David Zhou

Kelso

English 10 SM

23 February 2015

The Eternal Student

Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard is extremely character-based rather than plot-

based – the individuals in the story are all integral to the overall story. Each and every person

occupies a clear niche in the foundations of the play, contributing a different perspective and

emotional tone. Generally, however, characters in the play are of one of two dispositions; they

are either materialistically inclined or utilitarian enough to want for the sale of the cherry orchard

from the beginning, like Yermolay Lopakhin, or they are too sentimentally bound to willingly

sell the cherry orchard without outside pressure, like Lyuba Ranevsky. However, one character,

Peter Trofimov, is perpetually separate from the others due to his social and intellectual standing,

and participates with neither of the two major ideologies. Therefore, he can be thought of as

the perfect one-size-fits-all foil in the structure of the plot, acting as a point of reference or

contrast to the opinion that is most prevalent at any time. Through the use of Peter

Trofimov, Chekhov effectively demonstrates and discusses two opposite belief systems.

Trofimov is isolated in a particularly interesting manner – everyone else in the entire plot

seems to be either too young or too old, in both social and intellectual terms, to relate to him and

his novelties. While he is quite close in age to both Anya and Varya, the reader is always unable

to connect them in terms of thought processes. In a sense, there's a slight tinge of sexism here;

the way that characters interact, judged by gender, is unforced and natural. When Lopakhin

suggests the sale of the estate, only Gayev really pushes back against him; the women don’t deal

with the business side of the sale. On the other hand, most other characters in the play are too

old, with their thoughts already sorted out and set in stone, unable to be changed. Ranevsky and

David Zhou

Kelso

English 10 SM

23 February 2015

Gayev are not supportive of the sale of the estate throughout the entirety of the play, and it’s

completely unforeseeable that Lopakhin would ever apologize and simply hand the keys back to

Varya. However, Trofimov speaks loud enough that even though he doesn’t convert any other

characters to his thought, the reader can hear what he’s saying very clearly.

His radical and rational thinking is in direct contradiction to Ranevsky’s view, which is

extremely obsessed with the past and devoted to all that is of beauty and love. As the mistress of

the estate, letting go of the cherry orchard is impossible as it is so deeply attached to her, both in

the possibly positive sense that her family had traditionally resided there, but also that the

existence of Trofimov brings back tragic memories of her drowned son and dead husband. She is

constantly haunted and pestered by figments of her own past, in the form of telegrams sent from

here lover in Paris. To Ranevsky, she is the victim of her own life – misfortunes continually

befall her, culminating in the final sale of the cherry orchard, where she is finally destroyed.

However, to Trofimov’s perspective, Ranevsky is symbolic of the oppression of the masses and

the immoral treatment of the poor, an essential part of Russian history. The final act where

Lopakhin purchases the cherry orchard is reminiscent of the modern thinking that Trofimov

embodies – where the aristocratic families fall after their dehumanizing of entire swathes of the

population. Trofimov allows for one to see a different perspective on Ranevsky, one where she

and the cherry orchard are not beautiful remnants of a beautiful past, but the opposite.

However, Lopakhin’s tenets are further down the materialistic path than Trofimov’s; his

life in The Cherry Orchard is purely based on the management of money reserves, whereas

Trofimov is not necessarily an advocate of being materialistic. Lopakhin first outlines the plan to

David Zhou

Kelso

English 10 SM

23 February 2015

save Ranevsky through the sale of the cherry orchard, as a legitimately earnest plan, with

apparent goodwill in his heart. However, by the end of the play, it’s clear that Lopakhin wasn’t

entirely loyal or appreciative of Ranevsky. He flaunts his purchase of the estate without abandon,

without regard for the emotional state of the previous owners. As his “fathers and grandfathers”

had been serfs of the cherry orchard, naturally he is extremely proud of himself, gladly taking the

keys from Varya. In addition, his decision to not propose to Varya is not necessarily due to a lack

of courage or drive, but possibly the result of a careful calculation – he no longer wanted to be

connected to the Ranevsky family, and marrying the daughter of Lyuba would certainly destroy

that aspiration. Although Trofimov supports this, he doesn’t like the overly statistical and

mathematical mind of Lopakhin, and contrasts his ideas as well, giving them a sense of

rationality but also possible ruthlessness.

In this way, Trofimov serves as a wonderful point of contrast, especially for the two

major characters Ranevsky and Lopakhin. In addition, being this kind of foil strengthens the case

for either of the two arguments in the story. Chekhov utilizes Trofimov to perfectly outline

perspectives of other characters by being the ubiquitous foil.