Class 10- The Proposal Summary & Easy Analysis

Chapter 9, Anton Chekhov’s ‘The Proposal’ Summary, Theme, Vocabulary, Questions Answers, Important Excerpts and Additional Questions.

Supplementary Reader: Class 10- ‘Footprints Without Feet‘

Vocabulary:

• Collar – A part of a horse’s harness; mentioned during discussions of horses.
• Embezzlement – Dishonestly taking money or property entrusted to one’s care.
• Gentry – People of good social position, often landowners; reflects the characters’ social status.
• Guzzle/Guzzling – Drinking greedily or excessively is often used to describe someone’s character flaw, especially when drinking alcohol.
• Histerics – A fit of uncontrollable laughter or crying, typically used here to show emotional distress.
• Hump-backed – Having a hunched back; used as an insult regarding physical appearance.
• Hypochondriac – A person apprehensive about their health, which describes Lomov’s constant complaints about his ailments.
• Intriguer – A person who schemes or manipulates situations for their benefit.
• Jesuit – A member of the Society of Jesus; used here as an insult to imply cunning or manipulation.
• Livery – A uniform worn by servants, often indicating a household’s wealth or status.
• Lunacy – Madness or insanity; used here to insult someone’s mental stability.
• Milksop – A weak or timid man, often used to criticise someone for being soft or cowardly.
• Overshot – Refers to a dog’s upper jaw being longer than the lower one; used to describe a flaw in hunting dogs.
• Palpitating – Refers to a rapid, strong, or irregular heartbeat, often caused by stress or excitement.
• Pettifogger – A lawyer who deals with petty cases or emphasises trivial points; used as an insult for being overly concerned with small matters.
• Stuffed sausage – An insult referring to someone awkward or rigid in appearance or movement.
• Trousseau – The clothes and linens collected by a bride for her marriage are mentioned in discussions of marriage preparation.
• Turnip-ghost – A derogatory term implying someone looks pale, thin, or weak.
• Whimpering – Crying softly or complaining weakly, often indicating emotional distress.
• Wizen-faced – Having a shrivelled or wrinkled face, often used as an insult to describe someone as old or unattractive.

Summary ‘The Proposal’ by Anton Chekhov:

Anton Chekhov’s “The Proposal” is a humorous one-act play about a wealthy landowner, Ivan Lomov, who visits his neighbour, Stepan Chubukov, to propose to his daughter, Natalia. Although both families want the marriage, Lomov and Natalia argue constantly over trivial matters, such as land ownership and hunting dogs. Despite the tension, they share a deep affection for each other. 

As the arguments escalate, Lomov faints, but when he revives, they continue bickering. Chubukov steps in and insists they get married immediately, ignoring their disputes. The play humorously portrays how people sometimes prioritise minor issues over important life decisions, and it explores the absurdity of human behaviour when emotions, pride, and stubbornness come into play.

Theme ‘The Proposal’ by Anton Chekhov:

Land, Wealth, and Materialism in Matrimony:

The central theme of Anton Chekhov’s “The Proposal” is the absurdity of human behaviour in matters of love and marriage. The play humorously highlights how trivial issues, like arguments over land and hunting dogs, can overshadow important life decisions. Even though Ivan Lomov and Natalia want to get married, they continuously bicker over minor matters, showing how pride and stubbornness can create unnecessary conflicts. 

The play also touches on social class and materialism, as the proposal is motivated more by property concerns than genuine affection. Ultimately, the theme shows how people often let minor disagreements control their lives, even in moments that should bring happiness and unity, like a marriage proposal.

Character Sketches ‘The Proposal’:

1. Character Sketch of Lomov:

1. Status: A landowner from a wealthy family demonstrating social aspirations.

2. Characteristics:

• Nervous: Frequently suffers from anxiety, leading to physical ailments (e.g., palpitations).

• Argumentative: Engages in heated debates, particularly over trivial matters (e.g., land ownership and dog breeds).

• Sensitive: Easily offended and overly concerned with others’ opinions.

3. Motivation:

Seeks to secure a marriage proposal to Natalya, reflecting a desire for social validation and connection.

