Characterization in Oedipus Rex and The Cherry Orchard: a comparative analysis

Oedipus the King and the Cherry Orchard:

An ancient tragedy of implacable fate and a modern tragicomedy of character

Both the Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov and Oedipus the King by Sophocles are plays about people of high birth and status who have their illusions shattered. Oedipus Rex, which is often called the play that epitomizes the concept of the tragic, fatally flawed great man, tells the story of the King of Thebes. The title character attempts to avoid his allotted fate of marrying his mother and murdering his father. Oedipus instead walks straight into the arms of his destiny, unwittingly, because of his own hubris. Oedipus does not realize that, despite his intelligence and great position, he is still a plaything of the gods. The Cherry Orchard tells the story of an aristocratic Russian family who finds that their culture cannot protect them from the new economic realities of the times. Because of her unwillingness to chop down the title orchard and rent the property, through her own stubbornness of character, Madame Ranevskaya sacrifices the family estate to a person of less culture, but greater wealth. However, while both stories have tragic elements, ultimately Oedipus Rex is less a tragedy of a faulty character than a tragedy of fate; the Cherry Orchard is a tragedy of a fatally flawed woman who passively and stubbornly refuses to alter her destiny. [THESIS]

At the beginning of Oedipus Rex, the title character seems confident and powerful, as he assures the suffering people of Thebes that he will find the reasons for the plague that is destroying the city. Oedipus exhibits hubris in his attitude towards fate: he proclaims to his people that he is the person who saved Thebes from its original plague of the Sphinx, a creature who used to dominate the city and would murder any individual who failed to solve its infamous riddle. Oedipus, by solving the riddle, won control over the city, and was able to marry the widow of the former king Laius.

At the beginning of the Cherry Orchard, the audience is introduced to the fabulous, palatial estate of Madame Ranevskaya. However, by the end of the first act it becomes clear that all is not well. Ranevskaya, who has been traveling through Europe to assuage herself of the grief of the death of her young son Grisha, is heavily in debt. Like Oedipus, she shows arrogance when she is presented with evidence about her imprudent nature. A son of peasants, a man named Lopakhin who has 'made good financially' suggests that Ranevskaya cuts down the famed cherry orchard in the back of the estate and build cottages to rent to tenants. Ranevskaya appeals to the famous, historic nature of the orchard, and is disgusted by the suggestion of what she sees as the attitude of a lower-class person who cannot appreciate the finer things in life.

Ranevskaya's attitude is echoed in the reaction of Oedipus when the blind seer Tiresias reveals the truth to him -- that it is he, Oedipus, who is the cause of the Theban plague. Because Oedipus sees himself as a king, the man who freed his city, he cannot accept that he is really a parricide, and has been duped as a plaything of the gods. Due to his arrogance of striving to avoid his fate, Oedipus ran straight into its arms.

However, as tragic as Oedipus' fate may be, and as foolish as his attempts to avoid it seem to the viewer -- Oedipus is truly his father's son, given that Laius tried to avoid his death by trying to expose the child to the elements -- Ranevskaya's attempts seem even more tragic. She could save the estate by taking some simple, proactive steps and moving forward from the attitudes of the past. The attitudes of the past were often cruel, as exemplified in Lopakhin's very different memories of earlier times -- he recalls not being allowed to even eat with the higher-born residents of the estate. But Madame Ranevskaya cannot accept or confront reality. That is why the Cherry Orchard is truly a modern tragicomedy, rather than an ancient tragedy of hubris like Oedipus Rex. Oedipus meets his fate because of the pressures of fate and unalterable external circumstances while the tragedy of the Cherry Orchard is rooted in character. Even though Oedipus shows some noble character traits, he is unable to avoid the will of the gods, because his fate is ordained before he is born. Ranevskaya is offered a chance to save the estate, but cannot accept the fact that the world is changing.

Oedipus' more proactive character than Ranevskaya's is manifested in the methods by which he attempts to resist what is foretold. After being abandoned by his father Laius and his mother Jocasta, when they were told by the Oracle of Delphi that their newborn son would marry his mother and murder his father, the young Oedipus was adopted by a common, poor man. When he became a young man and consulted the Delphic Oracle to learn what his fate would be in life, the young Oedipus was told the same thing as his father. Horrified, and wishing to show compassion to the people he believed were his true his mother and father, Oedipus fled the place of his birth.

Although Oedipus' actions showed hubris in his attempt to avoid his fate, he also wanted to show kindness to the people he loved. He was willing to take action to try to avoid his fate. A modern viewer is thus likely to be very sympathetic to Oedipus, despite his hostile and arrogant attitude to Tiresias. An ancient Greek viewer might take a less positive view of Oedipus. However, Ranevskaya is a far more frustrating character contemporary viewer, despite the fact that Chekhov wrote his play during the 19th century. Ranevskaya's attitudes towards money seem quite foreign: she would rather lose everything, than do violence to even one square foot of the place where she loves. She seems to have no understanding of her position, and the need to change with the times.

Oedipus is willing to take responsibility for his actions. He is very concerned about the plague affecting his city at the beginning of the play, and strives to find out its cause. The reason he is exiled is because he vows to expel the source of the contagion, no matter what the cause, and thus unwittingly condemns himself. Ranevskaya refuses to accept responsibility for prudent management of her property, and does not reign in her spending, or look for ways to support the estate in practical manner. Because Oedipus takes responsibility for the plague, and even deals himself a far more harsh punishment than he originally said he would bring upon the head of the offender by blinding himself, he seems like a more noble character. Ranevskaya's nobility and disdain for change results in a refusal to take the needed actions to preserve her ownership of the estate. Unlike Tiresias, Lopakhin at least attempts to help Ranevskaya, before assuming control of the estate himself and enacting his plan for chopping down the orchard. Lopakhin cares about Ranevskaya, while Tiresias is merely a cold foreteller of reality.

Lopakhin, the Tiresias-like 'truth teller' of the Cherry Orchard, is not a mystical figure like a prophet, and is, in fact, the most practical of all of the characters. He recalls playing on the estate as a boy, and feels intense affection for Ranevskaya, even though he was regarded as lower class at the time. Before purchasing the estate, he attempts to help the family. However, Ranevskaya spurns his attempts at making peace. Ranevskaya lives in her own reality -- the past, rather than the future, exemplifying her aristocratic roots. Lopakhin, a self-made man, embodies the future. Despite his love of the estate, the future is far better and far more promising than the Russia of the previous era.