Anton Chekov's "The Cherry Orchard"

The central concern of Chekov's The Cherry Orchard is to focuss on the theme of change. Chekov penned this masterpiece when Russia was transforming its social strata from the feudalistic landlords to the rebellious new class. Being a doctor and scientist, Chekov was aware of the eventuality of progress. From the point of view of the major caharacters, the play is indeedv tragic. Lady Lyuboff returns to her ancestral place on summons from the manager as she has accumulated debts to pay off. She and Gayev, who have deep associations with the cherry orchard are reluctant to part with it. They fail to part with it, but do not act effectively to tackle the problem. Raneveskaya is filled with nostalgic memories of the ancestral pillars, people around her and the cherry orchard.
Moreover, the bitter memory of the drowning of her son attaches a sentimental bond with the place. This lends to the tragic atmosphere of the play. Again, saddening are the plights of Anya, Varya and Peers who are sincerely associated with her. The play indeed is tragic from the point of view of the kind and gentle aristrocratic beings who lose the orchard that is an integral part of their soul. Again, the play is comic in that they do nothing about it but expect help from a distant aunt. Perhaps this is why it is termed by critics as "a prolonged farewell placed between an arrival and departure." Humour is also prevalent in the way characters like Yasha lose their sense of proportion in their newly acquired freedom. and other characters like Dunyasha who cling on to Yasha.

When we analyse it as a tragedy the 'hamartia' in Raneveskaya bemomes her 'irresolution' as in Hamlet. There is anagnorisis or knowledge of the true circumstances; and also peripetia or reversal of fortunes- in particular in the case of Raneveskaya and Lopahin. Moreover the play possesses an exposition, climax and denoument. However, the climax is not so intense as in Shakespearean Tragedies.

If viewed from the point of view of the individual, the play is indeed a tragedy; but not when taken from the social viewpoint. What is failure for Raneveskaya is victory for people like Lopahin. It is also "a welcome change" to people like Trofimov, who can be considered as a mouthpiece of the intelligentsia who say that change is inevitable and necessary for the static Russia. The play is therefore neither a tragedy or a comedy: it simply exemplifies the change of a nation, the dreams and realizations of many slaves and the loss and disillusionment of numerous kindred souls.