4. Conflict:

• Faces external conflicts with Natalya and her father, Chubukov, often escalating to absurd arguments.

• Internal conflict arises from his feelings of inadequacy and the pressure of societal expectations.

5. Reputation:

• Chubukov views him as a “pettifogger” and an “intriguer, ” reflecting how others perceive his argumentative nature.

6. Relationships:

• His interactions with Natalya reveal his conflicting emotions, moving from argumentation to a desperate need for acceptance and love.

• His relationship with Chubukov is fraught with tension, showcasing the dynamics of social standing and familial expectations.

7. Character Development:

• Begins as a conflicted suitor, showcasing comedic traits, but eventually reveals deeper insecurities and desires for companionship.

• The conclusion of the play suggests a shift, as he agrees to marry Natalya, despite ongoing disputes, hinting at his submissive tendencies.

8. Symbolism:

• Represents the contradictions of the Russian gentry, where wealth does not guarantee confidence or emotional stability.

9. Humour:

• Functions as a comedic figure. His exaggerated reactions and overblown concerns provide humour amidst the chaos.

10. Significance:

• Lomov critiques social norms and the absurdities of human behaviour, particularly in romantic and familial contexts.

2. Character Sketch of Chubukov:

1. Status: A wealthy landowner and father of Natalya, representing the old Russian gentry.

2. Characteristics:

• Dominant: Displays authority in his household, often asserting control over situations and people.

• Manipulative: Uses his influence to steer conversations and outcomes to his advantage.

• Hypocritical: Criticizes Lomov for being petty while engaging in similar behaviour himself.

3. Motivation:

He aims to secure a prosperous match for his daughter, reflecting a desire for social and financial stability.

4. Conflict:

• Engages in external conflicts with Lomov, revealing underlying tensions over property and pride.

• Internal conflict arises from balancing paternal instincts with social ambitions.

5. Reputation:

• Seen as cunning and opportunistic, prioritising financial gain over genuine emotional connections.

6. Relationships:

• His dynamic with Lomov fluctuates from cordial to antagonistic, illustrating the complexities of social alliances.

• The relationship with his daughter, Natalya, showcases a blend of care and control as he attempts to direct her choices.

7. Character Development:

• He begins as a seemingly protective father but reveals layers of self-interest and pride throughout the play.

• His behaviour evolves from mocking Lomov to ultimately using him for his daughter’s marriage, highlighting his opportunistic nature.

8. Symbolism:

• He represents the older generation’s adherence to social norms and material concerns, often at the expense of genuine relationships.

9. Humour:

• He is a comedic figure through his exaggerated reactions and absurd arguments, contributing to the play’s humour.

10. Significance:

• Chubukov critiques societal values, reflecting the absurdities of wealth and status and the lengths to which individuals will go for social advancement.

3. Character Sketch of Natalya:

1. Status: A young, unmarried daughter of Chubukov, representing the aspirations of the rising middle class.

2. Characteristics:

• Strong-willed: Exhibits determination and assertiveness, especially in her interactions with Lomov.

• Emotional: Displays a range of emotions, from excitement to anger, revealing her passionate nature.

• Jealous: Shows possessiveness, particularly regarding her father’s approval and Lomov’s attention.

2. Motivation:

• She seeks a suitable marriage, viewing Lomov as a potential partner due to his wealth and status.

• Desires social validation and financial security through marriage, reflecting societal pressures.

3. Conflict:

• She engages in internal and external conflicts, wrestling with her feelings for Lomov while navigating familial expectations.

• Her arguments with Lomov illustrate the broader themes of pride and relationship misunderstanding.

4. Reputation:

• She was perceived as a fiery and spirited woman, often viewed through the lens of traditional expectations of femininity.

5. Relationships:

• Her dynamic with her father is complex, reflecting both dependence and resistance as she grapples with his influence.

• The relationship with Lomov fluctuates between attraction and antagonism, highlighting her conflicting desires.

6. Character Development:

• She transitions from enthusiastic about her potential marriage to Lomov and becomes frustrated during their heated exchanges, showcasing her emotional volatility.

• Her realisation of the importance of marrying Lomov reveals her growth and acceptance of societal norms.

