Notes on The Cherry Orchard (Part 1)



*  Written in 1904, by the Russian dramatist Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard is a remarkably prophetic social 
commentary on Russia.  It is prophetic because in 1917 the Bolshevik revolution took place in Russia in which 
the old aristocratic order was overthrown and a new order of egalitarianism (= social equality) was established.  
Chekhov points out many of the failings of the old aristocratic system, but speculates as to what (if anything) 
should replace it.

*  The first thing to say is that the old aristocratic order is crumbling.  Lubov Andreyevna Ranevskaya (Mrs R) has 
spent her money too freely, has made the wrong choices frequently, and now finds herself unable to pay the 
interest on the loan that has taken out using her estate as collateral (= a guarantee that the loan will be repaid).
  Because she has not made the interest payments, the estate, with its cherry orchard, is to be sold (in August).  
Mrs R stands as a representative of old aristocratic Russia.  In old aristocratic Russia a kind of feudal system 
existed in which the masters (ie the aristocrats) almost owned their servants (ie the serfs or peasants).  In the 
ideal version of this old feudal system, the master felt an obligation to look after his/her servants, and the 
serfs felt a deep sense of loyalty to their masters.  Firs is an excellent example in the play of this old-style serf.  
Although granted his freedom, he insists on staying on to serve Mrs R's family. 

*  Mrs R is given various advice, some of it practical some of it not.  Her brother, Gayev, simply refuses to face 
the problem squarely, offering vague ideas about borrowing money through a promissory note or hoping for a handout 
from their cousin, the countess.  In the end, none of these possibilities amounts to much.  On the other hand, 
Lopahin (the son of a serf, and a very successful business man) is full of strong practical ideas.  The cherry orchard 
should divided up and leased out.  This will mean cutting down the cherry trees, but it will be a practical financial 
solution for Mrs R.  

*  Chekhov's attitude towards Gayev and Lopahin can only be guessed at.  But, no doubt, Gayev's inability to 
turn his mind to practical action (he plays imaginary games of billiards at times) mirrors the problems with 
aristocratic rule ¡V it simply was not competent.  On the other hand, L's practicality seems almost too cold, 
taking no account of the "soul" of the cherry orchard and the need to preserve history.  The cherry orchard, 
on one level, is supposed to represent Russia ¡V a beautiful country but in decline.  To destroy the cherry orchard, 
reducing everything to financial value, would be to destroy the great cultural and social heritage of Russia.  
On the other hand, to do nothing will itself lead to disaster.  What is clear at the half way point of the play 
is that no character has emerged with a completely satisfactory solution to the problems faced by the cherry 
orchard (and, by association, Russia).  Perhaps Trofimov, a youngish and idealistic student, will offer a 
possibility later in the play. 

*  Chekhov shows us a variety of other characters to make different points.  The two sisters, Anya and Varya, 
seem to have a deep love for each other and this is heartening in the midst of the crisis that surrounds them.  
A servant like Yasha, and Charlotta, are revealed comically in order to show how even servants may be corrupted 
by visits to "superior" cultures like that of Paris.  Simeonov-Pishchik, an aristocratic landowner trying to borrow 
money from Mrs R, again reveals the impracticalities of the narrow world of aristocracy.  And Yepihodov's suicidal 
thoughts suggest a people (Russia) on the edge of despair.   






Back                                               Home                                                 Next