In discussing The Cherry Orchard, it is extremely important to understand how Chekov wrote the first act since it creates a structural, schematic, and thematic foundation for the entire play. Throughout the first act, one discovers that the characters in the play are delineated through recurrent themes in dialogue and peculiarities of individual speech and gesture. Unlike fiction, we are limited to what can happen on stage through what is said (directly or indirectly, that is through direct discourse or indirect discourse), what is acted, and, of course, what is staged. Through the dialogue, Chekhov clearly presents a play with a social theme though under the guise of a rather ordinary situation. The dialogue acts to sketch character and interchange themes. In brief, the dialogue is wholly integrated, never gratuitous, and engages in a way that propels the plot forward, which owes a lot to Chekhovâs prose. âEven though much of its structure and content seems a hybrid of The Seagull and Three Sisters, The Cherry Orchard is a different play from Chekhovâs other works in its links with his prose particularly that of 1887â (Rayfield 1975, p. 219). That was certainly one of Chekhovâs greatest contributions to the world of letters both in fiction and drama. What we know about the time of the play is that we are four years into a new century and eight years from a major revolution that would last for another 70 years, the social implications of the play are, therefore, significant. The scheme of The Cherry Orchard is not unlike the scheme seen in Tartuffe, that is, thereâs a kind of hierarchy of characters what follows is a scheme of those characters.
Cherry Orchard Scheme
What is relevant here, regarding the core group of people in the social scheme of The Cherry Orchard, is that there appears to be a kind of nucleus with a major dependence on Mme. Ranevskaya. All the people within her nucleus are dependent on her for one thing or another. Trofimov, too, is, to some degree, dependent on Mme. Ranevskaya though he tries to pretend he is independent. So, the only truly independent character is Lopakhin. In effect, we have a nuclear family plus marginal figures that are dependent on that family.
Act I
Chekhov gives us clues, in the stage direction, to what may happen. The room is âstill called the nurseryâ (Orchard, p. 1298). This may relate to something in the past, to something that has changed, but has yet to be recognized as changed. If itâs something that has yet to be recognized as changed, what, then, might that say about those people who refuse to recognize it? Chekhov additionally sets the scene by establishing the time. Itâs nearly 2 a.m. and one knows the train is two hours late. Lopakhin, a merchant, is there to pick them up, but has fallen asleep. One inference that can be made is that heâs tired, but the other may be that he isnât very interested in seeing whoever is coming. It might also allude to notions of âcontrolâ since control issues are important. One understands that it is Mme. Ranevskaya and her family who are coming and Lopakhin talks about her nostalgically but with a tinge of bitterness.
One learns that his roots are peasant roots. His father abused him, but that would have been expected, but itâs not the abuse that is an issue here. The issue is not one of correct political behavior but one of social status. The reader is aware that Lopakhin comes from peasant stock and that might be a key issue here. When Mme. Ranevskaya washed him off after he was hit in the face by his father, she said, âDonât cry little peasant itâll heal in time for your weddingâ (Orchard, p. 1298) the comments he makes reaffirm his roots, but they also accent class differences and class differences are at the fundamental core of the play. Lopahin even repeats the word âpeasantâ especially in relation to the white waistcoat and yellow shoes that accent who he was, but also what he has become.
So, the implication of a combination of who he is and who he has become in relation to Mme. Ranevskaya and her family will establish a clear point of conflict not only between Lopakhin and Mme. Ranevskaya, but also between Lopakhin and the family. At the same time, one reads of Dunyasha, the maid, trembling. Lopakhin says, âYouâre too soft Dunyasha. You dress like a lady, and look at the way you do your hair. Thatâs not right. One should remember oneâs placeâ (Orchard, p. 1299). The fact that itâs important to remember oneâs station acts as a kind of refrain throughout the play, but it also establishes an anxiety on Dunyashaâs part that will be demonstrated later.
