Notes on The Cherry Orchard (Part 2)



*  In the second half of the play the views of Trofimov emerge with greater intensity.  He is, he says, in favour 
of an egalitarian society ¡V one in which people are both free and equal.  The problem is, though, that it is 
difficult to see how this translates into reality, and the situation is complicated by the often contradictory 
views of Trofimov.  At one point he rejects the idea of pride and yet, at another, he seems to forget the earlier 
argument and describes himself as proud.  Occasionally, what he says is absurd.  For example, he describes himself 
and Anya as "above love" suggesting that theirs is a union of minds or spirits.  This rejection of love, one of 
the fundamental qualities of human life is absurd and Mrs. R roundly criticises him for the view.  She goes on 
to denigrate (= criticise) his manhood, suggesting that at his age he should have a mistress at least and a decent 
beard.   Lopahin, too, is critical of Trofimov, suggesting that he is a "perpetual student."  And here is a central 
problem with Trofimov.  He is a man of theory and intellect, not particularly a man of action.  Mrs R rightly points 
out that Trofimov's idealism is founded on the fact that he has not had to face some of the hard knocks of life yet:  
he is, simply, too young to have experienced the kind of intense disappointment that she has experiences.

*  Mrs R's character grows as the play progresses.  Not only are we aware of her humanity and (often absurd) generosity, 
but she acknowledges her fault as well, though she is unable to do much about her failings.  But she also shows a high 
level of intelligence and perception, reducing Trofimov (an educated member of the intelligentsia) to rage and 
near-speechlessness with her sound logic and incisive comments.  Her concern for Firs is equally touching even though, 
in the end, poor Firs is in fact "forgotten."  Mrs R is unusual in that she is the leader of the aristocratic household.  
And no-body doubts that she is the leader.  For example, the servant Yepihodov suggests to Varya that only Mrs R 
and not she has authority over him.  Others constantly defer to the wishes of Mrs R ¡V her brother Gayev gives away 
money on her orders, even though he knows that it is the wrong thing to do.  Although she is not sensible with 
money she does in fact do quite a lot of good to other people, lending and giving away money.  

*  Lopahin is a complex character.  He is, of course, at the opposite extreme to Trofimov ¡V he is a man whose 
whole life has been built on the idea that inequality (at the basis of capitalism) is the way forward.  For this 
reason he argues constantly with Trofimov though it has to be said that their final parting is quite emotional and 
touching.  Trofimov declares that in his ideal society devouring beasts like Lopahin are necessary but he never fully 
explains what he means by this.  Perhaps we can speculate that Trofimov's ideal world needs leaders like Lopahin in 
order to bring the best out of people ¡V even though, in the process, they happen to make themselves rich.  Lopahin's
relationship with Varya remains one of the disappointments of the play.  He never gets round to asking her to 
marry him.  His reasons for this are not clear but perhaps it is because he is married to money and the idea of making 
money ¡V there simply is no room in his life for a different kind of mistress.  Varya herself says something of 
this sort when she suggests that he has no time for her, he is simply too busy.  Though generous of spirit, Lopahin's 
character is weak in several ways:  his inability to establish a firm relationship with Varya; his aspirations to become
a "gentleman" even though constantly acknowledging his peasant background; his undisguised glee at buying the 
orchard and turning the tables on the aristocrats.

*  In the end we may say that the play is a comment on the condition of Russia at the end of the nineteenth 
century.  The old order, the order of aristocrats and serfs bonded together in a mutual framework of loyalty, 
is fading away ¡V in fact, crumbling away.  A few of the old representatives are left:  Mrs R, who is leaving 
for Paris at the end of the play; and the loyal serf Firs who, it seems, may have died at the end of th play.  
Other characters demonstrate that the old order has gone.  Lopahin and Trofimov are illustrations of the 
rich and/or educated middle class that has arisen (the summer people); Even the servants like Yasha and Charlotta 
demonstrate a movement away from the traditional Russian peasant culture (Yasha, with his cigars and aloof attitude; 
Charlotta with her foreign expressions).  The Cherry Orchard, as Trofimov explains, is Russia and it is in a bad 
state.  In order to save it a new order is needed, since the old order is no longer practical.  But what will that 
new order be?  Will it be the egalitarian world of Trofimov (the Bolshevik/communist world) or will it be the capitalist 
world of Lopahin?  Chekhov seems to be saying that neither of these two world is satisfactory in itself and 
perhaps some kind of compromise is needed.  But time is running out and things need to happen quickly.  The play 
ends with the sounds of the orchard being chopped down.  If Russia is to be saved things need to be done 
with urgency.


* Sample Questions on The Cherry Orchard:

(1)  How far is The Cherry Orchard a political play?
(2)  What is the role of women in The Cherry Orchard?







Back                                               Home