7. Humour:

• Contributes to the play’s comedic elements through her dramatic reactions and exaggerated claims, particularly during disputes with Lomov.

8. Significance:

• Natalya embodies the complexities of desire and ambition, contrasting Lomov on marriage and materialism.

Questions Answers ‘The Proposal’:

Thinking About The Play:

Q1: What does Chubukov at first suspect that Lomov has come for? Is he sincere when he later says, “And I’ve always loved you, my angel, as if you were my own son”? Find reasons for your answer from the play. 

A1: Chubukov thinks that Lomov has come to borrow money. This shows he is suspicious and believes Lomov has a financial motive. When Chubukov later says, “And I’ve always loved you, my angel, as if you were my own son,” it’s important to consider his tone and actions.

Chubukov’s sincerity is questionable. He quickly changes his attitude when he realises that Lomov wants to propose to his daughter, Natalya. Instead of showing genuine love, he seems more interested in the marriage’s benefits, like wealth and land. It suggests that his statement may not be sincere but a way to manipulate the situation for his advantage.

Q2: Chubukov says of Natalya: “… as if she won’t consent! She’s in love; egad, she’s like a lovesick cat…” Would you agree? Find reasons for your answer. 

A2: Subjective Answer

I disagree with Chubukov’s description of Natalya as a lovesick cat. Her excitement about Lomov seems more driven by the financial advantages of their match rather than genuine romantic feelings. Both are from wealthy families and own land, which would benefit Natalya.

She recognises that marrying Lomov would elevate her social and economic status. This practical perspective overshadows any emotional connection she may feel. Natalya’s eagerness is primarily about securing a prosperous future rather than true love, highlighting the theme of materialism in their relationship.

Q3: (i) Find all the words and expressions in the play that the characters use to speak about each other, and the accusations and insults they hurl at each other. (For example, Lomov in the end calls Chubukov an intriguer; but earlier, Chubukov has himself called Lomov a “malicious, doublefaced intriguer.” Again, Lomov begins by describing Natalya as “an excellent housekeeper, not bad-looking, well-educated.”) 

A3: In the play “The Proposal,” Lomov and Chubukov exchange strong insults, revealing their anger and rivalry. Here are some key points to help understand the characters and their conflicts:

Lomov’s Accusations:

• Lomov feels that Chubukov is taking advantage of him. He calls Chubukov a “grabber,” meaning someone who tries to take more than they deserve.

• He defends his family’s honour, stating that they are “honourable people,” and contrasts them with Chubukov’s family, accusing them of embezzlement.

Chubukov’s Insults:

• Chubukov responds aggressively, calling Lomov a “pettifogger,” which means someone petty or only concerned with trivial matters.

• He also mentions Lomov’s family history, suggesting that they have mental health issues, and refers to Lomov’s father as a “guzzling gambler,” which means someone who drinks too much and gambles irresponsibly.

Natalya’s Contributions:

• Natalya joins the argument by accusing Lomov’s family of having backbiters, showing that she dislikes him and his family.

Escalating Insults:

• Both characters use playful but harsh language, calling each other names like “stuffed sausage,” “wizen-faced frump,” and “old rat.” It demonstrates their deep frustration and their lack of respect.

Physical Reactions:

• Lomov becomes so upset that he clutches at his heart, indicating his stress and the seriousness of their argument.

• The insulting exchanges show how their desire for land and wealth leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. The play emphasises how materialism can destroy relationships and create conflict.

(ii) Then think of five adjectives or adjectival expressions of your own to describe each character in the play. 

A (ii): Here are five adjectives or adjectival expressions to describe each character in “The Proposal” by Anton Chekov.

Lomov

1. Nervous – He often shows anxiety, especially when he talks about important matters.
2. Proud – Lomov is proud of his family and land.
3. Hypersensitive – He reacts very strongly to insults and accusations.
4. Insecure – He feels unsure about himself, especially in social situations.
5. Determined – Lomov is committed to making a marriage proposal despite the chaos.

Chubukov

1. Manipulative – He tries to control the situation to his advantage.
2. Greedy – Chubukov is focused on land and wealth.
3. Hot-tempered – He quickly becomes angry and shouts during arguments.
4. Cunning – Chubukov uses clever strategies to achieve his goals.
5. Self-serving – He often acts in his interest rather than considering others.

