Cherry_Orchard

The Economy of Comedy A Marxist Analysis of Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard By: Elizabeth A. Petow Senior Honors Thesis University of Vermont College of Arts and Sciences Department of German and Russian Advisor: Professor Kevin J. McKenna April 30, 2010 Acknowledgements This honors thesis would not have been possible without the wisdom, advice, and “suggestions” of my thesis advisor, Professor Kevin McKenna. Throughout my college career and especially throughout the writing of this honors thesis, he has always been a source of encouragement and support for which I am truly grateful. I would also like to thank Professor R. Thomas Simone and Professor Kathleen Scollins for their time and work as part of my defense committee. Petow-2 Table of Contents  Introduction …………….……….…….………………….……………………….…......4  Chapter 1: Marxist School of Criticism …...……….….…….……………….….…....11  Chapter 2: The Cherry Orchard as Comedy …….……..………….………...….…...16  Chapter 3: Estrangement in Literature ……….....……...……...…………………….26  Chapter 4: Textual Analysis ………………………….…………………...…………..33  Conclusion …..………..…………………...………..……………………………....…..60  References .…..………..…………………...………..……………………………....…..63 Petow-3 “Why do you say in your telegram that there are many weepy people in my play' Where are they'...There‟s no cemetery in the second act.” Anton Chekhov in a letter to Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko1 Introduction In 1904, the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) witnessed the premier of Anton Chekhov‟s last production, The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov began writing what he himself called a comedy in 1903, although he had intended to write such a play since his last production, Three Sisters. Following the first performance of The Cherry Orchard in 1904, many stage companies and critics have misinterpreted this play, changing its content into a dramatic performance that Chekhov had never anticipated – a tragedy. This honors thesis focuses on a discussion of how Chekhov intended his play to be performed according to his creative objective. The foundation of my investigation of The Cherry Orchard and its implications will be framed by a Marxist analysis. I will examine how the comedic style is essential to understanding the social implications and economic constructs of the play in a Marxist critique. The confusion between Chekhov‟s intention and the audience‟s perceptions of the play began with its first readers, Konstantin Stanislavsky, the director of the Moscow Art Theatre, and Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, the founder of the MAT. Both interpreted the play upon their first readings not as a comedy, but a tragedy, praising Chekhov for his dramatic development, but criticizing his own interpretation of the play and its characters. 1 Simon Karlinsky and Michael Henry Heim, eds., Letters of Anton Chekhov (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973) 460. Petow-4 Subsequent scholarly interpretations over the last century have varied in focus. Some critics have accepted Chekhov‟s understanding of his play, while others have agreed with Stanislavsky‟s analysis. Scholarship on Chekhov and his plays, including The Cherry Orchard, also encompasses various schools of criticism. A great deal of this scholarship, especially by Western critics, has concentrated on the form of the play. Formalist critics have investigated its structure, its lack of a distinct plot, and its lyrical nature. The construction of the scenes has also served as a point of interest for them. For some formalist critics these components of Chekhov‟s play revolve around his desire to convey elements of everyday life to his audience. The structure of Chekhov‟s play, it has been argued, focuses on reproducing events from ordinary life.2 In The Cherry Orchard, although the sale of the cherry orchard appears to be the central focus of the characters‟ concerns, Chekhov vibrantly brings to life the day-to-day worries of Lyubov Andreevna, Varya, Lopakhin, and the other characters. The structural components of the play serve to create these reproductions of everyday life in the opinion of some formalist critics. Feminist critics have also looked at Chekhov‟s work. This play is clearly suitable for a feminist analysis due to its treatment of the role of women in Russian society at the turn of the century, its important feminine roles, and the presence of several marriage plots. Women in this play range in social standing, marital status, and age, yet are all affected by the serious social changes taking place. Feminist critics have argued that Chekhov problematizes the role of women in Russian society in his writing.3 According to these critics, Chekhov points to the 2 Skaftymov makes this argument in his article, “Principles of Structure in Chekhov‟s Plays,” Chekhov: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Robert Louis Jackson (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967) 69-87. 3 For an excellent example of such a feminist article, refer to Cynthia Marsh‟s “The stage representation of Chekhov‟s women [sic],” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov, eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 216-227. Petow-5 dissatisfaction female characters feel with their roles and their professions and, at the same time, indicates the social impossibility of change in position. They have also investigated the role female sexuality plays in Chekhov‟s work. In The Cherry Orchard especially, one can see not only how female sexuality is represented in varying degrees by Chekhov – Lyubov Andreevna‟s overt sexuality, Varya‟s rejection of her sexuality, Anya‟s innocence – but also how characterizations of female sexuality are rooted in their relationships with men. In my discussion of the play, however, I will employ a Marxist critical apparatus. Although Chekhov did not consider himself a writer with a political agenda,4 nor did he view the role of the writer as that of a social scientist,5 it is clear that social and economic conditions are at work in The Cherry Orchard. It can be argued that a Marxist focus is appropriate for this play in particular because of the heavy emphasis on social roles and economic transactions. I will also suggest that the nature of the play lends itself to the social and economic focus and to an analysis by Marxist critique because its comedic structure hinders the audience‟s ability to fully sympathize with or condemn any one character regardless of their social or economic standing. As a result of this, the comedic nature encourages the audience to employ this perspective in order to become a more critical viewer and reader of The Cherry Orchard. Due to the prevalence of these elements of the play, I have come to believe that a Marxist critical investigation is the most suitable mode of interpretation. 4 In a letter to A.S. Suvorin in 1898, Chekhov writes, “Great writers and artists should engage in politics only to the extent needed to defend themselves against politics,” Avrahm Yarmolinsky, ed., Letters of Anton Chekhov (New York: Viking Press, 1973) 305. 5 He also writes to Suvorin in 1888 on this topic – “The artist ought not to judge his characters or what they say, but only be an unbiased witness….It is time for writers, particularly artists, to confess that in this world you cannot make head or tail of anything…The crowd thinks that it knows everything and understands everything, and the stupider it is, the broader, apparently, is its horizon. If, however, the artist, in whom the audience has confidence, will be audacious enough to declare that he understands nothing of what he sees, this alone will be a great contribution to thinking and a long step forward,” Yarmolinsky 71-72. Petow-6 The social and economic focus of the play is an appropriate subject for this time in Russian history. The setting unfolds during a period in which the future of the social and economic systems of the country was uncertain and about to change drastically. Chekhov‟s life would end in late 1904, only a year before the revolution of 1905, yet he was already aware of the tumultuous atmosphere of the economic and social transition in Russia. By the turn of the century, the country‟s economic and social framework had changed from its former state immensely. This change resulted from the reforms implemented by Tsar Alexander II during his reign, 1855 to 1881. Although Alexander II was known as the „Great Reformer‟ for his progressive policies, he instituted the most lasting impact with the Emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Up until this point in history, Russian society was governed by a strict social hierarchy, in which the smallest social group, the landed gentry, had the greatest financial resources, opportunity, and power in society, while members of the largest social group, the serfs, were slave-like workers bound to the land of the aristocrats who owned them. In 1861, Alexander II enacted a reform that in theory liberated the serfs and ended feudalism in Russia after centuries of driving the economic system of the country. In reality, little changed, however, for the newly „freed‟ serfs and many remained bound to the land, unable or unwilling to purchase their freedom. This economic system of quasi-feudalism had been ingrained in Russian life for centuries. The Emancipation upset the economic and social framework of the country in the decades that followed and many former serfs rose to economic success as the gentry‟s financial security began to decline. In some cases, the newly wealthy serfs, known as kulaks in Russian, gradually obtained the economic power held by their former owners. The disintegration of the Petow-7 power of the upper classes and the new rise in power of former members of the peasantry encouraged an increase in social mobility that colored the social norms of all classes. The background of the characters of The Cherry Orchard reflects a story familiar to many in Russia and especially to Chekhov, whose ancestors had been born into the ranks of the peasantry. His great-grandfather, Mikhail Chekhov, lived out his life as a serf. His grandfather, Egor Chekhov, bought his own freedom, along with that of his wife, his three sons, and his daughter, in 1841 for 875 rubles, moving the family up the social ladder from the class of serfs to the meshchane, the petite bourgeoisie. Chekhov‟s maternal grandparents similarly bought their place in the merchant class. Chekhov‟s father, Pavel, was a merchant whose life was plagued with debts and creditors. By the time Anton Chekhov and his brother Alexandr reached adulthood, they had both become members of the intelligentsia. He would even purchase his own estate at Melikhovo in 1892.6 Thus, Chekhov was familiar with both the opportunities and the heartache that the Emancipation had brought to Russia‟s people.7 The plot of Chekhov‟s The Cherry Orchard describes the fragmented social system of Russia at the turn of the century, decades after Alexander II‟s fateful proclamation. The play tells the story of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and her once wealthy and aristocratic family. After years of unwise economic decisions and an extended absence following the death of her son, Lyubov Andreevna returns on the brink of economic ruin to her family‟s estate and its beloved cherry orchard. The estate, which has been looked after by her adopted daughter, Varya, and several house servants, will be sold to pay the family‟s debts unless Lyubov Andreevna and her family find some way to save it. Lopakhin, a family friend and a former peasant, offers the 6 In a letter to his brother, Alexandr, sharing the news of the purchase of the estate, he signed his name, “Landed gentleman A. Chekhov,” Yarmolinsky 201. 7 For more information about Chekhov‟s genealogy refer to Donald Rayfield‟s biography, Anton Chekhov: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997) 3-8. Petow-8 family his advice: that they sell the cherry orchard for the construction of dachas, or summer cottages, which would then be rented out to vacationers. Nonetheless, the family cannot fathom the possibility of chopping down the famous cherry orchard and instead passively allows the estate to go up for auction, only to be purchased by Lopakhin by the end of the play. The interactions between Lopakhin, Lyubov Andreevna, and the other characters in the play reflect the fragmented nature of the social structure of turn-of-the-century Russia. Characters functioning under different economic systems exist on one stage and interact with one another while also attempting to understand the social framework around them. There are four major types of characters in the play: those functioning under the old economic system, feudalism; those living under the new economic system, a quasi-capitalist system; those operating under an idealized economic system that has not yet been implemented; and two major characters, Yepikhodov and Charlotta, who exist outside of any defined economic systems. The first system is represented in the stagnant lifestyles and viewpoints of Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, Simeon-Pishchik, Firs, and Varya. The quasi-capitalist system is new and operates as a source of both opportunity and discomfort for the characters that live under it – Lopakhin, Dunyasha, and Yasha – causing them to behave as a mix of multiple social classes, confusing their place in society and their actions. The third system is undefined, but characterized by a hope for a harmonious, idealistic future, and embodied by the dreams of the younger characters, Trofimov and Anya8. Chekhov‟s representation of these systems demonstrates the confused nature of the relationships between characters and their own economic framework, as well as showing the way 8 Marc Slonim briefly presents this idea in his book Russian Theater: From the Empire to the Soviets, (New York: Collier Books, 1962) 137. Petow-9 in which they interact with those outside of it. He uses humor in his play to illuminate these relationships and to alter the focus of the audience. Chekhov does not condemn or condone the actions of any character; instead, he uses comedy to show the audience the faults, the absurdity, and the dreams of each of them. Petow-10 Chapter 1: Marxist School of Criticism Karl Marx and Friederich Engels wrote in The German Ideology, “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.”9 Both Marx and Engels considered literature important and were highly influenced by it, as were many of the followers of their political and economic theory. