and place in the play. His thoughts on the images of the play were reflected in his notebook and in correspondence with his closest relatives and acquaintances.

So, in the notebook there are the following entries about Lopakhin: 1) “Lopakhin’s father was a serf of Terbetsky”; 2) “Lop.: I bought myself a little place, wanted to arrange it more beautifully and came up with nothing except a plaque: entry to outsiders is strictly prohibited”; 3) “Lop. Risha: “You should be in the prison company”; 4) “The men began to drink a lot - Lopakhin: that’s true” (S., vol. 17, pp. 148, 149). This, probably the initial sketch of the image of Lopakhin, gradually changes in the process of working on the play.

On March 5 he wrote to O.L. Knipper: “In the Cherry Orchard you will be Varvara Egorovna, or Varya, adopted child, 22 years old” (P., vol. 11, p. 172). On March 6, he made a note that Varya’s role was comic. Chekhov also saw the role of Lopakhin as comic, which, according to his initial assumption, was assigned to Stanislavsky (ibid.).

When thinking about the images, Chekhov encountered unexpected complications and difficulties. “And the play, by the way,” he informs O.L. on March 18. Knipper, I’m not entirely successful. One main character has not yet been thought through enough and is getting in the way; but by Easter, I think, this face will already be clear, and I will be free from difficulties” (P., vol. 11, p. 179). What kind of face is this? Isn’t it Ranevskaya, who was originally an old woman in the full sense of the word? April 11 Chekhov asks O.L. Knipper: “Will you have an actress to play the old lady in The Cherry Orchard? If not, then there won’t be a play, and I won’t write it” (ibid., p. 192). And 4 days later, on April 15, again: “I don’t really want to write for your theater - mainly for the reason that you don’t have an old woman. They will force the role of an old lady on her, but there is another role for you, and you already played an old lady in “The Seagull”” (ibid., pp. 194-195).

The hard work paid off. The images of the play, their relationships and development appeared more and more clearly and vividly before Chekhov. He threw away everything that cluttered it and deprived it of warmth. On March 21, he assured O.L. Knipper: “There will be “The Cherry Orchard,” I’m trying to make it as small as possible for the characters; it’s more intimate this way” (P., vol. 11, p. 182).

In his new play, he developed the ideological and artistic principles that he had already implemented in previous dramatic works, the principles of depicting ordinary, everyday reality, in its inherent complexity and inconsistency. And life rose from its familiar shores and presented itself with new sides, previously unknown. And it seemed to Chekhov that he had stopped creatively. He was overcome by doubts, and on April 17 he wrote with alarm: “The play is catching on little by little, but I’m afraid that my tone is generally outdated, it seems” (ibid., p. 196).

The rhythm of Chekhov's life and work during his stay in Yalta was constantly disrupted by numerous visitors: friends, acquaintances, admirers of his talent, petitioners and simply curious people. Chekhov suffered greatly from this. April 9, 1903, complaining to O.L. Knipper to the visitors who were disturbing him, he notified her: “I will write the play in Moscow, it is impossible to write here. They don’t even let you read the proofs” (P., vol. 11, p. 191). On June 17, in a letter to N.E. He told Efros that he “didn’t even start writing the play” (ibid., p. 226). Chekhov was still busy preparing and sketching sketches, but had not yet started painting the picture as a whole.

4

On May 25, 1903, Chekhov settled in a dacha near Moscow in Naro-Fominsk. On June 4 he informed L.V. In the middle: “I sit by the large window and work little by little” (P., vol. 11, p. 217). In the second half of June, he finally began writing a coherent text for the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Then, by the way, several already written scenes of the play were lost, which may have delayed his work on it. One day, “Anton Pavlovich left her sheets of paper on the desk, and he went to the neighbors. At this time, a sudden summer thunderstorm blew in, a whirlwind burst through the window and carried two or three sheets of the play from the table into the garden, covered with ink in Chekhov’s small handwriting...

“Don’t you really remember what was on them?” - they asked him.

Imagine that I don’t remember,” he answered with a smile. “We’ll have to write these scenes again.”

On July 7, Chekhov left for Yalta and spent all his free time working only on the play. On July 28 he reported to K.S. Stanislavsky: “My play is not ready, it’s moving a little slowly, which I explain by laziness, wonderful weather, and the difficulty of the plot... Your role, it seems, turned out wow” (P., vol. 11, p. 236).

Chekhov sought to simplify the setting of the play as much as possible. “The setting part of the play,” he wrote on August 22 to V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, - I reduced it to a minimum, no special decorations will be required and there will be no need to invent gunpowder” (ibid., p. 242).

For a very long time the playwright did not find the necessary stage embodiment for the second act, which in the first draft seemed boring, drawn-out, and monotonous to him. On September 2 he wrote to V.I. To Nemirovich-Danchenko: “My play (if I continue to work as I worked before today) will be finished soon, rest assured. It was difficult, very difficult to write the second act, but it seems nothing came of it” (P., vol. 11, p. 246).

In the process of working on the play, its characters changed. So, the “old woman” became somewhat younger, and her role could have already been offered to O.L. Knipper. In the letter quoted above to V.I. Chekhov wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko: “In my play, Olga will take the role of the mother” (ibid.).

The play “The Cherry Orchard” was created in the real “throes of creativity.” Chekhov repeatedly had doubts about the merits of what he had written, and it seemed to him that, being away from the theatre, from the center of culture, from the vibrant public life, he was already repeating backwards and was incapable of anything new, original. Having an almost completed play in front of him, he wrote to his wife on September 20: “I am so far from everything that I am beginning to lose heart. It seems to me that I have already become obsolete as a writer and every phrase that I write seems to me to be worthless and useless for anything” (P., vol. 11, p. 252).

The last act of the play was easier for Chekhov. On September 23, Anton Pavlovich notified O.L. Knipper: “The fourth act in my play, compared to other acts, will be meager in content, but effective. The end of your role seems to me not bad” (ibid., pp. 253-254).

On September 25, Chekhov completed this act, and on September 26, the play was completed. The playwright had already seen the entire work in front of him, and this time it did not seem outdated to him. “It seems to me,” he admitted to O.L. Knipper, “that in my play, no matter how boring it is, there is something new” (P., vol. 11, p. 256). For him, it was also indisputable that her faces “came out alive” (ibid., p. 257).

5

The process of creating the play is left behind. It was only necessary to rewrite it. But, carefully reading the text of the play while rewriting, Chekhov again found weak points in it that required reworking and polishing. “The play is already over,” he informed O.L. on September 29. Knipper, - but I’m rewriting it slowly, because I have to redo it, change my mind; I’ll send two or three places unfinished, I’ll put them off for later - excuse me” (P., vol. 11, 258-259). Chekhov completely reworked many scenes. “I really don’t like some passages,” he wrote on October 3, “I write them again and rewrite them again” (ibid., p. 262). Anton Pavlovich especially did not like the second act, which even after revision remained, in his opinion, “boring and monotonous, like a cobweb” (ibid., p. 267). This act began with the following mise-en-scène: Yasha and Dunyasha are sitting on a bench, and Epikhodov is standing next to them. Trofimov and Anya pass from the estate along the road. The action opened with a dialogue between Anya and Trofimov:

« Anya. Grandma is lonely, very rich. She doesn't like her mother. In the first days it was hard for me to be with her; she didn’t talk to me much. Then nothing, she softened. She promised to send money and gave me and Charlotte Ivanovna money for the trip. But how creepy it is, how hard it is to feel like a poor relative.

Trofimov. There is already someone here, it seems... sitting. In that case, let's move on.

Anya. I haven't been home for three weeks. I miss you so much! (They leave.)"

After Anya and Trofimov left, Dunyasha turned to Yasha with the words: “What a joy it is to be abroad,” and then the action developed in the sequence already known to us, but with additional dialogue between Varya and Charlotte passing along the road from the estate, and it ended with a big scene of Firs and Charlotte.

The dialogue between Varya and Charlotte interrupted the conversation between Ranevskaya, Gaev and Lopakhin and began after Lopakhin exclaimed: “What is there to think about!” Here is its content:

« Varya. She is a smart and well-mannered girl, nothing can happen, but still she should not be left alone with a young man. Dinner is at nine o'clock, Charlotte Ivanovna, don't be late.

Charlotte. I don't want to eat... (Quietly hums a song).

Varya. It does not matter. Necessary for order. You see, they are sitting there on the shore... (Varya and Charlotte leave).”

In the subsequent development of the action, when Anya and Trofimov were hiding from Varya, Firs came onto the stage and, muttering something, searched on the ground, near the bench. Then Charlotte appeared. A conversation ensued between these people, who felt very lonely:

« Firs(mumbling). Eh, you klutz!

Charlotte. (sits on the bench and takes off his cap). Is that you, Firs? What are you looking for?

« Firs. The lady lost her purse.

Charlotte(searches). Here is a fan... But here is a handkerchief... it smells of perfume... (Pause). There is nothing else. Lyubov Andreevna is constantly losing. She lost her life too (quietly hums a song). I, grandfather, don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am, and it seems to me that I’m young... (puts a cap on Fars, he sits motionless). Oh, I love you, my dear sir! (laughs). Ein, zwei, drei! (takes off Firs’s cap and puts it on himself). When I was a little girl, my father and mother went to fairs and gave performances. Very good. And I jumped salto mortale and various things like that. And when dad and mom died, a German lady took me in and began to teach me. Fine. I grew up, then became a governess, but where I come from and who I am, I don’t know... Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... I don’t know... (takes a cucumber out of his pocket and eats it). I do not know anything.

Firs. I was about 20 or 25 years old, it was me, and the son of the deacon’s father, and the cook Vasily, and then there was a man sitting on a stone... someone else’s, unknown... For some reason I became timid and left, but They took him without me and killed him... He had money.