Natalya

1. Assertive – She speaks her mind and stands up for herself.
2. Jealous – Natalya shows jealousy towards Lomov and his intentions.
3. Emotional – She reacts strongly, especially when arguing.
4. Materialistic – Natalya is focused on the advantages of marrying a wealthy man.
5. Passionate – Her feelings about love and family are intense and genuine.

These adjectives help highlight the personalities and motivations of each character in the play, revealing their complexities and relationships.

(iii) Can you now imagine what these characters will quarrel about next?

A (iii): Potential quarrels might arise, showcasing how their personalities and motivations create ongoing tension, making their relationships complicated and entertaining.

1. Land Ownership: Lomov and Chubukov could argue again about the boundaries of their land. Lomov might claim that Chubukov is trying to take more land than he deserves.

2. Marital Expectations: If they marry, Natalya might demand that Lomov promise her a particular lifestyle or more land. This could lead to a disagreement over financial matters.

3. Family Reputation: Chubukov may insult Lomov’s family again, bringing up past scandals. Lomov could retaliate by attacking Chubukov’s family history, leading to a heated argument.

4. Hunting Skills: They might argue about who is a better hunter. Chubukov may boast about his skills, while Lomov insists he is the superior hunter, leading to further conflict.

5. Wedding Plans: Natalya may have specific ideas about the wedding. If Lomov disagrees, it could spark a quarrel about what they want for their future together.

Thinking About Language:

I. 1. This play has been translated into English from the Russian original. Are there any expressions or ways of speaking that strike you as more Russian than English? For example, would an adult man be addressed by an older man as my darling or my treasure in an English play?

Read through the play carefully, and find expressions that you think

are not used in contemporary English, and contrast these with idiomatic modern English expressions that also occur in the play.

A1: In “The Proposal,” several expressions reflect the Russian speaking style that might not be familiar in contemporary English. Here are some examples, along with their modern English equivalents:

Expressions Unique to the Play:

“My angel”:

• Context: Chubukov uses this endearment to address Lomov, which sounds very affectionate and somewhat unusual for English-speaking cultures, especially between adult men.

• Modern Equivalent: “My friend” or simply using a person’s name would be more typical.

“My darling” or “my treasure”:

• Context: Chubukov uses these terms of endearment that are overly affectionate for a formal or business relationship.

• Modern Equivalent: “Dear” or “buddy” would be more appropriate in contemporary English.

“You’re not a neighbour, you’re a grabber!”:

• Context: This direct accusation reflects a candid, almost blunt style typical in Russian literature, which can come off as harsh in English.

• The Modern Equivalent, “You’re being unreasonable” or “You’re just trying to take advantage of me,” would be more subtle.

“You pettifogger!”:

• Context: This term means a deceitful person or a legal trickster, which is not commonly used in everyday English today.

• Modern Equivalent: “You’re being petty” or “You’re a scammer” might be more relatable.

“You’re just a malicious, doublefaced intriguer!”:

• Context: This phrase is formal and dramatic, typical in Russian dialogue.

• The Modern Equivalent, “You’re two-faced!” or “You’re just being manipulative,” would sound more natural.

Contrast with Idiomatic Modern English:

“You’re making me sick!”:

The expression is more relatable and reflects a contemporary way of expressing frustration or annoyance.

“Let’s be reasonable.”:

Modern English commonly uses this phrase to suggest a more diplomatic approach to a disagreement.

“I can’t believe this!”:

It is a standard modern expression of disbelief that conveys emotion more casually.

These comparisons show how cultural nuances can influence language. The Russian expressions give the play a unique flavour, while modern English favours more direct and less formal communication styles.

Q2: Look up the following words in a dictionary and find out how to pronounce them. Pay attention to how many syllables there are in each word, and find out which syllable is stressed, or said more forcefully. 

palpitations interfere implore thoroughbred pedigree principle evidence misfortune malicious embezzlement architect neighbours

accustomed temporary behaviour documents

Q3: Look up the following phrases in a dictionary to find out their meaning, and then use each in a sentence of your own.