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels included little about literature and art in their published texts. Statements like this and many aspects of their writings, however, have inspired an entire school of literary criticism and theory. The followers of Marx and Engels have formed two distinct schools since the end of their forefathers‟ careers, which Tony Bennet classifies in his book, Formalism and Marxism. The first refer to a second generation of Marxists – Antonio Labriola, Franz Mehring, Karl Kautsky, and Georgi Plekhanov. The second is comprised of western Marxists – beginning with György Lukács and including authors such as Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Lucien Goldmann, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Galvano Della Volpe. Due to a downturn in revolutionary spirits during this period, Bennet explains, the first group refocused their attention not on the political implementation of Marx‟s theories, but the theoretical implications of Marxism itself. The second group made lasting contributions to the study of Marxism including the development of a literary school of criticism based on its principles. 10 The Russian Marxist Plekhanov wrote that, “The social mentality of an age is conditioned by that age‟s social relations. This is nowhere quite as evident in the history of art and 9 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, ed. R. Pascal (New York: International Publishers, 1947) 15. 10 Bennet discusses these two groups in his book, Formalism and Marxism (London: Routledge, 2003) 82-83. Brecht is my addition to Bennet‟s lists, however. Petow-11 literature.”11 Further encompassing the development of Marxist literary theory, critics over the last century and a half have considered the way in which literature reflects the social, economic, and ideological framework of the environment in which it was created. They also consider the question of how the author‟s view of the world around him, including his social relations, affect the writing of the text, regardless of his own political persuasion or social class. Although Marx‟s own published writings did not include the topic of literary theory, the critics who have adopted his philosophy and applied it to literature have done so in the discourse of Marx‟s political and economic theory. The basis of this theory reflects the existence of what he called the „base,‟ the „superstructure,‟ and „ideology.‟ What Marx deems the „base‟ is „the economic structure of society.‟ By this, he refers to the relations between the capitalists who control production and the proletariat. The „superstructure‟ on the other hand relates to the system that is born from „the economic structure of society‟ in order to legitimize the ruling social class. The „superstructure‟ includes law systems, politics, and in the discourse of Marxist aesthetics, art and literature. The superstructure is also comprised of „definite forms of social consciousness,‟ or ideology, which legitimize the power of the ruling social class and come from the ideas of the ruling class.12 Marxist literary critics employ these concepts to explain various aspects of the tradition of literature and writing. In order to gain a better understanding of the legacy of Marxist literary theory, I will consider the contributions of a few of its prominent critics – Plekhanov, Althusser, and Mikhail Bakhtin – and the relationship between their works in general and the task presented in this honors thesis. Later in my investigation, I will also discuss the work of Marxist theatre 11 12 Quoted in Terry Eagleton, Marxism and Literary Criticism (Berkley: University of California Press, 1976) 6. Much of the information summarized here can be found in the thorough and concise description of Marx‟s theory of base and superstructure by Eagleton, 3-19. Petow-12 theorist, Bertolt Brecht, and the relationship between his theory of Verfremdungseffekt, or the “estrangement effect,” and Chekhov‟s The Cherry Orchard. Plekhanov argues in his writings that ideology is important to art. He proposes that “there is no such thing…as a work of art entirely devoid of ideological content.”13 This aspect of Plekhanov‟s writings on Marxist theory is important to my analysis of The Cherry Orchard because it demonstrates that regardless of Chekhov‟s political or social background, his writing was influenced by the ideological atmosphere of the time. Although Chekhov did not see himself, or any writer, as a valid authority on the social or economic tendencies of the Russian people, 14 his work was still impacted by his own experiences of the ideology that governed the social, political, and economic structure of Russia at this time. Althusser continues an investigation into the Marxist idea of the role of ideology, but specifically looks at its place in literature. He claims that ideology does not so much dictate art and literature, as it has a distinct relationship to it. Althusser argues that ideology has a material existence in the form of actions carried out by the individuals influenced by it. He also reasons that ideology creates a system of „imaginary‟ relationships between people and „the conditions of their existence.‟15 These relationships relate to the way in which people perceive literature, because, as he suggests: Ideology signifies the imaginary ways in which men experience the real world, which is, of course, the kind of experience literature gives to us too…It is held within ideology, but also manages to distance itself from it to the point where it permits us to „feel‟ and „perceive‟ the ideology from which it springs.16 13 14 Ibid. 17. Chekhov discusses this in his letters, Yarmolinsky 71-72. 15 Bennet 93. The information on Althusser is summarized in Bennet‟s discussion of the Marxist treatment of ideology, 91-96. 16 Eagleton 18-19. Petow-13 Althusser‟s arguments relate to an analysis of The Cherry Orchard as they successfully defend the idea that Chekhov was inadvertently affected by the ideological framework of this period in Russian history. Chekhov hoped to display the everyday lives of his characters to his audience. He effectively does this, however, by showing how he viewed men experiencing the “real world,” which as Althusser would argue, is unavoidably linked to the ideological framework of that world and the set of perceived relationships that exist between the people in it and the ideology around them. A generation before Althusser, the Russian Marxist literary critic Bakhtin discusses the relationship between the ideological framework of the medieval community of the French writer Rabelais, the writer himself, and the creation of humor in his writings on the carnival. From his argument on the nature of the writing of Rabelais, Bakhtin established the idea of the „carnivalesque,‟ “those forms of unofficial culture…that resist official culture, political oppression, and totalitarian order through laughter, parody, and „grotesque realism,‟”17 which are, “characterized by an “all-popular and festive utopian aspect.”18 He envisioned the „carnivalesque‟ as a spontaneous and mass creation of laughter, which functioned to subvert the dominant ideology. For this reason, Bakhtin‟s idea of the „carnivalesque‟ applies to the intended comedic style of The Cherry Orchard. In his article on the play, Ronald LeBlanc explains how the „carnivalesque‟ – “the extent to which low farcical humor works to „dethrone‟ or „discrown‟ the serious discourse found in a high genre such as tragedy”19 – similarly functions in The Cherry Orchard to detract from the seriousness of the family‟s situation and allow the audience 17 Vincent B. Leitch, ed., “Mikhail Bakhtin,” Norton Anthology of Literary Criticism (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2001) 1187. 18 Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. Helene Iswolsky (Bloomington, IN: Indian University Press, 1984) 19. 19 Ronald D. LeBlanc, “Two-and-Twenty Misfortunes: Epikhodov [sic], Farce, and the Subversive Nature of Laughter in Vishnevyj sad,” Russian Language Journal 49 (1993): 143. Petow-14 to laugh ironically at our “seemingly hopeless human predicament.”20 Bakhtin and LeBlanc‟s arguments, therefore, relate directly to the topic of this honors thesis and its focus on Chekhov‟s choice of comedy for his greatest play. The creation of humor in The Cherry Orchard serves to undermine the seriousness of its major characters, thus subverting the economic systems under which each one functions. A simplistic Marxist approach could easily find a message in the abundant social and economic elements of the play. I intend, however, to demonstrate the way in which the style of the play serves to highlight the economic and social relationships at work in The Cherry Orchard. In framing my argument in the foundation of a Marxist literary critical approach, I have reasoned that the comedy of the play refocuses the audience‟s attention, allowing it to become critical viewers of the „economic structure of society‟ and the characters‟ relationships, whether „imagined‟ or not, to the ideologies imbedded in this system. 20 Ibid. 143. Petow-15 Chapter 2: The Cherry Orchard as Comedy From the beginning of Chekhov‟s correspondence on the play with the members of the Moscow Art Theater, he insisted that The Cherry Orchard was a comedy and to be performed as such. After sending the finished manuscript to the MAT, he received praise from its founder, Nemirovich-Danchenko, that this play was his best yet.21 Nonetheless, MAT director, Stanislavsky, wrote Chekhov that he had been wrong to call his play a comedy; it was in fact a tragedy, “regardless of what escape into a better life you might indicate in the last act.”22 The next several months of correspondence between Chekhov, Nemirovich-Danchenko, Stanislavsky, and Chekhov‟s wife and MAT actor, Olga Knipper, would detail the author‟s intentions in writing the play and his desire for it to be performed as a comedy. In these letters, Chekhov included specific explanations of his stage directions and the nature of his characters. He also named the actors, whom he preferred to fill these roles. In 1903, Chekhov was residing in the Black Sea resort town of Yalta, recovering from a bout with a developing case of tuberculosis. Burdened by his sickness, he found the task of writing difficult and slow, but in a letter to Vera Kommissarzhevskaya on January 27, 1903, Chekhov first mentioned the new play he hoped to write, which already had a title – “The Cherry Orchard, but that‟s still a secret”23 – and which he planned to give to the MAT. By July, Chekhov was writing to Stanislavsky about the progress of his play, which was continually being slowed by his illness.24 21 22 Karlinsky 456-457. Ibid. 462. 23 Ibid. 445. 24 Louis S., Friedland, ed., Letters on the Short Story, the Drama, and Other Literary Topics by Anton Chekhov (New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1964) 158. Petow-16 Chekhov first called his play a comedy to the MAT in a letter to Nemirovich-Danchenko in September 1903, writing, “The second act presented many difficulties, but I have overcome them. I shall call the play a comedy.”25 As Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko began planning for the production of the play, Chekhov repeatedly stressed that the choice of characters and their performance reflect his intentions, but their comments and criticisms were not in line with these directions. His concerns became clear first in a letter to his wife on October 23, in which he explains, “Nemirovich writes that my play has a lot of tears and a certain amount of coarseness. Write and tell me what you think is wrong, darling, and what they say, and I‟ll correct it. It‟s not too late you know; I could still rework an entire act.”26 Chekhov‟s reaction to Nemirovich-Danchenko‟s initial misunderstanding of the play also reveals itself in a letter to the latter, in which he writes, “Why do you say in your telegram that there are many weepy people in my play' Where are they'...I often use “through her tears” in my stage directions, but that indicates only a character‟s mood, not actual tears. There‟s no cemetery in the second act.”27 It becomes apparent in Chekhov‟s correspondence that he had become worried about the portrayal of the characters he had created. In the same letter to Nemirovich-Danchenko, he discusses the performance of Anya and Varya, saying: Anya never once cries in the play and nowhere does she even have tears in her voice. She may have tears in her eyes during the second act, but her tone of voice is gay and lively…Varya‟s the only one [who cries], and that‟s because she‟s a crybaby by nature. Her tears are not meant to make the spectator feel despondent.28 25 26 Ibid. 158. Karlinsky 458. 27 Ibid. 460. 28 Ibid. 460. Petow-17 Chekhov‟s biggest source of concern was the characterization of Lopakhin. He stresses in a letter to Stanislavsky the importance of correctly portraying Lopakhin and goes into detail about the nature of his character, writing: Lopakhin may be a merchant, but he is a decent person in every sense; his behavior must be entirely proper, cultivated and free of pettiness or clowning…Leonidov would turn it into a cute little kulak. When you‟re selecting an actor for the role, don‟t forget that Varya, a serious and religious young lady, is in love with Lopakhin; she could never have loved a cute little kulak.”29 Chekhov became increasingly concerned with the choice of actors to perform these roles. He knew the actors of the MAT, knew how they would play each character, and had specific ones in mind for most of his major characters. In the same letter to Stanislavsky, Chekhov asks him to take on the role of Lopakhin or Gaev, and if he decides on Gaev, to have the actor Vishnevsky play Lopakhin.30 In a later letter to Nemirovich-Danchenko, he details the particular actors who should perform his characters. He had few qualifications for a specific individual to portray Anya, so long as the actress was young. He was also not set on any one actor to take on the roles of Yepikhodov and Yasha. Varya on the other hand, Chekhov planned for Maria Petrovna Lilina, without whom “the role will seem flat and crude, and I‟ll have to rework it, tone it down.”31 For his wife, Chekhov had chosen the role of Charlotta. He insisted that the role of Pishchik be given to the actor Gribunin, Firs to an actor Artyom, and Dunyasha to Sofya Khalyutin. As for the main female lead, he wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko, “For three years I‟ve been planning to write The Cherry Orchard, and for three years I‟ve been telling you to engage an actress to play the role of Lyubov Andreevna. And now you‟re stuck with a game of 29 30 Ibid. 461. Ibid. 461. 