Charlotte. Well? Weiter.

Firs. Then, it means, the court came in large numbers, they began to interrogate... They took me away... And me too... I spent two years in prison... Then nothing, they released me. It was a long time ago... (Pause). You won't remember everything...

Charlotte. It's time for you to die, grandfather... (eats a cucumber).

Firs. A? (mutters to himself). And so, we all drove off together, and there was a stop... My uncle jumped off the cart... took a sack... and in that sack there was another sack... And he looked, and there was something there - jerk, jerk!

Charlotte(laughs, quietly). Jump, jump!.. (You can hear someone walking along the road and quietly playing the balalaika. The moon is rising. Somewhere near the poplars Varya is looking for Anya and calling: “Anya! Where are you?”).”

Thus ended the second act.

With the careful polishing that Chekhov did, only two and a half acts were rewritten in 12 days (by October 7). “I’m pulling, I’m pulling, I’m pulling,” he reported to O.L. that day. Knipper, - and because I’m procrastinating, it seems to me that my play is immeasurably huge, colossal, I’m horrified and have lost all appetite for it” (P., vol. 11, p. 265). On October 6, 1903, Chekhov informed M. Gorky: “I have finished the play, but I am rewriting it extremely slowly. On October 10, I’ll probably finish and send it” (ibid., p. 264). The playwright was hurried by the directors and artists of the Art Theater. They needed a new Chekhov play like air. Back in September V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko asked: “Put up, Anton Pavlovich!.. Oh, how we need her...”.” Almost every day O.L. Knipper persistently reminded the writer of the need to complete the play as soon as possible.

But the artist, demanding of himself, delayed the play and continued to work painstakingly. “I’m rewriting the play,” he informed O.L. Knipper October 9, 1903, - I’ll finish soon... I assure you, every extra day is only beneficial, for my play is getting better and better and the faces are already clear. But I’m afraid there are places that censorship might cross out, and it would be terrible” (P., vol. 11, p. 269).

To make Gaev’s image more specific, the playwright needed specific expressions from billiard players. He asked his wife's brother - K.L. Knipper observed the game of billiard players and recorded their speech jargon. October 9 K.L. Knipper informed him: “I saw two little men, sat in the billiard room of the city garden for two hours, but I learned little of this special billiard terminology: they play more gloomily, muttering moves under their breath...”.

K.L. Knipper recorded 22 billiard expressions for Chekhov. Here is the beginning of the list of these expressions he sent to the writer:

“1 - (put) - from 2 sides to the middle.

2 - Krause in the middle.

3 - I cut into the middle, into the corner.

4 - Doublet in the corner, in the middle.

5 - I put in a clean one.

6 - From the ball to the right (left) into the corner.

7 - Ball (that is, your other ball) into the corner!” .

Chekhov found these expressions useful; he inserted some of them into the role of Gaev. It is important to note that, in an effort to be accurate, the writer was not satisfied with K.L.'s observations. Knipper and wrote to his wife on October 14: “Ask Vishnevsky to listen to how they play billiards and write down more billiard terms. I don’t play billiards, or I once did, but now I’ve forgotten everything, and in my play everything is accidental...” (P., vol. 11, p. 273).

Chekhov's exactingness towards himself was so great that he, having already rewritten the play a second time, introduced a number of amendments, additions and abbreviations to it, just before sending it to Moscow. In the first act, Ranevskaya asked her brother how much they owed Lopakhin, and Gaev named the amount of 40 thousand (RGB. F. 331, l. 13). Chekhov considered this episode unnecessary and crossed it out. In the same act, the writer changed Ranevskaya’s expression “happiness woke up with me” to a more expressive one: “happiness woke up with me” (l. 14). Then, in the first act, Anya’s address to Gaev “only dear uncle” was corrected to the more rhythmic “but dear uncle” (l. 16).

In the second act, Ranevskaya’s role includes a line in which she refutes Gaev’s deceptive hopes for some general. Fully sharing Lopakhin’s distrust of Gaev’s project to borrow money from an unknown general, Lyubov Andreevna says: “He’s delusional. There are no generals” (RSL. F. 331, l. 25). Trofimov, addressing Anya, initially said: “After all, this has corrupted all of you.” But, obviously fearing censorship, Chekhov crossed out the word “corrupted” and instead wrote: “degenerated” (l. 29).

In the third act, Yasha’s request to take him to Paris, with which he addresses Ranevskaya, also included the words: “What can I say, you see for yourself” (l. 40). This enhanced the insolently familiar tone of the “civilized” lackey.

In the fourth act, the expression “Just think!” is inserted into Pischik’s story about a philosopher who advised jumping from rooftops. But the same expression is crossed out by the writer after Pishchik’s message about the surrender of a plot of clay to the British for 24 years. Chekhov probably found that a close repetition of Pishchik’s favorite saying in one scene would be too intrusive. Initially, Pischik, saying goodbye to Ranevskaya, said: “Remember this very... horse and say: “There was such and such... Simeonov-Pishchik... horse” (l. 50). Chekhov also removes the last word, as it is repeated. He also excludes the remark “fun”, which characterizes Pishchik’s farewell words spoken by Ranevskaya.

The double rewrite of the play was completed on October 12 or 13, and on October 14 it was sent to Moscow. Despite the great improvements made during rewriting, the play did not seem completely finished to the author. If he had not been so urgently rushed, Chekhov would have continued to perfect the text. “There is something in the play,” he wrote to O.L. Knipper, - we need to redo it... Act IV is not completed and something needs to be moved in II, and, perhaps, change 2-3 words at the end of III, otherwise, perhaps, it looks like the end of “Uncle Vanya”” (P. , vol. 11, p. 276). The playwright believed that Ranevskaya’s role was “done only in acts III and I, in the rest it was only anointed” (ibid., p. 271).

Having sent the play to Moscow, Chekhov began to anxiously await its evaluation by the directors and artists of the Art Theater. “I didn’t write to you yesterday,” he admitted to O.L. on October 19. Knipper, - because all the time I was waiting with bated breath for the telegram... I was still a coward, afraid. I was mainly frightened by the inactivity of the second act and the somewhat unfinished state of the student Trofimov” (P., vol. 11, pp. 278-279). On the same day, Chekhov received a telegram from Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, who wrote that “The Cherry Orchard” “as a stage work, perhaps more of a play than all the previous ones.” Two days later, the playwright read a telegram to K.S. Stanislavsky: “I’m shocked, I can’t come to my senses. I am incredibly delighted. I consider the play to be the best of all the beautiful things you have written. I heartily congratulate the brilliant author. I feel like I appreciate every word.” This enthusiastic panegyric displeased Chekhov. On the same day he informed O.L. Knipper: “I received a telegram from Alekseev in which he calls my play brilliant, this means overpraising the play and taking away from it a good half of the success that it could have had under happy conditions” (P., vol. 11, p. 280).

On October 21, the play was read to the entire troupe of the Art Theater. The actors were captivated from the first act, appreciated every subtlety, and cried in the last act. Stanislavsky told Chekhov that “never before has a play been received so unanimously and enthusiastically.”

6

The manuscript of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” sent by Chekhov to Moscow, was reprinted in several copies. One copy of the play was immediately sent to St. Petersburg to the dramatic censorship, which on November 25, 1903 allowed it to be presented on stage. We will call this copy of the play, reflecting one of the most important stages of creative work on it, Yalta, or censorship manuscript (it has the inscription: “Allowed for performance. St. Petersburg, November 25, 1903, censor of dramatic works. Vereshchagin”).

December 4 A.P. Chekhov arrived in Moscow. Here the Art Theater was actively preparing “The Cherry Orchard” for production. Upon arrival, Chekhov felt bad, and in order not to tire him, “the first readings,” says artist E.M. Muratov, - took place in his apartment." Subsequently, the playwright attended almost daily rehearsals of his play in the theater, discussed their roles with the participants in the play, and continued to work daily on the text of the play. Despite the fact that the theater managers and artists involved in the play worked with great faith in its success, Chekhov was skeptical about it. His skepticism was so decisive that he offered the theater to buy the play as eternal property for only 3,000 rubles.

The new corrections that Chekhov introduced and pasted into the main manuscript turned out to be very numerous. Already on December 16, M. Gorky notified K.P. Pyatnitsky about Chekhov’s request to send him a proof of the play submitted to the collection “Knowledge” in order to make amendments to it. “Even now,” Gorky wrote, “he has made many amendments to the play.” Polishing the text, Chekhov strove for a more clear disclosure of the socio-psychological essence of the characters, with their inherent complexity and inconsistency, for the utmost correspondence of their actions and characters, for greater colorism in their speech. He paid a lot of attention to the compositional harmony, liveliness, and scenic quality of the play.

Let us turn first to the corrections of the first act.

To highlight Ranevskaya’s kindness, new affectionate addresses are introduced into her role: “Thank you, my old man,” she says to Firs and kisses him (d. I) (RSL. F. 331, l. 9). “Cut it out?” - Lyubov Andreevna repeated Lopakhin’s proposal about the cherry orchard in bewilderment and dissatisfaction. And then she continued: “If in the whole province there is something interesting, even wonderful, it is only our cherry orchard” (l. 7). The definiteness and categorical nature of this remark did not quite suit Ranevskaya. And Chekhov, feeling this, accompanied her question with a softening expression: “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything” (l. 10). In Ranevskaya’s memory of her son, the word “son” is replaced by a more heartfelt, intimate expression: “my boy drowned” (l. 23). Previously, Ranevskaya, noticing the movement of Gaev, remembering a game of billiards, said: “Yellow in the corner! Doublet in the middle! Chekhov prefaced these words with the following introduction: “How is this? Let me remember...” (l. 8). And her response acquired the necessary naturalness.

