Uncle Vanya critical analysis of the play. A.P. Chekhov. Uncle Ivan

Russian State Institute of Performing Arts

Analysis of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya" (1897)

Course work in the seminar

on drama analysis

1st year students

Faculty of Theater Studies

(bachelor's degree)

Ya.G. Dobychina

Seminar leader

I.I. Boykova

Saint Petersburg

“...But it’s as if the century is already running out,

And soon, without a doubt, it will pass,

And nothing happens to us,

And it’s unlikely that anything will happen..."

Bulat Shalvovich Okudzhava

Act one

The first act of the play begins with a remark describing the setting of the garden at the Serebryakov estate (“Garden. Part of the house with a terrace is visible. On the alley under the old poplar tree there is a table set for tea. Benches, chairs; on one of the benches there is a guitar. Not far from the table there is a swing. - It’s three o’clock in the afternoon. It’s cloudy.” Nanny Marina, described by Chekhov as a damp, sedentary old woman, sits at the table by the samovar, knitting a stocking. Near her is Mikhail Lvovich Astrov, a zemstvo doctor and a frequent guest on the estate. The atmosphere in this scene is calm and measured, one can feel the leisurely movement of time. Marina offers Astrov a drink, but he refuses, according to the remark “reluctantly.” The nanny treats him with maternal warmth and tenderness, in principle, the same as she treats everyone in the house. Almost from the very first remarks, a rather voluminous and multi-complex exposition begins to unfold before us.

It must be said that some parts of it are revealed in the list of characters. So, for example, directly from there we learn that Serebryakov is a retired professor, and his wife Elena Andreevna is twenty-seven years old (by the way, she is the only character in this list whose age is indicated specifically, but in the play itself it turns out that Voinitsky forty-seven, and Astrov is a little over thirty-five), Sonya is Serebryakov’s daughter from his first marriage, Maria Vasilievna Voinitskaya is the widow of a state councilor and the mother of the professor’s first wife, and Telegin is an impoverished landowner who now lives on the estate of the Serebryakovs and Voinitskys. Great curiosity also arises from the order in which the characters are indicated: for some reason the professor ends up in first place, and Voinitsky, despite the fact that he is the main character, is in fifth place.

“Nanny, how many years have passed since we have known each other,” asks Astrov. From the nanny’s answer we learn that Astrov has known the Serebryakov and Voinitsky family for eleven years and even found Sonina’s mother, Vera Petrovna, alive. During these eleven years he grew old and became disillusioned with life. In response to the nanny’s remark “Maybe you want to eat,” he responds with another monologue, which he begins with a description of the harsh everyday life of a zemstvo doctor who came to the village for an epidemic, repulsive details from the life of peasants, a switchman who died on the operating table and ends with a thought about conscience and about responsibility to subsequent generations: “Those who will live a hundred or two hundred years after us and for whom we are now making a way, will they remember us with a kind word?” This is what Astrov is all about - his peculiarity lies in his special view of the world. Having done something, he immediately begins to think how this or that action will affect the people of the future, what will remain for them after him (later Elena Andreevna will correctly call this talent and it is difficult to disagree with her words). “People won’t remember, but God will remember,” nanny Marina humbly answers.

Ivan Petrovich Voinitsky, the main character in the play, appears. As the stage directions say, “he has a rumpled appearance.” After a long sleep he is a little uneasy, he has difficulty realizing where he is. He is slow. He seems to be in no hurry. He recalls how he used to live and work before the Serebryakov couple arrived at the estate: “Before there was no free minute, Sonya and I worked - my respect, but now only Sonya works, and I sleep, eat, drink... It’s not good!” The fragments of exposition scattered by Chekhov throughout the play will plunge even deeper into Voinitsky’s inner world, but in this scene he is presented as rather melancholic, and this is clearly visible in the line presented above.

Suddenly the silence is interrupted by voices. Professor Alexander Vladimirovich Serebryakov, Sofya, his daughter, Elena Andreevna, his wife, and Ilya Ilyich Telegin appear. The old professor asks him to bring tea to his office, and he quickly leaves in the company of his daughter. “It’s hot, stuffy, and our great scientist is wearing a coat, galoshes, an umbrella and gloves,” says Ivan Petrovich, following Serebryakov. Just from this remark one can form an opinion about the professor: he literally cultivates his illness, shuns village life and therefore tries to distance himself from her by wearing such rather strange and inappropriate attire for the weather. He is a typical city dweller, whose emotional and mental state is at obvious odds with the way of life to which the Voinitskys, Telegin and nanny Marina have become accustomed over these many years. A little later (another part of the exposition) Ivan Petrovich will note that he moved to the village due to lack of funds.

Perhaps the complete opposite of him is Ilya Ilyich Telegin - he speaks with delight about the weather and about everyday life - “We all live in peace and harmony - what else do we need?” Telegin seems to be a peace-loving person. He is happy from the knowledge that he lives in harmony with himself and others. There is an open sense of defenselessness in him; in some of his remarks one can hear his childish spontaneity and naivety. The counterpoint to his remark is Voinitsky’s dreamy phrase: “Eyes... Wonderful woman!” Astrov tries to get him to talk, but Ivan Petrovich answers sluggishly and reluctantly. But as soon as Mikhail Lvovich asks him a question about the professor, he breaks out into a long monologue that shows us the other side of the hero - he is burdened by the obligation to serve and admire the activities of the professor. He fervently tells Astrov that for twenty-five years the professor took someone else’s place and understood absolutely nothing in the sphere of his scientific interests (“For twenty-five years he has been chewing other people’s thoughts about naturalism, realism and all other nonsense; for twenty-five years he has been reading and writing what the smart have known for a long time, but is uninteresting for the stupid; it means that twenty-five years have been empty. And at the same time, what conceit! He retired, and no one knows him! alive soul, he is completely unknown; This means that for twenty-five years he occupied someone else’s place. And look: he walks like a demigod!”). In this monologue one can hear pain and despair. Despair and inability to change anything. Serebryakov’s undeserved success and ruined potential torment Voinitsky. This is his mistake. But this delusion is not so one-sided: on the other hand, it seems to Ivan Petrovich that Elena Andreevna’s loyalty to her husband is false and immoral. He is blinded by the thought that he can save her from the gray monotony and hopelessness. Voinitsky puts himself in Serebryakov’s place (so, already in the second act, he will talk in the form of a subjunctive mood about how he will calm her down during a thunderstorm). This moment in the play can be called the plot. The antagonism between the two heroes is quite obvious to us (this will be summed up by the professor’s remark “Don’t leave me with him! He will talk to me!” at the beginning of the second act). But you should not consider only this side of the ensuing action. In fact, the plot in “Uncle Vanya” is as multi-complex as its exposition. The other side of the coin is falling in love with Serebryakova. The obvious fact is that Voinitsky is confident that he could turn her life in the right direction and that only her “damned philosophy” hinders their relationship. He blames others for his troubles, not himself. This is nothing more than another delusion of the main character. I will continue to consider this misconception, since it will run like a red thread through the entire action, right up to the climax. Internally, Voinitsky denies the life he lives now, and this is the direct driving force of the action. But we should not forget that Ivan Petrovich’s hatred of the professor is a consequence of his love for Elena Andreevna, and this fact is important in setting up the conflict.

As I said earlier, the plot of the play is multi-complex. But it is multi-complex not only in relation to Voinitsky alone. Sonya's hope for Elena Andreevna's love and feelings for Dr. Astrov will also be tied. But this is worth talking about later.

Also in Voinitsky’s monologue, important pieces of exposition can be traced. From there we learn that in the distant past Serebryakov was the son of a “simple sexton”, a student, but despite this he was able to achieve an academic degree and become the son-in-law of a senator (at the same time it turns out that Elena Andreevna is the daughter of a high-ranking official). It must be said that all the monologues of the main character are literally permeated through and through with lyrical excitement and elegiac tones, and this great monologue was no exception. We are talking about how he speaks about his elder and now deceased sister: “His first wife, my sister, a beautiful and meek creature, pure, like this blue sky, noble, generous, who had more admirers than he had students - loved him as only pure angels as pure and beautiful as themselves can love...” - from these words it becomes clear that the loss of his sister was a big blow for Ivan Petrovich. He compares her to an angel, as if contrasting her with Serebryakov. In his further words about his sister, there will be hints that it was her crazy love for her husband that destroyed her.

Telegin immediately enters into an argument with Voinitsky, who believes that betrayal of one’s spouse can sooner or later lead to betrayal of the Fatherland. There is a certain amount of comedy and naivety in this. What can we say, Ilya Ilyich appears in the play as an obvious comic character. Voinitsky does not want to listen to him, but this does not stop Telegin (“Allow me, Vanya. My wife ran away from me the day after the wedding with her loved one because of my unattractive appearance. After that I did not violate my duty. I still love her and I am faithful to her, I help as much as I can and I gave my property to raise the children whom she brought with her loved one. I lost my happiness, but I still have my pride. And she has already passed, her beauty has faded under the influence of the laws of nature, her loved one has died... What does she have left?" This monologue is another part of the exposition, and it reveals to us Ilya Ilyich from an unexpected side. In his words one can hear a selfless desire to help a loved one and give him everything he has, because Telegin’s love for this woman was sincere and hard-won.

Sonya and her stepmother, Elena Andreevna Serebryakova, appear. A little later, Maria Vasilievna, Voinitsky’s mother, enters with a book in her hands. She quietly sits down at the table and begins to drink tea with the others. Doctor Astrov, despite the professor’s not entirely ethical treatment of him, regardless of this, decides to spend the night on the estate until next day. Sonya, who clearly has romantic feelings for him, tries to court him. “We now have lunch at seven o’clock,” she says. This phrase clearly conveys a reproach to the father, who, with his daily routine and night wakings, violated the previous way of life on the estate. Here the second part of the multi-complex plot is clearly visible, namely, Sonya’s developing feelings for Astrov. But the doctor does not notice her advances, hidden in the remark “It’s such a rarity that you spend the night with us.”

So, everything is assembled. But when reading this particular moment in the play, there is no feeling at all that close people are sitting at the table. Everyone is busy with their own thoughts. The atmosphere of alienation is felt directly in the passage below:

Telegin. The temperature in the samovar has already dropped significantly.

Elena Andreevna. It’s okay, Ivan Ivanovich, we’ll drink a cold one.

Telegin. It’s my fault... Not Ivan Ivanovich, but Ilya Ilyich, sir... Ilya Ilyich Telegin, or, as some call me because of my pockmarked face, Waffle. I once baptized Sonechka, and His Excellency, your husband, knows me very well. I now live with you, sir, on this estate... If you would like to notice, I have lunch with you every day.

When reading this moment, you involuntarily begin to feel a certain awkwardness. But, oddly enough, this scene very clearly characterizes Serebryakova: despite the fact that she knows Telegin and has tea with him at the same table every day, not once in all this time has she bothered to remember his name and patronymic. This is a very revealing detail. It has both the comic and the dramatic. This atmosphere and environment is clearly alien to Elena Andreevna. The only person she cares about is Dr. Astrov. Perhaps in his desires to change the world for the better and contribute to the conservation of wildlife, she sees something similar to her worldview. Squabbles and routine weigh on her, and it also weighs on Astrov. “This doctor has an interesting face...” she will later say to Voinitsky. She highlights his face, while the rest of the world seems empty to her. As you know, the face reflects a person’s character, his hidden thoughts and what can come out in the form of words, but in reality is expressed only in the eyes - the mirror of the soul. It is quite possible that Elena Andreevna sees, in this way, his soul, his aspirations. She is attracted to him, but, being a decent woman, she controls herself, trying not to break loose and not fall into the pool of passion.

“I forgot to tell Alexander... I lost my memory... today I received a letter from Kharkov from Pavel Alekseevich... I sent a new brochure,” Maria Vasilievna intervenes in the conversation. The son cuts her off and reproaches her for the fact that for fifty years all they have done is talk and read brochures. “Until last year, just like you, I deliberately tried to cloud my eyes with your scholasticism, so as not to see real life, and I thought that I was doing well. Now, if only you knew! I don’t sleep at night out of frustration, out of anger that I so stupidly missed the time when I could have had everything that my old age now denies me!” But if you think about it, what happened in “last year” that prompted him to have these thoughts? The answer lies in the Serebryakov couple’s move from the city to the estate. Seeing Elena Andreevna arm in arm with an unloved person, he realized that this was his hope for revival, that lifeline that could pull him out of the pool of grayness and despondency. He imagined that he could save not only his life, but also the life of Serebryakova. Having lost this last thread, he will lose the meaning of life.

A second spark flares up in Voinitsky’s consciousness, but it is immediately extinguished by Elena Andreevna’s everyday tone, “And the weather is good today... It’s not hot...”. Gradually, everyone else goes about their business: Marina runs off to catch the chickens that have escaped from the yard, and a worker comes for Astrov to notify him about a new patient. It would seem, why all these meaningless episodes? One of the distinctive features of Chekhov's dramaturgy is the selection of everyday lines according to the principle of their significance in the general emotional content of life. There are a great many such “random” moments in Anton Pavlovich’s plays. The moment with Marina attracting chickens is not a characteristic of Marina as a character, but nothing more than the creation of a general impression of gray everyday life that weighs down both Voinitsky and Serebryakov.

As a farewell, Astrov invites Sonya and Elena Andreevna to visit him one day at his estate, which he affectionately calls “the little man.” His serious passion for the forest raises some doubts in Serebryakova; in response to this, Sonya, with her passionate monologue, tries to prove the importance and usefulness of the things that the doctor does, despite his main profession as a zemstvo doctor. It is impossible not to quote some excerpts from Mikhail Lvovich’s long monologue, in which he speaks passionately about his destiny: “Man is gifted with creative power to multiply what is given to him, but until now he has not created, but destroyed. There are fewer and fewer forests, the rivers are drying up, the game has dried up, the climate is spoiled, and every day the land is becoming poorer and uglier. (To Voinitsky.) So you look at me with irony, and everything I say seems not serious to you and... and perhaps this is really eccentricity, but when I pass by the peasant forests that I saved from cutting down, or when I hear the noise of my young forest, planted with my hands, I realize that the climate is a little in my power, and that if in a thousand years a person is happy, then I will be a little to blame for this.” Keyword in this monologue “eccentricity”. Astrov really looks like an eccentric in the eyes of the heroes. But in in this case, making similar conclusions about future generations, he is in some ways similar to the great scientists of the past, whose judgments were treated by contemporaries with either distrust or irony. When reading the monologue, a feeling of some pity arises in relation to this hero - after all, he could become great, he could do what gives him pleasure... Almost every one of his remarks creates the impression that he is cramped within the confines of his profession. But there is a degree of self-criticism in his reasoning - he realizes that his concern for the forest may be an eccentricity, and the phrase “I’ll be a little guilty too” reveals in him a person devoid of selfishness, but endowed with enormous zeal.