31 Ibid. 462. Petow-18 solitaire that is not working out.”32 He wanted an elderly actress to fill this role, but there were no actresses in the company that met this criterion. Despite these explanations and instructions, what Chekhov specifically had insisted on being a comedy, had been turned by Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko into something with a somewhat different effect. Besides filling a few roles with Chekhov‟s choice of actors, the first production of The Cherry Orchard went against his wishes and was performed as a tragedy, rather than a comedy, leaving many of the important comic elements of Chekhov‟s masterpiece out of the audience‟s sight. Chekhov wrote to Knipper even after the first productions in April 1904: Why is it that my play is persistently called a drama in posters and newspaper advertisements' Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky see in my play something absolutely different from what I have written, and I‟m willing to stake my word on it that neither of them has once read my play through attentively.33 The change did not just affect this one performance or even just those of the MAT, however, but has characterized many of the productions and criticisms of Chekhov‟s masterpiece over the last century. It is clear from his letters that Chekhov had decided that everything in his play – the actors, the stage directions, and the most intricate of details – were intended to contribute to the performance of The Cherry Orchard as first and foremost a comedy. Understanding the comic elements of the original text of the play is essential to gaining a complete understanding of the ramifications of the play and its social and economic context. 32 33 Ibid. 436. Quoted in Beverly Hahn, Chekhov: A Study of the Major Stories and Plays (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 13. Petow-19 Chekhov‟s brand of comedy was not always distinct or definitive. In The Cherry Orchard in particular, he mixes the comedic with the serious, which has tempted critics to focus on the more melancholic elements, instead of those that Chekhov himself viewed as comedic. The subject matter of The Cherry Orchard itself would appeal to the emotional sides of any turnof-the-century Russian audience, regardless of its members own social classes. The comedic elements are subtle and farcical, and, as I will argue, serve to guide the audience‟s critical viewing of the play. When considering this important attribute, however, one must determine what exactly Chekhov considered a comedy and how he viewed the act of writing it. Before Chekhov became famous for his heavy theatrical dramas, he began his career writing short comic stories under the pseudonym, Antosha Chekhonte. In the introduction to his collection of Chekhov‟s comic short stories, Harvey Pitcher discusses the evolution of the writer‟s command of comedic devices. Chekhov adapted accepted and popular conventions of comedic writing to his stories, creating his own successful brand of comedy, which included many conventions which would reappear in his later theatrical writing, including comic twists, “simple mistakes, errors of judgment, mistaken identity, jumping to false conclusions, misinterpreting other people‟s behavior…[and] mutual incomprehension.”34 Pitcher also points out that an element of absurdity colors Chekhov‟s comic writing, which “ranges from the incongruous and the ridiculous to the bizarre, the grotesque and even black humor.”35 Pitcher is quick to distinguish, however, the comedic writings of Chekhonte with those of Chekhov, who gave up the comic twists, but retained a strong sense of comedic irony and the comic absurd. 34 35 Harvey Pitcher, introduction, Chekhov: The Comic Stories (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1999) 3. Ibid. 5. Petow-20 The maturity that characterized Chekhov‟s writings compared to his younger voice under the name Chekhonte also includes a maturing of his use of comedy. 36 Comedic elements and devices can be seen throughout Chekhov‟s work. Even his earliest plays, as Beverly Hahn argues in her discussion of The Cherry Orchard, were written as vaudevilles and farce.37 In her discussion of his writing, Sharon Marie Carnicke attributes its universality and timelessness to the details of it. It can be argued that these same details are where readers and audiences find the Antosha Chekhonte still alive in Chekhov. He contributes to comedic absurdity in his inclusion of non-sequiturs, irrelevant incidents, eccentricities in speech, grandiose philosophizing, and the pregnant pauses of his dialog. 38 Of all his great plays, Chekhov uses these elements most frequently in The Cherry Orchard. His characters, especially those who are most obviously comedic, such as Charlotta and Yepikhodov, sprinkle non-sequiturs and seemingly irrelevant or out of place sayings in their conversations and their interactions with others. Charlotta‟s first line of the play, “My dog eats nuts even,” is one of the most memorable moments of a line spoken outside of the context of the dialog of the scene.39 An irrelevant interruption also occurs when Varya and Anya are speaking after they arrive from the train station, and Lopakhin interrupts their conversation “(Sticking his head in the doorway and bleating) Me-e-eh…”40 Lopakhin‟s interruption functions to characterize his relationship with Varya, but also adds a comedic touch to the scene. Firs‟s depiction also exemplifies the employment of non-sequiturs. His deafness lends him to this 36 Pitcher‟s introduction to his collection is an excellent description of the evolution of Chekhov‟s comedic stories, but also includes some information about the existence of the comedic in his plays, 1-10. 37 Beverly Hahn continues this argument in her book, Chekhov: A Study of the Major Stories and Plays (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 18. 38 Carnicke points to these elements and more in her introduction to her book, Anton Chekhov: 4 Plays & 3 Jokes, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2009) xxxv-xlii. 39 Carnicke includes this example in her explanation, xxxv. 40 Anton Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard, Anton Chekhov’s Selected Plays, trans. Laurence Senelick (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005) 328. Petow-21 convention, as he repeatedly mishears and misinterprets others, interjecting his own, out of place commentary. Their eccentricities are perhaps what make Chekhov‟s plays so interesting, and eccentricities in speech and behavior may be what make some of Chekhov‟s characters equally as compelling. Yepikhodov is an excellent example of one of Chekhov‟s characters whose speech marks him as a clown due to his eccentric grammar, “long, convoluted sentences, and big, elegant, but incorrectly used, words.”41 He in particular presents such a compelling example of a comic character that Ronald LeBlanc focuses on him in his analysis of the comic elements of the play.42 John Styan characterizes Yepikhodov‟s strange speech as, “preposterous…a bundle of malapropisms and stilted turns of speech.”43 His first lines in the play illuminatingly exemplify this style of speech: There‟s a morning frost now, three degrees of it, but the cherries are all in bloom. I can‟t condone our climate. (Sighs.) I can‟t. Our climate cannot be conducive in the right way. Look, Yermolay Alekseich [Lopakhin], if I might append, day before yesterday I bought myself some boots and they, I venture to assure you, squeak so loud, it‟s quite out of the question. What‟s the best kind of grease'44 Some of Chekhov‟s most memorable characters have been characterized as philosophers. But the philosophizing of these characters is often grandiose and convoluted, making them seem more silly than wise.45 Gaev‟s philosophical speech in honor of the cupboard reflects this theme. He salutes the cupboard for its “unspoken appeal to constructive endeavor, [which] has not faltered in the course of a century, sustaining (through tears) in generations of our line, courage, 41 42 Carnicke xxxvii. LeBlanc discusses Yepikhodov and his role in the creation of laughter in The Cherry Orchard in his article, 143154. 43 J.L. Styan, Chekhov in Performance (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 253. 44 Chekhov 323. 45 Carnicke explains her perception of this element, using Trofimov‟s philosophizing as an example of its occurrence in The Cherry Orchard, xxxviii-xxxix. Petow-22 faith in a better future and nurturing within us ideals of decency and social consciousness.”46 His speech is emotional and passionate, with no obvious intention of comedic effect on Gaev‟s part. In this scene, nonetheless, Chekhov mocks Gaev‟s exaltation and personification of the inanimate cupboard. This speech appears also out of line with the dialog occurring beforehand and functions as a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether Chekhov‟s plays are serious or comedic, his pauses are important in guiding the play and function to draw the audience‟s attention to various moments. The pauses in The Cherry Orchard work in the same way. For example, the scene in which Dunyasha expresses her love for Yasha is colored with frequent pauses that frame Yasha‟s treatment of Dunyasha and his humorous acceptance and then dismissal of her affections. Beverly Hahn suggests that Chekhov‟s subtle sense of humor influenced his creation of this type of comedy. Chekhov‟s comedy did not lend itself to easy interpretation by Stanislavsky and contemporary Russian audiences, because, as Hahn argues, there is little evidence in the Russian literary tradition to suggest a background to which Chekhov‟s audiences could have compared the comedy of The Cherry Orchard. Russian audiences had become accustomed to the comedic styles of Gogol, Ostrovsky, and Turgenev, who presented them with a different style of comedy than Chekhov did. Hahn points out that the comedy in the play represents a “stylized, completely distinctive humor arising from calculated pomposities of phrasing and from amusing disjunctions of logic which one almost feels like crystallizing in the space of the indicated pauses.”47 Thus, when analyzing the comedy of The Cherry Orchard, it is important not to focus 46 47 Chekhov 333. Hahn 19. Petow-23 on a limited definition of that term, and attempt to find a slapstick humor or “ludicrous” characters in the play.48 In order to avoid this mistake, one must also look at other important aspects of Chekhov‟s writing essential to understanding The Cherry Orchard. For this play in particular, one must address Chekhov‟s treatment of his subject matter. He was not interested in writing a convoluted philosophical text. He focused in writing his stories and plays on the intricacies and eccentricities of everyday life. When he became aware of the gross misinterpretation of his play by Stanislavsky, he reportedly said, “I am describing life, ordinary life, and not blank depression.”49 He wrote in his letters about upholding the importance of a focus on maintaining verisimilitude and believability in drama. While criticizing a play to Alexei Suvorin, Chekhov wrote, “the most successful [part of the play] was the second act: here the banalities of daily life did manage to break through the magniloquence and high-falutin‟ truths.”50 The Cherry Orchard is a prime example of a play that manages vividly to depict the „banalities of daily life.‟ The characters of the play share with the audience their dreams, their loves, their worries, their billiards strategies, and their concerns about the present, the future, and the furniture, among other minor aspects of their lives. Skaftymov describes Chekhov‟s focus on daily life as the central component of the play.51 This aspect, in fact, becomes one of the most important elements that distinguish it as a comedy, not a tragedy. The moments that critics and Stanislavsky credited to a tragedy are components of these characters‟ everyday lives and exist 48 Hahn, 12-36. She also criticizes Magarshack‟s interpretation of the comedic elements of the play as an adherence “stubbornly and literally to a gusty notion of comedy, accepting Chekhov at what he takes to be his word, and finding situations and even characters throughout the play „ludicrous‟,” 328, see note 21. 49 Vera Gottlieb, “Chekhov‟s Comedy,” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov, eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 231. 50 Piero Brunello and Lena Lencek, eds., How to Write Like Chekhov: Advice and Inspiration, Straight from His Own Letters and Work (Philadelphia: Perseous Book Group, 2008) 11. 51 Skaftymov 69-85. Petow-24 alongside many non-tragic aspects. Chekhov describes how the multi-dimensional characteristics of daily life affect his characters, their behavior, their relationships, and their decisions. These elements include both the humorous and the sad. As David Magarshack points out, “a „comic‟ character is generally supposed to keep an audience in fits of laughter, but that is not always so.”52 Chekhov‟s brand of comedy rises beyond a slapstick, silly clown‟s act. His comedy is full of irony, along with a delicate understanding of and a desire to show the intricacies of human life. His focus on the everyday lives of his characters strives to demonstrate the human condition to his audience. Chekhov was reported as saying: All I wanted to say truthfully to people: „Have a look at yourselves and see how bad and dreary your lives are!‟ – The important point is that people should realize that since when they do, they will most certainly create another, a better, life for themselves. I shall not live to see it, but I know that it will be quite different, quite unlike our present life. And as long as I continue to say to people again and again: „Please, understand that your life is bad and dreary!‟ What is there to cry about in this'53 Thus, without the elements that some find tragic, Chekhov could not have created a comedy as vibrant as The Cherry Orchard. 