(i) You may take it that: Assume something is true.

Sentence: You may take it that we will start the meeting at 10 AM, so please be on time.

(ii) He seems to be coming round: Someone is starting to change their mind and agree with you.

Sentence: Sarah initially didn’t want to move, but now she seems to be coming round to the idea.

(iii) My foot’s gone to sleep: One’s foot feels numb or tingly because you’ve been sitting in one position for too long.

Sentence: I sat on the floor for a long time, and now my foot’s gone to sleep; I can’t feel it!

II. Reported Speech

1. To report a statement, we use the reporting verb said.
2. The adverb of place here changes to there.
3. When the verb in direct speech is in the present tense, the verb in reported speech is in the past tense (as in Sentence Set 3).
4. If the verb in direct speech is in the present continuous tense, the verb in reported speech changes to the past continuous tense. For example, I’m getting changes to was getting.
5. When the sentence in direct speech contains a word denoting respect, we add the adverb respectfully in the reporting clause (as in Sentence Set 1).
6. The pronouns I, me, our, and mine, which are used in the first person in direct speech, change according to the subject or object of the reporting verb, such as he, she, they, or them in reported speech.

III. Here is an excerpt from an article from the Times of India dated 27 August 2006. Rewrite it, changing the sentences in direct speech into reported speech. Leave the other sentences unchanged. 

“Why do you want to know my age? If people know I am so old, I won’t get work!” laughs 90-year-old A. K. Hangal, one of Hindi cinema’s most famous character actors. For his age, he is rather energetic. When asked about the secret, he replied that his intake of everything is in small quantities and that he walks a lot. He explained that he joined the industry when people retired, stating he was in his 40s.

He mentioned that he doesn’t miss being called a star and is still respected and given work, while actors of his age live in poverty and without work. He added that he doesn’t have any complaints, but he has always been underpaid. Recipient of the Padma Bhushan, Hangal, never hankered after money or materialistic gains. He acknowledged that he is content today but emphasised that money is important. He regretted being a fool and not understanding the value of money earlier.

Speaking and Writing:

Q1: Anger Management: As adults, one important thing to learn is how to manage our temper. Some of us tend to get angry quickly, while others remain calm. Can you think of three ill effects that result from anger? Note them down.

Suggest ways to avoid losing your temper in such situations. Are there any benefits from anger?

1. Ill Effects of Anger:

• Health Problems: Anger can lead to serious health issues, such as high blood pressure, headaches, and heart problems. When we are angry, our body releases stress hormones, which can harm our health over time.

• Damaged Relationships: Getting angry often can hurt our relationships with family, friends, and coworkers. Anger can cause misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and even arguments or fights.

• Poor Decision-Making: When we are angry, we may not think clearly. This can lead to hasty decisions we might regret later, such as saying things we don’t mean or acting impulsively.

2. Ways to Avoid Losing Your Temper:

• Take Deep Breaths: Take a few deep breaths when you feel anger rising. This can help calm your mind and body.

• Count to Ten: Before reacting, count to ten slowly. This gives you time to think before you respond.

• Walk Away: If a situation becomes too heated, walking away for a moment is okay. Find a quiet place to cool down.

• Practice Relaxation Techniques: Try meditation, yoga, or other relaxation methods to help manage your emotions better.

3. Benefits of Anger: 

(Although rarely, sometimes anger may result in good outcome)

• Motivation for Change: Anger can motivate us to take action against unfair situations or injustice. It can inspire us to stand up for ourselves or others.

• Expression of Feelings: Anger can be a natural way to express our feelings. It can show others that something is wrong and needs attention.

• Strengthening Boundaries: Feeling angry can help us recognise our boundaries and remind us to protect ourselves from being treated poorly.

Managing anger is essential for a healthy life. By recognising its effects and learning how to cope, we can lead more peaceful and fulfilling lives.

Q2: In pairs, prepare a script based on the given excerpt from The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore. You may write five exchanges between the characters with other directions such as movements on stage and way of speaking, etc.

Extra Questions ‘The Proposal’ by Anton Chekhov:

Short Answer Type Questions: 

Q1: What causes the argument between Lomov and Natalya in this scene?

