Themes in The Cherry Orchard

Lopakhin provides both the family’s and the play’s ticking clock: they must figure out how to pay their debts or they lose their estate. The crux of the drama is watching how the Ravenskys react to the encroaching deadline, showing who can accept change and who refuses to move forward with the times.

Gaev admits that, like an illness with no proven cure, their problem of debt doesn’t have a clear solution and may be incurable with their current circumstances. Though he sees many possible strategies, none of them are adequate or likely enough to merit attention over the others. His statement is also ironic, given that Lopakhin has just proposed a solution that would likely succeed, showing just how far in denial the Ravensky siblings are.

Lubov’s comment here has a double meaning. In the past several years she has suffered from multiple tragedies: the deaths of her husband and son and the betrayal of her new lover in Paris. She laments that she cannot forget these recent tragedies and return to her idyllic, blissful childhood. At the same time, the audience notes that if Lubov could move beyond her childhood memories, she could find a way to save her estate, but she is currently trapped by her own nostalgia.

Fiers provides a potential way out of debt for the Ravensky siblings: in the prosperous past, the estate used to sell a jam made from the cherries. Though this would provide a use for the orchard, it’s a tragic solution because no one quite remembers the jam’s recipe. Thus, the orchard is again reduced to a nostalgic reminder of past greatness with Fiers alongside it.

Gaev’s assertion of the orchard’s relevance reveals that the Ravenskys value the prestige of the orchard and its past greatness more than they ought to. Though it produces fruit, no one buys it, making the orchard more of a burden than a blessing. It would be more useful to the family if it were cut down, but the Ravensky siblings refuse to consider the possibility since that would be equivalent to erasing the family’s history and status that they treasure.

This line, directed to Lubov, displays Lopakhin’s fondness for Lubov despite the fact that her family used to own his. According to Lopakhin, the Ravensky’s cruel practice of keeping serfs is in the past, which is something he is willing to let go of, unlike Lubov. There is also a suggestion that Lopakhin may be in love with Lubov when he proclaims that he loves her more than if she was part of his family, though this possibility is never directly confirmed.

With the return of her brother, Lubov indulges in nostalgic memories of games of pool (billiards) they used to play together, even remembering the holes they sent the balls into. Because of the great hold these fond memories have over them, it is clear that Lubov and Gaev are reluctant to see things change.

A key plot point: the house and surrounding cherry orchard will be sold by auction in August. How each character reacts to this knowledge drives the rest of the play and greatly informs the audience of the different class structures at the time.

Lubov has been forced to sell her villa in Mentone (or Menton) in the southeast of France. This line expresses the belief that without material possessions Madame Ranevsky’s identity is void. As a member of the upper class, Madame Ranevsky must retain her material possessions in order to retain her identity.

As noted in the stage directions, the room continues to be called a nursery even though that name or purpose no longer applies. Madame Ranevsky (Lubov Andreyevna) continues to hold onto the past, which removes her from the reality of the present.

Lopakhin scolds Dunyasha the maidservant for dressing as a lady of nobility. This line is ironic coming from Lopakhin because he himself comes from the serving-class and now dresses in expensive clothes. We can assume that Lopakhin distinguishes himself from Dunyasha in that he has now made enough money to be considered wealthy, whereas Dunyasha remains a maidservant. This line further emphasizes the rigidness of societal divisions between classes.

Lopakhin is pleased he has managed to leave the poverty of serfdom to become a wealthy merchant, like “a pearl out of an oyster.” However, here we see that Lopakhin only defines this change as superficial, associated with the clothes he wears, and not with whom he remains on the inside. Lopakhin’s view of himself as “still a peasant” confirms the idea that while Russia’s social class distinctions have begun to soften, they still very much remain intertwined with how people view themselves and others. Appearances are shown to deceive the “real” identity which lies below the surface in the memory of each individual.

The adverb “still” conveys a sense of persistence despite something to the contrary. In this case, the room continues to be called a nursery even though that name or purpose no longer applies. This establishes notion of persistence or of holding on to something from the past, despite it not being the reality in the present.