52 53 David Magarshack, Chekhov The Dramatist (New York: Hill and Wang, 1960) 273. Quoted in Gottlieb, 231, originally from Alexander Tikhonov, Chekhov v neizdannykh dnevikakh sovermenikov, Literaturnoe nasledstvo 68, Moscow (1960) 479-80. Petow-25 Chapter 3: Estrangement in Literature The comic elements of The Cherry Orchard function to steer the audience‟s perception of the play. The clown-like characters, the foolish dreams and desires of the protagonists, and the comic pauses refocus the critical lens of Chekhov‟s audience, allowing it to look more deeply into the social situations, social relationships, and economic undertones of the play. In this honors thesis, I investigate the way in which the interactive relationship between the audience and the play serves to “estrange” the former from its initial personal emotional reaction to the story of the play. At moments when the audience begins to feel sympathy or disappointment towards a certain character, the play alters its perceptions, distracting its attention from an emotional reaction. In order to gain a better understanding of the “estranging” function of these comic elements, one must explore the theories related to the idea of estrangement in literature. The idea of estrangement as a literary device has its roots in Russian literary criticism. Estrangement in literature was an experience familiar to Russian writers before the term was defined by Viktor Shklovsky, the Russian Formalist critic. This artful technique can be found in the writings of Chekhov‟s contemporary Leo Tolstoy in particular. Shklovsky first explored this idea in his article, “Art as Device” in 1917, where he discussed his concept of priyom ostraneniia, which has been translated from the Russian to mean „device for making strange‟ or „defamiliarization device.‟ This term was intended to define the technique Shklovsky had seen in Russian, Romantic, realistic, and modernist art, in which ordinary occurrences were somehow made to be perceived as different, strange, and more noticeable to the reader. In “Art as Device,” Shklovsky describes the function of ostranenie: “The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are Petow-26 known. The technique of art is to make objects „unfamiliar,‟ to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception, because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.”54 Decades after his initial writing on the topic and after reinterpretations by the Soviets and Brecht, Shklovsky again defined his idea as, “a term signifying a specific way of perceiving or revealing an already automatized phenomenon.”55 The term was intended to characterize the creation of something new and unfamiliar out of an experience that had become familiar and ordinary to the reader. Shklovsky‟s understanding of ostranenie later influenced Bertolt Brecht‟s application of the idea of estrangement to the world of theater. Brecht also found inspiration for his ideas in the German literary tradition of theorists of estrangement, including Novalis, Hegel, and Marx.56 Brecht‟s ideas on these writers matured into his theory of the Verfremdungseffekt, which has been loosely translated to mean “alienation” or “estrangement” effect. Brecht characterized this device as, “A representation that alienates is one which allows us to recognize its subject but at the same time makes it appear strange.”57 In his writings and the techniques employed in his own productions, Brecht utilized the Verfremdungseffekt to separate his audience‟s emotions from the play, which he saw as the failure of traditional theatre. Brecht found fault with the goal of the theatre production in classical theatre, particularly Aristotelian theatre, to create a sense of catharsis in one‟s audience. He did not believe that his audience should be spellbound by his plays, become lost in an 54 Viktor Shklovsky, “Art as Device,” Art in Theory 1900-2000, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003) 279-280. 55 Douglas Robinson, Estrangement and the Somatics of Literature: Tolstoy, Shklovsky, Brecht (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008) 29. 56 Robinson includes these influences in his study on Brecht‟s Verfremdungseffekt, 167-168. 57 Quoted in György Lukács, “On Bertolt Brecht,” trans. Rodney Livingstone, New Left Review. I.110 (1978): 89. Petow-27 emotional connection to his plays, or be fooled into believing that the production was reality. He felt that the emotional reaction to the play undermined the message or the effect he was trying to convey to the audience, and made the audience passive, rather than active critical viewers. Brecht sought to use the Verfremdungseffekt in what he called his „epic theatre,‟ “to strip actions or characters of what seems to be self-evident and familiar and to thus create astonishment, curiosity,”58 in order to allow his audience to look more critically at the production. Brecht was a Marxist who believed that the purpose of theatre is to inspire social and revolutionary action in its audience. As Juliet Koss argues, he saw the empathetic response to theatre by an audience as right-wing and repressive, and, “equated it with the politics of identificatory acceptance of the status quo, and estrangement with the liberatory left-wing politics of collective self-realization and self-transformation.”59 With its expected empathetic emotional responses negated by the Verfremdungseffekt, Brecht believed that the audience would be able to become active and critical viewers, instead of being distracted by their emotional reactions. A successful implementation of “estrangement awakens critical thought and so provokes the spectator to rethink and resist dominant capitalist ideologies.”60 The Verfremdungseffekt would encourage the spectator to feel inspired by the production to revolutionary belief and activity. Brecht employed various methods of producing the Verfremdungseffekt. His characters referred to themselves in the third person or had absurd descriptive names that carried certain meanings or contexts, “such as “Lakeitel” for Hitler‟s chief of staff, General Keitel (in German 58 59 Karl Schoeps, Bertolt Brecht (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, 1977) 43. Robinson presents Juliet Koss‟ argument in his discussion of the evolution of Brecht‟s theory, 206. 60 Ibid. 207 Petow-28 Lakai means lackey…).”61 He instructed actors to change tenses in the midst of a sentence. They were trained to avoid producing the undesirable empathetic effects in Brecht‟s audience; “In order to produce A-effects [Verfremdungseffekt] the actor has to discard whatever means he has learnt of getting the audience to identify itself with the characters which he plays.”62 These various methods all serve the purpose of estranging the audience from its initial emotional reaction and encouraging them to focus more critically on what they were being presented with on stage. Chekhov‟s use of comedy in The Cherry Orchard reflects the idea of estrangement as understood by both Shklovsky‟s concept of ostranenie and, especially, Brecht‟s Verfremdungseffekt. The comedy of the play steeps its focus on the action of everyday life. As I have already argued, daily life occupies the center of Chekhov‟s play, and the center of his successful command of the comedic style. The ordinary aspects of the lives of Chekhov‟s characters are emphasized throughout the play, and the least common occurrences, the sale of the orchard and the removal of Lyubov Andreevna‟s family from their estate, are in actuality not the focus of the play. As Shklovsky argues, the function of ostranenie is to estrange the audience from what is already familiar to it. Chekhov concentrated his focus on the „banalities of life‟ in order to highlight the weaknesses and the strengths of his characters. He took the most common of occurrences and made it the fabric of his production, allowing the audience to focus on what it normally would have dismissed as commonplace. The heavy focus on ordinary aspects of life acts to make the content of the play „strange‟ to the audience. 61 62 Schoeps 44. Eagleton 123. Petow-29 I do not mean to argue that Chekhov‟s play exemplifies a Brechtian production. The Russian playwright did not use many of the devices that Brecht employed in alienating his audience from the play. The first production of the play and many stage productions after it certainly have not depicted a Brechtian performance. Instead, I consider Chekhov‟s use of comic devices in The Cherry Orchard a mechanism that serves to estrange the audience from the play, much as Brecht‟s devices would have, in order to discourage a personal emotional or sympathetic connection with the characters and to encourage a critical viewing of the play, as Brecht strived to do. These devices in The Cherry Orchard particularly promote a critical focus on its social and economic elements. Chekhov and Brecht‟s motives for employing this estrangement device were quite different as well, although whether the result is the same could be argued either way. While Brecht applied the Verfremdungseffekt to his productions in order to stir revolutionary spirits and point out social ills to his audience, Chekhov uses his comedic style in The Cherry Orchard to draw the audience‟s attention to what he saw as the basis of everyday life for the Russian people. It happens that, at this time, an important component of the everyday lives of the Russian people was extremely focused on a changing social and economic system. Brecht also hoped to inspire resistance to a dominant capitalist system, whereas Chekhov intended to encourage resistance to the stagnancy of his characters‟ and the Russian people‟s lives. The Marxist critic Lukács has argued specifically that Chekhov‟s drama does not reflect Brecht‟s concept of Verfremdungseffekt.63 According to Lukács, in the development of Verfremdungseffekt, Brecht forsook the literary tradition of theatre. He saw his epic theatre as a successful mode of inspiring social action in his audience, while he considered drama before him 63 Lukács defends his view of the flaws in Brecht‟s theory in his article, 88-92. Petow-30 as merely a representation of society. Lukács argues that Brecht was wrong about the importance of his theory of estrangement; many playwrights, in his opinion had “succeeded not just in surprising the audience, but in moving them profoundly by dramatizing the contradictions of a given social order.”64 Lukács looks specifically to Chekhov as an example of a writer whose work refutes Brecht‟s theory. He claims that Chekhov inspired a reaction to his drama, yet he did so without the aid of alienation affects. Although I agree that Brecht‟s dismissal of the dramatic tradition before him is shortsighted, I do not agree that Chekhov managed to demonstrate social themes and involve his audience in the analysis of them without a degree of alienation. I agree with Lukács‟ assertion that Brecht overlooked Chekhov‟s use of alienation in dismissing the literary tradition before him, but Lukács makes this mistake as well. He admits that in the intense experience of the tragic, the tragi-comic, or, in the case of The Cherry Orchard, the comic, Chekhov forced his audience into what perhaps could be considered one big alienation effect, but, according to Lukács, this fact negates itself, because this element reflects simply a condition of a dramatic production. 65 It can be argued, however, that this estrangement effect, as it is presented in The Cherry Orchard, cannot be considered simply a generic inclusion in a dramatic production. The alienation effect present in the style operates as a peculiar feature of this play. The comedic style of the play functions as an estrangement device, because, as Stanislavsky and many Russian audiences have demonstrated, the plot of the play does not seem at first glance exactly comedic. Chekhov utilizes the sad story of one community, and twists it into a comedy, in order to 64 65 Ibid. 90. Ibid. 90. Petow-31 highlight the dramatic shifts in social order at this time in Russian history. Without the alienating nature of the comedic elements of The Cherry Orchard, the social and economic implications of the play would not be as prevalent, and the audience would not feel compelled to look at the play as critical viewers. Petow-32 Chapter 4: Textual Analysis The comedic plot of The Cherry Orchard represents the fragmented nature of Russian society at this period in history. Characters of varying degrees of social privilege interact with one another on one stage, displaying multi-dimensional and complicated relationships to one another. The members of different classes are not isolated from one another in the play, and heavily influence the behavior, actions, and futures of one another throughout. The plot of The Cherry Orchard is a combination of the intertwining stories of its characters. The characters of the aristocracy - Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, Simeon-Pishchik, Anya – interact continually with those originally of the working or peasant class – Varya, Lopakhin, Trofimov, Charlotta, Yepikhodov, Dunyasha, Firs, and Yasha. These characters are all family, friends, lovers, confidants, servants, or masters to one another, despite their different degrees of wealth and social standing. Styan argues that there are three groups of characters on stage in the play, who represent the passage of time socially.66 I agree with Styan‟s premise in regards to the importance of the social context of the play, but I have reasoned that there are actually four groups of characters on stage, whom can be classified not merely by their social class, but by the economic order under which they live. Chekhov‟s characters derive from different social classes, but also operate under conflicting economic systems – quasi-capitalism, tsarist feudalism, and an undefined system that calls for a hopeful future. These economic groupings are not necessarily dependent on the social classes of individual characters. Through his comedic style, Chekhov demonstrates 66 Styan 242. Petow-33 how the everyday lives of his characters are governed by these three systems and the transition occurring within them67. A fourth collective of characters, on the other hand, does not consider these systems important. They serve as the anchors of Chekhov‟s comedy; they reveal themselves as the clowns of the play. Although these characters are a part of the world in which these systems exist, they survive the play unscathed by the constructs of the systems and little changed by the „tragedies‟ of the play. Through the humor and characterization of these individuals, Chekhov highlights the nature of the other three groups of characters. The fragmented social order of the play puts all the characters at odds with their own economic system and those of others. The moments when the relationships between these systems and the conflict created by them become most apparent to the audience prove to be moments when the comedic style also becomes clearer. This effect is rendered because the humor interrupts the audience‟s initial emotional reactions, inhibiting it from fully sympathizing with or condemning the characters. These comedic moments and the interruption of these emotional responses estrange the audience from the action