At that point, a new character, Yepihodov, a clerk, brings in flowers from the garden. Yepihodovâs boots are polished, but squeaky and because of that Yepihodov then asks Lopakhin what to use to remove the squeak. It is of interest that he asks Lopakhin for advice about squeaking shoes and no one else, presumably, because Lopakhin claims he is a peasant. But Lopakhin responds angrily to the question by stating: âOh, get out! Iâm fed up with youâ (Orchard, p. 1299). One can only assume that Lopakhin is still caught between âknowing his placeâ and ânot wanting to recognize his place.â Chekhov expands Yepihodovâs comedic character by first having Yepihodov talk of awful things happening then the things happen to him: âEvery day I meet with misfortune. And I donât complain. Iâve got used to it, I even smileâ (Orchard, p. 1299). His apparent buffoonery is expanded throughout the play.
Lopakhin asks Dunyasha for glass of kvass, which is one of the national alcoholic drinks of Russia, and also popular in Eastern Europe. Itâs made by a simultaneous acid and alcoholic fermentation of wheat, rye, barley, and buckwheat meal, or of rye bread, with the addition of sugar or fruit. In this case, the fruit is obviously cherry. And though it has been a universal drink in Russia since the sixteenth century it is primarily a peasant drink. These âdetailsâ augment Lopakhinâs character.
So, what reads so far is an excellent example of the use of economic language. In a drama there isnât the luxury of using narration to carry the action forward; in drama there is only dialogue and gesture to rely on both of which Chekhov excels at presenting. As Dunyasha talks to Lopakhin, she establishes the relationship between herself and Yepihodov yet Lopakhinâs response is indifference, which clearly relates to, and reinforces, class issues.
Dunyashaâs talk about her interest in Yepihodov is cut short by the sound of horses outside as Lopakhin re-emphasizes the time lapse of five years. The re-mentioning of five years reinforces the notion of passing time and with the passing of time comes change. At the same time, Lopakhin is concerned about his âappearance,â which coincides with the constant undercurrent about his interest in Mme. Ranevskaya.
At this point, the rest of the ensemble arrives and in a particular order. Not unlike the characters in a Molière play, the main characters are presented in the following order:
LopakhinDunyashaYepihodovLubov,Anya, Charlotta, Varya, Gayev, Firs withMme. Ranevskaya and Gayev coming in led by Pishchik
First, Chekhov presents what could be considered the âmarginal characters,â then, for the most part, âthe aristocracy.â After they are presented, there is a series of interactions between the following characters:
Anya
(Mme. Ranevskayaâs daughter)
Varya
(Mme. Ranevskayaâs adopted daughter)
They begin with Anyaâs line âLetâs go this way. Do you remember what room this is, Mamma?â (Orchard, p. 1300) and continues up to Lopakhinâs entrance (Orchard, p. 1301). Prior to Lopakhinâs entrance, there is a keen family interest in material objects, the comfort of material objects.
Some of the key issues that are established very early in the act are: Each of these issues relates to one of the major components of the drama: conflict and, specifically, conflict related to change. At that point, Dunyasha informs Anya (a former confidante) about her engagement to Yepihodov; however, Anyaâs initial response is âThere you are, at it againâŚIâve lost all my hairpinsâ (Orchard, p. 1300). What continues is that they speak in parallel monologues.
- 1.An emphasis on things at the estate being the same as they were;
- 2.The sale of the orchard appears as a prominent issue;
- 3.The parallel monologues tend to reinforce separation between and among characters; and
- 4.Indifference of former confidantes to something less than that station reinforces the fact that things are, in fact, not the same.
Conventionally, speech in drama is a device for simultaneous two way communication: the characters talk directly with each other and at the same time they talk indirectly to the audience. But in Chekhov, these two functions of dialogue seem often separated. The characters seem to be talking to themselves in a daze primarily for the purpose of giving the audience direct exposition. (Deer 1958, p. 31)
This type of âaudience directedâ dialogue persists throughout the play either in the form of parallel monologue or a kind of absurdist dialogue.
