Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) was born a year before the emancipation of serfism in Russia took place. Although he was the grandson of a serf, Chekhov was able to attend the medical school at the University of Moscow and become a physician. Chekhov started writing in order to support his family economically, becoming a master in drama and short stories. His literature is characterized by the use of colloquial language which could be understood even by the less educated and recently liberated serfs. Social change is the main theme in ‘The Cherry Orchard’, a four-act play written in 1904. In this play the different characters portray how changes in Russia after the emancipation of 1861 were taking place and although the play is set several years after this, it is clearly seen how the play develops around this event. For peasants, the liberation of 1861 brought different consequences. Not all of them took advantage of their freedom, and for some, their lives were the same after being liberated. In this play, these differences can clearly be seen. A main character of this play is Yermolai Lopahkin. Being son and grandson of serfs, represents the young class of peasants who got advantage of the emancipation and achieved economic success. Also, we have minor characters that represent other side of liberated serfs, who did not have Lopakhin’s opportunities to success after emancipation. Act 1 takes place in Madame Ranevsky’s state. Lohpakin and Dunyasha, a young servant hopeful to succeed in life, wait for the owner of the Cherry Orchard, Madame Ranevsky and her daughter, Anya, to arrive from Paris, where they have been for five years. In this scene Lophpakin ironically criticizes Dunyasha for wearing fancy clothes and trying to pretend something she is not. Although both grew as liberated serfs, it can be seen how one achieved success while the other was still in the process. Lohpakin shows his honesty and says that although he is rich, he is not an educated person: “...I’m rich, I’ve got pots of money but when you get right down to it, I’m a peasant. I was reading this book, didn’t understand a word...” Lopakhin symbolizes the ‘nouveau rich’ or the new class that emerged from the liberation of serfs. Some people, mainly young men, tried to get advantage of their liberation some going to the cities and searching for opportunities. Migration increased in enorm... ... middle of paper ... ...e situation, to portray many different ways in which serf liberation affected the peasant class. Many contemporary writers criticized emancipation adducing it did not bring any change in peasant’s lives. For example, Nikolai Nekrasov’s ‘Who Lives Well In Russia?’ may be considered a critic of the emancipation. This book is about seven peasants who met after the emancipation and ask each other if they are living well. The answers are negative and the villages were they come from have names that reflect their feelings: “Patched”, “Holey”, “Barefoot”, “Shivering”, “Burned”, “Hungry” and “Harvestless”. The ‘Proclamation of Serfs’ given at Saint Petersburg on March 3, 1861 by Alexander II, states “[Peasants] should understand that by acquiring property and greater freedom to dispose of their possessions, they have an obligation to society and to themselves to live up to the letter of the new law by a loyal and judicious use of the rights which are now granted to them.” He adds: “We confidently expect that the freed serfs, on the eve of a new future which is opening to them, will appreciate and recognize the considerable sacrifices which the nobility has made on their behalf.”
One of the first and most vital sources utilized was Not By Bread Alone by Barbara Engel. This article comes from Barbara Alpern Engel who is a historian who has wrote several books on Russian women and specifically Russian women during the early 1900s. The book appears in the larger journal The Journal of Modern History. The purpose of this article is to expound on the subsistence riots in WWI era Russia and the ones that lead to the Russian Revolution. A value of this source is her specialization, it seems, in Russian history from 1700 onwards. She has wrote several other books on Russian history and thus she has a greater knowledge than most on the subject. A limitation of this article maybe since she
Davis addresses various important factors in a peasant’s life. She highlights many components of peasant society, including their social classes and how their society values property in different ways. Davis also includes the peasants’ culture. She elaborates on the importance of children and the consequences of not being able to produce children. She also explains typical marriage procedures and customs. Lastly, Davis talks about some of the laws and common uses of the judicial system by peasants. By incorporating these factors into her book Davis is successful at recreating life for peasants in France during the sixteenth century.
