Byars 1
Steven A. Byars
Dr. Eric P. Shaffer
English 303
Essay #4 Marxism
May 19, 1998
The Tiny Revolution in the Cherry Orchard
The Cherry Orchard, by Anton Chekhov, was written during one of the greatest periods of social upheaval in the history of the world. Much of the influence for Chekhov’s stories and plays came from the societal changes that were taking place in Russia during that time; Karl
Marx published Das Kapital in 1867, revolutionaries assassinated Alexander II in 1881, the
Social Democratic Labor Party was established in 1898, and Lenin rose to power as the head of the Bolsheviks in 1903. The Cherry Orchard, written in 1904, can be seen as a study of the spiritual and economic failure of the bourgeois in a disintegrating aristocratic society as a result of the social upheaval that was occurring prior to the 1905 Russian Revolution.
The unstable economic and social conditions, the emptiness of life in a bourgeois society, the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeois, and the social upheaval taking place in pre-Revolutionary Russia, the setting for this story, may best be explored from a Marxist perspective. Marxism theory “predicts that the contradictions and weaknesses within capitalism will cause increasingly severe economic crises and deepening impoverishment of the working class, which will ultimately revolt and seize control of the means of production” (“Marxism”). A
Marxist critical analysis of a work attempts to uncover the “ideology expressed by the author as evidenced through his or her fictional world” (Bressler 121). This investigation of the authors’ ideology should expose a class conflict, “with the dominant class and its accompanying ideology

Byars 2 being imposed either consciously or unconsciously upon the proletariat” (Bressler 121). The critics job is to “uncover and denounce such anti-proletariat ideology and show how such a destructive ideology entraps the working classes and oppresses them in every area of their lives”
(Bressler 121). Chekhov accomplishes this by staging a mini revolution between the bourgeois, who are loosing their economic hold on society; and the proletariats, who are gaining economic power by capitalizing on the misfortunes of the bourgeois.
Chekhov expounds Marxist ideology through the actions of his characters. Madame
Ranevsky embodies the actions and ideas of the bourgeois while Yermolay Alexeyevitch
Lopahin symbolizes the rising up of the proletariat. The societal roles played by these two characters are actually the opposite of what they have become. Madame Ranevsky started out as a rich landowner, but her wealth has diminished over the years. She has become a proletariat through her economic misfortune, although she still maintains her bourgeois beliefs and ideals.
Her daughter, Anya, explains, “she [Madame Ranevsky] had sold her villa . . . she had nothing left . . . . And mamma doesn’t understand! When we had dinner at the stations, she always ordered the most expensive things and gave the waiters a whole rouble” (Chekhov 125). It is easy to see from Anya’s statement that Madame Ranevsky refuses to acknowledge that she is no longer a member of the bourgeois.
Madame Ranevsky also refuses to believe that her estate is going to be auctioned off in a few days. Lopahin, in an effort to help Madame Ranevsky, offers to lend Madame Ranevsky some money to build summer villas on the estate, which could be rented out to summer visitors.
This scheme, which would bring in a substantial amount of income for Madame Ranevsky, could restore her to her former status, but the cherry orchard would have to be destroyed in order to build the villas. Madame Ranevsky is appalled at this idea and tells Lopahin that “if there is one

Byars 3 thing interesting—remarkable indeed—in the whole province, it’s just our cherry orchard”
(Chekhov 129). Lopahin argues that “the only thing remarkable about the orchard is that it’s a very large one. There’s a crop of cherries every alternate year, and then there’s nothing to be done with them, no one buys them” (Chekhov 129). Madame Ranevsky, oblivious to her impending doom, clings to the ideological former grandeur of the orchard by telling Lopahin that the “orchard is mentioned in the “Encyclopedia,” and that this should be reason enough to save it from destruction (Chekhov 129). Madame Ranevsky refuses to accept the fact that once her land is sold she will be destitute. Impervious to Lopahin’s pleadings to build the villas and save herself, Madame Ranevsky remarks, “Villas and summer visitors—forgive me saying so—it’s so vulgar” (Chekhov 139).
If Madame Ranevsky is the antithesis of the proletariat ideals then Lopahin is the antithesis of the bourgeois. Lopahin, the son of a serf who once worked for Madame Ranevsky, became independently wealthy over the years and now wants to help Madame Ranevsky pay off the mortgage on her estate. Although Lopahin is technically a member of the bourgeois, his actions and his selfless distribution of wealth mark him as a proletariat. Lopahin, unable to relinquish his past, explains that his “father was a peasant” while he is now a rich man; he feels uncomfortable with his wealth “like a pig in a bun shop” and laments that “for all my money, a peasant I was, and a peasant I am” (Chekhov 123). Lopahin is upset that he can never become a true member of the bourgeois, although his attitude changes once he sees that the bourgeois never lift a finger to help themselves or those around them. He gives Madame Ranevsky numerous opportunities to accept his offer of money to build villas on her property, but she always refuses; waiting for a glimmer of hope, from her own kind, to save her from her inevitable fate. Lopahin’s attitude toward the rich and the poor finally changes when he buys the