When turning to the image of Gaev, Chekhov strengthened in him the trait of groundlessness and empty phrase-mongering. The writer supplemented Gaev’s assurances about payment of interest on the estate with the following words: “On my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! I swear on my happiness! Here's my hand for you, then call me a crappy, dishonest person if I allow it to the auction. I swear with all my being!” (RGB. F. 331, l. 17).

The image of Lopakhin underwent even greater refinement; Chekhov makes amendments and additions that ennoble the figure of the merchant, making him intelligent. Thus, emphasizing Lopakhin’s connection to culture and his characteristic outbursts of warmth, the playwright colored his addresses to Ranevskaya with such epithets as “magnificent”, “amazing, touching eyes”, “Merciful God!”, “more than my own” (ibid., l. 9). In Lopakhin’s address to Raevskaya, an insertion is made: “so that your amazing, touching eyes look at me as before, merciful God!”

Lopakhin’s advice, designed to save the estate from being sold at auction, as well as his reasoning about summer residents, become softer, more delicate, and more sincere. In an early manuscript (censored) Lopakhin said: “So I want to say before leaving ( looking at the clock). I'm talking about the estate... in a nutshell... I want to offer you a way to find a way out. To keep your property from losing money, you need to get up every day at four o’clock in the morning and work all day. For you, of course, this is impossible, I understand... But there is another way out” (GTB, l. 6), - further, as in print. This was the advice of a businessman, an entrepreneur, alien and even hostile to the owners of the cherry orchard.

In the final version, Chekhov painted Lopakhin differently. Therefore, he changed this callous advice to a soft, delicate appeal from a man deeply disposed towards Ranevskaya. “I want to tell you something very pleasant, funny ( looking at the clock). I’m leaving now, I don’t have time to talk... well, I’ll say it in two or three words. You already know that your cherry orchard is being sold for debts, the auction is scheduled for August 22, but don’t worry, sleep peacefully, there is a way out... Here is my project” (RSL. F. 331, l. 10), etc. Lopakhin’s speech about summer residents is corrected in the same spirit. Saying goodbye to Ranevskaya, Lopakhin once again reminds her: “Think seriously” (l. 12).

The second half of Lopakhin’s reasoning about summer residents was initially like this: “... in ten to twenty years it will show what he really is. Now he only drinks tea on the balcony, but it may happen that on his one tithe he will take care of the farm and then, who knows what the hell, he will have to be taken into account” (GTB, l. 8). Chekhov again edits the beginning (“in ten to twenty years it will multiply and begin to work”) and the end (“and then your cherry orchard would become happy, rich and you would not recognize it”) of this part of the argument (RGB. F. 331, l . eleven). At the same time, Chekhov introduced two expressions into the role of Lopakhin, uttered in the first act: “congratulations (“in a word, congratulations, you are saved”) and “I swear to you” (“There is no other way out... I swear to you”) (l. 10, eleven). At the same time the remark was changed: hums" on " hums quietly"(l. 24).

Expanding the role of Firs, Chekhov emphasizes his devotion to the masters. Earlier, in response to Varya’s question: “Firs, what are you talking about?” He answered: “What do you want?” Now his line continues. He joyfully says: “My lady has arrived! Waited for it! Now at least die... ( Wept with joy)" (RGB. F. 331, l. 8). In the first edition, Firs responded to Ranevskaya’s appeal in the same way: “What do you want?” But, enhancing the colorfulness and theatricality of his role, Chekhov changes this line. Deaf Firs instead of “What do you want?” answers “The day before yesterday” (ibid., l. 9).

In the same editorial office, Firs said: “In the old days, 40-50 years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and sometimes dried cherries were sent by carts to Moscow and Kharkov” (GTB, l. 7). Increasing the stage quality of this story, Chekhov interrupted it with a remark from Gaev, and the story took the following form:

« Firs. In the old days, 40-50 years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made, and it used to be...

Gaev. Shut up, Firs.

Firs. And it happened...” (RSL. F. 331, l. 11), etc.

Turning to the image of Varya, Chekhov considered it necessary to strengthen her dissatisfaction with her position and more clearly highlight her desire for a quiet, contemplative life. He included in her remark the words: “and so she would still go to holy places... She would go and go” (ibid., l. 7).

Work on other characters was limited mainly to adding individual expressions and words. Epikhodov’s role was supplemented with the phrase: “This is simply wonderful!” With this phrase he concluded his reasoning before leaving the nursery at the beginning of the first act. Anya’s remarks are endowed with remarks: sadly(“Mom bought this”) (RSL. F. 331, l. 3), childish fun(“And in Paris I flew in a hot air balloon!”) ​​(l. 7).

The second act required more significant corrections. Chekhov concretized the colorful image of Epikhodov, giving him the words at the very beginning of this act: “I am a developed person, I read various scientific books, but I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, whether I should live or shoot myself, strictly speaking, but nevertheless I I always carry a revolver with me. Here he is... ( shows a revolver)" (ibid., l. 19). In the first edition, Epikhodov’s argument, which began with the words “strictly speaking, without touching on other subjects,” ended like this: “This is me, by the way, Avdotya Fedorovna, and you understand perfectly well why I’m saying this... ( pause). Allow me to talk to you, Avdotya Fedorovna” (GTB, l. 15-16). The final words of this address were not very characteristic of Epikhodov, and therefore Chekhov replaced them with the following: “Have you read Buckle? ( pause.) I would like to bother you, Avdotya Fedorovna, with a few words” (RSL. F. 331, l. 20). Expanding the role of Epikhodov, the author emphasized his phrase-mongering: “Now I know what to do with my revolver.” This remark also determined Dunyasha’s additional words: “God forbid, he shoots himself” (ibid.).

Satirically sharpening the image of Yasha, the writer introduces the following reasoning into his speech: “( yawns.) Yes, sir... In my opinion, it’s like this: if a girl loves someone, then she is immoral.” Emphasizing in Yasha the qualities of a cold, depraved egoist who is only having fun with Dunyasha and not loving her, the playwright supplemented the character’s last line in this episode with the words: “Otherwise they will meet and think of me as if I’m on a date with you. I can’t stand it” (ibid.).

In the “masters” scene, which replaces the “servants” scene, the playwright, after Lopakhin’s words that people “should truly be giants,” included the following addition:

« Lyubov Andreevna. Did you need giants? They are only good in fairy tales, but they are so scary.

(Epikhodov passes at the back of the stage).

Lyubov Andreevna(thoughtfully). Epikhodov is coming...

Anya(thoughtfully). Epikhodov is coming.

Varya. Why does he live with us? He just eats and drinks casually all day...

Lyubov Andreevna. I love Epikhodov. When he talks about his misfortunes, it becomes funny. Don't fire him, Varya.

Varya. You can't, mommy. It is necessary to fire him, the scoundrel” (RSL. F. 331, l. 27).

Chekhov enriches the roles of almost all participants in the “gentlemen” scene. In the first, Yalta edition, Lopakhin, going on stage, spoke categorically, demandingly, dryly: “We must finally decide - time does not wait. Do you agree to give up the land for dachas or not?” (GTB, l. 16). After the rework, Lopakhin’s appeal acquired softness and even pleading: “We must finally decide - time does not wait. The question is completely empty. Do you agree to give up the land for dachas or not? Answer in one word: yes or no? Just one word!” (RGB. F. 331, l. 20). In the next remark, Lopakhin almost literally repeated the words of the first appeal: “Do you agree to give up the land for dachas or not?” Diversifying Lopakhin’s speech, the writer replaced this remark with another: “Only one word ( pleadingly). Give me the answer!” (ibid., l. 21).

In a further conversation, he told Ranevskaya: “Your estate is for sale. Understand, it's for sale! Should we do something? (GTB, l. 17). The last words in the mouth of Lopakhin, who knew what to do and persistently offered Ranevskaya the only reliable way out of this situation, seemed inappropriate to Chekhov, and he changed them as follows: “Your property is for sale, but you definitely don’t understand” (RSL. F. 331, l. 22).

Lopakhin, offering Ranevskaya a way of salvation, declared: “Once you finally decide to have dachas, in three days you can get as much money as you want” (GTB, l. 17). In accordance with all of Lopakhin’s previous warnings about the impending catastrophe - the sale of the estate - Chekhov strengthens the specificity, categoricalness and persuasiveness of this phrase: “Once you finally decide to have dachas, they will give you as much money as you want, and then you are saved” (RGB. F 331, l. 22).

Several new touches are also introduced into the role of Ranevskaya. Previously, to Lopakhin’s sharp reproaches for inactivity, Ranevskaya somehow answered sluggishly and vaguely: “What? Teach what? (GTB, l. 17). Her answer conveyed great interest: “What should we do? Teach what? (RGB. F. 331, l. 22). In accordance with this, in her further address to Lopakhin the words appear: “darling” (“stay, darling”), “my friend” (“You need to get married, my friend”) (ibid., l. 26).

In a play already accepted by the theater and approved by censorship, Chekhov, as we see, with exceptional exactingness introduced new nuances into the images of all the characters.

An example of Chekhov’s amazingly thorough processing of not only the speech of his characters, but also his stage directions, is the following phrase: “ Firs hurries across the stage, in an ancient livery and in a tall hat, leaning on a stick; he's doing something..." etc. Back in Yalta, this remark took the following form: “ Firs, who had gone to meet Lyubov Andreevna, hurriedly passes across the stage; he is in an old livery and in a tall hat, leaning on a stick, he is something..." In Moscow, the remark acquired a new edition, which clarifies the natural sequence of the servant’s actions: “ Firs, who had gone to meet Lyubov Andreevna, hurriedly passes across the stage, leaning on a stick; he's in an old livery and a tall hat, he's something..." etc. (RGB. F. 331, l. 4).

