DeVaughn Norwood

10.15.15
ENGL 3430
Dr. Cain

Remember No More Forevermore:

An Analysis on Chekhovs The Cherry Orchard

Anton Chekhov was a Russian playwright and author whose works were composed
during the late nineteenth century, the age of Realism. Realism, also known as the Age of
Verisimilitude, was a movement in art and literature in which artists and authors strove to portray
almost journalistically the everyday goings-on of the commonperson and the truthful treatment
of average life through detailed realistic and factual description of every natural and man-made
surrounding, every action, every thought, and every conversation. Everything, just as it is,
without idealization. Realist art was very pragmatic; by focusing on the immediate, the specific
actions and their verifiable consequences, Realist art was involved itself with the effect of the
work on the reader and the readers life. Thus, Realist art stressed the real over the fantastic.
Certain characteristics of Realist art include an emphasis on a psychological and pragmatic plot,
where the inner thoughts, decisions, and motivations of the characters influenced the story, not
external actions; the idea that time marches on and waits for no one, leaving the small things in
life to build up, thus creating an a climax in the story that does not involve crisis; obvious
foreshadowing and causality; an emphasis on morality; that classism, natural vernacular in
diction, and a destiny controlled by the humans themselves and not some spiritual entity are all

incredibly essential to a fulfilling life (if there were such a thing); and that all characters are
psychologically complicated, multifaceted, and have conflicting impulses and desires.
One famous example of a Realist work is Anton Chekhovs short play, The Cherry
Orchard. The play centers around twelve characters living in a historic manor in Russia who are
struggling with the idea of their inevitable selling of their house and the cherry orchard on the
property. While heavily jampacked with motifs, symbols, and themes, the plays focus revolves
around memory, the destruction of memory, and the impacts that a loss of memory has on the
individual. All twelve characters are introduced and defined by the way they relate to the past,
significantly their childhood memories. Specifically, the characters relation to the past is shown
most in the way they react to the looming destruction of the cherry orchard. Arguably, by using
the cherry orchard as a symbolic relic of the past, Chekhov suggests that humans can be either
strengthened, relieved, or ruined through the removal and loss of memories.
At the outset of the play, we meet Lopakhin, a merchant, and Dunyasha, a chambermaid.
Both are sitting in a room in the house called the Nursery, a room where the family would gather
when the parents were prepared to spend time with their children. Lopakhin mentions that he
hasnt seen Ranevsky for five years and recounts to Dunyasha of how Ranevsky, one of the
landowners, was kind to him after his father had beaten him as a child, pausing as he remembers
how Ranevsky referred to him as a "little peasant". Dunyasha worries and fusses with her
appearance; Lopakhin tells her not to be so sensitive and to "remember her place". After they
leave the Nursery, Ranevsky returns from Paris with her two daughters Anya and Varya, her
brother Gayev, and Charlotte, a governess, along with a butler named Fierce, a merchant named
Lopakhin, and the other landowner named Pishchik. Ranevsky and her entourages arrival at the

manor is a metaphorical return to the past, Ranevksy, her children, and the others having spent
most of their childhood at this manor.
Here Chekhov gives us both Lopakhin and Ranevsky's important character traits, and
establishes their relationship. Lopakhin reveals himself almost immediately to be very selfconscious; he talks about what an "idiot" he is, for falling asleep and not meeting Ranevsky at
the station and compares himself to "a bull in a china shop". When he talks about how Ranevksy
cleaned his face after his father had beaten him as a child, he pauses after remembering the word
"peasant". He then says, as if in argument, that he is now "rich". And after Lopakhin remembers
being reminded of his place by Ranevsky, he then reminds Dunyasha of her place as well. All
these remarks indicate that the source of Lopakhin's self-consciousness lies in the memories of
his brutal, impoverished childhood. But these memories also include Ranevsky's kindness.
Ranevsky's arrival, then, seems to create an identity crisis in Lopakhin, between the rich
businessman he sees himself as now and the peasant to which Ranevsky was kind; his
attachment to her draws him towards a past he no longer identifies himself with.
Ranevsky's first word upon her entrance into the scene is "nursery"; if Lopakhin is trying to
distance himself from his past, she is moving towards it. She is full of childish enthusiasm and
overstatement, describing the nursery - which she grew up in - as "heavenly". She weeps. She
kisses Dunyasha, and says she feels like "a little girl again". We begin to see that Ranevsky is
unable to deal with or face her reality, fleeing into her memories to avoid facing reality. Also, we
see that the tone at the beginning of the play is one of balance and irony: it is May and the
cherries are in full bloom, yet there is ice and chilly weather all around. This ironic balance can
also be seen in the way Lopakhin and Ranevsky relate to their past: one runs away from the past,
the other embraces it.