of the play, by making the commonality of the characters‟ interactions appear new and different to its members. Because they cannot establish these emotional connections to any particular character, the spectators are better able to function as critical viewers of the social and economic conditions of Russia represented in The Cherry Orchard. The first set of characters we encounter in the opening scene operates under the new economic system present in this period, quasi-capitalism. This period in Russian history was a 67 Maurice Valency argues that the play depicts as “world in transition,” but by this, he means the disintegration of the upper class, The Breaking String: The Plays of Anton Chekhov (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966) 271. Petow-34 transitionary period between the economic system of the tsars and the tumultuous revolutionary period that would begin in 1905. Thus, these two characters, Lopakhin and Dunyasha, also demonstrate this element of transition. They understand the importance of the social mobility that has grown out of the reforms of Alexander II. They have accepted the changes new social freedoms have brought them. They are unable, nonetheless, to remove themselves completely from the economic system of the past. Lopakhin, Dunyasha, and, as I will argue later, Yasha demonstrate the way in which one may attain a degree of social mobility, but is still influenced by the constructs of the old social order that remain intact. They also reveal the confused nature of social standing at this time and the desire and new ability of the peasant class to assume to the lifestyle of the upper class. A former peasant, Lopakhin has risen far beyond the social standing of his ancestors, yet he still bears many of the manners, habits, and insecurities of someone of a lower social status. Dunyasha on the other hand is still a house servant, yet she has come to appreciate the behavior of the aristocracy, adopting many mannerisms, habits, and concerns of a lady, despite her profession. The first scene between Lopakhin and Dunyasha both captures the nature of these two characters and demonstrates the peculiar relationship between the two. Only a few lines of dialogue into the scene, Lopakhin‟s first speech describes his nature precisely. He has fallen asleep while waiting for Lyubov Andreevna and her train to arrive. He is left alone in the house with Dunyasha, who finds him and wakes him. After scolding himself for drifting into sleep, he begins to reminisce, saying: I remember, when I was just a kid about fifteen, my late father – he kept a shop in this village back then – punched me in the face with his fist, blood was gushing from my nose...Lyubov Andreevna, I remember as though it was yesterday, still a youngish lady… „Don‟t cry,‟ she says, „my little peasant, you‟ll live long enough to get married…‟ Petow-35 (Pause) My little peasant…My father, true was a peasant, and here I am in a white waistcoat, yellow-high button shoes. Like a big pig on a tray of pastry…Only difference is I‟m rich, plenty of money, if you think it over and work it out, once a peasant, always a peasant.68 This first speech immediately characterizes Lopakhin‟s role in society. He comes from peasant stock, but he was not a land-bound serf in his youth, for his father “kept a shop in the village back then.” As an adult, however, he rose to economic success and wealth. He dresses himself as a gentleman and attempts to act like one (he proceeds to leaf through a book next in this scene), but he still feels as though he is at heart a peasant. Although he has adopted the values and practices of the economic system of capitalism, he retains some elements of the old economic order. Primarily, he cannot remove the connection he feels to his inherited social standing and embrace the new social status that his financial resources have brought him. By the end of the play, we see Lopakhin take on a new social role. After buying the cherry orchard, he becomes not just a wealthy businessman but also a landowner of a great aristocratic estate, on which his ancestors were serfs. One can see that he is clearly not comfortable taking on this new social role, however. Although he rejoices in his newfound status, the audience cannot seriously view him as a true landlord. At the end of Act III, he exclaims, “Music, play in tune! Let everything be the way I want it! (Ironically) Here comes the new landlord, the owner of the cherry orchard! (He accidently bumps into a small table and almost knocks over the candelabrum).” This scene of physical humor illuminates Lopakhin‟s new role, but also demonstrates that he does not naturally belong in it. In this transaction, the audience witnesses a dichotomy between the economic system that allows a former peasant to purchase an estate and at the same time gives him a feudalistic role. The discomfort Lopakhin 68 Chekhov 324. Petow-36 displays also points to his uneasiness with his place in this economic system. He has left behind the old economic order in becoming a capitalist, and cannot truly return to operating under a feudalistic system, regardless of his role in it. Thus, he cannot transform into a true landlord at heart. A Russian audience also could have easily condemned Lopakhin for his purchase of the estate. Chekhov strived to portray him humanely, and not as a money-grubbing kulak.69 The humor inherent in the scene in which he purchases the estate serves to discourage the audience from forming any negative emotional responses to Lopakhin. His clumsiness, discomfort, and genuine bewilderment with his purchase of the estate contribute to the humor in the scene.70 These elements prevent the audience from condemning him or concluding that he has somehow undermined the trust of Lyubov Andreevna and the family. Dunyasha, as we learn, remains a peasant despite the reforms. A maid on the estate, she does not act like a peasant. She acts, according to Lopakhin, “much too delicate…dressing up like a young lady, fixing your hair like one too. Mustn‟t do that,” he warns, “Got to remember who you are.”71 Here, Lopakhin demonstrates the difference between the way Dunyasha functions in this new economic framework and his own social role. He „remembers who he is;‟ he knows that he is a peasant by birth, despite what he has achieved. Dunyasha does not, however. She continually speaks as though she is a lady, telling Lopakhin she is going to faint, and in later scenes, she is shown courted by men, fluttering a fan in front of herself, powdering 69 Magarshack quotes one of Chekhov‟s letters in which he writes, “Lopakhin is a merchant, but he is a decent fellow in every respect; he must behave with the utmost courtesy and decorum,” 275. 70 Edward Braun points out that Lopakhin “seems as bewildered as anyone by his own acquisition of the estate, and he only begins to grasp its full implications when the keys are hurled at his feet by Varya,” “The Cherry Orchard” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov, eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 116. 71 Chekhov 325. Petow-37 her nose in a hand mirror, and otherwise demonstrating her feminine delicateness. She even says in Act II, “I‟m out of touch with ordinary life, and my hands are white as white can be, like a young lady‟s. I‟ve gotten sensitive, so delicate, ladylike.”72 Whereas Lopakhin‟s manners mark him as a peasant, Dunyasha‟s indicate her new social mobility. Her position is the only construct that she retains from her position in the old economic order. She must define her role in the new economic order, nonetheless, in the terms of the old. She adopts the qualities of an aristocratic woman as dictated by the dominant ideological framework of the tsarist feudal system. This aspect again reveals the retention of elements of the old economic order in the development of the new transitionary economic framework of Russian society. The absurdity and naivety of Dunyasha‟s behavior embodies her character with a comedic connotation. The humorous nature of her conduct draws the audience‟s attention to the way in which she views herself in this economic system. The relationships they have with their economic systems alter the way in which Lopakhin and Dunyasha interact with one another. The humor of this first scene lies in this interaction. Lopakhin sees Dunyasha as a fellow peasant, giving her advice and speaking in a familiar tone with her, yet she is still the maid of the household and his financial inferior. He even gives her orders at times; in this scene, for example, he orders her to bring him kvass.73 The humor in this scene exists in their peculiar relationship with each other. Lopakhin is at the same time the social equal, at least in background, of Dunyasha and yet an economic superior. He refers to her in the second person familiar, whereas she refers to him in the second person plural, indicating 72 73 Ibid. 342. Ibid. 325. Petow-38 that he has a higher position than she does.74 At the same time, however, Lopakhin confides in Dunyasha about his peasant past, with an implied expectation that she will understand. His speech falls on deaf ears, however, for she has not yet reaped the full benefits of the social mobility brought by the Emancipation. She is still a house servant, and does not appreciate or perhaps understand Lopakhin‟s concern about the way Lyubov Andreevna will see this changed man. After he finishes his speech, Dunyasha simply comments, “The dogs didn‟t sleep all night.”75 The comic essence of this scene lies in the irrelevancy of this statement to the speech Lopakhin has just presented to the audience. More importantly, this comedic moment calls the audience‟s attention immediately to the disconnect between Lopakhin and Dunyasha. Even they, who operate under the same economic system and share the same background, cannot understand one another as a result of the fragmented nature of the Russian social system. Dunyasha‟s comment also humorously interrupts Lopakhin‟s nostalgic reverie. As the comedic nature of his purchase of the estate prevents the audience from developing a negative opinion of Lopakhin, this scene demands that the audience neither become entangled in his nostalgia, nor develop a sentimental connection to his character. The other major character operating under this new quasi-capitalistic economic system is Yasha, Lyubov Andreevna‟s manservant. Yasha has lived in Paris with Lyubov Andreevna and fancies that he belongs to a higher class than he in reality does. Like Dunyasha, he has adopted the ways and the mannerisms of the upper class, without succeeding professionally or gaining any wealth, as Lopakhin does. Chekhov indicates Yasha‟s behavior in his stage directions. 74 Chekhov emphasized this in particular. In a letter to Stanislavsky, he writes, “Dunya and Yepikhodov stand in Lopakhin‟s presence, they do not sit. Lopakhin after all deports himself freely, like a lord, uses the second person singular in speaking to the housemaid, whereas she uses the second person plural to him,” Laurence Senelick, ed. and trans., Anton Chekhov’s Selected Plays (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005) 454. 75 Chekhov 324. Petow-39 When he is first introduced to the stage, Chekhov directs, “Yasha (Crossing the stage; in a refined way).” Yasha relates to this economic system much like Dunyasha. He has altered his behavior to reflect the refined nature of an aristocrat, but has not significantly expanded his financial resources. The relationship between Yasha and Dunyasha distinctly highlights the way in which the lower classes have come to adopt the behavior of the upper classes. Yasha and Dunyasha enact a handful of romantic courting scenes, in which at times they appear to play the roles of aristocratic ladies and gentlemen in love. As Styan points out in his analysis, Yasha “and Dunyasha are well matched: she responds like the caricature of a lady,”76 to his gentleman‟s role. In their first encounter,77 Yasha grabs Dunyasha and kisses her secretly, and does the same in their second scene together. In the later scene, however, Dunyasha confesses that she is in love with him because “you‟re educated, you can discuss anything.”78 In actuality, however, there is no reason to believe that Yasha is any more educated than Dunyasha herself; they have both gained their knowledge from working for the upper classes, not from any formal studies. As I stated in an earlier section, these scenes are characterized by frequent pauses in their speech and interruptions by others that frame Yasha‟s treatment of Dunyasha and his humorous acceptance and then dismissal of her affections. These pauses emphasize the humor of the scene, but also prevent the audience from taking the behavior of the lovers too seriously. They make their actions and their speech seem unnatural, as it is to their social roles. The pauses also interrupt Dunyasha‟s emotional reaction to Yasha‟s propositions. This effect is mirrored in the audience, 76 77 Styan 261. Styan also argues that this first encounter serves a comedic purpose. The scene immediately follows the conversation between Varya and Anya about the imminent loss of the estate, and this scene of “broad comedy is used again to dispel the note of despair,” 261. 