Byars 4 orchard and proceeds to build the villas himself. He denounces both the proletariat and the bourgeois as ignorant. After buying the cherry orchard, Lopahin jubilantly exclaims, “I have bought it! . . . Now the cherry orchard’s mine! Mine!” (Chekhov 155). He shouts out in triumph to Madame Ranevsky and her family, “ignorant, beaten Yermolay, who used to run about barefoot in winter . . . has bought the finest estate in the world! I have bought the estate where my father and grandfather were slaves, where they weren’t even admitted into the kitchen. . . . It is the work of your imagination plunged in the darkness of ignorance. . . . Come, all of you, and look how Yermolay Lopahin will take the axe to the cherry orchard” (Chekhov 155).
If true Marxist doctrine and ideology were to be found in this story, it would perpetuate itself in Pyotr Sergeyevitch Trofimov. Trofimov, a “perpetual student” who is often described as a “mangy-looking gentleman” by the members of the upper class, foreshadows the impending revolution (Chekhov 133). He embodies the ideals and actions of true Marxism when he says,
“one must give up glorification of self. One must work, and nothing else. . . . We must with all our powers aid the seeker after truth” (Chekhov 142). He denounces the intellectuals as people whom “seek nothing, do nothing, [and] are not fit as yet for work of any kind. . . . they treat their servants as inferiors, behave to the peasants as though they were animals, learn little, read nothing seriously, do practically nothing, only talk about science and know very little about art”
(Chekhov 142).
Trofimov, upon learning about the scheme to build the summer villas in the cherry orchard, tells Lopahin that “just as in the economy of nature a wild beast is of use, who devours everything that comes in his way, so you have your use” (Chekhov 142). Although Trofimov is appalled at the greediness of Lopahin he still believes that the cherry orchard should be bought and destroyed. He explains to Anya, Madame Ranevsky’s daughter, that “your [Anya]

Byars 5 grandfather, and great-grandfather, and all your ancestors were slave owners—the owners of living souls—and from every cherry in the orchard, from every leaf, from every trunk there are human creatures looking at you” (Chekhov 145). He goes on to explain that “we [the Russian people] are at least two hundred years behind, we have really gained nothing yet, we have no definite attitude to the past. . . It is clear that to begin to live in the present we must first expiate our past, we must break with it; and we can expiate it only by suffering, by extraordinary unceasing labour” (Chekhov 145). Trofimov, sure that he will end up on top after the revolution, reasons that he is an “independent man, and everything that all of you, rich and poor alike, prize so highly and hold so dear, hasn’t the slightest power over me . . . Humanity is advancing towards the highest truth, the highest happiness, which is possible on earth, and I am in the front ranks” (Chekhov 158-159).
If Lopahin is the displaced proletariat; Madame Ranevsky is the displaced bourgeois; and
Trofimov is the Marxist idolatry; then Firs and Dunyasha are the reminders of the class system of old Russia. Firs and Dunyasha are the valet and the maid, respectively, employed by Madame
Ranevsky. Dunyasha, although she follows all of her orders blindly, still aspires to be a part of the bourgeois. Unfortunately, this status is not attainable for her since she is constantly being reminded of what she is by those around her, a servant. Lopahin calls her a “spoilt soft creature.
. . . dressed like a lady” but he reminds her that “one must know one’s place” (Chekhov 123).
Although Dunyasha no longer wishes to be a servant, she is afraid of aspiring to anything else.
She says, “I have quite grown out of peasant ways, and my hands are white, as white as a lady’s.
I’m such a delicate, sensitive creature . . . afraid of everything” (Chekhov 138). In the end,
Dunyasha must be content to continue being a peasant who can never join the bourgeois.

Byars 6
Aspiring to greater things, however, is not the chief concern of Firs. He is content with the present class structure and wishes everything to stay just the way it was; he lives only to serve the bourgeois. Upon the arrival of Madame Ranevsky, Firs exclaims to her daughter,
Varya, “my lady [Madame Ranevsky] has come home! I have lived to see her again! Now I can die” (Chekhov 127). Firs rejoices for the good old days when he was “the head footman before the emancipation came” (Chekhov 141). He says that “I wouldn’t consent to be set free then; I stayed on with the old master,” to which Lopahin replies, “Those were fine old times. There was flogging anyway” (Chekhov 141). Firs agrees with Lopahin’s statement and replies, “To be sure! The peasants knew their place, and the masters knew theirs” (Chekhov 142). Firs and his ideology, however, get left behind at the end of the story. Everyone has left the estate and Firs is left behind, sick and forgotten. During his last moments of life, he reminisces about his past and
Russia’s past, thinking “life has slipped by as though I hadn’t lived. . . . There’s no strength in you, nothing left you—all gone! Ech! I’m good for nothing” (Chekhov 165). As Firs mutters these faithful words concerning the future of Russia, the axe can be heard in the distance clearing the way for a new republic.
Chekhov has succeeded in giving the world a small glimpse of the radical changes that were beginning to sweep across Russia during the revolution. He did not, however, allow the proletariat to destroy the bourgeois, as Karl Marx had prophesied. The bourgeois, Chekhov believed, were quite capable of destroying themselves. By contrasting the actions of the enlightened proletariat, the fallen bourgeois, the peasant who is afraid to rise up, and the peasant who is content with the present class structure, Chekhov allows the reader an opportunity to explore the class struggle from all sides. Chekhov purports that, the proletariat may rise up to the level of the bourgeois but will never be accepted as one; the bourgeois may fall down to the

Byars 7 level of the proletariat but will never accept the decline; some of the oppressed will desire change but will be too afraid to act; and some will reject change and wish to maintain their current level of status. A mutual relationship between all people with no classes is not feasible in
Chekhov’s world since the bourgeois and the proletariat will always be reminded of what they once were, and the Marxist ideology that Trofimov believes in can never be realized because of the fallibility of man.

Byars 8
Works Cited
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1994.
Chekhov, Anton. “The Cherry Orchard.” Classics of the Modern Theater. Ed. Alvin B. Kernan.
San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965. 121-165.
“Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich.” Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia. Microsoft Corp. CD-ROM.
Katic, James. “Lopakhin’s Social Relevance.” On-line essay. http://www.got.net/people/jtk
/school/english1b/cherry.html. 15 May 1998.
“Marxism.” The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. 1995 ed. Microsoft Bookshelf 1996-97
CD-ROM.