It is important to bring some clearer light as to what exactly the cherry orchard
represents. The largest in Russia, the orchard is a place where both historical and personal
memories intertwine. Roughly fifty years before the publication of the play, the serfs in Russia
had been liberated, serfs being the peasant people of Russia who worked under the masters to
buy their freedom and livelihood. Ranevskys parents were two of these enslaved peasants who
worked for the previous landowners in the manor . Whilst peering into the orchard from a
window in the Nursery, Ranevsky swears that she is seeing her dead mother wandering through
the orchard, only to realize that what she is seeing is a humbled tree branch swaying in the wind.
This not only shows that the ghostly remnants of the serfdom still remain on the property, but
that Ranevsky is willing to believe in these fanciful, pleasant illusions of the past. It is easy to
understand why she is so disspirited when she hears of the impending destruction of the orchard.
This destruction symbolizes the destruction of memory, and such, serves to symbolize forgetting:
forgetting ones childhood or past or history. Ranevsky is someone who either doesn't want to or
can't forget; certain, more distant, memories she wants to keep; others she wants to destroy. But
she is drawn to her memories in the same strong way that she is drawn to the orchard. She is
overjoyed to be back in "the nursery" in which she grew up. While in the Nursery, she received
two telegrams from her extramarital lover in France. This insistent voice from her adult life she
destroys by ripping up the paper. Lopakhin, on the other hand, would seem to like nothing better
than to forget; his past is a brutal one, linked to the brutality of serfdom. And he actively
encourages the destruction of the orchard; for him it is a barrier to prosperity and well being,
both that of Ranevsky and of the future cottage-holders who may one day spend their summers
there. Ranevsky and Lopakhin's attitudes towards the orchard are consistent with their attitudes
towards the historical and personal memories it symbolizes.
The play moves on to the second act, which opens up with Charlotte, Yasha, Dunyasha,
and Yephikodov. This scene can be classified as a pastoral idyll, a scenic occasion where the
narrator reflects upon nature and thus reflects upon himself. Pastoral idylls are usually very
serene and peaceful scenes, but this one is different. Telephone poles run through the outer lyings

of the garden and Charlotte is wearing a mans hat and is carrying a weapon. Charlotte is a
woman who doesnt know if her parents are married or not, nor where she comes from or who
she is. Chekhov seems to be suggesting that without memory or a past, we lack an identity.
Yephikodov also has something of an identity crisis; he self-consciously he wishes to be
considered a Romantic, yet is extremely unconvincing in the role, to such an extent that it is
funny. His songs are mournful, yet to Charlotte they sound like "hyenas"; he claims to
contemplate suicide, even bringing out his revolver, but in his hands the weapon is totally
unconvincing and generates no concern amongst the others. With Yephikodov, Chekhov satirizes
the romantic, idealistic hero. Yephikodov's talk of suicide might even be seen as a gross parody
of Hamlet's contemplation of suicide.
Charlotte is a more complex character than Yephikodov; she stands apart from the
lovers, declaring herself "alone". As she leaves, she spouts a paradox in saying that "these clever
men are all so stupid." Again, Chekhov is making an allusion here to Shakespeare, to a type of
character that Shakespeare often employed, which is that of the Fool. As a carnival trickster, she
is adept at manipulating illusions; the implication is that she can recognize the illusions others
create and by which are fooled. For example, the illusion Yephikodov creates that he is a
Romantic hero, which convinces no one. Or Dunyasha's illusion that Yasha is in love with her,
which convinces only herself; it is clear that Yasha considers Dunyasha to be nothing more than
"a tasty little morsel". And there is Yasha's illusion of culture and sophistications, to which both
Yasha and Dunyasha succumb, but which is belied intellectually by his boorish treatment of
Dunyasha and physically by the acrid smoke of his cigar.
Enters Trofimov. In this section of the play, Chekhov makes it clear the social allegory
that has been only implicit in the characters of Lopakhin and Ranevsky. This change is brought
about by Trofimov, who serves as a foil character for Lopakhin. Trofimovs idealistic views clash
with Lopakhins materialistic ideals, yet they share a common disdain for the past. Trofimovs
disdain has an intellectual foundation, where Lopakhins is rooted in personal memories.

For Trofimov, the cherry orchard is a symbol of oppression, full of serfdom legacy and
the people Anyas family once owned. To him, the orchard is a place of laziness and immorality.
Trofimov berates Russian intellectuals whod rather sit in areas of repose and relaxation, like
orchards, and talk a big game of how they will change the world, but cant find it within
themselves to actually do the work required to change the world. For Trofimov, the destruction
of the orchard is dire because it represents a need to break with the past and forge a better,
bolder, newer future through hard work and dedication and pride. Trofimov broadens the scope
of the play to the whole of Russian society by proclaiming All Russia is our orchard.
There is some irony, however, in Trofimov's speech. First of all, his position seems to
have arisen in intellectual conversation with Gayev. And if anyone fits Trofimov's description of
the Russian intellectual, then Trofimov and Gayev do - their lives are spent in conversation.
Trofimov is the "eternal student", according to Lopakhin; he has been studying all his adult life;
it has apparently made him very "ugly", at least according to Ranevsky. He is the stereotypical
scholar, definitely not a man of action.
In the next part of the play, we find that Lopakhin has indeed bought the orchard at the
auction. This deeply upsets Varya in more ways than one and she begins to cry. First, Varya is
upset because she is reassured that Lopakhin, the man she is to marry, has again put off the
engagement because he is exponentially more invested in the selling and buying of the orchard in
an effort to gain stature and respect to do away with his peasant childhood. For Varya, his buying
the orchard instead of proposing to her means that her losing her memories of the place is equal
to inequality and a great lack of respect. Secondly, not only is Varya Ranevskys adopted
daughter, but Varya is Ranevskys estate manager. Because the orchard was sold to Lopakhin and
will thus be destroyed, this means that Varya is out of a job. With this metaphorical destruction of
her memories, this equates to a loss of the ability to survive. Because Lopakhin wont propose to
Varya, her only source of emotional fulfillment is her career. But without a career, the gardens
destruction denotes a loss of emotion and, by way of this, a loss of humanity. Even more than