78 Chekhov 342. Petow-40 as it averts an emotional response, and draws its attention to the absurdity of the lovers‟ behavior. Yasha also has a complex relationship with his own social class, due to his investment in the new economic system that has enabled him to gain a higher social position. He views the peasantry with contempt, despite still belonging to it. In Act III, for example, he begs Lyubov Andreevna to take him back to Paris with her if she is to return, citing the inhabitable nature of the countryside in saying, “You can see for yourself, the country‟s uncivilized, the people immoral; not to mention the boredom, in the kitchen they feed us garbage, and there‟s that Firs going around, muttering all kinds of improper remarks.”79 In the last act while speaking to Lopakhin, he refers to the visitors as “the common people,” saying, “they‟re decent enough people but not very bright.”80 Yasha proves himself as bad if not worse than the people he finds contemptible, nonetheless. Throughout the entirety of the play, he is smoking cigars, molesting Dunyasha, or drunk. He is in fact in no condition to be critical of any class, especially his own. The haughty airs he puts on in speaking of his own class emphasize the absurdity of his statements and make him into a comic character. The ridiculousness of the criticisms also acts to draw the audience‟s attention to his behavior, so that it does not take Yasha or his vapid statements seriously and comes to realize that he is truly a disingenuous character. While Lopakhin, Dunyasha, and Yasha embrace the new economic system and adopt the social mobility offered to them by it, several other characters ardently refuse to change in either sense. These characters remain governed by the economic system of tsarist feudalism, in which the upper classes unquestionably rule the social order, and the lower classes remain 79 80 Ibid. 358. Ibid. 362. Petow-41 unquestionably subservient. This economic system is represented in the characters of Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, Simeon-Pishchik, Varya, and Firs. As the lower class tries to become more like the upper class, the members of the aristocracy strive to hold onto their lifestyle, which is slowly slipping out of their grasp and becoming more and more financially impossible to maintain. The members of the landed gentry in the play, Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, and Simeon-Pishchik, go to great lengths in an attempt to maintain the façade that their life has not been affected by the transition to a new economic system. They refuse to acknowledge or accept the changing economic and social systems around them, and their behavior reflects this lack of transition. All of these characters‟ futures are uncertain, but their habits and behavior do not reflect it. When we first encounter Lyubov Andreevna, the audience quickly realizes her emotional connections with the estate and the nostalgia she feels for the nursery and the cherry orchard. Lyubov Andreevna bears such a strong emotional connection with the cherry orchard and she cannot fathom the possibility that it will be lost. One definitive example of this attitude occurs in Act I, when she gazes on the orchard from the house, saying, “O, my childhood, my innocence! I slept in this nursery, gazed out at the orchard, happiness awake with me every morning, and it was just the same then, nothing has changed.”81 Her view of the estate is idealistic and childish. Her overbearing emotional attachment to the estate is highlighted by her repeated reference to her childhood innocence and made ironic by her generally childish behavior. Lyubov Andreevna acts as independent as a child. Her entire 81 Ibid. 335. Petow-42 livelihood depends on the decisions of others, because she refuses to make any decisions of her own or accept any responsibility for her actions. Gaev, Lyubov Andreevna‟s brother, appears as childish as she is nostalgic. He spends his time sucking on candies, playing billiards, and being catered to by Firs. His name even reflects his behavior and indicates that he is a comic, not a tragic character. Gaev is related phonetically to the word “gaer” in Russian, which means, “buffoon.” 82 Like Lyubov Andreevna, his livelihood depends on the decisions of others, and his economic stability has been whittled away by the mismanagement of his finances. He describes his lot when he says, laughing, “They say I‟ve eaten up my whole estate in hard candies.”83 Gaev relates to most occurrences in his life in this way; perhaps he only takes billiards strategies seriously. His lack of seriousness repeatedly attempts to turn the attention of other characters away from the sadness of the situations in the play. In the first act, Lyubov Andreevna becomes upset thinking of Paris after receiving a telegram from her lover, in response to which Gaev immediately begins his ridiculous speech in honor of the bookcase‟s hundredth anniversary. This can also been seen, when upon returning home to Lyubov Andreevna‟s pleas to tell her what occurred at the auction, all Gaev can speak of are the anchovies and smoked herring he bought while in town. By deflecting Lyubov Andreevna‟s reactions to situations with humor or absurd statements, Gaev also effectively deters the audience from the emotional appeal of these moments. Simeon-Pishchik shares many similarities with the siblings. An aristocrat by birth, he would rather collect a large sum of debts, before admitting that he faces bankruptcy. He constantly borrows money from Lyubov Andreevna and Lopakhin throughout the play, with 82 83 See footnote 3 on Senelick 323. Chekhov 344. Petow-43 little apparent intention to pay it back exhibited until the final act. Pishchik‟s name also indicates from the beginning of the play that he functions as a comic character. The etymological origin of his name in Russian reflects a peculiar combination of an aristocratic surname with a ridiculous and contrived name that resembles the verb pishchat, to chirp,84 marking him as not a serious character. He lives up to his name throughout the play, acting as an absurd mixture of noble concerns and manners and a jumble of bizarre, nonsensical comments that he unnecessarily contributes to conversations in between falling asleep midsentence. Like Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev, Pishchik does not view himself as responsible for the occurrences in his life, especially those that involve economic transactions. The landed gentry in the play do not consider themselves active participants in the economic structure of society – in neither the new quasi-capitalist nor the old tsarist feudal system. Their inactive role in the former structure of the Russian economy was condoned by the tsarist system, in which financial resources were freely available to them, but the new system does not make these assets directly accessible to them, and thus they are unable to function economically, splurging their money and paying no attention to their debts. In order to ignore their changing role in the economic system, Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, and Pishchik disregard the presence of change and the passing of time throughout the play. When Lyubov Andreevna first encounters the family and friends, whom she has not seen in years, she remarks repeatedly how no one and nothing has changed. Gaev also points to how little is different about Lyubov Andreevna. When Lopakhin begs the siblings to make a decision regarding the estate, saying “time won‟t stand still,”85 both change the subject, seemingly 84 85 Again, see footnote 3 on Senelick 323. Chekhov 342. Petow-44 ignoring his words. The lives of the members of the aristocracy are colored by a sense of stagnancy, and they have no desire for this to change. Pishchik‟s fate is saved at the end of the play, but it is not his own economic wisdom or even his own decisions that rescue him financially. Instead, the outside influence of English capitalists restores his financial stability. Gaev and Lyubov Andreevna find salvation as well, also not from their own actions, but from the intervention of capitalism. Gaev receives a position at a bank, while Lyubov Andreevna is saved by Lopakhin‟s purchase of the estate. Without the debts owed on the estate, Lyubov Andreevna may return to Paris and her lover, and continue her life as before. On the one hand, this validates the lack of responsibility of the gentry, while on the other hand, it demonstrates that their economic system has become obsolete, and only moving away from it can save them from financial ruin. Although none of the members of the landed gentry actually transform into quasi-capitalists or even truly recognize its function in their lives, their fates demonstrate that they have lost their purpose and “have no longer any function in the world.”86 Valency calls them, “vestiges of the past which must be cleared away before the future can take its proper form.”87 Firs, like the gentry, views himself as an inactive participant in the economic framework of the world around him. He believes that the time before the Emancipation was better, even though he was a land-bound serf. He lives in the past. When he discusses the orchard, he says, “In the old days, forty-fifty years back, cherries were dried, preserved, pickled…Then there was 86 87 Valency 281. He compares the aristocracy to the cherry orchard, which has similarly lost its function. Ibid. 281. Petow-45 money!”88 His livelihood is wrapped up in the existence of the aristocracy. When Lyubov Andreevna returns home, he rejoices, “My mistress has come home! I‟ve been waiting! Now I can die…”89 He feels out of place in the new economic system and looks to the past as a source of comfort. Firs maintains the behavior and the manners he possessed before the Emancipation. He wears a white waistcoat and waits on the members of the upper class without trying to act like one of them. Nevertheless, his age of eighty-seven has taken a toll on him. Firs is nearly deaf, and his deafness contributes to the humor of the play, as he is constantly mishearing what others say. His comments are often out of line with the dialog of the play or continue on long after the conversation has ended. This aspect of his behavior demonstrates Firs‟s inability to understand the world around him. As he literally cannot hear what others are saying, he also cannot process the economic and social changes that dictate his present life. He alludes to the Emancipation to Lopakhin, saying, “The peasants stood by the masters, the masters stood by the peasants, but now it‟s every which way, you can‟t figure it out.”90 Firs cannot figure it out – he cannot understand why the line between peasant and master and their loyalty to one another is not as clear anymore. Firs‟s humorous misunderstandings serve to draw the audience‟s attention to the inability of Chekhov‟s stagnant characters to understand the changes that are occurring. His absurd remarks also turn the audience‟s focus to the absurdity of Firs‟s and the gentry‟s confused relationship with their economic system. Varya exhibits a different relationship to her economic system, although she remains under the constructs of the old economic order. She is a practical, but an emotional woman 88 89 Chekhov 332. Ibid. 330. 90 Ibid. 346. Petow-46 (Chekhov calls her a „cry baby by nature‟91). She comes from peasant stock, but was raised as the adopted daughter of Lyubov Andreevna. She runs the estate in Lyubov Andreevna‟s absence and goes to great lengths to maintain its economic stability. Although frustrated by her adopted mother‟s inability to cope with the decline of the estate, Varya does not offer any suggestions or advice to save it. She simply becomes upset when the problem is discussed, often crying out of frustration. Unlike the other characters of her economic class, nonetheless, Varya accepts change, despite lacking the assertiveness to enact it. She is not content with her life or her economic system. Two options exist for Varya in the play: become a nun or marry Lopakhin. Neither of these possibilities comes to fruition by the end, but Varya‟s lack of opposition to them demonstrates that she is not as stagnant as the other characters. Both of these futures would involve moving away from this economic system. By marrying Lopakhin, she would be entering into a transaction that is in actuality more financial than romantic. In becoming a nun, the future she prefers, she would be forsaking any economic structure. The possibilities of these two futures exemplify the discomfort Varya finds in the old economic order and her role within it. While these characters remain stagnant in an obsolete economic system, two of the other major characters operate under the dream of a future economic and social order, which is viewed idealistically and rejects the old order. Trofimov and Anya are the only two characters who view the old tsarist economy skeptically, but have not yet adopted completely the new quasi-capitalist economic order. Instead, the two lovers look to the future, not the past or the present, for a source of hope and comfort. When at the end of the play, the other characters mourn the loss of 91 Karlinsky 480. Petow-47 the estate and the old economic order, Anya and Trofimov contribute to the dialog of the last act saying, “Anya: „Goodbye, house! Goodbye, old life!‟ Trofimov: „Hello, new life!‟”92 Anya, the daughter of an aristocratic lady and a lawyer, embodies the promise of youth and the future. 93 When Anya first comes home, Varya fawns over her, calling her “my pride and joy” and saying, “My Darling‟s here again! My beauty‟s here again!”94 Lyubov Andreevna sees the salvation of the estate not in the management of their financial resources, but in Anya‟s marriage to a wealthy man. Anya understands, however, the heartache her mother‟s financial incompetence has caused her family, and looks toward the future and love for a better life. She does not find love in the form a wealthy man, despite the hopes of the family, but in Trofimov, although he insists that the couple is „above love.‟ Trofimov operates in Chekhov‟s comedy as a perpetual student. He has been expelled repeatedly from the university by tsarist decrees and for his political activities.95 Trofimov is well educated, yet has experienced hardship. He sees the faults of feudalistic Russia, but he also sees the lack of fulfillment of the promises of the reforms and changes towards a new economic order. In Act II, for example, in his perhaps most memorable speech of the play, he reminds Anya that: Your grandfather, great-grandfather, and all your ancestors were slave-owners; they owned living souls; and from every cherry in the orchard, every leaf, every tree trunk there must be human beings watching you, you must hear voices…They owned living souls – it‟s corrupted all of you, honestly, those who lived before and those living 92 93 Chekhov 370 Slonim 137. 94 Chekhov 327. 95 Karlinsky points out that since Turgenev‟s Month in the Country the stereotype of the “Idealistic, RevolutionaryMinded Student” had been a construct of theater, (Anton Chekhov Life and Thought) 443. Thus, the character of Trofimov would not have been overtly surprising to a Russian audience. Petow-48 now…before we start living in the present we must first atone for our past, put an end to it, and we can atone for it only through suffering.”96 Trofimov suggests in this excerpt that before the old order can pass away, the Russian people have to come to terms with the economic system under which they lived for centuries. He criticizes the old economic order and convinces Anya to reject it as well, begging her in Act II, “If you have the housekeeper‟s keys, throw them down the well and go away. Be free as the wind.”97 The future Trofimov offers Anya is blissful and idyllic. Trofimov suggests that happiness is just out of reach for the Russian people – “Here‟s happiness, here it comes, drawing closer and closer, I can already hear its footsteps.”98 Despite the seriousness of Trofimov‟s speeches, however, he remains a comic character, because in actuality he is as inactive as the characters he criticizes. As Magarshack puts it, “Trofimov sees through everyone except himself.”99 Nearly thirty and still a student at the university, he criticizes educated intellectuals who philosophize and yet do nothing to solve the hardships of the peasantry or the workers. Yet all Trofimov does throughout the play is point out the faults of others and talk about how he has not proposed to Anya because they are „beyond love.