“When will you come to us?” - Sonya asks him in hope. In her subsequent remark “Again in a month?...” one can hear despair, because a month apart from a loved one is torment, and she understands this very well.

Elena Andreevna and Voinitsky go to the terrace. A dialogue ensues between them, which clearly illustrates Voinitsky’s desperate and futile attempts to achieve reciprocity:

Elena Andreevna. And you, Ivan Petrovich, again behaved impossible. You should have irritated Maria Vasilyevna and talked about perpetuum mobile! And today at breakfast you argued with Alexander again. How petty it is!

Voinitsky. But if I hate him!

Elena Andreevna. There is nothing to hate Alexander for, he is just like everyone else. No worse than you.

Voinitsky. If you could see your face, your movements... How lazy you are to live! Oh, how lazy!

Elena Andreevna. Oh, lazy and boring! Everyone scolds my husband, everyone looks at me with pity: unfortunate thing, she has an old husband!

Elena Andreevna. This doctor has a tired, nervous face. Interesting face. Sonya obviously likes him, she is in love with him, and I understand her. He has already been here three times with me, but I am shy and have never talked to him properly or treated him kindly. He thought I was angry. Probably, Ivan Petrovich, the reason we are such friends is that we are both boring, boring people! Boring! Don't look at me like that, I don't like it.

Voinitsky. Can I look at you differently if I love you?

Elena Andreevna. Quiet, they might hear you!

One gets the impression that this is not the first time Voinitsky says this to Elena Andreevna. This will happen in other scenes as well. So, for example, at the beginning of the first act after his monologue about the professor, Sonya exclaims: “Uncle Vanya, it’s boring!” But Ivan Petrovich, uttering the same words over and over again, cannot realize his error. Reply “But if I hate him!” is also included in this so-called complex of misconceptions. He hates not only Serebryakov himself as a person, but also his undeserved success. This seems unfair to him and this is quite understandable, because the professor, having no talent, achieved a place in the department largely thanks to self-confidence and perseverance (perhaps not without patronage, but one can only guess about that). But as for the dialogue itself, there is a certain compositional detail here that is found in all other plays of Chekhov: both characters speak to each other, they hear each other with their ears, but not with their hearts. In response to Voinitsky’s passionately spoken remarks, Elena Andreevna suddenly begins to talk about Astrov, because she is undoubtedly worried about what he thinks about her. But how does Voinitsky behave in this case? Just the same, he understands perfectly well that his chances of reciprocity are zero. He asks Serebryakova only one thing: to allow him to contemplate her and hear her voice. The sound of her voice, her movements are important to him, but he also does not hear her absolute indifference to his words. But she is indifferent to his requests, not because she is cold, but because her thoughts are occupied with a completely different person. She cuts him off mid-sentence with the remark “Hush! They can hear us! It was no coincidence that I repeatedly used the verb “hear”: the other characters do not hear each other. This compositional detail will appear later.

And Serebryakova’s phrase “This doctor has a tired, nervous face” is nothing more than the beginning of the relationship between Astrov and Elena Andreevna. She distinguishes him from others and shows interest in him. From this short remark it immediately becomes clear that these feelings will continue to develop.

Act two

The second action takes place at night in the dining room of the Serebryakovs’ house. Silence reigns. Remark “Night. “You can hear the watchman knocking in the garden” and plunges you into a state of relative peace. In the chair in front open window The Serebryakov couple, Elena Andreevna and Professor Alexander Vladimirovich, are dozing. The professor suddenly wakes up from unbearable pain (“I just dozed off, and I dreamed that my left leg was someone else’s. I woke up from excruciating pain. No, it’s not gout, rather rheumatism”). Despite his deep self-pity, the old man realizes that he has become disgusting to everyone at home. Everyone, even his own wife, seemingly the closest person. “You are young, healthy, beautiful, you want to live, but I am an old man, almost a corpse. Well? Don't I understand? And, of course, it’s stupid that I’m still alive. Well, wait, soon I will free you all. I won’t have to wait much longer.” Elena Andreevna can barely restrain herself; She can be completely understood - her old husband, for whom she has no feelings, is nothing more than a heavy burden for her. “Shut up! You tortured me! - she says, unable to stand it. This phrase releases unexpected feelings in her. It seems that for the first time in many years of marriage, she decided to express to her husband’s face everything that was painful, and these emotions, boiling inside her, oddly enough, were able to fit into one single phrase. In response to this, her husband brings down a mountain of reproaches on her: “Well, let’s say I’m an egoist, I’m a despot, but don’t I really have some right to selfishness even in old age?<...>To work all my life for science, to get used to my office, to the audience, to respectable comrades and suddenly, for no reason at all, to find myself in this crypt, to see stupid people here every day, to listen to insignificant conversations... I want to live, I I love success, I love fame, noise, but here it’s like being in exile.” His lament is nothing more than the complaint of a mediocrity who has achieved relative success and is content with it, considering it his greatest achievement.

This is also a kind of delusion, an excuse for one’s weaknesses. But what is happening outside the windows at this time? The wind rises and hits the windows with all its might, and it starts to rain. And the watchman in the garden, who was silent at the beginning of the action, suddenly begins to sing songs. Anxiety grows, and more and more tension is felt through the stage directions. It seems that something terrible is about to happen. “No one is challenging your rights,” Elena says calmly. Serebryakova is overcome with anger at his family, to whom he is unbearably disgusted, mixed with pity for himself and his imaginary work. But suddenly Sonya enters and begins to reproach her father for his harsh and discourteous treatment of Dr. Astrov. In her words one can hear the very feeling that takes possession of a young girl at the sight of an insulted loved one. Throughout the entire play, her every word about Astrov reveals tenderness, care and a desire to protect him. Ivan Petrovich Voinitsky enters with a candle in his hands. He asks Elena and Sonya to go to bed to relieve them. But Serebryakov, as if having some inexplicable and childish fear of him, suddenly exclaims: “No, no! Don't leave me with him! He will talk to me! Voinitsky reminds him with a grin that once upon a time they were close friends, but this phrase is quickly interrupted by Sonya’s sharp “Shut up, Uncle Vanya!” It must be said that Sonya will interrupt his speeches many times throughout the play, as if trying to smooth out the conflict, which sooner or later could lead to dire consequences. And Ivan Petrovich cannot contradict her, because she is his close person, his niece, a small piece of his irrevocably departed sister.

Marina comes in and calms Serebryakov down and takes him to the bedroom. She treats the old professor with the same maternal tenderness with which she treats Dr. Astrov. “Come on, little light... I’ll give you some linden tea, I’ll warm your feet... I’ll pray to God for you...” and the touched Alexander Vladimirovich, forgetting about anxiety and anger, humbly leaves with Marina and Sonya. Voinitsky and Elena Andreevna are left alone. “It’s not good in this house,” she says, as if feeling like no one else all the irritation and growing anxiety that dominates the house. “Let’s leave philosophy!” - Voinitsky answers, as if wanting to focus on a declaration of love, but Elena Andreevna does not need his feelings, she asks him to leave. No matter how obvious this comparison is, Elena appears in this scene as a completely stone wall through which Ivan Petrovich is trying to break through. Once again he tells her about his love, and once again it ends in nothing.

Elena Andreevna. Leave it! (Takes his hand away.) Go away!

Voinitsky. Now the rain will pass, and everything in nature will be refreshed and breathe easy. A thunderstorm alone will not refresh me. Day and night, like a brownie, the thought that my life is lost irretrievably strangles me. There is no past, it is stupidly wasted on trifles, and the present is terrible in its absurdity. Here's my life and my love: where should I put them, what should I do with them? My feeling perishes in vain, like a ray of sun falling into a hole, and I myself perish.

Elena Andreevna. When you tell me about your love, I somehow become dumb and don’t know what to say. Sorry, I can't tell you anything. (Wants to go.) Good night.

Voinitsky (blocking her path). And if you knew how much I suffer from the thought that next to me in the same house another life is dying - yours! What are you waiting for? What damn philosophy is stopping you? Understand, understand...

Elena Andreevna (looks at him intently). Ivan Petrovich, you are drunk!

Voinitsky. May be...

The last phrase is very significant. It is indicative because it is multifaceted. Why is Voinitsky drunk? Corny from drinking? From love for Elena Andreevna? Or from delusion during all twenty-five years of service to the professor? I think that the third option in this case is the most suitable. Intoxication here does not appear in the literal sense, but as a consequence of what happened to Voinitsky and his life. At first glance, the phrase seems absolutely ordinary and meaningless, but if you place it in the context of the exhibition, then the meaning will awaken in it. One gets the impression that Ivan Petrovich himself does not know what is happening to him and wants to figure it out, but what in the end?

But in the end, Ivan Petrovich is left alone with his thoughts. He pronounces a rather emotional and even hysterical monologue: “And I am deceived... I see - stupidly deceived...” he says. Realizing that all these years he devoted his life to an undeserving person and at the same time patiently carried his cross, Voinitsky falls into anger and endless resentment towards himself. He really feels sorry for him, because in his attempt to find a soul mate he fails, which, as it turned out, was his last hope.

He remembers his first meeting with Elena Andreevna. This meeting is another small part of a multi-complex exhibition. So, from it we learn that Voinitsky met Serebryakova at his late sister, the professor’s first wife. From this small detail we can understand that perhaps Elena Andreevna was a good friend or even a friend of Ivan Petrovich’s late sister. She was young, but despite this, Voinitsky did not fall in love with her and did not propose to her. Chekhov gives this monologue a touch of lyrical excitement, the lines come together and create something harmonious, similar to blank verse. “Now we would both be awakened by a thunderstorm; she would be afraid of thunder, and I would hold her in my arms and whisper: “Don't be afraid, I'm here” - such repeated use of a particle would give the monologue the feeling of a child's dream. “Why am I old?” - he says desperately. All Serebryakova’s thoughts about the destruction of the world seem to him to be trifle, nonsense. It seems to Voinitsky that if he had gotten ahead of the professor, his life would have turned out differently. On the one hand, this seems naive, but on the other hand, all people are characterized by similar reasoning in subjunctive mood. But if usually these are just dreams or empty regrets, then for Ivan Petrovich this is the meaning of life. The monologue itself is logically divided into two parts. And he shares the remark “Pause”. Despite the fact that in the first part the hero speaks about Elena Andreevna, and in the second about Serebryakov, a mood of despair and regret about a mediocre life runs through both of these parts. “And I have been deceived... - I see, - foolishly deceived...” - this phrase seems to sum up the hero’s reasoning.

His thoughts are interrupted by a tipsy Astrov in the company of Telegin with a guitar at the ready. Astrov asks him to play something and notices his friend deep in thought. In his characteristic dashing and slightly cynical manner, he learns from Voinitsky’s feelings for Elena Andreevna. Ivan Petrovich calls his reasoning “vulgar philosophy,” to which Astrov, without irritation, answers him that although he has become vulgar, despite this, he has grandiose plans in his head, and everything worldly seems completely insignificant to him. And again, in his monologue, he again proceeds from the earthly to the sublime, which becomes his characteristic feature as a hero. In his half-drunk manner, he talks about the beautiful and tries to get as far as possible from everything base, which goes completely against his love of drinking and evening festivities. This essential contradiction is its distinctive feature. He gets even more excited and asks Telegin to play louder, but then Sonya enters. She confuses Astrov, who goes out the door to clean up. It’s wild for her to see Ivan Petrovich drunk, so she urges him to remember about the household. Voinitsky sees his niece and remembers his late sister, Sonya’s mother. As mentioned above, Sonya is for him the last little reminder of her and of his past, because then he was young and still had the opportunity to fix something (“What tears? There is nothing... nonsense... You just looked at me like your late mother. My dear... (greedily kisses her hands and face) My sister... my dear sister... where is she now? If only she knew! Wanting to hide his tears from everyone, Voinitsky leaves.

Sonya, wanting to explain to Astrov, knocks on his door and he, a little later, comes out. “Drink yourself if you don’t mind, but I beg you, don’t let your uncle drink. It’s harmful for him,” she says. It is important for her to know whether her feelings towards Mikhail Lvovich are mutual. “It’s raining, wait until morning,” she says. I have already noted before the sincerity with which she cares about Astrov. Perhaps her attitude towards the doctor is in obvious contradiction with the attitude of the same Serebryakov towards him. In general, when one of the characters speaks about Mikhail Lvovich in an ironic or mocking manner (for example, in the first act, Voinitsky even made fun of his attempts to preserve the forest and calls to use other materials for construction and heating stoves: “Bravo, bravo!... All this is cute, but somehow not convincing, so let me, my friend, continue to heat the stoves with wood and build sheds from wood"), she begins to childishly prove the importance and benefits of his activities. It looks comical on the outside, but what is hidden inside? Compositionally, their dialogue is structured in such a way that Astrov, discussing the situation on the estate, gradually moves on to questions of a general philosophical nature, and Sonya, occasionally asking him short questions, listens to him carefully. The conversation turns to Elena Andreevna, and then the doctor utters a phrase that later became a textbook: “Everything in a person should be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts” in relation to Serebryakova. He is disappointed in life and is no longer able to love anyone, but is this really so? Perhaps he is just “showing off” in front of the girl. Sonya is fascinated by his stories about the forest, nature and people. In a moment of complete self-forgetfulness, he was already reaching for the glass, but Sonya pulled him back. “This doesn’t suit you! You are graceful, you have such a gentle voice... Even more, you are like no one else I know - you are beautiful. Why do you want to be like ordinary people who drink and play cards? Oh, don't do this, I beg you! You always say that people do not create, but only destroy what is given to them from above. Why, why are you destroying yourself? Don’t, don’t, I beg you, I conjure you” - this monologue, full of passion and despair, makes Astrov think about himself for a second, and he, as if having seen the light, answers “I won’t drink anymore” and shakes her hand as a sign of promise. Remembering why this whole conversation was started, Sonya tries to find out from Astrov whether he is capable of reciprocal feelings:

Sonya. Tell me, Mikhail Lvovich... If I had a girlfriend, or younger sister, and if you found out that she... well, let's say, loves you, how would you react to it?

Astrov (shrugging his shoulders). Don't know. There must be no way. I would let her know that I can’t love her... and that’s not what my head is occupied with. After all, if you go, then it’s time. Goodbye, my dear, otherwise we won’t finish like this until the morning. (Shakes hands.) I’ll go through the living room, if you allow, otherwise I’m afraid that your uncle will detain me. (Leaves.)

