I’d like to focus on the text’s theme of moving on from the past, which Chekhov argues is not achievable without a full separation from it. With this, I find it interesting that Chekhov also promotes suffering as the result of separation, noting that it is a necessary part before things get better.Chekhov uses the cherry orchard as a way to express this point. The cherry orchard, serving as a representation of the past– both for Russia and Lyobov Andreevna– is tied with Russia’s history of serfdom to its abolishment after Alexander II, and Lyuba’s personal history as it served as her childhood residence. This provides a great opportunity for Chekhov to use these events to shape his characters. The situation surrounding the orchard also sets up the differences between the past and the future, which is further explored as Lyuba, who has no idea how she will keep her estate.
The best example of Chekhov’s argument on suffering and separation to reach harmony is the conversation between Anya and Petya. Petya says,” to live in the present, we’ve got to expiate our past, make a clean break with it. And the only way we can do so is through suffering–suffering and relentless hard work”(225). As the story continues, his advice is overshadowed by Lyuba’s fear of forgetting her past. She doesn’t want to lose her estate because her son’s memory and her childhood memories live there. After all, her inability to face reality led her to flee to Paris and her lack of authority in making an effective plan in keeping her estate. Chekhov highlights this point in his work by delving into Lyuba’s excuses for not leaving and by her criticisms of Petya rather than contemplating his advice. By the end of the story, when the cherry orhard is sold to Lopakhin, Lyuba views the loss of her property as unbearable. Nonetheless, she leaves to start a new life. Petya exclaims how things will get better as the worst has already occurred. We can all just hope that things work out for the family.
I think your analysis of Chekhov’s play is very spot-on, particularly with respect to the use of the cherry orchard as a symbol for the severance of the past from the present as a remedy for suffering. I think the quote of Petya’s advice that you included in your response is very didactic on the part of Chekhov, who clearly is trying to show what the road to solace looks like and what it entails. Lyuba’s apprehension in making this break is very much normal, but ultimately, as you noted, things worsen before they become better.
I agree with Jacob in that I believe your analysis of the message is spot on for the Lyubov and her family, but where I think Chekov splits his message is in Lopakhin’s desire to acquire the orchard. He seeks to progress through the ranks by buying the orchard, tearing it down, and parceling it out for profit. In doing so, he moves past his family’s history of serfdom at the orchard by becoming more entwined in the property. One may say that he’s separating his history from himself by destroying the orchard, I would argue that owning the land still has him entwined in his past, but he’s benefitting off of the resource that caused his family hardship. So while Lyubov must move on from her past by leaving, Lopakhin moves on by renovating the land and renting it out.
I agree completely with your comment that the separation from the past is twofold. On one hand it comments on the individual but also on the state. I’d also say that the past is represented by the more Slavic/muscovite identities while the western St. Petersburg type is a representation of the new. The debate between old Russia and new Russia is also a debate of western Russia versus eastern Russia which is also demonstrated by the characters’ debates in the play.
Furthermore, I think the theme of suffering takes on a complex meaning when analyzed in the context of the play’s satirical element. While there is the tragic element of the “necessary suffering” in order to break from the past, this suffering also takes on a tone of melodrama and humor. In Peyta’s statement, he also says “all we do is philosophize, complain about how depressing life is, and drink vodka” (225). The play does communicate the importance of suffering in letting go of the past. But it also conveys the inevitability of this transition and the way that suffering becomes exacerbated and unnecessarily dramatic when people grasp onto illusions of the past.
I find it interesting how Chekhov balances frivolity lending to social satire with the dramatic tension necessary to deliver the message you aptly identified. Auctioning an estate for a copious sum of rubles to cover self-inflicted debts cannot compare to the brutality of early industrialization and the post-feudal economy alluded to in Petya’s musings. The whole notion of nobles seeking spiritual emancipation from a history of owning humans suggested by Trofimov (225) reads as a perversion of serfs seeking spiritual emancipation from a history of having been owned and degraded. The journey and suffering accompanying the pursuit of separation from history thus appears shallow upon scrutiny. Yet Lyubov Andreevna projects the loss of her son upon the anti-calamity, reacting an a manner that gives the impression of an injurious adjustment (despite having lived abroad for years prior to Act I and having the means to live comfortably). This infantile yet sincere reaction is a microcosm of the play’s subversive approach to comedy.
I really like in your post how you point out the theme of suffering, something which we have seen is present in almost every age of Russian cultural works. I think what is interesting about this play in particular, and what its contribution is to the theme of suffering, is how it shows similarities and differences in the suffering of the poor peasants, and the turmoil of the more wealthy aristocrats. This creates a division in the play, as well as foils the the two different social classes, allowing us the reader or the viewer to compare and contrast how each class handles these harsh times.
Your take on suffering is really interesting! In contrast to the satirical side of the play, the suffering is even more apparent. It seems to be a Russian staple to highlight suffering in people in cultural works. Your point of suffering being a result of separation. Each character is separated from something, whether major or minor. This allows for a satirical take on suffering, as each character goes through separation and suffering differentely.
In terms of symbolism, perhaps this idea of a “breaking” with the past ties into the strange and forlorn sounds included in the play. The snapping spring and, too a lesser degree, the sound of chopping, both symbolize a sort of fracturing. This seems especially true of the former sound. I found that your emphasis on the terror of being untethered from the past was very helpful in understanding some of these strange bits of the play.