Chekhov had to make two corrections to the play due to censorship requirements. In the second act, in the gentlemen’s scene, student Trofimov makes an accusatory speech, from which the censorship excluded the words: “In front of everyone, the workers eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, thirty, forty in one room” (GTB, l. 22). Chekhov replaced them with the following: “The vast majority of us, ninety-nine out of a hundred, live like savages, the slightest bit of teething, swearing, eating disgustingly, sleeping in the dirt, in the stuffiness.” In the third act, censorship blotted out the words in Trofimov’s address to Anya: “To own living souls - after all, this has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you are living in debt, at someone else’s expense , at the expense of those people whom you do not allow further than the front” (ibid., l. 24). Chekhov was forced to replace these words with the following: “Oh, this is terrible, your garden is terrible, and when you walk through the garden in the evening or at night, the old bark on the trees glows dimly and, it seems, the cherry trees see in a dream what was a hundred or two hundred years ago, and heavy visions torment them. ( Pause.) - What to say” (RSL. F. 331, l. 29).

All the corrections we have just noted were included in the main manuscript sent to Moscow in October 1903. This manuscript, quoted above, is conventionally called the Moscow manuscript (remember that it is kept in the Scientific Research Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library).

Chekhov's serious work on the text of a play that was already being rehearsed became famous outside the Art Theater. Thus, the magazine “Theater and Art” reported that the playwright “took back the first act of the play and subjected it to a thorough reworking” (1904. No. 1. P. 5).

7

On January 17, 1904, the premiere of the play “The Cherry Orchard” took place at the Art Theater. The performance, despite the very contradictory responses to the play - positive, negative and perplexed - was perceived as a great theatrical event. On January 18, the Moscow newspaper “Russian Listok” reported: “Yesterday a new play by A.P. was performed here for the first time. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard". The whole literary and artistic Moscow was present in the hall. The impression from The Cherry Orchard is enormous. All the faces drawn by the author were so close and familiar to us; life, Russian life, is so faithfully captured and vividly conveyed in a number of small details that interest in the play did not disappear until the last scene. All the performers made an effort to make their roles bright and interesting types.” January 25 in the magazine “Alarm Clock”, signed Imp, the following poems were published: “A.P. Chekhov (after the production of The Cherry Orchard):

Literature of our days

Everything is overgrown with burdocks...

"The Cherry Orchard" is now in it

Let it beckon with “new flowers.”

The play was already being typed for the second collection of the Znanie publishing house, and its proofreading was expected. On January 20, 1904, Chekhov reported to L.V. In the middle: “I’m done with the rigmarole with the play, now I can sit down at the table in freedom and write to you” (P., vol. 12, p. 16). Meanwhile, Chekhov was not completely satisfied with either the play or its production. The rigmarole with the play continued, although all the main things were done and left behind. However, the writer still lived with the play; he could not tear himself away from it and made new corrections to its text. One of these corrections was prompted by the production of the Art Theater. It seemed to the director that at the end of the second act, the lyrical episode of Firs and Charlotte, which came “after the lively scene of youth... lowered the mood of the action” (Stanislavsky, T. 1, P. 473). And after the first performances, when the weaknesses of the second act were especially clearly revealed, Chekhov was expressed a wish that he film this episode. K.S. Stanislavsky said that Chekhov “became very sad, turned pale from the pain that we caused him then, but, after thinking and recovering, he answered: “Cut it down!”” (ibid., p. 270).

Chekhov apparently made new corrections to some typewritten copy of the play, from which they were then transferred to the text of the theatrical manuscript and to the proofreading of the play, first published in the second collection of Knowledge. Consequently, there was a third author's manuscript (edition) of the play, but, unfortunately, it has not reached us. Discrepancies between the second (Moscow) and third manuscripts are established only by comparing the second manuscript with the printed text. What are these new corrections, besides the exclusion of the already mentioned scene of Firs and Charlotte?

The first act included a dialogue between Pishchik and Lyubov Andreevna:

« Pischik (Lyubov Andreevna). What's in Paris? How? Did you eat frogs?

Lyubov Andreevna. Ate crocodiles.

Pischik. Just think..."

At the same time, the episode with pills was included in the play:

« Yasha (gives Lyubov Andreevna medicines). Maybe you should take some pills now...

Pischik. There is no need to take medications, my dear... they do no harm or good... Give it here... dear. (Takes the pills, pours them into his palm, blows on them, puts them in his mouth and washes them down with kvass.) Here!

Lyubov Andreevna (scared). You're crazy!

Pischik. I took all the pills.

Lopakhin. What a mess. (Everyone laughs.)

Firs. They were with us on Holy Day, they ate half a bucket of cucumbers...”

The additions just given clearly enhanced the comedy of Pishchik’s image. Having included the dialogue between Pishchik and Ranevskaya, as well as the episode with the pills, Chekhov at the same time excluded the scene with Charlotte's trick. In Yalta ( or censorship) manuscripts Charlotte, before finally leaving the stage, approached the door and asked: “Someone is standing outside the door. Who's there? ( there's a knock on the door from the other side.) Who is that knocking? ( knock). This is my lord groom! ( Leaves. Everyone is laughing)" (GTB, l. 9).

Arriving in Moscow, Chekhov gave a different version of this episode:

« Lopakhin. Charlotte Ivanovna, show me the trick.

Lyubov Andreevna. Charlotte, show me a trick!

Charlotte (approaching the door). Who's standing behind the door? Who's there? ( knock on the door from the other side). Who's that knocking? ( knock). This is Mr. Groom. ( Leaves. Everyone is laughing)" (RGB. F. 331, l. 12).

But this option did not satisfy the playwright, and he considered it best to remove the scene with the focus. Charlotte responds to Lopakhin and Ranevskaya’s requests to show a trick: “No need. I want to sleep." And he leaves.

Very significant rearrangements were made by Chekhov in the second act due to the director's desire to omit the scene of Firs and Charlotte. Chekhov retained part of this scene, namely Charlotte’s story about her life, moving it to the beginning of the same act and replacing it with the dialogue between Anya and Trofimov. The dialogue of the young people did not introduce anything new into the development of the action, but only slowed it down. Thus, the second act now opened with a scene of servants and directly with Charlotte’s monologue. Epikhodov’s reasoning seemed to the playwright too long, turning into a monologue, and then he divided it with Charlotte’s remark: “It’s over. Now I’ll go,” etc.

Chekhov made some changes in this act and in the gentlemen's scene. He removed the episode in which Varya and Anya passed along the road, since their dialogue, without developing the action, interrupted Lopakhin’s conversation with Ranevskaya and Gaev. He also eliminated the remarks of Varya, Lopakhin and Ranevskaya regarding Epikhodov, because they did not add anything to his already clear description. The scene of the young people, which has now become the final one, has also undergone partial revision. Earlier, after Anya’s enthusiastic exclamation: “How well you said it!” - they exchanged remarks:

« Trofimov. Shh... Someone is coming. This Varya again! ( angrily). Outrageous.

Anya. Well? Let's go to the river. It's good there.

Trofimov. Let's go... ( are coming).

Anya. The moon will rise soon ( leaving)" (GTB, l. 24).

These remarks too abruptly, reducing them prosaically, interrupted Trofimov’s speeches, deep in meaning, vivid in expressiveness and pathetic in tone. The student himself was excited by them and attracted his young listener to a new life, to public service. Chekhov, apparently, sensed this shortcoming and corrected it. He continued the pathetic conversation of the young people about happiness and gave it a real-symbolic meaning, introducing the image of the rising moon - Anya and Trofimov go to the river to admire the moon.

In connection with the amendment to the second act made by Chekhov after the premiere, on February 16, 1904, the following message appeared in the News of the Day newspaper: “A.P. Chekhov made several changes to The Cherry Orchard, and with these changes the play went into its final performances. They concern the 2nd act, which left a vague impression. The previous end of the act - the conversation between Charlotte and Firs - is completely cut off. Now the act ends with a scene between Anya and Trofimov running away to the river. Their notes of young feeling, young faith color the last impression of the act significantly differently, and it no longer seems so viscous. Part of Charlotte's story - about her magician parents, her childhood - is placed as the beginning of the act. In the opening scene, Epikhodov’s “cruel romance” is inserted. Mr. Moskvin sings it with great humor with a guitar. The guitar accompaniment is also added in the short silent scene of Epikhodov passing in the background. This scene remained completely unnecessary, superfluous, but now it still adds something to the overall flavor of the moment.”

In the third act, the playwright left one of the two repeated lines Ranevskaya uttered in the scene of Charlotte's tricks, and gave the second to the station master. In previous editions it was: “ Lyubov Andreevna (applauds). Bravo, bravo! ( the audience also applauds)". It became: " Station Manager (applauds). Madam Ventriloquist, bravo!”

All other amendments made during this period were aimed at deepening the individual characteristics of the characters. The role of Ranevskaya has already acquired the necessary completeness in previous editions. But in revising the play, Chekhov found it possible to expand this role with several new words and expressions. They all entered into the conversation between Ranevskaya and Trofimov, which takes place in the third act. Here they are: “I’ve definitely lost my sight, I can’t see anything”; “but tell me, my dear”; “this” (“isn’t it because you are young”); “Only fate throws you from place to place.” If the first three inserts enhance Ranevskaya’s softness and sentimentality, then the last phrase, together with other facts, reveals the reasons for Trofimov’s long stay as a student: he was constantly expelled from Moscow.

The editing of Lopakhin's role turned out to be more serious. It is now that Trofimov’s words appear, giving Lopakhin traits of tenderness, complexity, and artistry. “After all,” says Trofimov, turning to Lopakhin, “I still love you.” You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have such a gentle soul.” In accordance with this characteristic, tendencies of some verbal sophistication appear in the role of Lopakhin. Chekhov gives the third edition of Lopakhin's reasoning about summer residents, ending with the words: “and then your cherry orchard will become happy, rich, luxurious.”