Sonya is left alone. Still, without receiving an answer, she still laughs with happiness. Her thoughts are running at crazy speed. “Oh, how terrible it is that I’m ugly! How terrible! And I know that I’m ugly, I know, I know...” - all this is very consonant with Voinitsky’s remark “I know, my chances of reciprocity are negligible, equal to zero...”, said to Elena Andreevna at the end of the first act. It is very important for Chekhov to show both heroes with completely similar situations. After all, having lost love, both can still unite and start all over again. But Sonya is consumed by the thought of her own unattractiveness; she is afraid of losing that piece of hope that she acquired in the dialogue with Astrov.

Elena Andreevna appears. The next fragment of the exposition makes us understand that previously the stepmother and stepdaughter were in a quarrel, but now both are striving for reconciliation. Having made peace with her stepmother and forgetting all past grievances, Sonya confesses her feelings for Astrov: “I have a stupid face... right? So he left, and I still hear his voice and steps, and I look at the dark window - his face appears to me there.” Sonya's excitement is transmitted to Elena Andreevna. She calls the doctor talented person, which is quite justified: “My dear, understand, this is talent! Do you know what talent means? Courage, a free head, a wide scope... He plants a tree and already wonders what will happen from this in a thousand years, he already imagines the happiness of humanity. Such people are rare, you need to love them... He drinks, he can be rude, but what's the harm? A talented person in Russia cannot be clean. Think for yourself what kind of life this doctor has! Impassable mud on the roads, frosts, blizzards, enormous distances, rude, wild people, need and illness all around, and in such a situation, it is difficult for someone who works and struggles day after day to keep himself clean and sober by the age of forty...” . From this rather voluminous remark, it is clear that talking about the doctor, in some sense, gives Elena Andreevna pleasure. She likes him as a person and as a person who stands out from the gray philistine crowd. There is a counterpoint moment in their dialogue: for example, Elena Andreevna’s phrase “Actually speaking, Sonya, if you think about it, I’m very, very unhappy!” goes against the obvious contradiction with Sonya’s phrase “I’m so happy... happy!” As I noted earlier, in Chekhov’s plays there are often dialogues during which the characters simply do not hear each other. But at the same time, both are in an exciting state associated with Dr. Astrov. Serebryakova wants to play the piano to cope with her excess feelings, and asks Sonya to go to her father for permission. Reply “I will play and cry, cry like a fool!” gives the final scene of the second act lyrical motives, motives of bright excitement. After such an outburst, caused by a conversation with her stepdaughter, she waits for her husband’s permission and suddenly hears the watchman Yefim knocking. At her request, he leaves. In the silence of the night, his retreating voice can be heard: “Hey, you, Zhuchka! Boy! Bug! Such an ordinary-neutral detail is placed next to the sadness of elusive happiness. All this is nothing more than the peaceful indifference of everyday life: life goes on and passes. Sonya returns and talks about refusal. This seemingly insignificant moment hides obvious hopelessness. Thoughts about Astrov do not give Serebryakova peace, she simply has nowhere to escape from them, nothing to distract herself from them. Meanwhile, the night is coming to an end, there is still a long day ahead, which will become a turning point in the fate of the heroes.

Act three

The action takes us to the living room on Serebryakov’s estate. The day has come. In the living room, Voinitsky, Sonya and Elena Andreevna, nervously walking around the stage. “Herr Professor deigned to express his desire that today we all gather in this living room at one o’clock in the afternoon. (Looks at his watch.) Quarter to one. “He wants to tell the world something,” says Voinitsky, looking forward to Serebryakov. With some degree of annoyance, he notes Elena Andreevna’s idleness, and this irritates her. Idleness and boredom have taken over Serebryakova so much that she has no choice but to walk around the house, not bothering herself with any duties (“It’s only in ideological novels that men are taught and treated, but how can I, for no apparent reason, take What if I go and treat them or teach them?”). Even Voinitsky’s efforts to somehow stir her up lead to nothing. In a fit of passion, he runs off to get a bouquet of roses, which he prepared for her in the morning. Sonya and Elena Andreevna are left alone again. The conversation turns to Astrov again. Elena Andreevna finds out that Sonya doesn’t just like Doctor, but that she truly loves him. “I often go up to him, speak to him myself, look into his eyes... I no longer have pride, I no longer have the strength to control myself... I couldn’t resist and yesterday I confessed to Uncle Vanya that I love... And all the servants know that I love him. Everybody knows". Serebryakova promises her stepdaughter to talk to him about this. Sonya is in excitement and can no longer wait for the outcome, but Elena Andreevna herself is amazingly calm. In her heart, she understands everything perfectly well - the doctor does not have any feelings for Sonya. The girl’s attraction to an adult man is quite obvious to her (“I understand this poor girl. In the midst of desperate boredom, when instead of people there are some gray spots wandering around, one hears only vulgarities, when all they know is that they eat, drink, sleep, sometimes he comes , unlike others, beautiful, interesting, fascinating, as if a clear moon is rising in the darkness..."). Serebryakova is tormented by her conscience, because she doesn’t want to hurt her stepdaughter’s heart, but at the same time she understands that all this is just self-deception. She wants to forget herself, get away from everyone and live in a new way, without feeling guilty for thinking about Astrov.

Astrov (laughing). Cunning! Suppose Sonya is suffering, I willingly admit, but why is this interrogation of yours? (Preventing her from speaking, briskly.) Excuse me, don’t make a surprised face, you know perfectly well why I come here every day... Why and for whom I come, you know that very well. Dear predator, don't look at me like that, I'm an old sparrow...

Elena Andreevna (perplexed). Predator? I don't understand anything.

Astrov. Beautiful, fluffy ferret... You need victims! Now I’ve been doing nothing for a whole month, I’ve given up everything, I’m eagerly looking for you - and you like it terribly, terribly... Well, what? I am defeated, you knew it even without interrogation. (Crossing my arms and bowing my head.) I submit. Here, eat!

Elena Andreevna. Are you crazy?

Astrov (laughs through his teeth). You're shy...

Elena Andreevna. Oh, I'm better and taller than you think! I swear!

Out of passion, Astrov switches to “you,” which confuses Elena Andreevna even more. “You see this is inevitable, we need to see each other,” he says in a rush, taking her by the waist and kissing her. The intensity of passion is increased to the limit, and this scene can definitely be called the climax, the highest point of the relationship between Astrov and Elena Andreevna. It seems that she regrets that she planned all this and wants to break out of the doctor’s embrace... But at that moment Voinitsky enters with a bouquet of promised roses and watches this whole picture with horror. Noticing Ivan Petrovich, Serebryakova pushes Astrov away and goes to the window in extreme embarrassment (it is possible that there may be a wider range of feelings here than just embarrassment, and the line “This is terrible” makes it clear that the heroine experiences some sense of shame). From severe shock, Voinitsky cannot utter a word; he is no less embarrassed than Elena Andreevna. He wipes his face with a handkerchief and stands rooted to the spot. It is impossible to describe the feeling with which he looks at everything that is happening. For him, what he saw a minute earlier becomes a real loss. The shock became a stimulus for him to respond, a step towards dire consequences. A small element in the form of a bouquet of roses, heightening the drama, can no longer be presented to the one for whom it was intended. Of course, one can reproach Voinitsky for the fact that he, without understanding the situation, brought everything to a peak, but in this case it is not just the loss of the woman with whom he was in love. This is the loss of the meaning of life. The point here is rather what he associated Elena Andreevna with. Just remember his monologue about the thunderstorm, which was thoroughly saturated with the thought “Why am I old?” Elena Andreevna was his very life, his very youth. And now, having lost her irretrievably, he will hitchhike to the point of no return.

Astrov rolls up the cartogram into a tube and quickly leaves. Immediately realizing what had happened, Serebryakova quickly approaches Ivan Petrovich and demands that he use all his influence so that the couple leaves on the same day. “I, Helene, saw everything, everything...” he says childishly. A storm reigns in Elena Andreevna’s soul, but, having controlled herself, she with decisive pressure demands at all costs to be allowed to leave the estate. Before she has time to say this, the woman sees her stepdaughter Sonya, nanny Marina, Telegin and Herr Professor Serebryakov himself, who had previously called everyone to a family council, entering the living room. Sonya inquires about the results of the conversation:

Sonya. Are you shaking? Are you excited? (He peers inquisitively into her face.) I understand... He said that he would never come here again... Yes?

Say yes?

Elena Andreevna nods her head affirmatively.

Now Sonya understood everything. She stands away from everyone else and sadly lowers her head. This situation becomes a real blow for her. This meeting of stepmother and stepdaughter, and a quiet explanation against the backdrop of officialdom of the upcoming news from the professor, becomes the culmination of the relationship between Astrov and Sonya. Her hope for love is destroyed.

At the council, the professor proposes to sell the estate, convert the proceeds into interest-bearing securities and use the surplus to buy a dacha in Finland. But then something happens that the professor never expected. “Wait... It seems to me that my hearing is betraying me. Repeat what you said,” Voinitsky intervenes. The old man repeats his intention. Having heard what the professor said and made sure that everything was happening for real, he was overcome with anger. But the old man reacts calmly and restrainedly to his remarks:

Voinitsky. Wait. Obviously, I didn't have an ounce of common sense until now. Until now, I was stupid to think that this estate belonged to Sonya. My late father bought this estate as a dowry for my sister. Until now, I was naive, I did not understand the laws in Turkish and thought that the estate had passed from my sister to Sonya.

Serebryakov. Yes, the estate belongs to Sonya. Who's arguing? Without Sonya's consent, I will not dare to sell it. Besides, I intend to do this for the benefit of Sonya.

The anger is growing, and Ivan Petrovich is no longer able to control himself. He drinks water feverishly. An explosion is about to occur, which will destroy the flimsy and imaginary prosperity that previously reigned in the house. Trying to analyze the situation, Voinitsky begins to unravel the tangle of those events that preceded the events taking place in the play. Neither the tortured professorial “I regret starting this conversation”, nor Telegin’s “Vanya, my friend, don’t, don’t... I’m trembling... Why ruin a good relationship?” are no longer able to somehow defuse the situation. From further remarks by Ivan Petrovich, which serve as another fragment of the exposition, we learn some details regarding the purchase of the estate by the protagonist’s late father (it also becomes clear from the list of characters that Voinitsky’s father was a privy councilor). The amount that the head of the family paid was quite high at that time, and he was able to pay only seventy thousand out of ninety-five. “This estate would not have been bought if I had not renounced the inheritance in favor of my sister, whom I loved dearly,” he explains. “Moreover, I worked like an ox for ten years and paid off the entire debt...” Gradually, step by step, the hero's remarks reveal the measure of the character's nobility. The estate was not upset only thanks to his efforts, but this truth affects the professor (...): now he really regrets the conversation that began. Thoughts and intentions to tell him everything that hurts grow like a snowball, and none of the heroes are able to stop this process. But if at first the conversation turned to the estate and the debts that Voinitsky finally paid off at the cost of his efforts, now he moves on to a more global topic: “You ruined my life! I didn't live, I didn't live! By your mercy I destroyed, destroyed the best years of my life! You are my worst enemy! Ivan Petrovich now speaks freely and directly about his insight. As I wrote above, in this monologue of the main character the measure of his nobility is truly and more fully revealed. Chekhov seems to bring all these elements together just at the moment of the climactic scene. Before us is no longer the same Voynitsky that was before, but what prompted him to further action? The reason lies in the passionate scene that Astrov and Elena Andreevna saw just recently. As mentioned earlier, seeing the object of his romantic feelings in the arms of another man, he loses the whole meaning of life. Plus, it seems to him, the dismissive attitude of the professor towards him, who has not bothered to express gratitude to him for his work in the form of an increase in salary in all these twenty-five years.

Hearing these speeches, Serebryakov calls Voinitsky a nonentity and wants to leave as soon as possible. “Life is lost! I am talented, smart, brave... If I had lived normally, then Schopenhauer, Dostoevsky could have come out of me... I reported it! I'm going crazy... Mother, I'm in despair! Mother!" - Voinitsky says childishly and naively. He seeks protection and support, but in front of him he sees only an indifferent mother who idolizes the professor with all her heart. Now the situation in the house is so tense that both Elena Andreevna and Telegin are trying to correct the situation, but Voinitsky can no longer be stopped. Not feeling any control over himself, he shouted “You will remember me!” runs out the middle door. This whole situation looks so frightening that Sonya, clinging to her nanny Marina, begins to cry bitterly. She wants to protect and justify her uncle in the eyes of her father, but in reality everything turns out much worse. Suddenly a shot is heard behind the stage! Immediately after him, Serebryakov runs out into the living room in fear. “Hold him down! Hold it! He's gone crazy! Following him, the voices of Elena Andreevna and the shooter himself, Ivan Petrovich Voinitsky, are heard. "Where is he?" - Voinitsky shoots twice and misses. This leads him to despair and shame. The moment of the shot can be considered the apogee, the highest point, the culmination of the entire play. Also, the shot serves as a certain point of no return, after which almost all the characters change.

Elena Andreevna, leaning against the wall, does not believe in what is happening, her husband is extremely stunned. Voinitsky’s remark “He hits the floor with a revolver and sits down on a chair in exhaustion” is more than indicative. Exhaustion should not be taken literally here. Indeed, one can imagine how much mental and emotional strength these two unsuccessful shots cost Ivan Petrovich. At the same time, it should be noted that what happened squeezed all the juice out of him. The third act showed us this man from a completely different side: if in the first act he only scattered abstract thoughts, now he turns out to be capable of more concrete actions, embodied in such unexpected turn events. “I think if a bomb had fallen in the middle of the room, it would not have amazed and frightened everyone as much as this open uprising...” wrote F.M. Dostoevsky in one of his works. I think this phrase is ideal for assessing everything that is happening. The shot that sounded at the end of the third act can be considered the very moment after which the lives of all the heroes will no longer be the same as before. Everything and everyone has changed beyond recognition, but these changes will be more obvious in the final act. It is the last act that will show what all the heroes have become (but not all of them have undergone such dramatic changes, and this should be discussed in the final part of the work). In the moment you can observe a whole range of human feelings: from despair and uncontrollable anger to shame and complete disbelief in what is happening. “Nanny! Nanny! - Sonya's remark becomes the conclusion of the third act.

Act four

The action moves to Ivan Petrovich’s rather modestly furnished room. The storm has already happened and nothing can be brought back. Telegin and nanny Marina are sitting. “We’ll live again as it was, in the old way<…>It’s been a long time since I, a sinner, have eaten noodles” - these words coming from Marina’s lips seem to mean nothing in the context of the play itself and would be unnecessary, but they do not speak about the prosperous state of the nanny herself, but about a string of those identical and gray days in which Sonya and Voinitsky returned after their experience.