In the years leading up to World War I, social unrest among the Russian people was spreading rapidly. There was a huge social gulf between the peasants who were former serfs and the landowners. The peasants regarded anyone who did not work as a parasite. They had always regarded as all land belonging to them. They regarded any land retained by the landowners at the time serfs were freed as stolen and only force could prevent them from taking it back. By the time Russia entered the war, one peasant rebellion had already been suppressed and several socialist revolutionary movements were developing.
During one of the therapy and wit sessions between Rivers and Prior at Craiglockhart, we discover that class struggle is an issue plaguing Prior. Pat Barker introduces the reference to Bolsheviks on page 135 in order to have her readers strictly denounce the caste system of British society, both for the soldiers returning home, and also the women who continued to be victims of the same system in Britain during World War One.
After Tsar Nicholas II created the National Assembly called the Duma, a great political and social unrest led to the Revolution of 1905. After that, members of the Duma stood up for the peasants. Sakhno, a peasant representative to the Duma, said in his speech in 1906, “Why can a landlord own a lot of land, while all that remains to the peasant is the kingdom of heaven?” (Document 10). Sakhno was protesting the inhibition of the peasants to own land, and to be equal as the landowners. He argued that the only reason that the peasants were arguing was because they were lacking provisions to feed themselves and their families while the landlords had more than enough. Others, such as Katerina Breshkovskaia, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, vouched for the peasants to be able to be educated. She wrote that “The peasants intensely desired education for their children, for they realized that this was the only way in which they could escape slavery they themselves had endured.” (Document 6). While she supported that they should deserve an education, Serge Witte, a Minister of Finance, wrote in a private letter to Tsar Nicholas II, that “It is not enough to free the peasant from the serf owner” claiming that it was “still necessary to free him from the slavery of despotism, to give him a legal system [...] and to educate him.” (Document 8). He
Alexander II was aware of this, and in a letter to Moscow gentry marshals said that a “hostile sentiment between the peasants and their landowners unfortunately exists…it is much better if this [reform] happens from above then from below”. He believed he should reform before the serfs carried out a full-blown rebellion. Alexander II did take action could before this could happen, however the serfs still did not have full freedom as they had to pay for land. Part of the reason for the emancipation was also to ensure that military reforms were able to go ahead without a landowner outcry. Russia’s military status had suffered greatly when they were defeated in the Crimean war in 1856.
The need to abolish serfdom was a persistent and, according to Mosse writing in 1958, biggest problem in Russian society since the reign of Peter the Great. All the problems of Russian Empire stemmed from serfdom and would automatically be solved with its removal .
Chekhov is part of a non-typical category of artists, because he did not believe in his genius, on the contrary, there is evidence that he believed that his work will not conquer time and posterity. Spectacular, just like Russia at the border between the 19th and 20th century, Chekhov was born the son of serfs in 1860 ( Tsar Alexander will abolish serfdom in 1861) only to become a landlord 32 years later, and a neighbor of Prince Shakovskoi. He bought the Melikhovo estate (unconsciously imitating Tolstoy, the patriarch of Iasnaia Polyana), not far from Moscow, with 13 thousand rubles of which he has paid an advance of five thousand. Chekhov is the true precursor of the theater of the absurd.
Periodically, a relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be a clouded perception, only due to the fact the proletariat will not be given the chance to speak from their point of view. This such thing is not true when it comes to the short story, “A Disgraceful Affair.” The story is based around the Russian interpretation of Marxism, shown in the forethought to the opening paragraph, in which it speaks “Our beloved motherland was experiencing a renaissance; her brave sons, fired with impulses at once touching and naïve, were seeking with an uncontrollable yearning for new destinies and hopes.” The thing that determines what they do is their social class and economic position, which in turn, affects what happens to them. The two men used to elaborate the idea are the bourgeoisie Mr. Ivan Ilyitch Pralinski, and proletariat Mr. Porfiry Petrov Pseldonymov.