In Act III, in Lopakhin’s monologue, after the words “Don’t laugh at me!” was: “I don’t need it, I don’t need it, I don’t need it!” Chekhov considered these words unnecessary and eliminated them. Stage directions fit into the same monologue. Before this it was: “ Picks up the keys"(abandoned by Varya. - A.R.) (RSL. F. 331, l. 43), and it became: " Picks up the keys, smiling tenderly" Lopakhin’s exclamations: “What is this? Music, play clearly! Let everything be as I wish!” Chekhov accompanied by the remark: “ with irony“, which immediately complicated them, depriving them of rough categoricalness. Third remark " you can hear the orchestra tuning" was added to explain Lopakhin’s address to the musicians: “Hey, musicians,” etc. ( there). Here the certainty in Lopakhin’s attitude towards Varya is also strengthened. Previously, to Ranevskaya’s proposal to marry Vara, he replied: “What? I wouldn't mind..." ( there). Chekhov supplemented this remark with the words: “She is a good girl.” After these words, literally repeating Ranevskaya’s assessment of Varya as a modest worker, it becomes clear that Lopakhin did not feel any special sympathy - a powerfully attractive feeling - for Varya. In this regard, Lopakhin’s confession, introduced at the same time, is understandable: “without you, I feel, I will not make an offer.”

Lopakhin’s speech is supplemented by two more remarks: “Let him talk” (i.e. Gaev about him as a boor and a kulak; d. I), “but he won’t sit still, he’s very lazy” (about Gaev, who accepted the position of an official in the bank; d. IV).

The role of Trofimov, in addition to the assessment of Lopakhin already given, also acquired a number of additional touches. To Lopakhin’s question: “Will you get there?” - he answered: “I’ll get there or I’ll show others the way to get there.” Chekhov, strengthening Trofimov’s faith in the future, prefaces this phrase with the decisive statement “I’ll get there,” and also introduces a pause, after which the student finishes his thought. Emphasizing Trofimov’s integrity and ardor, the playwright adds in Act III the following remark and remark in response to Ranevskaya: “( leaves but returns immediately). It’s all over between us!” To characterize Varya, Trofimov’s speech includes words addressed to Anya: “and she doesn’t leave us for whole days” (D. II).

Completing the spontaneity of the childishly trusting Anya, Chekhov accompanied her response to Gaev’s vows to pay interest on the estate with the remark: “ the calm mood has returned to her, she is happy“, and in the very response he wrote the words: “I’m happy.” In the same (first) action, to concretize Anya’s speech, the following words are added: “that” (“six years ago”) and “pretty” (“pretty seven-year-old boy”). This act also adds two remarks concerning Anya. To the remark " hugs Varya" added the word " quiet", and to Anya's message about the man in the kitchen who spread the rumor about the sale of the estate, a remark was added: " excitedly».

Some nuances were also introduced into the role of Varya. Her words about Lopakhin, spoken to Anya at their first meeting, have been eliminated: “And he himself looks as if he’s about to propose this very minute” (RGB. F. 331, l. 7). This immediately weakens the prospects for her marriage. The following words were also filmed, in which Varya appears in an unusual, too anxious, dramatic state of mind: “Sometimes I even get scared, I don’t know what to do with myself” (l. 9). Chekhov also removes her sharp, inappropriate and during the action remark about Firs crying with joy: “Well, what fools!” (l. 8). In addition, in Varya’s words: “Uncle bought it, I’m sure of it,” Chekhov added a remark: “ trying to calm her down"(D. III). Remarque - “ He swings, the blow hits Lopakhin, who at this time enters" - he gives in a different version: " He swings his arms, at this time Lopakhin enters"(D. III). Part of the remark - “ Lopakhin rebounds" - modified as follows: " Lopakhin pretends to be scared"(D. IV).

In the role of Dunyasha, Chekhov deepened the features of feigned tenderness, fragility and dreaminess. To the words “hands are shaking” he added; "I'm going to faint." The expression “Lord... Lord” was replaced with: “I’m going to fall... Oh, I’m going to fall!” I supplemented her remark in the third act with the confession: “I am such a delicate girl.” Her response to Epikhodov in the same act: “Please, we’ll talk later... in another place” was changed to: “Please, we’ll talk later, but now leave me alone. Now I'm dreaming ( plays with a fan)". In the same style of false affectation, Dunyasha’s story about Epikhodov includes a proud statement: “He loves me madly” (D. I).

The final polishing of the play also affected other characters, but to a lesser extent. Chekhov, highlighting Yasha’s complacency, makes up for his disdainful assessment of Epikhodov with the words: “An empty man!” The writer further strengthened the traits of selfish indifference and moral cynicism in Yasha. Previously, he responded to Firs’ memories with the remark: “I’m tired of you, grandfather ( laughs). I wish you would die soon” (RSL. F. 331, l. 39). Remarque " laughs" now changes to "yawns." Epikhodov in Act IV, leaving for the first time, “ stepped on something hard and crushed it"(l. 48), and in the final version: " He put the suitcase on a cardboard with a hat and crushed it" This is more specific. In previous editions, Firs, having met the lady, “ cried with joy"(l. 8), and in the final text: " cries of joy" This is more natural. The playwright omitted the words in Firs’s final remarks: “I’ll sit... I feel good, it’s nice” (l. 55). In our opinion, these words fell out of the general context of the last scene and did not correspond to the painful state of Firs; in the first editions it was: “ Firs enters in a coat"(l. 24), and for printing Chekhov gave a different edition.

Gaev’s farewell speech apparently seemed too long to the playwright, and he crossed out the end of it: “My friends, you, who felt the same as I do, who know” (RGB. F. 331, l. 52-53). Two remarks were also added to Gaev’s role: “ funny” - to the words: “Indeed, everything is fine now,” and “ sadly- to the words: “A doublet of yellow in the middle.”

All the corrections made by Chekhov after sending the manuscript to typesetting were included in the first proof, which he read at the end of January 1904 (P., vol. 12, p. 27).

8

On March 24, to questions from O.L. Knipper, regarding certain details of the role of Dunyasha, Chekhov already responded with a link to the printed text. “Tell the actress playing the maid Dunyasha,” he wrote, “to read “The Cherry Orchard” in the edition of “Knowledge” or in proof; there she will see where she needs to powder herself and so on. and so on. Let him read it by all means, everything in your notebooks is mixed up and smeared” (P., vol. 12, p. 70). By this, Chekhov established the canonicity of the printed text. But for all that, the text according to which the play was performed at the Moscow Art Theater had some differences from the printed one. There are various reasons for this.

Firstly, in the process of preparing the performance, individual lines were introduced into their roles by the actors themselves, who got used to the role and wanted to enrich it. March 16, 1904 O.L. Knipper wrote to Chekhov: “Moskvin begs if he can insert a phrase in the 4th act. When he crushes the cardboard, Yasha says: “22 misfortunes,” and Moskvin really wants to say: “Well, this can happen to anyone.” He somehow said it by accident, and the public accepted it.” Chekhov immediately agreed to this insertion. “Tell Moskvin,” he wrote, “that he can insert new words, and I will insert them myself when I read the proofs. I give him a complete carte blanche” (P., vol. 12, p. 67).

At the end of April, Chekhov read the second proof of the play, published in the second collection of “Knowledge,” but Epikhodov’s remark, proposed by I.M. Moskvin, did not contribute. Why? After all, he already approved of it. In our opinion, Chekhov simply forgot to include it. He was in a hurry to read and send the proofs, since the release of the collection was greatly delayed, and provincial theaters urgently demanded the text of the play for productions. Chekhov was very interested in these productions. In addition, the playwright felt very bad these days. There is no doubt that he would have included this remark when reading the proofs of a separate edition of the play, printed by A.F. Marx. He intended to make other amendments to the play. On May 31 he wrote to A.F. Marx: “I sent you the proofs and now I earnestly ask you not to publish my play until I finish it; I would like to add another description of the characters” (P., vol. 12, p. 110).

So, while editing the proofs, Chekhov changed Lopakhin’s words, spoken at the beginning of the play by “a boy of five or six years old” to “... fifteen.” At this age, it became clear the enormous impression that his first meeting with Ranevskaya made on Lopakhin. Perhaps Chekhov would have made some other additions to his play, proposed by the artists (two prompter copies stored in the Museum of the Art Theater - an early and a later production of the play "The Cherry Orchard" - have many discrepancies with the printed text). However, many “gags,” such as the French phrases of the lackey Yasha, aroused Chekhov’s dissatisfaction: “...It’s not me! They came up with this on their own! This is terrible: the actors say and do whatever comes into their heads, and the author answers!”

9

Chekhov, based on his experience, persistently advised young writers to reread, rework, shorten, and painstakingly polish their works. For him, writing meant working, straining all his creative abilities and strength. Chekhov was very offended when L.S. Mizinova in 1893, in a friendly letter (dated August 22), called his creative work writing “for my own pleasure.” This is what he answered her: “As for writing for your own pleasure, you, charming, tweeted this only because you are unfamiliar from experience with all the heaviness and oppressive power of this worm, which undermines life, no matter how petty it may seem to you.” (P., vol. 5, p. 232).

Long years of writing activity convinced Chekhov that creating truly artistic works, even if you have genius talent, is possible only through long, patient, scrupulous work. "Need to work! To work a lot! - he repeated. “And the more expensive the thing, the more strictly you need to treat it.”

The fruit of artistic genius and long, persistent creative work was Chekhov’s poetic masterpiece - the play “The Cherry Orchard”.