With the departure of Elena Andreevna, Voinitsky loses the very hope for happiness and salvation that he cherished all this time. He steals a jar of morphine from Astrov and wants to commit suicide. But Astrov, noticing the loss in time, demands to return it back. After several attempts at persuasion (not without the help of Sonya, whom Voinitsky never dared to contradict), the morphine returns to the doctor. In this case, Ivan Petrovich behaves like a child, but this is his peculiarity. He tries to talk to the doctor and distract him, but fails and nevertheless returns the stolen goods to their place. "Strange. I attempted murder, but they don’t arrest me, they don’t put me on trial. That means they think I'm crazy. (Evil laugh.) I am crazy, and those who, under the guise of a professor, a learned magician, hide their mediocrity, stupidity, and their blatant heartlessness are not crazy. Those who marry old people and then deceive them in front of everyone are not crazy” - no, this is no longer the same Ivan Petrovich who so fervently confessed his love to Elena Andreevna. Before us is a completely different person. Lost the meaning of life, standing on the edge of an abyss. His dreamy and thoughtful intonation in the first act gives way to an evil laugh, and these changes in him are truly frightening. “Our situation, yours and mine, is hopeless,” Astrov says with annoyance. Voinitsky leaves for a serious conversation with Serebryakov. And then - a short farewell between Astrov and Elena Andreevna. “It’s somehow strange... We knew each other and suddenly for some reason... we’ll never see each other again. So everything in the world...” It must be said that Astrov himself has undergone changes. In his remarks addressed to Serebryakova, notes appeared similar to Voinitsky’s monologues in the second act: “Admit it, you have nothing to do in this world, you have no purpose in life, you have nothing to occupy your attention, and, sooner or later, you will still succumb feeling, it is inevitable. So it’s better not in Kharkov or somewhere in Kursk, but here, in the lap of nature... At least it’s poetic, even autumn is beautiful…” - now with him he has thoughts not only of the sublime and distant, but also elegiac motives, interspersed with uncontrollable passion. The doctor confesses to her that she and her husband nevertheless infected him and everyone on the estate with their idleness: “I got carried away, did nothing for a whole month, and at that time people were sick, in my forests, forest shoots, men grazed their livestock<…>And I am convinced that if you had stayed, the devastation would have been enormous. And I would have died, and you too… would have had a bad time.” Elena Andreevna takes a pencil from the table as a souvenir, which makes it clear that Astrov will never appear in her life again, but he leaves bright moments in her soul. This small element very clearly illustrates the hidden sentimentality of the heroine, her warmth, which will also appear in the scene of farewell to the residents of the estate and departure. I would like to note that the multi-complex relationship between all the characters must also have a resolution. The beginning of the relationship between Astrov and Serebryakova occurs on Astrov’s phrase “Finita” just before the appearance of Ivan Petrovich and the professor.

And now the steps of Voinitsky and Serebryakov can already be heard. It must be said that the heroes reconcile with restraint, being worthy people:

Serebryakov (to Voinitsky). Whoever remembers the old, look out. After what happened, in those few hours I experienced so much and changed my mind so much that, it seems, I could write a whole treatise on how to live for the edification of posterity. I willingly accept your apology and ask you to forgive me. Goodbye! (Kisses Voinitsky three times.)

Voinitsky. You will carefully receive the same thing you received before. Everything will be as before.

A short but sentimental farewell reveals some of the characters from their most unexpected side: for example, Elena Andreevna, in farewell to Voinitsky, kisses him on the head touchingly (although at the very beginning of the play she pushed him away, which makes it clear that the changes that happened to Serebryakova opened up in she is a completely different person - a person who knows how to empathize), and Serebryakov coldly and with officialdom pronounces the almost common noun “We must, gentlemen, do the job! We have to do something!”

“Let them leave, but I... I can’t. It's hard for me. We need to quickly occupy ourselves with something... Work, work!” - Ivan Petrovich says heavily.

After saying goodbye to the couple, everything in the house returns to normal: Voinitsky and Sonya try to get to work as quickly as possible, Marina is knitting a stocking, and Maria Vasilievna is buried in a book. Astrov delays his departure until the last minute and admits that he does not want to leave. But the horses have already been served. At the moment of departure, Astrov also shows his sentimentality, saying goodbye not only to the inhabitants of the estate, but also to his desk, at which he worked. “Thank you for the bread, for the salt, for the affection... in a word, for everything,” he says and kisses nanny Marina on the head. The old nanny offers him vodka and he agrees to drink it (unlike exactly the same moment in the first act - this kind of loop gives the scene even more sentimentality, because Marina really occupies a special place in the doctor’s life; she reminds him of childhood, of bright memories that can no longer be returned). “Don’t see me off, nanny. Don’t” - as if afraid to be moved, Astrov hastily leaves the estate. Sonya volunteers to accompany him.

Pause. Bells are heard.

Marina. Left.

Sonya (returns, puts a candle on the table). Left...

It is also difficult for Sonya to part with her loved one. And in order not to get emotional, she and her uncle sit down to work again, again plunging into the endless whirlpool of gray days. The phrase “He left” after a short farewell, hidden behind the scenes, can be considered the denouement of their relationship. “On the second of February twenty pounds of lean butter... On the sixteenth of February again twenty pounds of lean butter... Buckwheat...” - mechanized and monotonous phrases return Voinitsky to the bosom of work, which replaces his whole life and distracts him from heavy thoughts. Telegin sits down near the door and “begins tuning his guitar.” “You can hear the bells.” In this remark, calm motives can be traced - painful melancholy and silence return to the house. “We will rest!” - sounds from Sonya’s lips. Sonya's words are real poetry, shining through from every line. “We will rest! We will hear the angels, we will see the whole sky in diamonds, we will see how all the evil on earth, all our suffering will drown in the mercy that will fill the whole world and our life will become quiet, tender, sweet, like a caress...” - in these sincere words of young Sonya the music of the heart sounds. The imagination draws bright pictures of paradise awaiting the heroes. It was no coincidence that this final monologue was “given” to Sonya: Sonya is that very piece of light, that very spark that personifies the highest mercy. She cries with her uncle. From the realization of how wonderful their life will be there, in a world of joy and bliss.

This is still the same voice of hope, the last spark that was not extinguished in the heart of a young girl who was just beginning to live. The storm left, but did not change anything or anyone. Uncle Vanya is still at work and emptyly sacrificing himself to the mediocre, Telegin is still quietly playing the guitar, Marina is calmly knitting a stocking, and Maria Vasilievna is still looking for the dawn of a new life in her smart books.

About the principle of construction

“Uncle Vanya” is the fifteenth play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (if you count the so-called first version - the play “Leshy”, published in 1890). It is remarkable for many reasons. Firstly, the work undoubtedly has a sublime, elegiac sound. Moreover, this sound reaches its apogee during the monologues of the main characters (for example, Voinitsky’s monologue during a thunderstorm, which I have already repeatedly mentioned, or Sonya’s last monologue, which concludes the play). This technique is very characteristic of all of Chekhov’s dramaturgy. “Now the rain will pass, and everything in nature will be refreshed and breathe easy. A thunderstorm alone will not refresh me. Day and night, like a brownie, the thought that my life is lost irretrievably strangles me. There is no past, it is stupidly wasted on trifles, and the present is terrible in its absurdity” - I cited this quote not by chance, because it is in it that Ivan Petrovich is revealed from the philosophical side, his monologues are imbued with lyrical excitement, in places they resemble blank verse. In writing monologues, Chekhov shows his talent not only from the point of view of drama, but also from the point of view of poetry. He constructs lines with inner excitement and intimacy. But this excitement is not only characteristic of Ivan Petrovich’s words. You shouldn’t ignore Astrov’s remarks about the forest. “Russian forests are cracking under the ax, billions of trees are dying, the homes of animals and birds are being devastated, rivers are shallowing and drying up, wonderful landscapes are disappearing irrevocably, and all because a lazy person does not have enough sense to bend down and pick up fuel from the ground<…>When I pass by the peasant forests that I saved from being cut down, or when I hear the noise of my young forest, planted with my hands, I realize that the climate is somewhat in my power and that if in a thousand years a person is happy, then in I will be a little to blame for this too” - in these words one can hear the internal rhythm, the music of the heart. The doctor's excitement when talking about future generations reaches a level inaccessible to the average ear. Telegin’s words about his beloved woman also have extraordinary lyrical melodies: “My wife ran away from me the day after the wedding because of my unattractive appearance. After that I did not violate my duty. I still love her and am faithful to her, I help as much as I can and I gave my property to raise the children that she adopted with her loved one. I lost my happiness, but I still have my pride...” This is all Ilya Ilyich: as I wrote earlier, he is friendly and sincere towards everyone in the house. Moreover, he is very vulnerable: “This morning, Marina Timofeevna, I was walking through the village, and the shopkeeper followed me: “Hey, you’ve taken root!” And I felt so sad!” I will not repeat what internal excitement and musicality Sonya’s last monologue has, since I described this moment above. But in this case, only Elena Andreevna remained unnoticed. There is undoubtedly this heartfelt excitement in her too. Chekhov endows this heroine with sentimentality (just remember her farewell to Voinitsky) and extraordinary musicality (as an echo of her past as a conservatory graduate). This musicality is manifested in her monologues - in particular when talking with Sonya about Astrov (“My dear, understand this is talent! Do you know what talent means? Courage, a free head, a wide scope... Plants a tree and already wonders what will happen from it after a thousand years, he already imagines the happiness of humanity. Such people are rare, they need to be loved..."). Talking about the doctor has a very exciting effect on her. She calls him a “talented man,” and this phrase gives her monologue frankness and intimacy. And such an effect is possible only when talking with a loved one - a stepdaughter. The play is simply permeated with inner frankness and musicality. Such a sensitive attitude to words and gestures (in the form of remarks) borders on Chekhov’s unsurpassed skill in depicting that gray and oppressive reality that literally swallowed up the heroes.

Secondly, the insertions of sometimes not entirely accurate quotes from other works in replicas are very interesting different characters(Voinitsky’s remark “Shut up the fountain, Waffle!” - paraphrased Kozma Prutkov’s aphorism “If you have a fountain, shut it up; let the fountain rest”; Astrov’s remark “Ostrovsky has a man in some dog with a big mustache and little ability... " - Paratov’s remark addressed to Karandyshev in A.N. Ostrovsky’s “Dowry” (IIb, ep. IX); Serebryakov’s remark “I invited you, gentlemen, to announce that an auditor is coming to us” - an inaccurate quote from the comedy N. .V. Gogol “The Inspector General” and, finally, another remark from Voinitsky “... Straining the mind, wrinkling the brow ...” - an inaccurate quote from I.I. Dmitriev’s satire “Alien Talk” of 1794).

Thirdly, it is worth talking about such features as time and space in the play. First, let's analyze the entire cycle completed in all four actions. At the very beginning of the first act, Chekhov remarked “It’s three o’clock in the afternoon. Cloudy” immediately gives a very clear description of the time and weather. An associative series immediately forms in my head and my imagination very accurately reproduces the setting of the daycare. "Garden. A part of the house with a terrace is visible. On the alley under an old poplar tree there is a table set for tea. Benches, chairs; There is a guitar on one of the benches” - it is no coincidence that the playwright places an old poplar tree in this setting. At the subtext level, it is a sign denoting the old way of life, traditions. It is possible that this poplar is much older than Voinitsky and, most likely, he remembers this poplar from childhood and associates some personal memories with them. Under this poplar tree there is a table already prepared by the nanny for tea drinking. As was already said earlier, nanny Marina personifies traditions and well-being in the home. This table is designed to unite all family members, but in reality only “minor squabbles” and quarrels take place behind it. Marina sits at the table and knits a stocking, and Doctor Astrov walks next to her. From the conversation between both, it becomes clear that Mikhail Lvovchi has known the family for many years, and even found Sonya’s mother alive. “You visited us with her for two winters... Well, that means eleven years have passed... (Thinking) Or maybe more...” says the nanny. Such instability in time arouses interest. Another, albeit small, but very significant detail is the samovar. “The professor gets up at twelve o’clock, and the samovar has been boiling since the morning, everything is waiting for him,” says Marina, but a couple of remarks later she adds, “The samovar has been on the table for two hours, and they went for a walk!” But it’s already three o’clock in the afternoon. It turns out that the samovar was put on the table only in the first hour, that is, after the professor’s usual awakening time. What is this: a shaken order in the estate, a banal mistake by Anton Pavlovich, made directly at the stage of reworking the play “Leshy”, or a deliberate trick? I think that this is not just a mistake, because this happens in every play of the playwright. A similar distortion of time occurs in subsequent acts. But the first act is characterized not only by spatio-temporal features; there are also problems with the weather: let me remind you that in the first act the stage directions include a detail describing the weather conditions - “Cloudy,” but what is really happening? “It’s hot, stuffy, and our great scientist is in a coat, galoshes, with an umbrella and gloves,” says Voinitsky. No matter how obvious it may sound, “hot” and “cloudy” are two completely different states of nature, and such a moment also makes us think about the structural features of the entire play.

In the second act, Chekhov places the characters in a late-night setting. Serebryakov, with his whims, again raises everyone at home to their feet. Nanny Marina appears with a candle in her hands. Sonya asks her to go to bed, but receives in response: “The samovar has not been removed from the table. You won’t lie down very well.” And again the samovar becomes a compositional and temporal center. Night has fallen, but it is still not removed, and such a move is no longer a mistake, but a deliberate action by Chekhov. The appearance of the professor and his wife on the estate has already stirred up the lives of everyone at home so much that even nanny Marina does not have time to clear the samovar from the table and cannot go to bed peacefully without this obligatory ritual. An important temporal reference is given in the same act in Voinitsky’s monologue, in which he talks about his first meeting with Elena Andreevna: “Ten years ago I met her at her late sister. She was seventeen then, and I was thirty-seven years old.” IN this episode the time frame is presented by Chekhov quite accurately. In addition, it becomes clear that Voinitsky met Serebryakova a year before his sister’s death (approximately eleven years minus two winters of Astrov’s arrival at the estate). And it is from this episode that it becomes clear why Elena Andreevna is the only character whose age in the list of characters is not specifically indicated, but this detail seems to set her apart from everyone else. The beautiful number ten is very metaphorical within this framework (in particular in Voinitsky’s monologue).

