Dreamers versus Workers and Their Humanity - Essay Example

30 November Dreamers versus Workers and Their Humanity Dreamers ought to be happier, but idealism has no place in the “new” world. The Cherry Orchard, a play written by Anton Chekhov, sums up the same view of humanity. In this play, Chekhov demonstrates the interplay between dreamers and workers. Chekhov's beliefs about life and moving on, as well as the frailty of humanity, are juxtaposed with the context of capitalism. This paper analyses how some of the characters and events in the play reflect the author's ideas and experience, including the themes of the period. The Cherry Orchard illustrates Chekhov's time, when feudalism shifted to capitalism and how it differentiated the dreamers from the workers, although Chekhov did not press judgment on these people, since he also believes that humanity is humanity because they are fraught with weaknesses. Chekhov's time represented the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia, which drastically altered the social class structure and contributed to the “defeat of the cultured elite” (Brand and Moe 1). He shows Madame Ranevskaya’s household as the “passing of the semifeudal existence of Russian landowners on their country estates” (Buckner 2). Madame Ranevskaya composes the aging and fading Russian aristocracy, who slips into economic decline after centuries of upholding luxurious lifestyles. Another class emerges, nevertheless, the “semiliterate, ambitious middle class” that Lopakhin belongs to. Lopakhin has become wealthy because of his hard work, which the aristocrats lacked. He is part of the “workers” in the play. Lopakhin feels short of being part of the true, new upper class, however. He realises that he can never replace the upper class: “...you'll find I'm still a peasant down to the marrow of my bones” (Chekhov Act 1). This viewpoint may also be part of Chekhov's belief that the bourgeoisie is a class of its own that cannot fully usurp the ancient charm and sophistication of the former aristocracy. The characters depict Chekhov's idea that dreams are nothing without action. Madame Ranevskaya lives in the same dream that she is still wealthy. She sells her villa to have her daughter Anya go to Paris. Once there, they act as if they remain rich. Anya tells Varya: “We had dinner at a station; she asked for all the expensive things, and tipped the waiters one rouble each” (Chekhov 1). Instead of living within their means, Madame Ranevskaya continues her former wealthy lifestyle, which economically ruins her. Madame Ranevskaya also wants to save the orchard from being sold and divided. She is emotionally attached to the orchard, which is why she cannot bear selling it. The cherry trees stood for their aristocrat “happiness,” a happiness which Chekhov felt when he tended to his own orchard (Vorob'eva 82). Madame Ranevskaya knows that they cannot rely on Gaev, because he is also a dreamer who does act to save the orchard. He wants to save the orchard though, because it stands for their erstwhile affluence. He mentions to Lopakhin that their cherry orchard was once mentioned in the Encyclopaedic Dictionary. The dictionary represents the extinction of aristocracy, who will only be remembered in the pages of history. Varya also dreams of Lopakhin's proposal, but the latter does not feel he deserves Varya. Varya expresses her bitterness to Anya: “But everybody talks about our marriage, everybody congratulates me, and there's nothing in it at all, it's all like a dream” (Chekhov 1). Indeed, these characters have various dreams that they never act on. Gaev illustrates the futility of dreaming:“I keep thinking and racking my brains; I have many schemes, a great many, and that really means none.” The play draws the difference between dreaming and realising those dreams. But dreaming is better than having no dreams at all. Chekhov shows that people with no aspirations are more deplorable than those who dream. Yephodov, who earned the nickname of two-and-twenty misfortunes because of his consistent bad luck, admits that despair and failures follow him everywhere (Buckner 2). He tells Lopakhin: “Some misfortune happens to me every day. But I don't complain; I'm used to it, and I can smile” (Chekhov 1). He feels triumph only when he becomes misfortunate which is misfortunate in itself. Charlotta, the governess, does tricks to amaze other and make them happy. She views life, however, with a miserable perspective: “If you let people kiss your hand, then they'll want your elbow, then your shoulder, and then” (Chekhov 1). Yasha, the young valet, does not have any dreams at all. He is insensitive to people and disregards their love. When Dunyasha confesses her love for him, his only reply is: “I think this: if a girl loves anybody, then that means she's immoral” (Chekhov 2). Evidently, this man has no meaningful future with the kind of attitude that he has. The play also shows that it will be shameful to judge the dreamer and the workers, when humanity is humanity because they are fraught with weaknesses. Chekhov uses characters that are ambiguous, because he believes that “to judge between good and bad, between successful and unsuccessful, would need the eye of God” (Buckner 2). Buckner argues that Chekhov does not want to “play God but to be the eye of the camera,” so that readers can judge the characters by themselves (2). Reid agrees and says that the play “...maps out a shared, Russian field of possibilities in a play that appears to demand a carnival acceptance that the social good may be beyond absolutism” (32). Trofimov wants Madame Ranevskaya to “face the truth,” and she replies “What truth?” (Chekhov 3). She and Chekhov both believe that truth is relative and the definition of a good life depends on the people defining it (Buckner 2). Chekhov’s friend Maxim Gorky stresses: “No one ever understood the tragic nature of life’s trifles so clearly and intuitively as Chekhov did” (Buckner 2). Chekhov also sees tragedy and comedy in humanity. “This was often the way with him,” Gorky says, and he adds: “One moment he would be talking with warmth, gravity, and sincerity, and the next he would be laughing at himself and his own words” — as with himself, so with the remainder of humanity (Buckner 2). Madame Ranevskaya admits that she has spent beyond her means: “ I've always scattered money about without holding myself in, like a madwoman, and I married a man who made nothing but debts” (Chekhov 2). Madame Ranevskaya and her family might feel “the marks of modernization,” but they remain adamant in following their own vices and beliefs (Klapuri 52). Trofimov also expresses his own views. He criticises what the cherry orchard stands for: “Think, Anya...all your ancestors were serf-owners, they owned living souls; and now, doesn't something human look at you from every cherry in the orchard, every leaf and every stalk? Don't you hear voices?” (Chekhov 2). Though Chekhov seems to view Trofimov as the perpetual student, Trofimov's view is one of the many views that represent humanity. Chekhov asserts that humanity is an orchard with good and bad fruits and where dreamers and workers live together. These people have their weaknesses and strengths and their weaknesses are not necessarily always disadvantageous. Chekhov must agree with Trofimov when the latter says: “All Russia is our orchard. The land is great and beautiful, there are many marvellous places in it” (Chekhov 2). This orchard stands for humanity and their dreams, whether they work to achieve them or not. Chekhov believes that the fallibility of humanity is their humanity too. Without it, then people are not human beings. They are Gods. If they were Gods, then there would be no cherry orchards anymore. Works Cited Buckner, Sally. “The Cherry Orchard.” Masterplots (Nov. 2010): 1-3. Print. Brand, Gerhard and Christian H. Moe. “The Cherry Orchard.” Magill’s Survey of World Literature (Jan. 2009): 1-2. Print. Chekhov, Anton. The Cherry Orchard. Klapuri, Tintti. “Temporality and Historicity in Cechov's 'The Cherry Orchard.'”Scando-Slavica 54.1 (2008): 50-61. Print. Reid, John McKellor. “Polemic as Parting Advice: The 'Argument' of 'The Cherry Orchard.'” Modern Drama 48.1 (2005): 30-54. Print. Vorob'eva, Mariia. “The Whole Earth Will Have Become a Flowering Garden.” Russian Studies in Literature 47.1 (2010): 80-86. Print. Read More