“...Symbolism is hidden in the very title of the play. Initially, Chekhov wanted to call the play “The Cherry Orchard,” but then settled on the title “The Cherry Orchard.” K.S. Stanislavsky, recalling this episode, told how Chekhov, having announced to him the change of title, savored it, “pressing on the gentle sound in the word “cherry,” as if trying with its help to caress the former, beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he with tears destroyed in his play. This time I understood the subtlety: “The Cherry Orchard” is a business, commercial orchard that generates income. Such a garden is still needed now. But “The Cherry Orchard” does not bring in any income; it retains within itself and in its blooming whiteness the poetry of the former lordly life. Such a garden grows and blooms for whim, for the eyes of spoiled aesthetes. It would be a pity to destroy it, but it is necessary, since the process of economic development of the country requires it” (Stanislavsky, T. 1, p. 269).

It should be noted that the symbolism of the title of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” as understood by the director, does not provide complete satisfaction and can give rise to perplexed questions among our readers and viewers. For example, why was he chosen as a symbol of the departing, obsolete? The Cherry Orchard- the personification of poetry and beauty? I remember the wonderful lines of Nekrasov:

Like drenched in milk,

There are cherry orchards,

Quiet noise...

("Green Noise").

Why is the new generation called upon to destroy, and not use, the beauty of the past?.. And at the same time, we must admit that there is some truth in Stanislavsky’s understanding of the symbolism of the title of the play...

But the symbolism of the title of the play is not limited to what has just been said, it is more voluminous and multifaceted. She addresses not only the past, but also the future. The Cherry Orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev is an outdated, passing away past. But Trofimov, Anya, and after them Chekhov dreamed of the future. And this future in their minds also took the form of a garden, but even more luxurious, capable of bringing joy to all people. And so, throughout the development of the play, the image appears in it cherry orchard like the beauty of life...

Characterizing the play, K.S. Stanislavsky wrote: “Her charm is in the elusive, deeply hidden aroma” (vol. 1, p. 270).

This charm of “The Cherry Orchard” is largely given by pauses, music, and means of real symbolism, which increase the psychological tension of the play, expand its content, and deepen its ideological meaning...”

That's why fiction is called fiction,
that depicts life as it really is.
Its purpose is true, unconditional and honest.”
A.P. Chekhov

After the play “Three Sisters,” which was somewhat tragic, Chekhov conceived a new play. On March 7, 1901, in a letter to O.L. Knipper he admits: “The next play I write will definitely be funny, very funny, at least in concept.”.

This is the writer’s last play, so it contains his most intimate thoughts about life, about the fate of Russia. It reflected many of A.P.’s life experiences. Chekhov. These include memories of the sale of their home in Taganrog, and acquaintance with Kiselev, the owner of the Babkino estate near Moscow, where the Chekhovs lived in the summer months of 1885–1887. A.S. Kiselev, who, after selling his estate for debts, entered service as a member of the board of a bank in Kaluga, in many ways became the prototype of Gaev.

In 1888 and 1889, Chekhov vacationed on the Lintvarev estate near Sumy, Kharkov province, where he saw many neglected and dying noble estates. Thus, the idea of ​​a work gradually matured in the writer’s mind, which would reflect many details of the life of the inhabitants of the old noble nests.

Work on the play “The Cherry Orchard” required A.P. Chekhov great effort. “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment”, he told his friends. However, overcoming illness and everyday disorder, Chekhov created a “great play.”

The first performance of “The Cherry Orchard” on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater took place on A.P.’s birthday. Chekhov - January 17, 1904. For the first time, the Art Theater honored its beloved writer and author of plays in many of the group’s productions, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of A.P.’s literary activity. Chekhov.

The writer was seriously ill, but still came to the premiere. The audience did not expect to see him and his appearance caused thunderous applause. All artistic and literary Moscow gathered in the hall. Among the spectators were Andrei Bely, Valery Bryusov, Maxi Gorky, Sergei Rachmaninov, Fyodor Chaliapin and others.

Identifying the genre

Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy: “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.”(from a letter from M.P. Alekseeva). “The whole play is cheerful and frivolous”(from a letter from O.L. Knipper).

The theater staged it as a heavy drama of Russian life: “This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy... I cried like a woman...”(K.S. Stanislavsky).

A.P. It seemed to Chekhov that the theater was doing the entire play in the wrong tone; he insisted that he wrote a comedy, not a tearful drama, and warned that both the role of Varya and the role of Lopakhin were comic. But the founders of the Art Theater K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, highly appreciating the play, perceived it as a drama.

There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the cherry orchard, the Gaevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion of people looking not back, but forward, to the future. But this could not and did not happen in the play... The play “The Cherry Orchard” cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy. For this, it lacks neither tragicomic heroes nor tragicomic situations.”.

Conclusion

The debate about the genre of the play continues to this day. The range of director's interpretations is wide: comedy, drama, lyrical comedy, tragicomedy, tragedy. It is impossible to answer this question unequivocally.

One of Chekhov's letters contains the following lines:

“After summer there must be winter, after youth there must be old age, after happiness there must be unhappiness and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses are always expected of him, he cannot protect himself from death, even if he was Alexander the Great - and one must be prepared for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it is. You just need to fulfill your duty to the best of your ability – and nothing more.”. These thoughts are consonant with the feelings that the play “The Cherry Orchard” evokes.

Conflict and problems of the play

Question

What kind of “unconditional and honest” truth could Chekhov see at the end of the 19th century?

Answer

The destruction of noble estates, their transfer into the hands of capitalists, which indicates the onset of a new historical era.

The external plot of the play is a change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. But in Chekhov's works there is a special nature of the conflict, which makes it possible to detect internal and external action, internal and external plots. Moreover, the main thing is not the external plot, developed quite traditionally, but the internal one, which V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko called it “the background”, or “undercurrent”.

Chekhov is interested in the hero’s experiences that are not declared in monologues ( “They don’t feel what they say”– K.S. Stanislavsky), but manifested in “random” remarks and going into the subtext - the “undercurrent” of the play, which suggests a gap between the direct meaning of a line, dialogue, stage directions and the meaning that they acquire in the context.

The characters in Chekhov's play are essentially inactive. Dynamic tension “is created by the painful imperfection” of actions and actions.

The “undercurrent” of Chekhov’s play conceals hidden meanings and reveals the duality and conflict inherent in the human soul.

Literature

1. D.N. Murin. Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century. Methodological recommendations in the form of lesson planning. Grade 10. M.: SMIO Press, 2002.

2. E.S. Rogover. Russian literature of the 19th century. M.: Saga; Forum, 2004.

3. Encyclopedia for children. T. 9. Russian literature. Part I. From epics and chronicles to the classics of the 19th century. M.: Avanta+, 1999.

Introduction

Chekhov as an artist can no longer be

compare with previous Russians

writers - with Turgenev,

Dostoevsky or with me. Chekhov's

its own shape, like

impressionists. Look how

like a person without anything

parsing smears with paints, what

fall into his hand, and

no relationship between each other

these smears do not. But you'll move away

to some distance,

look, and in general

it gives a complete impression.

L. Tolstoy

Chekhov's plays seemed unusual to his contemporaries. They differed sharply from the usual dramatic forms. They did not have the seemingly necessary beginning, climax and, strictly speaking, dramatic action as such. Chekhov himself wrote about his plays: “People are just having lunch, wearing jackets, and at this time their destinies are being decided, their lives are being shattered.” There is a subtext in Chekhov's plays that acquires special artistic significance

“The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, completing his creative biography, his ideological and artistic quest. The new stylistic principles he developed, new “techniques” for plotting and composition were embodied in this play in such figurative discoveries that elevated the realistic depiction of life to broad symbolic generalizations, to an insight into future forms of human relations.

Abstract objectives:

1. Get acquainted with the work of A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard”.

2. Identify the main features of the work and analyze them.

3. Find out the meaning of the title of the play.

4. Draw a conclusion.

cherry orchard of chekhov

“The Cherry Orchard” in the life of A.P. Chekhov. History of the play

Encouraged by the excellent productions of The Seagulls, Uncle Vanya, and Three Sisters at the Art Theater, as well as the enormous success of these plays and vaudevilles in the capital and provincial theaters, Chekhov plans to create a new “funny play, where the devil walks like a yoke.” “...For minutes at a time I feel a strong desire to write a 4-act vaudeville or comedy for the Art Theatre. And I will write, if no one interferes, but I will give it to the theater no earlier than the end of 1903.”

The news of the plan for a new Chekhov play, reaching the artists and directors of the Art Theater, caused great excitement and a desire to speed up the work of the author. “I said in the troupe,” reports O. L. Knipper, “everyone picked it up, they’re noisy and thirsty.” Letter from O. L. Knipper to A. P. Chekhov dated December 23. 1901 Correspondence between A.P. Chekhov and O.L. Knnpper.

Director V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, who, according to Chekhov, “demands plays,” wrote to Anton Pavlovich: “I remain firmly convinced that you should write plays. I go very far: to give up fiction for plays. You have never unfolded as much as you did on stage.” "ABOUT. L. whispered to me that you are decisively taking up comedy... The sooner your play is done, the better. There will be more time for negotiations and eliminating various mistakes... In a word... write plays! Write plays!” Letters from V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko to A.P. Chekhov dated April and December 1901. But Chekhov was in no hurry, nurtured, “experienced within himself” the idea, did not share it with anyone until the right time, pondered the “magnificent” (in his opinion words) plot, without yet finding satisfactory forms of artistic embodiment. The play “slightly dawned in my brain, like the earliest dawn, and I still don’t understand what it is like, what will come out of it, and it changes every day.”