It is worth noting in which part of the house the second and third acts take place: the dining room and living room in Serebryakov’s house. The fourth act, the setting after the climactic scene, takes place in Ivan Petrovich’s modestly furnished room. The phrase “Serebryakov’s House” in the spatial stage directions of the second and third acts has a specific meaning: the professor seems to be suppressing everyone on the estate. But after the climactic scene and the “point of no return” shot, the action moves to Voinitsky’s room. It should be noted that the situation in it is described with the greatest accuracy: it contains objects that, as it seems at first glance, are completely out of place here. Some papers, a desk, cupboards, scales, a cage with a starling, a map of Africa (almost at the very end of the play, Astrov will come up to her and say: “And, in this very Africa, the heat must now be a terrible thing!”). Now outside the window according to the remark “Autumn evening. Silence". Obviously, this remark is quite metaphorical: autumn usually symbolizes the decline of nature, despondency, drowsiness, melancholy, and introversion. On the other hand, it is worth noting one important circumstance: for the first time in the entire play, the season is indicated most specifically (although the roses that were to be presented to Serebryakova were called “autumn” by Voinitsky). This remark is not only metaphorical, but also elegiac - silence and peace create the very lyrical flows for which “Uncle Vanya” is so remarkable.

In the last scene of Astrov's departure, Ivan Petrovich returns to work. From his calculations one can understand how large a time interval Chekhov spent: “On February 2nd, 20 pounds of lean butter... On February 16th, again, 20 pounds of lean butter...”. February. But it’s autumn outside. Chekhov's obvious inconsistency in time is already becoming comprehensive.

But one important detail should not be ignored: how much time did the Serebryakov couple spend on the estate? If we judge by Maria Vasilievna’s remark in the first act: “I’m sorry, Jean, but in the last year you have changed so much that I don’t recognize you at all...”, then we can conclude that the professor and his wife have been living in the house for a year, but not all so simple. I note that Astrov has been visiting them for exactly a month (obviously, the professor would have felt unwell at least a week later, but not eleven months after his arrival), Telegin and Sonya show them the forest and, no matter how banal it may sound, I don’t think , that the professorial couple were so uninterested in the life around them that they decided to take a walk in the forest after so many months.

If we draw some invisible line across all of the above regarding the temporal and spatial context, then some confusion arises here. I really want to justify all of Chekhov’s inconsistency in time and sometimes complete lack of logic as some kind of mistake made when editing the play “Leshy.” But if this had been an error, it would have been corrected by the editor or by Chekhov themselves immediately before going to press. It is quite possible that the fact of error is still present, but the assumption of intentionality of such a concept is also worthy of existence.

“Uncle Vanya” is very diverse not only in terms of structure and some fundamental things relating to time and space, but also in the context of genre definition. Obviously, when posing the question of genre, it is worth taking into account the fact that the play has several layers: the genre, defined by Chekhov as something primary, and secondary, i.e. elements of other genres found throughout the work. I'll try to explain what I mean by the element of secondary importance. By minor element I mean specific scenes and behavior of specific characters that have elements of one or another genre, according to the classification significantly less than the genre given by the author (for example, melodrama, sitcom, farce, tragic farce, etc.).

It is obvious that "Uncle Vanya" has all the signs of drama and dramatic conflict. And the main character, Ivan Petrovich Voinitsky, is an undoubted dramatic character. The main sign of drama in the play is the clearly outlined antagonism that arose between him and Professor Serebryakov, who, as it seems to Voinitsky himself, is not worthy of his rather high and authoritative position in scientific circles. Of course, the love line is also dramatic. And it is determined by the hero’s complex of delusions. Confessing his love to Elena Andreevna over and over again, in his remarks addressed to her, one and the same thought comes through, which is most clearly expressed in the second act: “...If you knew how much I suffer from the thought that next to I am dying in this same house another life - yours! What are you waiting for? What damned philosophy is stopping you?..." He thinks so, but what is going on in Serebryakova’s soul? What Voinitsky considers “damned philosophy” actually turns into the remark “It’s not safe in this house.”

This is what in the context of the study can be called the primary layer. The secondary one is no less interesting. Let's consider this using the example of several important episodes. For example, the episode of the passionate explanation of Astrov and Serebryakova and the sudden arrival of Voinitsky with a bouquet in his hands. This is an obvious sitcom. Here the rhythm of the play accelerates along with the speed of the characters' reaction to what is happening. Noticing Voinitsky with a bouquet of “autumn roses,” Elena Andreevna, retreating from Astrov, begins to feel a sense of shame. From a mise-en-scène point of view, it looks no less comical, because both heroes do not immediately notice that they have been caught red-handed. The bouquet of roses in the hands of Ivan Petrovich and his childishly pronounced “I, Helene, saw everything, everything...” has both a comic and, undoubtedly, a dramatic side, because what he saw will push the hero to take an unpredictable step. The play also contains melodramatic notes. We are talking about two unsuccessful shots at Professor Serebryakov (“Let me in, Helene! Let me in! (Having freed himself, he runs in and looks for Serebryakov.) Where is he? Oh, here he is! (Shoots him.) Bang!”). Here Ivan Petrovich is funny and absurd, but this episode cannot be entirely called melodramatic. In this context, the main difference between melodrama is the seriousness and preparedness of the hero for a decisive action. Here, Voinitsky was not only not prepared in advance, he fired two shots only because of the love scene he saw between Astrov and Elena Andreevna, coupled with Serebryakov’s disdainful attitude towards him. He did not have a specific plan - everything was done impulsively and spontaneously.

One should not deprive attention of individual characters in the play, who are undoubtedly interesting from the point of view of the genre. Take for example Ilya Ilyich Telegin. The comedy in him is evident literally from the first remarks: “Vanya, I don’t like it when you talk like that. Well, really... Whoever cheats on his wife or husband is, therefore, an unfaithful person, he can also cheat on his fatherland!..." Such mixing of one with the other provides not only comedy, but also the awkwardness of the situation. Also a comic character, of course, is Maria Vasilievna Voinitskaya. Occasionally in the play she calls her son “Jean,” which gives her a certain grotesqueness, a caricature, rather than loyalty to old traditions, which were sometimes mockingly called “a mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod.” It must be said that despite what happened on the estate, none of these characters (plus nanny Marina) have changed in terms of character; all three live as they lived before.

The same year the collection “Motley Stories” was published. It included seventy-seven stories from 1883-1886. The collection was reprinted fourteen times. At this time, the foundations of A.P. Chekhov’s creative method were laid: “In descriptions of nature, one must grasp small details, grouping them in such a way that after reading, when you close your eyes, a picture is given...”. 1887 is the last year of extensive writing and...

Veiled author's subtexts, revealing not only the first, but also the second and third plans. Conclusion The fate of A. Chekhov's drama in the theaters of Belarus from the moment of the first productions until 1980 was quite complicated. The artistic level of stage interpretations of Chekhov's plays was mostly low. In some productions, A. Chekhov’s heroes were idealized, in others...

The same process took place in the theater as in literature. That is why the efforts of the outstanding reformers of the Russian theater Stanislavsky and 1 - Berdnikov G.P. merged together. Chekhov the playwright: traditions and innovations in Chekhov's dramaturgy. M.1982 p.21. Nemirovich-Danchenko, on the one hand, and the great Russian writer Chekhov, on the other, which is why Chekhov’s dramaturgy turned out to be called upon to play a decisive...

“Uncle Vanya” is a play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, which combines lyrical, psychological and artistic parts. The author pays a lot of attention to describing the character and experiences of the main character, and gives secondary importance to the plot.

This play shows a man's struggle with himself. The dialogue is simple and the overall storytelling style is easy to read. We can feel the atmosphere of silence and calm, despite the complex relationships between the characters.

The play consists of four acts, the narrative flows smoothly, and it is difficult to highlight special climactic moments. It begins calmly and ends calmly, although the plot contains many events. Throughout the play, the author shows us the confrontation between the characters. The arrival of Serebryakov and his young wife Elena in the village can be called the beginning of the action.

All the characters in the play are static, weak and melancholic. All their lives they wait for changes, but they themselves do nothing to change anything. This is how they spend their days, the same way, without fun and new experiences.

Although Voinitsky managed to change a little for a while, it did not last long. Soon he returns to his usual monotonous way of life with his niece Sonya. All the characters are described as if they are waiting for their death, but none of them decides to commit suicide.

Chekhov shows the characters' characters through dialogues, while he does not accuse them of anything, but simply portrays them as they are. There is no specific moral to this story, but the author did an excellent job of showing people's behavior in certain situations.

Genre: play

Time: 24 hours of one autumn night

Scene: Russian village – Serebryakov’s house

Uncle Vanya retelling

The work begins with a description of Serebryakov’s life. He is a retired professor and has his own estate, inherited from his first wife. From his past we learn that he gets a lot of money from this house, so he lives an idle life and has everything he wants. The people who provided for him were proud of him, admired his intelligence and talent, although they had no idea what he really was like.

As a professor, he did not have many students, and now, having retired, he tried to write articles. But these were thoughts about the lives of completely different people, and not his own.

He was always lucky in love, women loved him. From his first marriage, in which his wife died early, Serebryakov had a daughter, Sofia, whom everyone simply called Sonya. After some time, he marries again, this time to a young woman named Elena. He believes that she is offended by the fact that he is much older, so he needs to prove to her that he also has the right to happiness, despite his age.

His daughter Sonya is young, but not very attractive. She looks after the house together with her uncle Vanya, the brother of Serebryakov’s first wife. When Serebryakov and his wife arrived at the estate, Sonya’s life seemed to stop; she didn’t want to do anything. At first she did not want to talk to her stepmother, but then they manage to find a common language. Sonya notices that she is in love with Mikhail Lvovich Astrov. Astrov is a doctor and loves to drink, but Sonya is very unhappy because of this. She realizes that she cannot change anything.

Uncle Vanya is a forty-seven-year-old man who suddenly realizes that he is wasting his life. All his life he worked for Serebryakov, but now he sees that he is only pretending to be an intellectual, but in reality he is not known for his work. Uncle Vanya feels deceived for believing him, angry that he could have lived his life completely differently. He doesn't intend to put up with this anymore.

Also living on the estate are the widow Maria Vasilievna Voinitskaya, the mother of Serebryakov’s first wife and uncle Vanya, Marina, an old nanny, whom everyone considers a member of the family, and Telegin, a simple worker who helps around the house. He also knows how to play the guitar, which brings some fun into the house.

The professor tells everyone that he wants to sell the estate, and because of this, Sonya and Uncle Vanya would end up on the street. Uncle Vanya does not want to put up with this injustice, so he decides to shoot the professor and takes a gun. Having fired, he realizes that he missed. He feels ashamed because he is in love with Elena, who does not pay any attention to him.

Uncle Vanya has similar feelings to Sonya. He loses faith, does not know what to live for next. He is frightened by the fact that he is not too old yet, and he has no idea what to do with the remaining years of his life. Despite the desire to start new life, he is depressed that Astrov constantly repeats that they have nowhere else to go.

Astrov is a rural doctor who started drinking because of his exhausting work. He admits he has a drinking problem, but claims he works better drunk. He is lonely, lost, does not value himself at all and has no family. His most great tragedy is that he doesn’t feel anything and doesn’t love anyone.

Sonya would be an ideal wife for him, but he did not have any feelings for her. On the other hand, he was very attached to Elena, who has something that Astrov did not have - youth. He believed that if they started a new life together, he would feel young again. Astrov asked her to meet many times, but she refused him every time.

Astrov realizes that his life no longer has meaning and decides to leave the village. He reports that he will return in the spring, but he knows that this will not happen. The doctor believes that the best way to kill time and forget about the meaninglessness of life is alcohol.

Elena is an unhappy twenty-seven-year-old girl. She is the character around whom the play develops. The main reason for her unhappiness is her old, flabby and nervous husband, who cannot provide her with a good life. But, despite her hatred for him, she never deceived or betrayed him.

Elena never felt comfortable in this estate because of Astrov and Uncle Vanya's feelings for her. Uncle Vanya - brother deceased wife her husband, and Sonya was in love with Astrov.

The play ends with Elena and her husband leaving the estate towards another life.

Heroes: Serebryakov, Elena, Sonya, Uncle Vanya, Astrov, Marina, Telegin.

Character Analysis

Uncle Ivan- a forty-seven-year-old man who realized that his life was wasted. He ekes out a miserable existence with his niece Sonya. He feels deceived and betrayed, and when he found out that the professor wanted to sell the estate, he tried to shoot him, but missed. The only joy in his life is Elena, but she does not reciprocate his feelings.

Sonya- unhappy because of her love for Astrov. She works a lot on the estate and, in fact, has never lived life to the fullest. She doesn't have the heart to change anything, so she finds solace in faith.

Astrov- a doctor, an intellectual, stuck in a Russian village. He spent his entire life working alone. He is indifferent to everything except Elena, who has no feelings for him. I came to terms with my meaningless life.

Elena– a twenty-seven-year-old girl, has an unhappy marriage with a man much older than her. She has accepted her fate and does not seek to change anything. Many men have confessed their love to her, but she remains faithful to her husband no matter what.

Serebryakov- an elderly professor who caused a lot of grief to the people around him. Uncle Vanya and Elena considered him the reason for their unhappy life, but Sonya still loved him. He is already old and sick, so he envies other people’s youth. He is narcissistic and demands attention. Avoids talking about his work, has no great achievements in life.

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov biography

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a classic of literature, based on whose works performances are staged all over the world.

Born on January 29, 1860 in the city of Taganrog, Ekaterinoslav province, in the family of a merchant. After graduating from high school in 1879, he entered the Faculty of Medicine at Moscow University. During this period, Chekhov published his humorous stories under pseudonyms, the most famous of which is Antosha Chekhonte, in various publications. The first collection of stories, “Tales of Melpomene,” was published in 1884.

After graduation, the writer works as a doctor in Zvenigorod. In subsequent years, he traveled a lot, visited the Crimea, Sakhalin, where he studied the life of convicts, the Caucasus, while continuing to write. In 1892 he lived in Moscow, then on the Melikhovo estate in the Moscow region. During this period, he wrote his most famous works, including “Man in a Case”, “Lady with a Dog”, “The Seagull”, “The Cherry Orchard” and others.

In 1899, Chekhov moved to Yalta to improve his health, undermined by tuberculosis. There he is visited by L. Tolstoy, M. Gorky, I. Bunin and others. In 1901, he married the Moscow Art Theater actress Olga Knipper.

Astrov Mikhail Lvovich from the play "Uncle Vanya" - a doctor. From his appearance, Chekhov singles out his long mustache, about which Astrov himself says with bewilderment and irony: “Look, a huge mustache has grown... Stupid mustache.” Over the past ten years, he has aged a lot, explaining this by the fact that he worked too hard, from morning to night on his feet. Astrov is tired, his feelings, according to him, have become dull, he doesn’t want anything and considers himself an eccentric. Life seems boring, stupid, dirty to him.