‟ He does nothing to actually institute the change of which he dreams. During Act III, Trofimov even becomes highly agitated and threatens to leave, when Lyubov Andreevna begins to pick fun at him, saying, “You should act like a man – at your age you should understand people in love. And you should be in love yourself…you‟re simply a 96 Chekhov 350. The lines from “They owned human souls” through to “those living now” and slightly further in the originally text were removed by Chekhov before the first performance to conform to the censor. They were reinserted in 1917. See footnote 4, Senelick 350. 97 Chekhov. 350. 98 Ibid. 351. 99 Magarshack 283. Petow-49 puritan, a funny crackpot, a freak…”100 He runs out of the room after this, but the seriousness of his offense is undermined by him immediately falling down the stairs. The next characters that enter, Anya and Varya, laugh at his expense. This scene and other comic renderings of Trofimov undercut the seriousness of his speeches and make his hypocrisy humorous. The humor also highlights the uneasiness with which Trofimov interacts with his own economic system and the fragmented social and economic system of this period. Unlike the other major characters of the play, two characters operate outside of a dominant economic or social system. They do not share the same concerns as the other major characters in the play, and serve as a source of humor and frustration for them. These are Chekhov‟s clowns, Charlotta and Yepikhodov. Charlotta makes clear that she does not function under the same system as the Russian characters. She does not even have an internal passport.101 Charlotta continually amuses and entertains the other characters – from her jokes in the orchard to her card tricks at the ball. Yepikhodov is a more unaware source of amusement for the other characters. Styan calls him “the most outright buffoon in the play.”102 His nickname is even amusing: everyone calls him dvadtsat-dva neschastiia, or Twenty-two Misfortunes.103 In terms of economic and social systems, he appears to be confused about where exactly he fits in the social order of the play. A simple clerk, he amusingly attempts to speak like an intellectual,104 while also courting the maid, Dunyasha. These two characters exist on the periphery of the play, 100 101 Chekhov 356. Ibid. 340, her first line of Act II. 102 Styan 333. 103 This is a literal translation from the original Russian, Anton Chekhov, Vishnjovyj sad, Anton Chekhov: Rasskazy. povesti p'esy (Moscow: Eksmo, 2008) 779. Sennelick‟s translation to English employs the term, “Tons of Trouble,” despite offering the alternate translation in a footnote. I agree with LeBlanc and other critics‟ arguments, however, that the direct translation is more appropriate and more in line with the effect created by the repetition of the term “neschastie” throughout the play. For this honors thesis, I will use the original translation in reference to Yepikhodov‟s name. 104 LeBlanc describes this characteristic of Yepikhodov‟s nickname in his article, 144-154. Petow-50 interjecting into the action of the play when necessary to draw the audience‟s attention back to the matter at hand. As clowns, they fulfill their humorous role and, as Bakhtin might have argued, demonstrate the way in which laughter can subvert the dominant ideology of the world around them. Charlotta and Yepikhodov exist outside of the dominant ideological framework and the economic systems encompassed by it. They serve to challenge the seriousness of the dialog between these economic systems by pointing to and highlighting the weaknesses of the characters operating under them and the absurdity of their interactions with one another. More importantly perhaps than the way Chekhov shows characters influenced by the same ideology interacting with other another, is the way in which he depicts the relationships and interchanges between characters of different economic and social systems. He demonstrates this through their courtship behaviors, through their economic transactions, and through their entertainment of one another, all of which take on humorous and comedic tones throughout the play. There are four couples courting one another in the play – Anya and Trofimov, Dunyasha and Yasha, Varya and Lopakhin, and Dunyasha and Yepikhodov. Although none of these characters marry in the end, their courtship highlights the differences and the similarities between them and the way each one of them behaves within the economic system in which they live. As I have already discussed, Anya and Trofimov, along with Dunyasha and Yasha, operate under the same economic systems. Their relationships function to characterize the individual lovers and demonstrate the way in which they interact with their own economic system, while the flirtation of the other couples, Varya and Lopakhin and Dunyasha and Yepikhodov depict the clash of different economic systems. Petow-51 Despite Varya and Lopakhin speaking of marriage to everyone else, they never talk about it with each other. Lyubov Andreevna expects to marry her foster daughter off to the rich businessman, and it seems that the entire community is aware of this arrangement. Lopakhin does not propose, however, and Varya seems embarrassed by the idea and longs for the life of a pilgrim or a nun. The inability of the lovers to connect romantically and to marry is rooted in their differing social and economic outlooks and is the source of their truly comic relationship. The audience first witnesses an interaction between the two characters in Act I. While Varya speaks seriously with Anya about the loss of the estate, Lopakhin interrupts the sisters, “Sticking his head in the doorway and bleating,”105 before running away. From this moment when the audience first becomes acquainted with their relationship, it is marked as comic, which further colors their perceptions of it throughout the remainder of the production. This comedic moment also serves to turn the audience‟s attention away from the discussion of the sale of the estate. The ridiculous exchange prompts Anya to ask her sister if Lopakhin has proposed yet. Anya says to her, “He does love you. Why don‟t you talk it over…”106 The question of Lopakhin‟s love is never answered in the play, however. He never shows any affection for Varya and all of his interactions with her are accompanied by jokes. Later in Act II, when Varya becomes upset by her mother‟s comments about her potential engagement to Lopakhin in his presence, he replies, “Okhmeliya, get thee to a nunnery,”107 making fun of her prudish nature. Even when he is not making jokes at Varya‟s expense, their interactions still remain comic, as in the scene in Act III, when Varya tries to hit Yepikhodov and instead strikes Lopakhin, as he 105 106 Chekhov 328 Ibid. 328 107 Chekhov (Vishnjovyj sad) 804. Here Lopakhin is incorrectly quoting Shakespeare‟s Hamlet. Petow-52 enters with news of his purchase. This scene of physical humor characterizes their relationship and draws the audience‟s attention away from the tension of the scene over the sale of the orchard. The comic nature of their relationship and the economic connection between the two demonstrates to the audience the inability of the two lovers to understand one another due to their differing economic systems. As Magarshack argues, Lopakhin‟s awareness of Varya‟s social position, as the foster daughter of an aristocratic lady, prevents him from feeling socially able to purpose to her, while Varya is at the same time bound by the convention that a lady must wait for the gentleman‟s proposal.108 Thus, it is the inherent insecurity of a peasant in Lopakhin‟s character, ingrained in him by the confused nature of this economic system, which causes him to “treat Varya with such good humored contempt.”109 The courtship between Dunyasha and Yepikhodov appears equally as hopeless and comic as that of Varya and Lopakhin. In fact, Yepikhodov‟s courtship of Dunyasha mimics that of Varya and Lopakhin and ultimately turns the audience‟s attention to the nature of the latter‟s relationship. LeBlanc argues that the connection between the two couples is ingrained in the play, beginning with the first scene, in which Dunyasha speaks of Yepikhodov‟s proposal to Lopakhin, establishing a link between the two suitors.110 Yepikhodov‟s comic inability to woo Dunyasha is established from the opening scene, when he brings Dunyasha flowers, and upon leaving, knocks over a chair. The first scene also creates a communicative disconnect between the two lovers and connects it with the character of Lopakhin, when Dunyasha explains to him, “He‟s a quiet sort, but sometimes he just starts talking, and you can‟t understand a word. It‟s 108 109 Magarshack 279. Ibid. 279. 110 LeBlanc 150. Petow-53 nice and it‟s sensitive, only you can‟t understand a word.”111 This physical humor and comic lack of communication is mirrored in the relationship of Varya and Lopakhin throughout the play. It also demonstrates that there is a communicative disconnect between both the couples, which it can be argued results from their conflicting economic systems. As much as Lopakhin cannot grasp Varya‟s romantic intentions, he fails to understand the intentions of the characters with whom he discusses or engages in economic transactions. His inability to relate to the economic systems of the other characters, especially those operating under the old economic order, is demonstrated in his conversations with Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev. Lopakhin serves a central role, however, in the economic system of the play as a whole, because he is the only one with any financial resources. Due to the stagnancy of their role in the economic system of the play, Gaev and Lyubov Andreevna are financially destitute; they do not have enough money to support themselves, let alone to save the estate. These characters look to Lopakhin as a source of advice and as a supply of loan money. In Act II, Lyubov Andreevna begs him, “But, what are we supposed to do' Teach us, what'”112 As the successful capitalist of the play, Lopakhin has a foundation of understanding of the economic system during this period, which the members of the aristocracy lack. Trofimov tells a joke in Act II, which not only makes everyone laugh, but also characterizes Lopakhin‟s role in this economic system. In rebuff to a criticism by him, Trofimov says, “You‟re a rich man, soon you‟ll be a millionaire. And just as an essential component in the conversion of matter is the wild beast that devours whatever crosses its path, you‟re essential.”113 This line is supposed to be a joke, and as the stage directions indicate, amuses the rest of the 111 112 Chekhov 325. Ibid. 343. 113 Ibid. 346. Petow-54 characters in the scene. It also draws the audience‟s attention, however, to the nature of Lopakhin‟s relationship with the other characters. He is essential to the economic framework of the play because he stands as the only financially stable individual. Trofimov‟s comment also alludes to economic systems in a larger sense. According to Marx, capitalism is a required step of socialism. Trofimov‟s ideas about society unavoidably connect him to a socialist perspective, and so this line could allude to the necessity in his mind of capitalists as the country moves on the path to a different economic change. By connecting Lopakhin to this idea, it would seem that Chekhov equates his frugality with a capitalistic framework. In Act I, Lopakhin offers Lyubov Andreevna his plan to help the family sell the land to summer tenants for vacation homes. He paints a happy economic picture for Lyubov Andreevna; lease the land, chop down the orchard, and she will be financially stable for years. But the idea of destroying the orchard does not sit well with Lyubov Andreevna, and she says, “My dear, forgive me, but you don‟t understand at all.”114 She is right, of course; Lopakhin does not understand, but neither does she. The values of the two characters derive from two different sets of economic systems and cannot be reconciled with one another. Lyubov Andreevna wants Lopakhin‟s help, but she dismisses his capitalistic ideas. To Lyubov Andreevna‟s begging in Act II, he says, “I teach you every day. Every day I tell you one and the same thing. Both the cherry orchard and the land have got to be leased…do it right now, immediately…Can‟t you understand' Decide once and for all…they‟ll lend you as much money as you want, and then you‟ll be saved.”115 But, Lyubov Andreevna and Gaev do not, or perhaps cannot, understand Lopakhin‟s mindset – they simply respond to him by saying that the idea of cottages on their land seems vulgar to them. Lopakhin becomes incensed, but Lyubov Andreevna quickly 114 115 Ibid. 323. Ibid. 343. Petow-55 dismisses his negative emotional reaction, successfully soothing him, as Gaev strives to detract the focus of the conversation by interjecting with billiards speech. Their dismissal of Lopakhin‟s reaction exemplifies the siblings‟ refusal to acknowledge change, but also stirs the audience‟s attention away from the strong emotional reaction of Lopakhin, and deters its members from establishing a similar reaction of their own. Like Lopakhin, Anya also finds difficulty in understanding her mother. At the end of the play, Anya accepts the sale of the orchard without the grief that is experienced by her mother. One can account for Anya‟s acceptance by looking at the economic system under which she operates. Her entire ideological focus is on the future, whereas her mother‟s is invested in the past. Before departing from the estate, Lyubov Andreevna asks, “My precious, you‟re radiant, your eyes are sparkling like two diamonds. Are you happy' Very'” to which she answers, “Very! A new life is beginning, Mama!”116 Although it appears at first that in this scene Lyubov Andreevna comforts her daughter, promising her that she will return from Paris one day, in actuality it is Anya assuring her mother that the future will be bright. Where Lyubov Andreevna found loss, Anya discovers a future. The solace she finds her in beliefs about the future demonstrates how differently the economic systems of the two women govern their