Chekhov included some details in his notebook, many of which were later used by him in The Cherry Orchard: “For the play: a liberal old woman dresses like a young woman, smokes, cannot live without company, is pretty.” This recording, although in a transformed form, was included in Ranevskaya’s description. “The character smells like fish, everyone tells him so.” This will be used for the image of Yasha and Gaev’s attitude towards him. The word “klutz” found and written in the notebook will become the leitmotif of the play. Some facts written in the book will be reproduced with changes in the comedy in connection with the image of Gaev and the off-stage character - Ranevskaya’s second husband: “The wardrobe has been standing for a hundred years, as can be seen from the papers; officials are seriously celebrating his anniversary,” “The gentleman owns a villa near Menton, which he bought with the money he received from the sale of an estate in the Tula province. I saw him in Kharkov, where he came on business, lose a villa, then serve on the railway, then die.”

On March 1, 1903, Chekhov told his wife: “For the play, I have already laid out the paper on the table and written the title.” But the writing process was made difficult and slowed down by many circumstances: Chekhov’s serious illness, the fear that his method was “already outdated” and that he would not be able to successfully process the “difficult plot.”

K. S. Stanislavsky, “languishing” for Chekhov’s play, informs Chekhov about the loss of all taste for other plays (“Pillars of Society”, “Julius Caesar”) and about the director’s preparation for the future play that he began “gradually”: “Keep in mind that I recorded the shepherd's pipe into the phonograph just in case. It turns out wonderful." Letters from K. S. Stanislavsky to A. P. Chekhov dated February 21. and June 22, 1903

O. L. Knipper, like all the other artists of the troupe, who was “with hellish impatience” waiting for the play, also in her letters to Chekhov dispels his doubts and fears: “As a writer, you are needed, terribly needed... Every phrase of yours is needed, and ahead you are needed even more... Drive unnecessary thoughts out of yourself... Write and love every word, every thought, every soul that you nurse, and know that all this is necessary for people. There is no such writer as you... They are waiting for your play like manna from heaven.” Letter from O. L. Knipper to A. P. Chekhov dated September 24. 1903

In the process of creating the play, Chekhov shared with his friends - members of the Art Theater - not only doubts and difficulties, but also further plans, changes and successes. They learn from him that he has difficulty creating “one main character”, it is still “insufficiently thought out and gets in the way”, that he is reducing the number of characters (“more intimate”), that the role of Stanislavsky - Lopakhin - “turned out nothing myself,” the role of Kachalov – Trofimov – is “good”, the end of the role of Knipper – Ranevskaya – “is not bad”, and Lilina will be “satisfied” with her role of Varya, that Act IV, “sparse, but effective in content, is being written easy, as if folded,” and in the whole play, “no matter how boring it is, there is something new,” and, finally, that its genre qualities are both original and fully defined: “The whole play is cheerful, frivolous.” Chekhov also expressed concerns that some passages might be “crossed out by censorship.”

At the end of September 1903, Chekhov finished the play in draft and began rewriting it. His attitude towards “The Cherry Orchard” fluctuates at this time, then he is satisfied, the characters seem to him “living people”, then he reports that he has lost all appetite for the play, the roles, except for the governess, “don’t like”. The rewriting of the play proceeded slowly; Chekhov had to redo, rethink, and write again some passages that particularly dissatisfied him.

On October 14, the play was sent to the theater. After the first emotional reaction to the play (excitement, “awe and delight”), intense creative work began in the theater: “trying on” roles, choosing the best performers, searching for a common tone, thinking about the artistic design of the performance. They animatedly exchanged opinions with the author, first in letters, and then in personal conversations and at rehearsals: Chekhov arrived in Moscow at the end of November 1903. This creative communication did not, however, give complete, unconditional unanimity; it was more complex. On some points, the author and the theater workers came to a common opinion, without any “bargaining with conscience”; on some things, one of the “sides” was doubted or rejected, but the one that did not consider the issue fundamental for itself made concessions; There are some discrepancies.

Having sent the play, Chekhov did not consider his work on it completed; on the contrary, fully trusting the artistic instincts of the theater managers and artists, he was ready to make “all the alterations that are required to comply with the scene,” and asked for critical comments: “I will correct it; It’s not too late, you can still redo the whole act.” In turn, he was ready to help directors and actors who approached him with requests to find the right ways to stage the play, and therefore rushed to Moscow for rehearsals, and Knipper asked that she “not learn her role” before his arrival and not I would order dresses for Ranevskaya before consulting with him.

The distribution of roles, which was the subject of passionate discussion in the theater, also worried Chekhov very much. He proposed his own distribution option: Ranevskaya - Knipper, Gaev - Vishnevsky, Lopakhin - Stanislavsky, Varya - Lilina, Anya - young actress, Trofimov - Kachalov, Dunyasha - Khalyutina, Yasha - Moskvin, passer-by - Gromov, Firs - Artem, Pischik - Gribunin, Epikhodov - Luzhsky. His choice in many cases coincided with the wishes of the artists and the theater management: Kachalov, Knipper, Artem, Gribunin, Gromov, Khalyutina, after the “trying on”, were given the roles assigned to them by Chekhov. But the theater did not blindly follow Chekhov’s instructions; it put forward its own “projects,” and some of them were willingly accepted by the author. The proposal to replace Luzhsky in the role of Epikhodov with Moskvin, and in the role of Yasha Moskvin with Alexandrov, evoked the full approval of Chekhov: “Well, this is very good, the play will only benefit from it.” “Moskvin will make a magnificent Epikhodov.”

Less willingly, but still, Chekhov agrees to rearrange the performers of the two female roles: Lilina is not Varya, but Anya; Varya - Andreeva. Chekhov does not insist on his desire to see Vishnevsky in the role of Gaev, since he is quite convinced that Stanislavsky will be “a very good and original Gaev,” but with pain he gives up the idea that Lopakhin will not be played by Stanislavsky: “When I wrote Lopakhin, then I thought that this was your role” (vol. XX, p. 170). Stanislavsky, captivated by this image, as well as other characters in the play, only then finally decides to transfer the role to Leonidov when, after searching, “with doubled energy in Lopakhin,” he does not find a tone and design that satisfies him. Letters from K. S. Stanislavsky to A. P. Chekhov dated October 20, 31, November 3, 1903. Muratova in the role of Charlotte also does not delight Chekhov: “she may be good,” he says, “but she’s not funny.” “, but, however, in the theater, opinions about her, as well as about Varya’s performers, differed; there was no firm conviction that Muratova would succeed in this role.

Issues of artistic design were discussed lively with the author. Although Chekhov wrote to Stanislavsky that he relied entirely on the theater for this (“Please, don’t be shy about the scenery, I obey you, I am amazed and usually sit in your theater with my mouth open,” but still both Stanislavsky and the artist Somov called Chekhov to In the process of their creative quest, they exchanged opinions, clarified some of the author’s remarks, and proposed their projects.

But Chekhov sought to transfer all the viewer’s attention to the internal content of the play, to the social conflict, so he was afraid of being carried away by the setting part, the detail of everyday life, and sound effects: “I reduced the setting part of the play to a minimum; no special scenery is required.”

Act II caused a disagreement between the author and director. While still working on the play, Chekhov wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko that in the second act he “replaced the river with an old chapel and a well. It's calmer this way. Only... You will give me a real green field and a road, and a distance unusual for the stage.” Stanislavsky also introduced into the scenery of Act II a ravine, an abandoned cemetery, a railway bridge, a river in the distance, a hayfield on the proscenium and a small haystack on which a walking group is having a conversation. “Allow me,” he wrote to Chekhov, “to let a train with smoke pass during one of the pauses,” and reported that at the end of the act there would be a “frog concert and corncrake.” Letter from K. S. Stanislavsky to A. P. Chekhov dated November 19, 1903. Chekhov wanted in this act to create only the impression of spaciousness, he did not intend to clutter the viewer’s consciousness with extraneous impressions, so his reaction to Stanislavsky’s plans was negative. After the performance, he even called the scenery of Act II “terrible”; at the time the theater was preparing the play, Knipper writes that Stanislavsky “needs to be kept” from “trains, frogs and corncrakes,” and in letters to Stanislavsky himself he expresses his disapproval in a delicate form: “Haymaking usually happens on June 20-25, on this By this time the corncrake, it seems, is no longer screaming, the frogs are also falling silent by this time... There is no cemetery, it was a very long time ago. Two or three slabs lying randomly are all that remains. The bridge is very good. If the train can be shown without noise, without a single sound, then go ahead.”

The most fundamental discrepancy between the theater and the author was found in the understanding of the genre of the play. While still working on The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov called the play a “comedy.” In the theater it was understood as “true drama.” “I hear you say: “Excuse me, but this is a farce,” Stanislavsky begins his argument with Chekhov -... No, for the common man this is a tragedy.” Letter from K. S. Stanislavsky to A. P. Chekhov dated October 20. 1903

The theater directors' understanding of the play's genre, which diverged from the author's understanding, determined many essential and particular aspects of the stage interpretation of The Cherry Orchard.

A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard”: history of creation, genre, heroes. Objectives of the lesson: – to arouse students’ interest in the personality and work of A.P. Chekhov; expand and deepen students’ understanding of the writer’s previously studied works; – develop students’ thinking, their creative imagination and aesthetic perception; – to cultivate moral qualities in students using the example of the writer’s life.

Download:

Preview:

A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard”: history of creation, genre, heroes.

Lesson objectives:

– to arouse students’ interest in the personality and work of A.P. Chekhov; expand and deepen students’ understanding of the writer’s previously studied works;

– develop students’ thinking, their creative imagination and aesthetic perception;

– to cultivate moral qualities in students using the example of the writer’s life.

During the classes.

1. Org moment.
2. Target setting.

- Hello guys! I'm glad to see you. Let it not be outside the window

The weather is very warm and good, but our classroom is cozy and warm. Therefore, everything will work out for you today, everyone will answer well and get good grades.