In every rags to riches story, the protagonist eventually must decide whether it is better to continue to associate with impoverished loved ones from the past, or whether he or she should instead abandon former relationships and enjoy all that the life of fame and fortune has to offer. Anton Chekhov gives his readers a snapshot of a young woman in such a scenario in his short story Anna Round the Neck. While this story certainly gives a glimpse of the social climate in Russia during the nineteenth century, its primary focus is the transformation of Anyuta (Anna) Leontyich from a meek, formerly impoverished newlywed into a free-spirited, self-confident noblewoman. Throughout the story, the reader is drawn to pity Anna’s situation, but at the
In order to discuss and understand peasant revolts, the peasant’s lives and their dwellings must first be understood to show how life was from their perspective. As mentioned earlier, the daily lives of these peasants were filled with physical labour on the farm. Life on the farm meant that life revolved around the seasons. A bad summer crop meant that there would be food shortages in the winter. Houses were very simple, with minimal amounts of furniture. The houses themselves were usually made out of stone, and had straw roofs. Mattresses for beds was made from straw, if at all, as some houses were recorded having beds with no mattresses. It has also been noted that out of all furniture found in a sixteenth and seventeenth century French farmer dwelling, chairs were seldom found .
In the late 1800’s slavery was slowly being abolished. Unfortunately it was not until the second half of the century that serfdom found an end in Russia and many were given the rights they deserved. On the contrary the liberation was not so simple for women. They continued to fight for their rights to attain true freedom and faced severe consequences for their radical efforts. As shown through Elizaveta Kovalskaia’s memoir, she, like many women in Russia, was faced with many challenges and adversaries in her attempts for change and fairness for all women.
Before the emancipation of the Russian serfs if you were born into a serf family, generally you stayed in this poverty class for your entire life. Working hard did not change your class status. On the other hand, after the emancipation of the serfs, some peasants were able to climb up the social ladder through being humble. In the play The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov, Lopakhin was a middle-aged business man. He was born into a peasant family. His parents and great great grandparents were serfs on Ranevsky's estate. During this time of period serfs were still in poverty, as they did not own the land and have freedom. The landowners often treated their serfs like property, not like human being. After the system of serfdom was abolished, with
Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard projects the cultural conflict of the turn of the twentieth century of Russia. With a historical allusion, Chekhov exhibited the changing Russia with "slice of life" in his play. The Cherry Orchard is not only a depiction of Russian life but also an understatement of changing traditional value. Cultural conflict itself is an abstraction. To explain it, it is the traditional culture that is unable to resist the invading one. In the play, each character has his or her own personality, which symbolizes their individual social levels of Russian society. But these characters distinguish themselves into two sides, which are conservators and investors; therefore, they conflict each other in opinion. The following developments will begin with an outlook of The Cherry Orchard to acknowledge the basic concept of the play. The second part is culture in change that explains historical background of modern Russia. Third by a contrasting method, the main idea of this part is an illustration of conflict. And, in the fourth section, explaining symbolic meaning of The Cherry Orchard is an approach to highlight the conflict. Finally, the prospective development of different groups of characters is another contrast that echoes their attitudes in the beginning.
Social change raced through Russia during this play, as “mankind is advancing, perfecting its powers.” (Chekhov 116) After feudalist Russia collapsed, members of the lower class became more motivated to increase their social standing. (Complex) Although it was a time of great joy and hope for the peasantry in Russia, this time period, roughly 1861-1917, was full of uncertainty. Russian peasants did not know how the government would support and defend their ability to grow higher in society. The Cherry Orchard reflects Russian peasants’ fears regarding these social changes. Lopakhin is the paragon (12) of a Russian peasant who rose from the ranks of peasantry to a successful businessman. (Simple) He notes, “I’m rich, plenty of money, but if you think it over and work it out, once a peasant, always a peasant.” (Chekhov 70-71), as he reminisces about his upbringing in the lower class. This way of thinking speaks for all the peasants in this time of social change; even if a peasant moved up in social standing, he or she would not forget or bury their past. Lopakhin remarks that at one time “my father was your [Lyubov] grandfather’s serf”, (Chekhov 85) which shows how muc...