that, because money is a symbol of power throughout the play, the destruction of the orchard
means that she no longer has money, which means that she is left completely powerless. Varyas
dehumanization in this scene through the destruction of the orchard is Chekhovs strongest
example of how losing your memories or past experiences can disable a person greatly.
Lastly, the argument between Trofimov and Ranevsky centers around the question in their
argument is that of truth: whose perspective, whose memories should be accepted as true?
Trofimov proves to be an excellent foil for Ranevsky in this debate. He is ugly and intellectual,
the "eternal student," his life revolves around searching for objective truth. Ranevsky, on the
other hand, is intuitive and beautiful; for her, the truth is a much more slippery concept than it is
to Trofimov. Trofimov begs Ranevsky to "face the truth", namely, that her lover in Paris is
unworthy of her affection and a drain on her emotional and financial resources, resources that
she should be using to save her estate. Trofimov declares himself to be "above love", implying
that he is superior to anyone under the sway of love, such as Ranevksy. Ranevksy's first name,
Lyuba, means "love", and she defends her actions using love as her justification. She feels she
should go to Paris to be with her lover, and she defends this opinion by saying "I love him," and
asking, "what else can I do?" She tells Trofimov that he can only see "what is true and untrue,"
and that she has "lost her sight" in these matters. Knowledge is here equated with vision. But
ironically enough, she also argues that the only reasons Trofimov thinks he can see truth is that
he is "too young to see what life is really like," implying that now it is Trofimov who has no
vision and is blind. To Ranevksy, this inability to love is "unnatural," and she accuses Trofimov
of being "a ridiculous freak, a type of monster." Ranevsky uses Nature as a weapon to discredit
Trofimov. Her cherry orchard, and by extension, her memories are natural. And she identifies
herself fully with her memories, by identifying herself with the cherry orchard, saying, "if you
sell it you might as well sell me." Trofimov, in contrast, has no past. He is "too young," and he
has no memory. Compared to Ranevsky, he is nothing. He is "ugly" and a "seedy- looking gent."
What is more important for Ranevsky are that one's memories reflect one's vision of how the
world should be, rather than any objective set of facts about how it is. So it can be argued that a

loss of memory equals gaining insight and vision, and losing the ability to love and the
opportunity to love.
Lopakhins triumph in buying and obliterating the cherry orchard is his final escape from
his past and his memories. He wants to personally destroy the garden so that he can overpower
those things from his childhood that sought to destroy his image and his confidence. Lopakhin
isnt blind, however. He can obviously see the beauty in the orchard, but he sees the beauty as a
strong distraction. By destroying the attractive beauty of the garden and his losing his memories
of the place, he loses the temptation of the past, thus creating for himself a place of freedom. The
irony here is that his clumsiness, insensibility, and emotional brutality resolidifies his peasant
upbringings. Funnily enough, a loss of memory isnt a loss of memory at all.
The Cherry Orchard asks if we are better off moving on with our lives, with the
memories and shadows of our pasts on our backs, or if we are to just accept our bitter end there
and now? What happens when the present becomes unmoored from the past? According to
Chekhov, any attempts at removing or hiding from our pasts can create a release or tragedy (or
both), like Ranevsky, who leaves the house with an imbittered, but easy, sigh; a start of a better,
newer age, like Lopakhin and Trofimov; a great uncertainty, like Charlotte; or simply an
annihilation, like Firs.
The ending of the play shows Firs slowly sitting on the couch and breathing a sigh of rest
before muttering to himself how his life has slipped by as if he never lived at all. This is an
odd thing for Firs to say, considering how he is always telling stories about the old days. But it is
consistent with the idea of him being forgotten. When a society is severed from its past, its
memories and values are lost. The dead are not only then dead, they are forgotten, as if they
never existed.
As stated before, Realist art and literature is almost always centered around some moral
theme. It seems that Chekhov, through The Cherry Orchard, is saying that it is best to accept and

embrace your past and your memories. Attempting to destroy them can leave you-- and,
indirectly, the others around you-- a broken, emotionless, weak, and totally dehumanized person
without an identity or any means of survival, a person depending on silly illusions to get by.

Works Cited
Ashot, Maria Amadei. The Cherry Orchard, by Anton Chekhov. Translated from the
Russian by Maria Amadei Ashot. (2001): 2-24. ArtLit.org. 2000. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.artlit.org/en/belles-lettres/orchard/Orchard-I.pdf>.