What problems do you think we will solve in today's lesson? (children's answers: we will find out how Chekhov's play was created, we will determine the genre of the play, we will get to know the characters, we will learn to speak correctly and beautifully.)

In your notebooks, write down the date, the topic of the lesson (lesson 8 on the works of A.P. Chekhov, but the first on this topic), and as the lesson progresses, make the necessary notes in your notebook.

1. Main part.

1. Viewing a fragment of the play “The Cherry Orchard”.

2. - You have read the play “The Cherry Orchard”, and now you have watched an excerpt from the play. What feelings did the play evoke? (guys' answers)

3. - What associations does this phrase evoke in you - cherry orchard? Write them down in your notebook. (The Cherry Orchard - for some reason it seems to me: a country of childhood, carefree youth, falling in love. White flowers as a symbol of purity. A place where you can hide from the world and find yourself in happiness. A real indicator of time: in the fall - sad, in the winter - fabulous, in the spring - magical, scarlet in summer) Can your associations be correlated with the title of A.P. Chekhov’s play? How? What place does the cherry orchard belong to in the system of images of the play? (Answers from the guys.)

4. Individual assignments for students.

A) The history of the creation of the play “The Cherry Orchard”(On March 7, 1901, to his wife O. Knipper, he confesses: “The next play that I will write will certainly be funny, very funny, at least in concept.” “He imagined,” Stanislavsky recalls, “an open window, with a branch of white blossoming cherries climbing from the garden into the room. Artyom had already become a footman, and then, for no reason at all, a manager. His master, and sometimes it seemed to him that it was the mistress, was always without money, and in critical moments she turned to her a footman or manager who has quite a lot of money accumulated from somewhere”). This is the writer’s last play, so it contains his most intimate thoughts about life, about the fate of his homeland.

B) Genre of the play "The Cherry Orchard".(How to determine the genre of the play “The Cherry Orchard”? A.P. Chekhov called “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy. “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce... The whole play is cheerful, frivolous.” The theater staged it as a heavy Russian drama life. K.A. Stanislavsky: “This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy... I cried like a woman...” There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. The guys have printouts on their tables with the definitions of comedy, tragedy, drama.)

This is a lyrical comedy. Lyricism is confirmed by the active presence of the author. And the comedy is due to the undramatic nature of the good characters, the undramatic nature of Lopakhin, the comedic nature of the owners of the garden, the comedic nature of almost all the minor characters.

IN) Messages from students about Charlotte Ivanovna and Epikhodov.

(Charlotte Ivanovna does not know her real name, does not know where she comes from, does not know her parents, her past. She has only fragmentary memories that evoke pity and compassion from everyone. But immediately after such phrases she takes actions that only evoke laughter, which reduces the image of the heroine.

Semyon Panteleevich Epikhodov is a clerk and plays the guitar. He is called

“twenty-two misfortunes,” because all sorts of troubles constantly happen to him: he knocks over a chair, drops a bouquet, etc. His speech is extremely florid, so it is difficult to understand what he actually wants to say. “I am a developed person, I read various wonderful books, but I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want: should I live or die...”)

G) Student presentation about the main characters of the play: Ranevskaya, Gaev, Lopakhin, Trofimov, Anya.

IV. Working with the text of the play.

1. Getting to know the characters: what associations their names evoke.
2. Reading the text of the play by role.

What is so comical about the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev?

What makes them dramatic?

So is it possible to correlate your associations caused by the phrase “cherry orchard” with the title of A.P. Chekhov’s play?

1. Reflection. Lesson summary.

What was unclear in the lesson?

Have you achieved your goals?

What caused the difficulty?

1. Lesson grades.

1. Homework.

Answer the question: “How do the characters in the play relate to the cherry orchard?”

A.P. Chekhov first mentioned the idea of ​​writing the play “The Cherry Orchard” in one of his letters dated spring 1901. At first he thought of it “as a funny play, where the devil would walk like a yoke.” In 1903, when work on “The Cherry Orchard” continued, A.P. Chekhov wrote to his friends: “The whole play is cheerful and frivolous.” The theme of the play, “the estate goes under the hammer,” was by no means new to the writer. Previously, she was touched upon by him in the drama "Fatherlessness" (1878-1881). Throughout his career, Chekhov was interested and worried about the psychological tragedy of the situation of selling his estate and losing his house. Therefore, the play “The Cherry Orchard” reflected many of the writer’s life experiences associated with memories of the sale of his father’s house in Taganrog, and his acquaintance with the Kiselevs, who owned the Babkino estate near Moscow, where the Chekhov family stayed in the summer of 1885-1887. In many ways, the image of Gaev was copied from A.S. Kiselev, who became a member of the board of a bank in Kaluga after the forced sale of his estate for debts. In 1888 and 1889, Chekhov rested on the Lintvarev estate, near Sumy, Kharkov province. There he saw with his own eyes the neglected and dying noble estates. Chekhov could observe the same picture in detail in 1892-1898, living on his estate Melikhovo, as well as in the summer of 1902, when he lived in Lyubimovka - the estate of K. S. Stanislavsky. The ever-growing “third estate,” which was distinguished by its tough business acumen, gradually ousted their bankrupt owners, who thoughtlessly lived their fortunes, from the “nests of the nobility.” From all this, Chekhov drew the idea for the play, which subsequently reflected many details of the lives of the inhabitants of the dying noble estates.

Working on the play “The Cherry Orchard” required extraordinary efforts from the author. So, he writes to friends: “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment.” Chekhov, constantly struggling with bouts of illness and everyday troubles, writes a “cheerful play.”

On October 5, 1903, the famous Russian writer N.K. Garin-Mikhailovsky wrote in a letter to one of his correspondents: “I met and fell in love with Chekhov. He is bad. And he is burning out like the most wonderful day of autumn. Delicate, subtle, subtle tones. A wonderful day , caress, peace, and the sea and mountains sleep in him, and this moment with a wonderful pattern of distance seems eternal. And tomorrow... He knows his tomorrow and is glad and satisfied that he has finished his drama “The Cherry Orchard.”

Chekhov also sends several letters to directors and actors, where he comments in detail on some scenes of “The Cherry Orchard”, gives characteristics of its characters, with particular emphasis on the comedic features of the play. But K.S. Stanislavsky and Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, the founders of the Art Theater, perceived it as a drama. According to Stanislavsky, the troupe's reading of the play was met with "unanimous enthusiasm." He writes to Chekhov: “I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but I couldn’t hold back. I hear you say: “Excuse me, but this is a farce.” No, for an ordinary person this is a tragedy... I feel a special feeling for this play tenderness and love."

The production of the play required a special theatrical language and new intonations. Both its creator and the actors understood this perfectly. M. P. Lilina (the first performer of the role of Anya) wrote to A. P. Chekhov on November 11, 1903: “... It seemed to me that “The Cherry Orchard” is not a play, but a musical work, a symphony. And this play must be played especially truthfully , but without any real rudeness."
However, the director's interpretation of The Cherry Orchard did not satisfy Chekhov. “This is a tragedy, no matter what outcome to a better life you discover in the last act,” Stanislavsky writes to the author, affirming his vision and logic of the play’s movement towards a dramatic finale, which meant the end of the previous life, the loss of the house and the destruction of the garden. Chekhov was extremely outraged that the play was devoid of comedic intonations. He believed that Stanislavsky, who played the role of Gaev, dragged out the action too much in the fourth act. Chekhov confesses to his wife: “How terrible it is! An act that should last 12 minutes maximum, yours lasts 40 minutes. Stanislavsky ruined the play for me.”

In December 1903, Stanislavsky complained: “The Cherry Orchard” “is not blooming yet. Flowers had just appeared, the author arrived and confused us all. The flowers have fallen, and now only new buds are appearing.”

A.P. Chekhov wrote “The Cherry Orchard” as a play about home, about life, about the homeland, about love, about losses, about rapidly slipping time. However, at the beginning of the 20th century this did not seem far from certain. Each new play by Chekhov evoked very different assessments. The comedy “The Cherry Orchard” was no exception, where the nature of the conflict, the characters, and the poetics of Chekhov’s drama were new and unexpected.

For example, A. M. Gorky described Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” as a rehash of old motifs: “I listened to Chekhov’s play - when reading it, it does not give the impression of a major thing. There is not a word that is new. Everything is moods, ideas - if you can talk about them - faces , - all this was already in his plays. Of course - beautifully and - of course - from the stage it will blow green melancholy onto the audience. But I don’t know what the melancholy is about."

Despite the constant disagreements, the premiere of The Cherry Orchard nevertheless took place on January 17, 1904 - on the birthday of A.P. Chekhov. The Art Theater timed it to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the literary activity of A.P. Chekhov. The entire artistic and literary elite of Moscow gathered in the hall, and among the spectators were A. Bely, V. Ya. Bryusov, A. M. Gorky, S. V. Rachmaninov, F. I. Chaliapin. The author's appearance on the stage after the third act was met with long applause. The last play by A.P. Chekhov, which became his creative testament, began its independent life.

The demanding Russian public greeted the play with great enthusiasm, whose bright spirit could not help but captivate the viewer. Productions of "The Cherry Orchard" were successfully performed in many theaters in Russia. But, nevertheless, Chekhov never saw the performance, which fully corresponded to his creative plans. “The chapter about Chekhov is not over yet,” wrote Stanislavsky, recognizing that A.P. Chekhov was far ahead of the development of the theater.

Contrary to critical forecasts, “The Cherry Orchard” has become an unfading classic of the Russian theater. The author's artistic discoveries in drama, his original vision of the contradictory aspects of life are unusually clearly manifested in this thoughtful work.