However, this hero’s laziness is somewhat feigned. Although he is not satisfied with life, at the same time, he is active and takes on functions that he is not at all obliged to perform. As it turns out, he has a small estate, about thirty acres, which has an exemplary garden and nursery, the likes of which cannot be found “a thousand miles around.” In addition, he actually manages all affairs in the neighboring state forestry, whose forester is old and constantly ill. Astrov plants new forests every year, for which he was even awarded a bronze medal and a diploma. Mikhail Lvovich is a romantic in his own way. He delivers a sublime monologue about the need to save forests and his contribution to a better future, as well as the famous monologue that “everything in a person should be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts.” According to Sonya, who is in love with him, he believes that people do not create, but only destroy what is given to them from above. Although Astrov says that he does not expect anything for himself and does not like people, nevertheless he has a thirst for life. He is attracted to beauty. He confesses to Serebryakov’s wife Elena Andreevna that he is infatuated with her and proposes to meet.

Voinitskaya Maria Vasilievna - widow of the Privy Councilor, mother of the first wife of Professor Serebryakov and Ivan Petrovich. She adores Serebryakov and worships him, but she reproaches her son for having changed a lot. Previously, according to her, he was a bright person with convictions, but failed to realize them because he did not do the work. She constantly takes Serebryakov’s side.

Voinitsky Ivan Petrovich (Uncle Vanya) - the main character of Chekhov's play "Uncle Vanya". He is 47 years old. When asked by Astrov what’s new, he answers about himself that he has become worse because he has become lazy, does nothing and only grumbles. His sister, “a beautiful, meek creature,” was Serebryakov’s first wife. Voinitsky laments that he did not see real life, because he clouded his eyes with scholasticism, that he foolishly wasted his time. He is in love with Serebryakov’s wife Elena Andreevna, does not hide his feelings and is ready to love her even without reciprocity. He constantly argues with Serebryakov, who was once his idol and whom he now hates, blaming for the collapse of his life. In response to Serebryakov’s offer to sell the estate, Voinitsky explodes and accuses him of ruining his life. “If I had lived normally,” says Uncle Vanya, “then I could have been a Schopenhauer, a Dostoevsky...” The scandal reaches its climax: Uncle Vanya shoots at Serebryakov twice, but misses.

Another underlying motive for Voinitsky’s rebellion is that he accidentally witnesses Doctor Astrov’s love affair with Elena Andreevna. After everything that happened, he is painfully ashamed. He dreams of starting a new life and asks Astrov where to start, to which the doctor replies with annoyance that their situation is hopeless. Uncle Vanya steals morphine from Astrov to commit suicide, the doctor tries to take it away. Ivan Petrovich gives it back only after Sonya’s intervention. The hero breaks out from the tormented soul: “But we must work quickly, do something quickly, otherwise I can’t... I can’t...” Final scene- Uncle Vanya and Sonya are working, and Sonya consoles him with the fact that they will still see “a bright, beautiful, graceful life.”

Elena Andreevna - wife of Professor Serebryakov. Born in St. Petersburg. Graduated from the conservatory. Her image appears in the play even before her appearance on stage - Voinitsky dreams about her, he talks about her with Astrov, wondering how she could give Serebryakov “youth, beauty, freedom, her brilliance.” Elena Andreevna acutely feels the tense, dysfunctional atmosphere in the house, suffering from this and powerless to bring peace. Putting up with Serebryakov’s daughter Sonya, who was angry with her for a long time and did not want to talk, she swears that she married Serebryakov not out of convenience, but because she was carried away by him as a scientist and famous person. The heroine herself understands that her love was artificial, but then it seemed to her that it was real. She calls herself an episodic person and feels unhappy. After the scene with Astrov declaring his love to her, of which Voinitsky becomes an accidental witness, she asks her husband to leave as soon as possible. Before leaving, Elena Andreevna admits to Astrov that she was a little carried away by him and will remember him with pleasure.

Marina (Marina Timofeevna) - old nanny. Correlates with the type of old servant in other plays by Chekhov. Constantly remembers the past. In an atmosphere of mutual discord and discontent, she alone does not seem to notice this, connecting everyone with heartfelt warmth and sympathy. She is, in fact, the main keeper of the hearth, other characters turn to her in the most tense moments, she is able to console and pacify with disinterested and selfless attention or kindly scold, calling quarreling men “ganders.”

Serebryakov Alexander Vladimirovich - retired professor. The son of a simple sexton, who became a famous person in science. This hero of the play “Uncle Vanya”, even on a hot, fine day, wears a coat, galoshes, an umbrella and gloves (the motif of the case, Chekhov always has a negatively colored image). As Voinitsky bitterly characterizes him, “a man has been reading and writing about art for exactly twenty-five years, understanding absolutely nothing about art... And at the same time, what conceit! What claims!

With his arrival, everything in the house, according to Voinitsky, went out of whack. From morning until late at night, Serebryakov sits in his office and writes. At night he is tormented by gout and the melancholy of old age. It seems to him, and not without reason, that he annoys everyone in the house. Serebryakov cannot live in the village and proposes to sell the estate in order to turn the proceeds into interest-bearing securities and receive interest on which it will be possible not only to live, but also to buy a dacha in Finland. This infuriates Voinitsky, who put a lot of effort into the estate so that it would be debt-free and generate income. With his proposal, Serebryakov gives Uncle Vanya a reason to express to his face everything that he thinks about him. The ensuing scandal ends with Voinitsky shooting at him twice, but missing. At the end of the play, the hero reconciles with Voinitsky and, before leaving for Kharkov, gives instructions to everyone: “... We must, gentlemen, do the job! We have to do something!”

Sofya Alexandrovna (Sonya) - Serebryakov’s daughter from his first marriage. She is in love with Doctor Astrov, hardly hides her feelings and suffers because of his indifference, and also because she considers herself ugly. Together with Uncle Vanya, she does the housework, takes care of haymaking and other matters, she is also tormented by dissatisfaction with life. She agrees with the proposal of Serebryakov’s wife Elena Andreevna to carefully find out how Astrov treats Sonya and, if he does not love her, tell him to stop visiting them. Sonya consoles Uncle Vanya and says that she is also unhappy, but will endure it until the end of her life. And she also advises him to endure. The final scene, where Sonya and Uncle Vanya work after the departure of Serebryakov with his wife and Astrov, ends with the famous lyrical monologue of the heroine comforting Uncle Vanya, a monologue full of light sadness and sincere inspiration.

Telegin Ilya Ilyich (Waffle) - an impoverished landowner, a hanger-on, lives on Serebryakov’s estate. From his story about himself it is known that his wife ran away from him the day after the wedding because of his unattractive appearance, but nevertheless he does not violate his duty, loves her as before and gave his property to raise the girls whom she took with her. another person. “I lost my happiness, but I still have my pride,” he says. At the same time, he is perceived as an eccentric, unsettled and deprived of personal happiness, although he tries to accept life as it is and even considers it bliss.

Nedorechko Yu.G. Analysis of A. P. Chekhov’s play “Uncle Vanya” in the aspect of communication classic work with modernity

Classic works fiction That’s why they are called eternal because they solve universal human problems in certain socio-historical conditions. These problems cannot but worry people living in different eras, although each new generation looks for answers to its questions in it.

Therefore, the perception of a work of art depends not only on its originality, but also on the characteristics of the historical period in which this work is viewed, as well as on what the perceiver is, what thoughts and feelings excite him.

The rapprochement of a classical work of art with modernity is accomplished through comparison, which refers primarily to the socio-historical nature of the periods when the work was written and when it is being considered.

This comparison is made primarily by identifying those universal human problems that worried people then and now.

To make it possible to truly compare problems, as well as images-characters with their spiritual world and actions, it is necessary to reproduce in the minds of students not only the socio-historical era reflected in the work, but also the thoughts, feelings, moods, and aspirations of the people of that time. It should also show the complexity and inconsistency of human characters in a work of art, talk about how, in what ways artistic means these characters were created.

And after this, help students look at a work of art through the eyes of a straw man, highlight in it what is in tune with our time, what will constantly excite human society moving towards progress, and what is forever a thing of the past, and what is a relic prevents you from truly living.

In general, the entire process of comparison should take place not at the end of the analysis of a work of art, but during it. Already when the problems of a work of art and their solution in certain socio-historical conditions are considered, students begin this process of comparison.

The inner work of thought and feeling deepens even more when we talk about artistic images-characters, when the teacher not only shows the complexity of people’s lives, their struggle for happiness, for human dignity, but will also try to reveal the secret of how a writer manages to penetrate the soul of a contemporary person, to reproduce in vivid and memorable images what worried people and his time.

And here, when we talk about human characters, the teacher will direct the students’ attention to the fact that fiction is called human studies, because writers at all times, to a greater or lesser extent, sought to comprehend a person, understand and reveal the richness of his inner world.

Analysis of the images-characters in their interaction, clash, struggle will help students understand that this is a natural and eternal state of human characters: the struggle for the best, new, constant dissatisfaction, sometimes a manifestation of weakness, the inability to achieve victory in this struggle.

When drawing a conclusion, the teacher will definitely show what the writer was striving for, what he believed in, what he dreamed of, and this main idea of ​​the work of art, derived from living, real situations, will make you think about how much this faith, this dream could have been realized then, how can it be realized now and whether it can be realized at all.

Our thoughts about establishing a connection with modernity as a process are based not only on experimental work, but also on some serious methodological and psychological research. And first of all, on the book by G. A. Gukovsky “Studying a literary work at school.” The author of the work, published back in 1947 and republished in 1966, criticizing straightforwardness in establishing connections with modernity, shows the meaninglessness and harmfulness of this activity if there is no historicism in the analysis of a work of art, there is no deep and complete assessment of the entire work as a whole (meaning the form and content), there is no analysis of the idea that permeates it. This seems completely true to us; it is only necessary to approach this multifaceted analysis as a process, knowledge of which should help the teacher establish the correct connections with modernity. But we cannot agree with the author of the book that the perception of a work of art is of the same naive-realistic nature for all students. Research by modern psychologists suggests that the perception of a work of art depends on the age and development, individual characteristics associated with natural data of students (Nikiforova O.I. Perception of fiction by schoolchildren. Uchpedgiz, 1959). An experimental test of students' perception of a work of art shows that, with the goal of establishing a connection with modernity, they usually strive to find what is common to people of different historical periods, and then make an attempt to highlight what distinguishes them.

In the process of studying Chekhov’s work, the task was set to establish the nature of the connection with modernity of the play “Uncle Vanya”. To begin this work, it was necessary to check what initial impression Chekhov’s play “Uncle Vanya” made on the students. Before reading the play, they were asked why Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya wrote down in her diary the words of Doctor Astrov from Chekhov’s play: “Everything in a person should be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts.”

The students responded that they usually write down the sayings they like in their diaries, those words that correspond to a person’s feelings, thoughts, and moods.

Apparently, for Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya these words denoted the human ideal. Confirming the correctness of the students' answers, the teacher expressed the idea that, therefore, in a classical work of art there are those eternal thoughts and feelings that constantly and in different ways excite people, and asked the students, after they read the play, to write a paper on topic: “How is Chekhov’s play “Uncle Vanya” consonant with our time?” (Similar work was carried out simultaneously in 3 schools; it was carried out by students of the 9th grade during the period of studying the work of A.P. Chekhov). An analysis of 78 works by students from different schools allowed us to make some interesting observations.

1. In most works (62), the connection with modernity was established through a comparison of the problems posed by the writer and their relevance in our time.

2. The main attention of the students was focused on the problem of the purpose and meaning of life in the play.

3. Chekhov's characters were perceived straightforwardly as positive (Dr. Astrov) or negative

(Serebryakov).

4. The comparison of characters was done with rare exceptions (in 7 works) without taking into account the difference in historical periods.

The works could be divided into three types, each reflecting to some extent the uniqueness of the students’ perception of the work.

1) There were works of an exclusively subjectivist direction, without any attempt at social characterization, with a clearly expressed naive-realistic idea of ​​​​a work of art.

Here is what Olya Rusetskaya wrote, for example: (I quote fragments from the work):

“When you are given the task of comparing a work with modern times, you involuntarily try to find in our world the same people as in the play, and, of course, they are found. Unfortunately, we still have people like Elena Andreevna. These live only for themselves, and the light from their beauty does not warm anyone. However, it’s not worth even talking about them. People like Professor Serebryakov still exist today, although rarely. His daughter Sonya also looks like her father, although she is more attractive. It seems to me that she is doing the wrong thing: sitting and waiting for a good life to come, and doing nothing for it, this is rarely seen now.

Like Sonya, Uncle Vanya also knows everything, understands everything and is still waiting for something.

There is a lot in the play that is similar to how it is now, and that’s why it probably makes you think.”

2) There were more works in which students showed a tendency to generalize and think in connection with the play.

So, for example, Viktor Ivanov argues:

“...Chekhov notes that without the goal of life that a person sets for himself and to which he constantly strives, life is boring and gray. He puts this thought into the mouth of Doctor Astrov. And, really, what is the purpose in life? A goal is a milestone that a person sets for himself and strives for. The struggle to achieve your goal is the meaning of life.

Nowadays, the objective goal in life, common to all people of our country, is communism. It is very important that the subjective goal, that is, the goal of an individual’s life, is inextricably linked with the objective goal of life, so that it is harmoniously intertwined with it.

Every person must determine the purpose of his life and live meaningfully, fighting for its implementation. Chekhov’s play provokes reflection on this issue.”

3) There were works in which students sought to establish the social reasons for the existence of certain phenomena.

Thus, Anatoly Musatov compares the intelligentsia in different eras:

“Inactive, devoid of serious vital interests, this is how the provincial intelligentsia of capitalist Russia appears.

The Soviet intelligentsia plays a huge role in building a communist society. We admire the successes of scientists in the exploration of outer space and in revealing the secrets of the atomic nucleus.

But among our intelligentsia there are careerists who are very similar to Chekhov’s Serebryakov.

However, the main difference is that in the time of Chekhov, the appearance of people like Voinitsmiy, Elena Andreevna, Serebryakov was a natural phenomenon of bourgeois society; for a socialist society this is not typical and is a relic of the past.”

So, as a result preliminary work By analyzing the initial perception of Chekhov’s play “Uncle Vanya” as a work consonant with our time, the teacher acquires a general idea of ​​what happened and to what extent is accessible to students in terms of the problem presented and what needed serious explanation.

To show why A.P. Chekhov’s play “Uncle Vanya” is so relevant today, the teacher poses the following problems that the students have not solved on their own.

1. First of all, show the versatility of the play main problem, which has a lively sound in our time.

2. To give a clearer idea of ​​how the socio-historical features of the era were reflected in the work of art, what impact they had on the solution of the problems put forward by the writer.

3. What features of Chekhov’s realism were manifested in the human characters he created.

4. In general, what is the uniqueness of Chekhov’s talent as a playwright that makes his play so modern?

To do this, first of all, through conversation, the range of problems that was outlined by the writer was clarified. The conversation helped to combine particular problems into one general, main one, which raised the question of the meaning of work in the life of the Russian provincial intelligentsia of the 90s of the last century.