understanding of the changing world around them. Immediately following the scene between mother and daughter, Charlotta enters and interrupts the action of the scene. The audience‟s attention is refocused on her performance, which begins to mimic the exchange between Lyubov Andreevna and Anya. Charlotta holds a bundle like a swaddled baby, which she appears to be comforting, but she then quite abruptly throws the bundle down. Her performance is intended to be amusing. It functions to draw the 116 Ibid. 366. Petow-56 audience‟s attention away from the previous exchange and to halt any personal emotional reaction it could derive from it. In this scene and in others, it becomes clear that as a clown of the play, Charlotta is intended to amuse the other characters and the audience, but through her humor she also guides the audience‟s attention toward a critical view other characters‟ values. Chekhov stressed in his letters that the role of Charlotta was important and to be portrayed as funny.117 When the audience first encounters Charlotta, her first line, the non-sequitur, “My dog eats nuts even,”118 distracts it from the nostalgic reminisces of Lyubov Andreevna and the complaints of the other characters. This example is just the first of many instances in the play where Charlotta‟s lines interrupt the dialog of the other characters in a comedic way, drawing the audience‟s attention away from the concerns of the serious characters, and allowing it to be, like Charlotta, critical of them. Charlotta‟s magic acts also serve to turns the audience‟s focus away from the worries of the others. Her series of magic tricks in Act III shift the attention of the audience from the sale of the auction, which is the central theme at the beginning of the act, to her act. At first, Lyubov Andreevna worries about the outcome of the auction, but this concern is forgotten as soon as Charlotta begins the card trick. Her tricks function like the other comic elements of the play, to remove the audience from the serious concerns of the other characters. Charlotta‟s interruptions criticize the other characters, but it seems they never become aware of the criticisms, for in most places, the other characters do not respond to her comments. For example, in the opening scene of Act II, Charlotta sits in a field with Yepikhodov, Dunyasha, 117 118 Senelick 452. Chekhov 326. Petow-57 and Yasha. Charlotta explains her past and her feelings of loneliness, but none of the other characters responds to her, they simply carry on listening to Yepikhodov play guitar. She says after her speech and a pause, “It would be nice to talk to someone, but there is no one…I have no one.”119 It can be argued that this statement is not a melancholy statement, as it would be if this were a tragedy. Because Charlotta is a comic character, it functions more as a comic criticism of the other characters. As she goes on to say several lines later in the conversation with the other characters in the field, “These clever people are all so stupid there‟s no one for me to talk to. No one…All alone, alone. I‟ve got no one…and who I am, why I am, I don‟t know.”120 The lack of acknowledgment of her criticisms demonstrates how out of touch the other characters are with the ideological framework of the world around them and their inability to fully comprehend the characters of other economic systems. This type of criticism also occurs in the last act when Lyubov Andreevna and Anya comfort each other. Charlotta‟s final words of the play demonstrate these aspects of her character. After throwing the bundle to the floor, she asks Lyubov Andreevna to find her a new position, saying, “There‟s nowhere for me to live in town. Have to go away…What difference does it make'” Charlotta‟s general indifference to the concerns of the other characters of the play is embedded in this final line. The loss of the estate, the financial ruin of the family, and the destruction of the cherry orchard do not make any difference to Charlotta. Her comedic manner demonstrates throughout the play that the concerns of characters of different economic systems are not in actuality as serious as they make them, because the characters outside of the limits of these systems are not affected by or even concerned with them. 119 120 Ibid. 340. Ibid. 341. Petow-58 The other clown in the play, Yepikhodov, is repeatedly connected with the other characters. As LeBlanc argues, Yepikhodov‟s name alone creates a thread throughout the play of comic associations.121 Yepikhodov‟s nickname, Twenty-Two Misfortunes, is first given a comic connotation at the opening of the play, when he tells Lopakhin, “Every day I experience some kind of hard luck. But I don‟t complain, I‟m used to it. I even smile.”122 This idea is repeated in Dunyasha‟s comments about him, “As a person he‟s always in trouble, something goes wrong every day. So around here we‟ve taken to calling him Tons of Trouble [Twenty-two Misfortunes].”123 The Russian terms that comprise his nickname, as LeBlanc points out, dvadtsat-dva and neschastiia are repeated throughout the play.124 When the first breaking string is heard in Act II, Firs makes the comment that, “Before the troubles came it was the same: the screech owl hooted and the samovar never stopped humming. Gaev: Before what troubles' Firs: Before freedom.”125 The word “troubles” in this excerpt is translated from the original Russian, “neschastyem.”126 The link to Yepikhodov‟s name unavoidably colors this exchange as comic. This connection with the comedic undermines the seriousness with which Firs views the troubles that he witnessed arrive with the Emancipation and indicates to the audience the absurdity of Firs unrelenting focus on this “neschastie.” His statements represent another example of the stagnancy of his relationship with the ideological and economic framework of the period, which is then undermined by the comic association with Yepikhodov. 121 122 LeBlanc 144-154. Chekhov 325. 123 Ibid. 326. 124 Le Blanc 144-154. 125 Chekhov 348. 126 Chekhov (Vishnjovyj Sad) 803. Petow-59 Lopakhin announces the date on which the estate will be auctioned at the beginning of the play, the twenty-second of August, which is then repeated by other characters in later scenes. Lyubov Andreevna, Gaev, and many of the other characters view the sale of the estate as a “neschastie” as well. The connection this establishes between the estate and Yepikhodov‟s comic character downplays the seriousness with which the other characters view the sale, however. In the end of the play, in fact, the sale of the orchard has not had tragic effects on any of the characters. They all seek out different or better lives and move on past their time at the cherry orchard. Even Firs finds a time to rest after the sale of the estate. 127 127 I agree with Magarshack‟s analysis of the final scene that many have sentimentalized the scene and interpreted it to mean that Firs meets “neschastie,” namely his death, at the end of the play, 287-286. Petow-60 Conclusion I have argued that an important aspect of the play relates to the ideological structure of the lives of Chekhov‟s characters. He demonstrates all degrees of interaction with various economic systems in order to present to his audience a multidimensional representation of the framework of Russian life as he viewed it. The Cherry Orchard can be interpreted by many schools of literary criticism, but the Marxist focus on the economic and social components of the play cannot be dismissed, for these elements function as a central aspect of the plot and the lives of each individual character. Chekhov‟s structure unavoidably turns the audience‟s attention to the economic constructs that define his characters, their relationships, and their behaviors. As Magarshack argues, “many unnecessary tears have been shed over this play,”128 but the repeated attempts to draw the audience away from its initial perceptions through representations of absurdly inept attempts at economic transactions and social interactions prove that Chekhov‟s play is truly a comedy at heart. The clowns, Yepikhodov and Charlotta, the comedic devices, and humorous moments present in the play function to draw our attention to the inadequacies and foolishness of the characters who do subscribe to particular economic orders. Without the comic devices in the play, a turn-of-the-century Russian audience could have easily found a sense of longing for the old economic system, a condemnation of the new quasicapitalistic order, or a distrust of the future. Chekhov strived to represent a picture of everyday life in all its absurdities, ridiculousness, and beauty. The comic elements of the play allow the audience to see this side of life and prevent the audience from becoming entangled in personal 128 Magarshack 286. Petow-61 emotional reactions by interrupting the audience‟s experience of the play. These comic interruptions estrange the audience from its emotional reactions and allow it to look critically at the play‟s characters, like Charlotta, and laugh at them all, as they laugh at Yepikhodov and, at times, Gaev. Chekhov is not Brecht, however; an argument that he intended to erase all sense of emotion and nostalgia in his play has little foundation in the actual text. Although his inclusion of comedic elements separates the audience from clinging to personal emotional reactions, Chekhov‟s representation of everyday life does evoke poignant responses from the audience through its lyrical and universal nostalgia for the Russia that once existed. The comic elements do not allow the audience members, nonetheless, to become lost in their own personal nostalgia by hindering their emotional reactions to it, but connects them with a shared nostalgia for the passing of time and link them to “the great tides that sweep the world.”129 The Cherry Orchard has been enjoyed by generations of audiences and remembered as Chekhov‟s masterpiece for over a century not only in Russia, but throughout the world. A degree of universality must be present in a play in order for it to receive admiration to this extent. Chekhov could not have obtained this level of timelessness if he had set out to write a political commentary on the evils of capitalism, an elegy for the dying aristocracy, or an idealistic treatise on the future that lay ahead. He was a writer who considered the present everyday lives of his characters an integral part of the story. He wanted to show to his audiences who they were, not who he believed they should be. 129 Valency writes that, “It was evidently Chekhov‟s idea that the elemental forces of the universe express themselves most clearly in the individual, and by observing the behavior of individuals that we become aware of the great tides that sweet the world,” 300. Petow-62 References     Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984. 1-39. Bennet, Tony. Formalism and Marxism. London: Routledge, 2003. Braun, Edward. “The Cherry Orchard.” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov. Eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 111-120. Brunello, Piero and Lena Lencek, eds. How to Write Like Chekhov: Advice and Inspiration, Straight from His Own Letters and Work. Philadelphia: Perseous Book Group, 2008. Carnicke, Sharon Marie. Introduction. Anton Chekhov: 4 Plays & 3 Jokes. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2009. Chekhov, Anton. The Cherry Orchard. Anton Chekhov’s Selected Plays. Trans. Laurence Senelick. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. 323-371. ---. Vishnjovyj Sad. Anton Chekhov: Rasskazy. Povesti P'esy. Moscow: Eksmo, 2008. 777-829. Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Berkley: University of California Press, 1976. Friedland, Louis S., ed. Letters on the Short Story, the Drama, and Other Literary Topics by Anton Chekhov. New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1964. Gottlieb, Vera. “Chekhov‟s Comedy.” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov. Eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 228 -238. Hahn, Beverly. Chekhov: A Study of the Major Stories and Plays. London: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Karlinsky, Simon and Michael Henry Heim, eds. and trans. Anton Chekhov Life and Thought: Selected Letters and Commentary. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973. ---. Letters of Anton Chekhov. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973.          Petow-63  LeBlanc, Ronald D. “Two-and-Twenty Misfortunes: Epikhodov [sic], Farce, and the Subversive Nature of Laughter in Vishnevyj sad.” Russian Language Journal 49 (1993): 141-160. Leitch, Vincent B., ed., “Mikhail Bakhtin.” Norton Anthology of Literary Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2001. 1186-1189. Lukács, György. “On Bertolt Brecht.” Trans. Rodney Livingstone. New Left Review I.110 (1978): 88-92. Magarshack, David. Chekhov the Dramatist. New York: Hill and Wang, 1960. Marsh, Cynthia. “The stage representation of Chekhov‟s women[sic].” A Cambridge Companion to Chekhov. Eds. Vera Gottlieb and Paul Allain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 216-227. Marx, Karl and Fredric Engels. German Ideology. Ed. R. Pascal. New York: International Publishers, 1947. 15. Meister, Charles. Chekhov Criticism: 1880 through 1986. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1988. Pitcher, Harvey. Introduction. Chekhov: The Comic Stories. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1999. Rayfield, Donald. Anton Chekhov: A Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997. Robinson, Douglas. Estrangement and the Somatics of Literature: Tolstoy, Shklovsky, Brecht. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. Schoeps, Karl. Bertolt Brecht. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, 1977. Senelick, Laurence, ed. Anton Chekhov’s Selected Plays. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Device.” Art in Theory 1900-2000. Ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. 277-281. Silverstein, Norman. “Chekhov‟s Comic Spirit.” Modern Drama (1958): 91-100. Skaftymov, Alexandr. “Principles of Structure in Chekhov‟s Plays.” Chekhov: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Robert Louis Jackson. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Petow-64                   Slonim, Marc. Russian Theater: From the Empire to the Soviets. New York: Collier Books, 1962. 137-140. Styan, J. L. Chekhov in Performance. London: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Valency, Maurice. The Breaking String: The Plays of Anton Chekhov. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, ed. Letters of Anton Chekhov. New York: Viking Press, 1973. Petow-65