tuppera shiva
06-28-2011, 09:19 AM
The thematic appreciation
Many arguments have been made and heard about the theme of the play CHERRY ORCHARD. Some have stated that the theme is inconsistent and while some have argued that the plot was absent. Nevertheless the exercise of Chekov had remained as the most appreciable treasure of the literature.
Let me make it clear that I am a layman so my English will not be embellished to please the readership. In a nutshell, as I understand, Chekov by himself had been the descendent of the generation which had lived in slave Dom. When he was born the picture was changing. In that he found reversal of the life Dom as cyclic. Here the layman may ask what is cyclic, then I may have to take you to the realms of the truth pronounced in one line by LORD TENNYSON ‘ that the old order changeth yielding place to new”
A social change is a continuous process. The Indian philosophers have rightly said that “ Aaj ka raja kalka runk and aaj ka runk kal ka raja”. That was to state that the man who enjoys the royal status today may stand to be reduced to a serf while a serf may gain royal status by his seer hard work. Chekov though he came from the family of slaves had attained the status of owning the estate where his ancestors have worked as slaves and were not allowed even to enter the Kitchens. In a nutshell this amounts to the conclusion that a social change is inevitable and social change is the progeny of the social mobility that the social mobility is inherently twin directional that it is retarding at times and elevating at other times. The day begins with a glorious light of the sun rise and ends up with the mean and murk some state of the sun set. Similarly the dynasties that have emerged in a grand galore, have disappeared ending up in a pitiable state. Thus the wealth and the relative power that it brings is short lived. While the wealth and the glory that it brings ends up in a clock-wise way the miseries end up and prosperity comes your way. This reminds me of the theory of the alternative current where the current begins at zero and rises up to the maximum and gradually falls back to zero to begin the negative half cycle. If not for this, how would one explain the rise and fall of the dynasties like Moghul and Mouryan in the Indian history?
Renevsky is the madam who is the example of elevated state of the positive half cycle of the alternating current where the decline and the inevitable negative half cycle begins while Lopakhin is the symbolic of the negative half cycle which had come to zero and the positive half cycle had begun.
The wealth makes you extravagant and this nature leads to careless spending on one hand and lethargy and the absence of honest hard work on the other. This triggers off the downfall. This had been vividly displayed by Chekov. On the other hand Lopakhin is the direct example of a self-made man who through his hard work had gained the strength of buying the estate in which his ancestors have worked in the status of slaves.
The validity of the title
Great things had been said and heard about Chekov’s play the Cherry orchard. But none had focused upon the validity of the title. Why Chekov had titled his work as cherry orchard and why not as an orange orchard or mango orchard? One argument here could be that the back drop of his version is the season or the place where his ancestors have persevered as the slaves and which he had ultimately purchased and became the master. Another argument would be that he had given the visual imagery of the bitter autumn. I agree with these arguments but I feel the figurative meaning of the word Cherry had not been dealt with by any of the thinkers so far which the esteemed PM Roget had expressed in his thesaurus way back in the year 1857 or the earlier to that. Cherry means Circular or cyclic [refer para 629 of the Roget’s]. The gist of this play revolves around the fact that the life, here in speaking in the economic terms, is cyclic or circular. A man who is rich and influential today may see a day of utter poverty while man who is in utter poverty today may see the days of riches eventually one day through his just and tireless striving.
The characters
There are many characters in this play, each one undoubtedly contributing to the intended theme of Chekov, but I feel there are only two characters who play the pivotal role. The first one is Ravensky who has been projected as the remnant of the Feudal Russia and Lopakhin a successful business man who raised high from the family of the peasants. The message this work gives us is expressed by the down fall of Ravensky and the upcoming of Lopakhin so detailed discussion about the other characters is felt un-necessary by me.
Many arguments have been made and heard about the theme of the play CHERRY ORCHARD. Some have stated that the theme is inconsistent and while some have argued that the plot was absent. Nevertheless the exercise of Chekov had remained as the most appreciable treasure of the literature.
Let me make it clear that I am a layman so my English will not be embellished to please the readership. In a nutshell, as I understand, Chekov by himself had been the descendent of the generation which had lived in slave Dom. When he was born the picture was changing. In that he found reversal of the life Dom as cyclic. Here the layman may ask what is cyclic, then I may have to take you to the realms of the truth pronounced in one line by LORD TENNYSON ‘ that the old order changeth yielding place to new”
A social change is a continuous process. The Indian philosophers have rightly said that “ Aaj ka raja kalka runk and aaj ka runk kal ka raja”. That was to state that the man who enjoys the royal status today may stand to be reduced to a serf while a serf may gain royal status by his seer hard work. Chekov though he came from the family of slaves had attained the status of owning the estate where his ancestors have worked as slaves and were not allowed even to enter the Kitchens. In a nutshell this amounts to the conclusion that a social change is inevitable and social change is the progeny of the social mobility that the social mobility is inherently twin directional that it is retarding at times and elevating at other times. The day begins with a glorious light of the sun rise and ends up with the mean and murk some state of the sun set. Similarly the dynasties that have emerged in a grand galore, have disappeared ending up in a pitiable state. Thus the wealth and the relative power that it brings is short lived. While the wealth and the glory that it brings ends up in a clock-wise way the miseries end up and prosperity comes your way. This reminds me of the theory of the alternative current where the current begins at zero and rises up to the maximum and gradually falls back to zero to begin the negative half cycle. If not for this, how would one explain the rise and fall of the dynasties like Moghul and Mouryan in the Indian history?
Renevsky is the madam who is the example of elevated state of the positive half cycle of the alternating current where the decline and the inevitable negative half cycle begins while Lopakhin is the symbolic of the negative half cycle which had come to zero and the positive half cycle had begun.
The wealth makes you extravagant and this nature leads to careless spending on one hand and lethargy and the absence of honest hard work on the other. This triggers off the downfall. This had been vividly displayed by Chekov. On the other hand Lopakhin is the direct example of a self-made man who through his hard work had gained the strength of buying the estate in which his ancestors have worked in the status of slaves.
The validity of the title
Great things had been said and heard about Chekov’s play the Cherry orchard. But none had focused upon the validity of the title. Why Chekov had titled his work as cherry orchard and why not as an orange orchard or mango orchard? One argument here could be that the back drop of his version is the season or the place where his ancestors have persevered as the slaves and which he had ultimately purchased and became the master. Another argument would be that he had given the visual imagery of the bitter autumn. I agree with these arguments but I feel the figurative meaning of the word Cherry had not been dealt with by any of the thinkers so far which the esteemed PM Roget had expressed in his thesaurus way back in the year 1857 or the earlier to that. Cherry means Circular or cyclic [refer para 629 of the Roget’s]. The gist of this play revolves around the fact that the life, here in speaking in the economic terms, is cyclic or circular. A man who is rich and influential today may see a day of utter poverty while man who is in utter poverty today may see the days of riches eventually one day through his just and tireless striving.
The characters
There are many characters in this play, each one undoubtedly contributing to the intended theme of Chekov, but I feel there are only two characters who play the pivotal role. The first one is Ravensky who has been projected as the remnant of the Feudal Russia and Lopakhin a successful business man who raised high from the family of the peasants. The message this work gives us is expressed by the down fall of Ravensky and the upcoming of Lopakhin so detailed discussion about the other characters is felt un-necessary by me.