This problem examined the life prospects of Russian provincial intellectuals, their attitude to work, their understanding of beauty, views on love, happiness, hopes for the future, dreams about it.

How A.P. Chekhov managed to solve these problems for his time is best evidenced by the reviews of his contemporaries.

So, for example, after the production of the play “Uncle Vanya” in Nizhny Novgorod in November 1898, M. Gorky wrote to A.P. Chekhov:

“The other day I watched “Uncle Vanya”, watched and cried like a woman, although I am far from a nervous person... For me, this is a terrible thing. Your “Uncle Vanya” is absolutely the new kind dramatic art, a hammer with which you hit the empty heads of the public...

In the last act of Vanya, when the doctor, after a long pause, talks about the heat in Africa, I trembled with admiration for your talent and fear for people, for our colorless, miserable life...” (M Gorky. Collected. cit., vol. 28).

His friend, doctor P.I. Kurkin, wrote to A.P. Chekhov about the truth of life, about the typicality of created characters, after the performance of “Uncle Vanya” at the Moscow Art Theater in October 1899:

“It seems to me that I was somewhere in a distant living world. The echoes of this world still ring loudly in the soul and prevent one from surrendering to everyday work. Now everything around seems so uninteresting and boring... The point, it seems to me, is in the tragedy of these people, in the tragedy of these everyday life, which is now returning to its place, returning forever and shackling these people forever. And the point is that the fire of talent here illuminates the life and soul of the simplest, most ordinary people. All the streets are crowded with these simple people, and everyone carries a piece of this existence within themselves...” (State Library of the USSR named after Lenin. Notes of the Manuscript Department, issue 8, p. 40).

Newspapers of that time also took an active part in the assessment of the play, which noted the social relevance of the main problem of the work. So, for example, “Northern Courier” wrote: “Modern man is sick, morally sick because he wants to live, but has nothing to live with” (“Northern Courier”, 1900. No. 65, January 7).

The play by A.P. Chekhov forced the Russian intelligentsia in those years to think about their lives and contributed to their intellectual development. V. M. Sobolevsky wrote about this to A.P. Chekhov on March 28, 1900: “As recently as the last two weeks, conversations at meetings of self-learning youth... were specifically dedicated to “Uncle Vanya” and “The Seagull.” These two things continue to dominate the repertoire not only of the theater, but also of the intellectual life in general. They exercise, learn to think, understand life, look for a way out, etc. This is what it means to touch the very essence and the most painful strings" (State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin. Notes of the Department of Manuscripts, issue 8, pp. .61).

These statements by contemporaries about the play “Uncle Vanya” gave an idea of ​​some of the features of the historical period that it reflected. This is, first of all, the aimlessness and stultifying monotony of life of the provincial intelligentsia, cut off from the social struggle.

In the play, Chekhov revealed the tragedy of loneliness, isolation, and the hopelessness of the existence of the Russian provincial intelligentsia. He showed how morally they sink and perish, incapable of action, living only in the dream of a better life. happy life. The play amazed Chekhov's contemporaries with the power of the merciless truth of life; it did not indicate a way out, but made everyone think about their life, gave rise to dissatisfaction with it, and sowed the seeds of protest.

The strength of the play lay not only in the fact that it reflected the most striking features of that time, was its fruit, but also in the fact that it put forward such universal human and social problems, which did not fit into the framework of a separate historical period: man’s eternal search for purpose and meaning in life, the desire to be useful to society, the constant

dissatisfaction and faith in a better future, passionate longing for an ideal, thirst for beauty, love, happiness.

All these questions came together main idea about the role of labor in the life of Russian provincial intellectuals. The play showed an ordinary life, outwardly devoid, as it was in reality, of any exceptional incidents, except for Voinitsky’s shots at Serebryakov. Chekhov emphasized this ordinariness with an almost non-developing plot and definition of the genre of the play: “Scenes from village life.”

But as always with Chekhov, behind these scenes of everyday life a second, deeper inner life of the characters was visible, their reaction to the external course of events was felt, their complex relationships were revealed, everything was illuminated by the artist from certain social positions.

The central theme also determined the nature of the structure of the play, where, on the one hand, people are opposed to each other in their attitude to work, on the other hand, internal conflict: a person’s struggle with himself, self-condemnation for aimless work, desire and powerlessness to change anything in the present.

The play is called “Uncle Vanya” because it is Voinitsky who rebels against Serebryakov, it is he who experiences internal discord with himself due to wasted energy, it is Uncle Vanya who shoots the professor, it is he. asks Doctor Astrov for poison because he doesn’t know how and why to live.

Having placed the image of Uncle Vanya in the center, establishing his ideological compositional role in the play, the teacher asked the students questions, the answers to which were supposed to show how this artistic image was revealed by Chekhov.

1. What makes Uncle Vanya disappointed in life?

2. How does the writer show the struggle of Vonnitsky’s thoughts and feelings?

3. Who is Voinitsky opposing?

4. Why does Uncle Vanya’s “rebellion” turn out to be meaningless? Student answers, supplemented and corrected

teacher, expressed their understanding of Voinitsky’s artistic image.

Uncle Vanya became disillusioned with life because he realized that he had wasted so many years in vain, serving Professor Serebryakov with his labor, who in reality turned out to be a complete nonentity. Uncle Vanya is a smart man, educated enough to understand Serebryakov, sincere, direct and honest enough to speak out against a proud nonentity, which he does when, driven to despair, he shoots at the professor. Uncle Vanya suffers and is tormented because he loves a beautiful woman who does not reciprocate his feelings.

Voinitsky ironically says about himself: “...I was a bright person, from whom no one felt bright...”

He complains bitterly that he “stupidly wasted his time,” that he did nothing in his life. Internal dissatisfaction with himself forces Uncle Vanya to make ironic remarks even when Doctor Astrov captivates everyone with a story about the forests.

The coldness and neglect of Elena Andreevna, to whom he speaks tender words about love, lead Voinitsky to despair, and he executes himself for being deceived in his feelings and hopes for so long - for believing in Serebryakov for so long.

“...after him there will not be a single page of work left, he is completely unknown, he is nothing! Soap bubble! And I have been deceived... - I see, - foolishly deceived...”

An explosion of feelings, self-flagellation is the result of internal discontent, a sudden insight, which led to the consciousness of a meaninglessly lived life.

First, bitter irony at oneself, then a skeptical assessment of the professor, an explosion of despair from the consciousness of one’s powerlessness and, finally, a frenzied attack against Serebryakov when he tries to deprive Uncle Vanya of everything: “...You ruined my life! I didn't live, I didn't live! By your mercy I destroyed, destroyed the best years of my life! You are my worst enemy!

Excited, driven to extremes, desperate, Voinitsky shoots Professor Serebryakov.

What brings Voinitsky to a state of passion? Who did he shoot at?

He shoots, as he said, at his “worst enemy,” at the man who appropriated his life and his work.

In Act I, the professor does not appear yet, and Voinitsky speaks of his harmful influence on the entire daily routine on the estate.

Voinitsky: “Since the professor and his wife have lived here, life has gone out of whack...” The old nanny Marina is also indignant at Serebryakov’s impudence and selfishness. The professor’s fleeting appearance irritates Voinitsky, and he says ironically:

“...A man has been reading and writing about art for exactly twenty-five years, understanding absolutely nothing about art.”

In the 2nd act, Serebryakov shows his character: he is capricious, forces his wife and daughter to mess with him, flirts with his old age, illness, and tyrannizes his loved ones.

Serebryakov. “...I want to live, I love success, I love fame, noise, but here it’s like being in exile...” he tells his wife..

Uncle Vanya is outraged by his behavior, he tries to reason with him, tells him that Sonya and Elena Andreevna are completely exhausted, “they won’t sleep another night.”

Selfish and narcissistic, Serebryakov reports the program of his further actions in Act III of the play, regardless of the fact that the estate does not belong to him, but to Sonya and Voinitsky.

This speech by Serebryakov ends with an outburst from Voinitsky.

It seems that a break should occur as a result of a rebellion, but Uncle Vanya and Serebryakov say goodbye peacefully, the professor leaves the estate, and Uncle Vanya promises to carefully send him money, as before.

It turns out that nothing has changed. Serebryakov makes comments to everyone that sound paradoxical and comical. Idle, having taken everyone away from the work, he lectures Astrov: “... we must, gentlemen, do the work! We have to do something!”

Voinitsky’s “Sonya” is also contrasted with Professor Serebryakov’s wife. According to Voinitsky’s fair remark, Elena Andreevna is immoral simply because, contrary to nature and feeling, she married an old man. Elena Andreevna is very young, very beautiful, both Voinitsky and Astrov talk about this. She is smart, has a great understanding of people, their feelings, relationships, and listens with enthusiasm to Astrov’s inspired story about forests. Elena Andreevna understands how people recklessly destroy each other, how they destroy loyalty, purity, and readiness for self-sacrifice.

And yet she does nothing to make others feel better; she lives a boring, idle, lazy life, realizing this. Serebryakov and Elena Andreevna are not just bad people, they are harmful, because they infect everyone around them with their idleness, laziness, and selfishness.

Astrov speaks about this to Elena Andreevna: “Both - he and you - have infected us all with your idleness... Wherever you and your husband set foot, everywhere you bring destruction...”.

This means that Voinitsky’s “rebellion” is natural, since he opposed those who live at the expense of others, infect everyone with their idleness and destroy what others create. Why, then, is it meaningless?

Apparently because, first of all, it has no prospects. Serebryakov and Elena Andreevna are phenomena of a social order and it is not for Voinitsky to destroy them. A.P. Chekhov thinks so, and we see it very well. It is meaningless because it is spontaneous, it is simply an explosion of feelings of a desperate person without any clear idea of ​​why he is doing it.

Having shot at Serebryakov, Voinitsky repeats (in despair): “Oh, what am I doing! What am I doing!".

It is meaningless because Voinitsky is a soft man, a contemplative, dreamy nature, but not strong-willed, not active, inclined rather to reconciliation than to protest.

Therefore, after a violent outburst of feelings, after shooting at the professor, Voinitsky falls into despair and wants to poison himself. He does not know why and how to live, he is burdened by life, does not know what to do with his remaining years. He says to Astrov:

Voinitsky. “Oh, you see... (frantically shakes Astrov’s hand) you see, if only I could live the rest of my life somehow in a new way...”

Voinitsky cannot and does not want to live in the old way anymore, which means it cannot be said that nothing has changed, it means that he has seen the light and realized that he cannot continue to live like this. Uncle Vanya doesn’t know how to start this new life. Moreover, he does not even imagine fighting for her, he dreams that this new, wonderful life will come by itself.

Voinitsky. “I wish I could wake up in the clear, quiet morning and feel that you have begun to live again, that the whole past is forgotten, has dissipated like smoke. (Crying). Start a new life... Tell me how to start... where to start...”

In these words, Uncle Vanya is all about a weak, weak-willed person. It is completely natural that he reconciles with Serebryakov and circumstances. However, this reconciliation is forced, since there is no other way out. Voinitsky is looking for oblivion from awakened inner despair; he strives for his old work in order to plunge into it and forget everything. Hence the leitmotif of the last scene, where Voinitsky repeats the words several times: “Work! work!". However, what Uncle Vanya strives to do will not bring him joy. Work, according to A.P. Chekhov, should be inspired by a great goal. Voinitsky, as a result of mental suffering, did not acquire this goal, he regained his sight, but nothing can be changed, life is a vicious circle from which he cannot escape, he is aware of this, and a state of complete hopelessness takes possession of him.

The image of Uncle Vanya is central to the play, he is shown by the author in all its complexity and contradictions: smart, honest, direct and noble, he is capable of protesting against the petty, vulgar, selfish, he wants real human life, he is ready to selflessly serve the ideal, but the clash life is beyond his strength, he is too soft, weak-willed, he is not capable of being a fighter, he is forced to struggle helplessly in the nets of those social conditions in which the Serebryakovs thrive. This is how the writer creates an artistic image of a large social generalization: the image of a person who is restless, dissatisfied, but powerless in combat with the circumstances of life. In his desire to protest, in this struggle with himself and circumstances and in this powerlessness, Voinitsky becomes a symbolic figure.

The question of how Doctor Astrov confronts Voynitsky and Sonya can be resolved both in the form of a lecture by the teacher and a discussion by the students themselves.

First of all, how is Dr. Astrov opposed to them? He works a lot, and his work is noble and needed by people, this work has a high goal - it saves a person from suffering. Such work should bring happiness. But Astrov does not feel happy; on the contrary, he is overworked, tired, lost strength, “exhausted,” as he says about himself. There is no happiness because Astrov does not see the fruits of his labor: so much effort has been spent, so much of the best years of his life have been given, all his youth, but life has not changed, everything is the same, and he tells the nanny about this with pain and bitterness:

Astrov. “...Typhus... There are people crowded in the huts. Dirt, stench, smoke, calves on the floor with the sick together...”

There is no longer enough strength to fight this, so along with powerlessness a doubt arises: is all this necessary? For what? Maybe for future generations? But here, too, Astrov’s thoughts take on a pessimistic direction, and he says to nanny Marina:

Astrov, “...and I think: those who will live a hundred or two hundred years after us and for whom we are now making a way, will they remember us with a kind word? Nanny, they won’t remember!”

Astrov’s work has a noble goal, and not serving an ideal, like Voinitsky’s, but the result is the same: neither. in another case, it does not bring satisfaction, on the contrary, dissatisfaction and mental suffering.

Astrov, unlike Voinitsky, loves life, he is inspired by the dream of the future, of happiness, he believes in the powerful powers of man, endowed with reason and creative energy. He is in love with forests, and they symbolize for him the renewal and flourishing of everything beautiful in the life of humanity in the future. Moreover, he himself strives to join in the transformation of nature on the basis of beauty, to do what is now impossible in people’s lives.

Astrov, “...when I hear the noise of my young forest, planted with my hands, I realize that the climate is a little in my power and that if in thousands of years a person is happy, then I will be a little to blame for this.. ."

Astrov despises and hates the philistine, lazy life that surrounds him and for himself personally does not see anything good; he does not have a “light” in the distance, as he tells Sonya.

Atrov is in love with beauty: he strives to establish it in people’s lives, in nature, by planting wonderful forests. He understands beauty sublimely: he combines beauty with work, sees it only where in human life there is inspired creative work.

Therefore, he cannot fall in love with the beautiful Elena Andreevna, who “only eats, sleeps, walks,” enchants everyone with her beauty, “and others work for her.” Astrov is sure that “an idle life cannot be pure.”