While Dunyasha continues talking about Yepihodov, Anya is consumed by being back home. That relative indifference on Anyaâs part not only establishes a class difference that was not apparent before she left, but it also establishes the fact that what they used to be they no longer are. Anya is now 17. Five years earlier they were both pre-teens, children; now, they are late teens and those intimate intrigues they shared are no longer important for Anya. The âtremblingâ that Dunyasha feels early in the act is related to her anxiety about seeing Anya again, which slowly gives way to an acceptance on her part that things will never be the same again. This is evinced by how Anya recounts the trip back to Russia, about living in Paris, and about specific things related to Mme. Ranevskayaâs character that will be critical to an understanding of the play. Anya not only talks about the kinds of people who visited them in Paris, but she alludes to the fact that all of Mme. Ranevskayaâs property is going to be sold.
In the middle of the dialogue, Varya says: âIn August the estate will be put up for saleâ (Orchard, p. 1301) prompting Anya to exclaim: âMy God!â At that same instant, Lopakhin appears, bleats, then disappears. That appearance and disappearance is not serendipitous. Chekhov canât waste words or gestures. The subtext is that there may be a connection between Lopakhin and the sale of the orchard. The fact Anya appeals to âdivine interventionâ coterminous with Lopakhinâs appearance is clear. Varyaâs response to him: âWhat I couldnât do to him!â followed by Anyaâs statement: âVarya, has he proposed to you?â indicates that there is an obvious connection between them and while Varya continues to bear all to Anya in her confession about Lopakhin Anya changes the subject to the brooch that her mother bought her. Anya not only changes the subject, but also adds something about balloon rides. What that apparent indifference tends to do is further distance them from the relevant issues at hand (namely, the sale of the estate) and distance them from each other. In that sense there is a conflict between what is provincial and what is cosmopolitan.
At that point, there is the entrance of Yasha, the young valet. Clearly, heâs been affected by his time in Paris and by virtue of that experience anything that is unlike Paris suggests the provincial. His attitude clearly reflects that kind of affected behavior, especially in relation to Dunyasha with whom he had some interest in the past but to whom he affects ignorance now. With the acknowledgment of Trofimov, the tutor, one discovers from Anya that itâs been six years since her fatherâs death and many years since her brotherâs; that acknowledgement introduces us to Trofimov.
There is also the re-introduction of Firs who their 87 year old manservant who still wears old-fashioned livery. In spite of age, senility, and infirmity, Firs is faithful; faithful both to the family, to the virtues the family has long held, and to the tradition of his station as reflected in his uniform, his demeanor, and his dialogue. His attitude is set in contrast to Yasha, which establishes differences in sensibility, but also reinforces Firs faithfulness to the family and to the traditions of the past.
Prior to this point, the dialogue has been focused on the rest of the family, but the dialogue finally shifts to both Gayev and Mme. Ranevskaya as they enter. As they walk into the room, theyâre both talking about billiards. She says: âLetâs see, how does it go? Yellow ball in the corner! Bank shot in the side pocket!â as her brother replies: âIâll tip it in the corner! There was a time, Sister, when you and I used to sleep in this very room and now Iâm fifty-one, strange as it may seemâ (Orchard, p. 1302). That exchange recalls the past, but also establishes the fact that they are of a different social class since peasants wouldnât have been playing billiards and that he recalls those days with a bittersweet memory. It may âseem strangeâ since the comment is a denial of the present. It is not coincidental that it is Lopakhin who follows up Gayevâs comment by stating that âYes, time flies.â Gayev replies âWho?â as if ignoring Lopakhin and Lopakhin repeats âI say, time fliesâ as a way of saying âif you didnât get it the first time, then maybe youâll get it the second.â Gayev again ignores him and says: âIt smells of patchouli hereâ (Orchard, 1302). The allusion to patchouli is clear since the oil derived from the plant leaves is often used as a scent fixative in perfumes and fragrances, as well as to mask strong odors. In the sense that Gayev is using it the implication is that something âsmells...