Faith in human creativity is the soil on which Astrov’s dream of a wonderful future is born.

Unlike Voinitsky, who only dreams of another life, Astrov strives to participate in the approach of this new life.

With his passionate belief in the creative powers of man, his love for beauty, and his desire to participate in the creation of a new life, Astrov conquers everyone around him: Sonya loves him dearly, Elena Andreevna is passionate about him, old nanny Marina follows him, worries about him, even Uncle Vanya asks to teach him how to start a new life. Only to Professor Serebryakov such a person naturally seems like a holy fool.

Talent, obsession in the pursuit of creative activity, love for beauty, poetry and dreaminess attract us to Astrov, and we look at him as our contemporary.

However, Astrov is a man of his historical era, he clearly sees how disgusting the life that has drawn him in is, and for himself personally, he does not believe in anything, does not hope for love or happiness.

He does not know and does not see real ways to change social conditions of life.

Astrov is very smart, and he, more than anyone else in the play, understands the futility of trying to break out of the vicious circle of life conditions. Hence this amazing phrase about the heat in Africa as an external expression of internal powerlessness in the face of circumstances. Thus, evaluating Chekhov's characters historically, we understand their state of mind and, at the same time, even more, our advantage, our ability to change and subjugate circumstances in new conditions of life.

This reveals to us the peculiarity of the composition of artistic images in Chekhov’s play: on the one hand, the highest moral qualities, even the desire to overcome difficult life circumstances, extraordinary energy and determination, like Astrov. On the other hand, the inability to overcome these circumstances, disappointment, loss of perspective, reconciliation with life. Naturally, this inconsistency of Chekhov's artistic images was a reflection of the contradictory state in which many Russian intellectuals found themselves in the 80s and 90s of the last century.

In the process of working on the play, its artistic originality becomes clear, showing how innovative the aspirations of Chekhov the playwright were and how modern his play now sounds.

Talking with students, the teacher shows how the author speaks to readers and spectators, how to understand the words of A. M. Gorky, written about the play “Uncle Vanya”: “They say, for example, that “Uncle Vanya” and “The Seagull” are new a type of dramatic art in which realism is elevated to a spiritual and deeply thought-out symbol. I find that what they say is very true...” (M. Gorky. Collected works, vol. 28).

The peculiarity of Chekhov’s talent, the teacher concludes, was the ability to draw everyday life in such a way human life, so that behind it another, deeper perspective is revealed - the social life of society. Chekhov knew how to establish this connection between the ordinary, everyday, individual and general, relating to the socio-historical era of the life of Russian society. He said:

“Let everything in school be as difficult and at the same time as simple as in life. People have lunch, just have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are shattered...” (“Theater and Art”, No. 28, 1904, p. 521).

So it is in the play “Uncle Vanya”: nothing special happens, scenes from the life of the provincial intelligentsia are shown, whose measured life was disrupted by Professor Serebryakov and Elena Andreevna, his wife. They created an atmosphere of idleness, distracted everyone from the matter, and caused an outburst of protest from Voinitsky. However, everything ended in reconciliation, life returned to its previous framework. So, at least it seems at first glance. But if this is so, then why does the play leave a very complex impression: sadness, bitterness, dissatisfaction and sympathy for Chekhov’s heroes? Pathetic people, incapable of struggle, protest, and reconciliation, cannot evoke sympathy especially among the Soviet reader and viewer.

Everything would be so if behind this external action there was not hidden another, internal action: the world of experiences and feelings of these essentially good people, passionately seeking goals in life, dissatisfied, restless.

This internal action is conveyed through Chekhov’s subtext, which opens up a perspective for us, makes us see how futile the efforts of these people are, how constrained they are by the social conditions of life, how helpless they are against evil, despite all their personal decency.

And therefore, the modern reader and viewer involuntarily, as the action develops, as they penetrate into the subtext of the play, deep sympathy arises for Chekhov’s heroes, who cannot escape from the iron ring of reality, despite their aspirations.

Thus, from everyday life, Chekhov raises us to generalizations; the simplest scenes of life and the people in them acquire the meaning of universality, and the impression of complete life truth is created. And the futility of the efforts of the Russian intelligentsia to break out of the social conditions of reality that constrain them and the dream of a better future acquires symbolic meaning in the play.

It is the subtext of the play that helps us understand what may seem unclear at the beginning: it turns out that Astrov, Voinitsky, Sonya were not reconciled, they were forced to submit to circumstances that were higher than them. But by submitting, they suffer deeply, they hope for something, they want to believe in a better future. This is what makes us sympathize with them and believe with them.

To see how this Chekhovian subtext arises, it is enough to turn to the last scene of Act IV. Serebryakov and Elena Andreevna left, those remaining heard the ringing of bells. Everyone pronounces their own: “we left,” and in everyone’s mouth it sounds different: Astrov says “we left” somewhat mockingly.

Astrov. “We left. The professor is probably happy! Now you can’t even lure him here with a roll.”

Behind this irony one can feel the desire to hide one’s disappointment, one’s dissatisfaction with what happened. Nanny Marina says “we’ve left” with a clear feeling of relief, Chekhov explains this with a remark (sits in a chair and knits a stocking), life, therefore, returns to its previous course.

Sonya says “we left” with sadness, because she loves her father, she likes Elena Andreevna. She says this line and “wipes her eyes,” Chekhov makes a remark.

Thus, the reaction to the departure of Serebryakov and his wife with the help of one word, pronounced with different meanings and shades, shows not only the complexity of people’s relationships with each other, but also their different state after the unrest they experienced. The reaction to the departure of Serebryakov and his wife is different, but in general it speaks of a state of liberation from something extraneous that disrupted the peaceful flow of life.

Everyone seemed to focus on their experiences for a moment. And everyone felt that it was no longer possible to return to the previous state of internal balance: what happened changed their lives forever, the heroes seemed to see the light internally. However, they make useless efforts to regain this lost balance, to return it by returning to their previous way of life.

Voinitsky is the first to break this state. He wants to forget everything that happened, to return to the state that was before, when he was just working.

Voinitsky. Work, work...

And he and Sonya dive into some abandoned accounts.

Following him, Astrov makes an attempt by returning to everyday needs to escape from his sad thoughts.

Astrov. (After a pause). My harness is limping somehow. Yesterday I noticed it when Petrushka took him out to drink.

Voinitsky. It needs to be reforged.

But he cannot get away from the thoughts that disturb his soul, and Astrov, approaching the map of Africa, utters words full of tragedy about the heat in this very Africa, and behind these words a sigh of powerlessness.

Uncle Vanya cannot continue to live and work either. Turning to Sonya, he exclaims with anguish:

Voinitsky. (Running his hand through her hair). My child, how hard it is for me!

Sonya herself is in serious condition: Astrov has left, and it is unknown when she will see him. Her love is hopeless and she is also unhappy. But there is no way out, we must put up with what is, she reassures Uncle Vanya.

Sonya: What to do, we have to live!

And after a pause, which makes the reader and viewer freeze in tense anticipation, Sonya talks about why and how to live. It turns out that you need to live for the future, for others, you need to work, patiently endure all the blows of fate in the present.

The play ends with the author’s remarks: “The watchman knocks, Telegin plays quietly; Maria Vasilievna writes in the margins of the brochure; Marina is knitting a stocking." That is, everything remains the same as it was, nothing has changed, nothing can be changed.

And yet these are not the last words in the play. Its final chord is hope for the best, faith in it, like a sigh escaping from Sonya’s chest: “We will rest!” Nothing can be changed yet, but faith and hope for the best in a person cannot be killed either.

This means that Chekhov and his characters are close and dear to us not only for their restlessness, their search for the meaning of life, but also “for their ardent faith in the future, their bright dream about it.

The conversation ends with some conclusions from the teacher about the innovation of Chekhov the playwright, the features psychological analysis, close to modern drama. It should be said that the beginning of the study of the subtlest emotional experiences of a social personality was laid by Chekhov, continued and developed by M. Gorky within the framework of a new artistic method - socialist realism.

Chekhov's realism is indeed unique and rises to the level of a symbol, in the words of M. Gorky.

Externally, the action in Chekhov's drama, as happens in life, is weakened; the writer's attention is focused on revealing the inner world of the characters, their reaction to life events.

Chekhov's characters - Russian intellectuals of the 80-90s of the 19th century - are complex people, experiencing a discord between consciousness and action, a discord that was characteristic of the behavior of the Russian intelligentsia in that historical period when the revolutionary spirit of populism was already dying, and the revolutionary spirit of social democracy was still did not capture the minds of intellectuals.

Chekhov reveals the complex inner world of his heroes, restless, dissatisfied, honest, noble dreamers and at the same time weak, living without prospects, incapable of fighting and overcoming, with the help of subtext. This subtext helps the reader and viewer to establish a connection between the ordinary and the social, draws them into the complex world of the characters’ emotional experiences, and makes them seem to directly participate in events. Internal monologue, author's remarks, significant pauses, reticence, polysemy of words, individual phrases that sound like a leitmotif - all this makes up a unique style of subtext and creates the illusion of complete verisimilitude of life.

The originality of Chekhov's dramaturgy: the presentation of problems that eternally concern a person, revealed on everyday material, generalized to a symbol, and the desire to consider the inner world of a person in terms of his social connections with reality, and the reflection of real life by various artistic means - made A. P. Chekhov close our modernity.

To show students how Chekhov’s immortal images can operate in our time, we can turn to works of Soviet literature and reveal some of the features of the use of these artistic images by Soviet writers.

In considering this issue, it is necessary to point out that general principles, which will form the basis of the analysis. First of all, such a principle will be the principle of historicism. Students must understand that Soviet writers to one or another Chekhov's images from the play "Uncle Vanya", for example, is due to the requirement of the time in which the work of Soviet literature was created, to see how modern writers preserve Chekhov's images in the socio-historical environment that gave birth to them, to learn to use artistic images without their modernization.

The teacher will show students what connection Chekhov’s artistic image has with the ideological and compositional structure of the entire work of art in which it is used, what facets it corresponds to the problems of the work, what place it occupies in its composition, how it changes in the overall structure of the work, whether it is evil in turn on the language and style of it.

Students will see why Soviet writers turn to Chekhov's artistic images: Chekhov's depiction of life is completely original and corresponds to the aspirations and trends of modern art; behind Chekhov's dramatic text, reflecting everyday life, as it is, hides a deep penetration into the being human existence in all its diversity.

The subtext of Chekhov's drama leads the reader and viewer into the depths of reality, helps to comprehend it in its social, philosophical, and ethical-aesthetic diversity. At the same time, a particularly stylistically constructed subtext makes the reader and viewer an active participant in the events taking place on stage. Each person listening to Chekhov's dramatic text becomes, as it were, a creator, a co-author of the writer, and is involved in the entire process of the complex spiritual life of the characters. He is given wide scope for an individual perception of what is happening.

This originality of the creative style of the writer who laid the foundation for the new theater makes him close to modern playwrights.

The influence of Chekhov's artistic dramatic image is extraordinary in its impact. What makes it unique? Chekhov's image-character is an ordinary, simple person with all his weaknesses and shortcomings, acting in the most ordinary, even mundane situations, and this, naturally, also strengthens the illusion of vitality, the truthfulness of what is happening.

In the play "Uncle Vanya" no historical or social events take place, and this almost complete absence of any action exclusively accurately conveys the situation in the life of the provincial intelligentsia, this stagnation, this immobility. The writer's attention is focused on the inner, spiritual life of the characters, and this is again natural, since we are talking about the intellectual part of Russian society of that time.

How does the development of internal action proceed, how is it embodied in the images-characters? The internal spring of development is the struggle of two opposing forces: on the one hand, this is the consciousness of the imperfection of life, the understanding that one must do the wrong thing or the wrong thing. This understanding is strengthened by personal noble qualities: honesty, directness, love for everything beautiful. All this together is a motivating reason for action. On the other hand, there are the circumstances of life, the immediate manifestation of the socio-historical conditions of life.

To realize his ideal, Chekhov's hero must fight these circumstances, and he does, each in his own way: Uncle Vanya shoots Serebryakov, Astrov, exhausted, fights epidemics and ignorance.

This struggle is the essence of the development of Chekhov's characters. But one person is not able to change these terrible circumstances, especially since Chekhov’s heroes do not know the real ways of struggle, they fight in the chains of circumstances and weaken, the mood of hopelessness and despair intensifies in them. Outwardly, they are even forced to reconcile. But this is only externally; internally they remain unreconciled.

This irreconcilability, which is unable to be translated into action, gives rise to a dream of a distant (beautiful) future, therefore Chekhov’s heroes find a way out for their suffering from the imperfections of life in an abstract dream of a wonderful life and a wonderful person.

This constant desire for beauty, this rebellious intransigence, this deep, pure faith in a wonderful future is the essence of Chekhov’s dramatic characters, this is their hidden power of influence on the modern reader and viewer. This can explain the constant appeal to Chekhov’s images in the works of Soviet writers.

Our contemporaries are also attracted to Chekhov's complex, deep characters. Soviet writers strive to create artistic images that would have the same power of influence and would represent the same subtle insight into the secrets of the human psyche.

Chekhov created his characters when conditions were developing in Russia for fundamental social and historical changes in the life of society, when an acute class struggle unfolded, when Marxist-Leninist ideology became the banner of the struggle. The great writer was not in the thick of things, but he saw, felt, and foresaw it all.

Our time is no less significant: now there is a struggle for the victory of Marxist-Leninist ideology on the entire planet, the struggle is sharp, merciless, in this struggle the new person in all its complexity and inconsistency. Therefore, Chekhov’s style of creating characters remains modern, of course, with significant changes: modern Soviet man fights against circumstances and defeats them, he has learned to see the ways of the struggle, the means, and its final results.

To show students how Chekhov’s images of the play “Uncle Vanya” live on the pages of books by Soviet writers, we consider: “The Tale of Forests” by K. Paustovsky and “A Date with Nefertiti” by V. Tendryakov. First, this is done by the teacher, and then by a specially trained student - speaker.

The second half of the 40s of our century, when “The Tale of Forests” was written by K. Paustovsky, was a period of tension of all the forces of the Soviet people, striving to raise the country from ruins and ashes. People who won victory over fascism dreamed of making their own native land even more beautiful than she was before the war.

Uncle in the basement plays Gestapo Sergei Abramov. A quiet angel flew by. M.: OlympusIn the beginning there was the American science fiction writer Philip Kendred Dick. In 1962 he published the novel The Man in the High Castle. The novel was created in the genre of “alternative history” and offered readers a version of what happened

Destruction of the classical canon...Establish a dialogue with the reader, awaken his feelings that have sunk into deep slumber. The world community also sought such contact, sometimes in extremist forms.