A1: The argument stems from a dispute over land ownership, specifically the Oxen Meadows. Lomov and Natalya are stubborn and defensive about their claims, leading to a heated exchange filled with insults and accusations about their families.

Q2: How does Chubukov react to Lomov’s accusations?

A2: Chubukov becomes increasingly agitated, defending his family and attacking Lomov’s character. He calls Lomov a “pettifogger” and brings up negative traits about Lomov’s family, escalating the conflict and adding to the situation’s tension.

Q3: What is the significance of the characters’ attitudes toward their dogs?

A3: The argument over the superiority of their dogs, Squeezer and Guess, reflects their competitive natures and stubbornness. This debate reveals their inability to communicate effectively and foreshadows the humorous absurdity of their relationship, highlighting their pettiness and the play’s comedic elements.

Q4: How does Natalya’s attitude change during the scene?

A4: Initially furious with Lomov, Natalya’s attitude shifts dramatically when she learns he came to propose to her. This sudden realisation causes her to panic and plead for Lomov’s return, showcasing her emotional volatility and desire for a relationship despite the earlier conflict.

Q5: What role does Chubukov play in the relationship between Lomov and Natalya?

A5: Chubukov acts as a mediator and father figure, expressing frustration with Lomov and Natalya. He oscillates between supporting his daughter and criticising Lomov, ultimately encouraging the proposal and attempting to resolve their conflicts, albeit chaotic.

Q6: How does the physical state of Lomov contribute to the scene’s humour?

A6: Lomov’s exaggerated physical ailments, such as heart palpitations and numb feet, add comedic elements to the scene. His frequent complaints and near-collapse heighten the situation’s absurdity, emphasising the ridiculousness of their arguments over trivial matters.

Q7: What does the argument reveal about the social norms of marriage during Chekhov’s time?

A7: The argument illustrates the transactional nature of marriage, where wealth and land ownership are prioritised. Both characters are more concerned with financial stability and social status than love, reflecting societal expectations that advantageous matches should be prioritised over personal connection.

Q8: How does irony play a role in the interactions between the characters?

A8: Irony is prevalent as Lomov seeks to propose while simultaneously arguing with Natalya. Their petty disputes overshadow the actual purpose of his visit, highlighting the absurdity of their situation and the contrast between their intentions and actions, which creates humour and tension.

Q9: What is the significance of the land ownership dispute in the play?

A9: The land dispute catalyses conflict, illustrating the characters’ deep-seated insecurities and competitive nature. It symbolises their obsession with material wealth and social status, showcasing how trivial matters can disrupt personal relationships and lead to comedic outcomes.

Q10: How does Chekhov use dialogue to develop character personalities?

A10: Chekhov employs witty and sharp dialogue to reveal the characters’ personalities. Lomov’s nervousness contrasts with Natalya’s assertiveness, while Chubukov’s frustration underscores his protective nature. Their exchanges expose their flaws, insecurities, and absurdity, enhancing the play’s comedic elements.

Q11: In what ways do Lomov and Natalya’s characteristics complement each other?

A11: Lomov’s anxious demeanour complements Natalya’s fiery personality, creating dynamic and humorous tension. Their contrasting traits drive the conflict and highlight their compatibility, as social expectations drive both characters. It ultimately makes them suitable partners despite their frequent quarrels.

Q12: How does Chekhov utilise humour to address serious themes in the play?

A12: Chekhov employs humour to explore themes of love, societal expectations, and materialism. The absurdity of Lomov and Natalya’s arguments over trivial matters distracts from their deeper motivations, using comedic exchanges to critique the serious nature of marriage and human relationships in a lighthearted manner.

Q13: How does the character of Chubukov influence the relationship between Lomov and Natalya?

A13: Chubukov plays a pivotal role as both a mediator and instigator. His protective nature towards Natalya and eagerness to secure a wealthy match complicate matters. His reactions add tension and comedy, revealing parental influence in marriage and how familial expectations shape romantic relationships.

Q14: What role does societal pressure play in Lomov’s proposal decision?

A14: Societal pressure drives Lomov to propose, as he feels compelled to fulfil expectations of marriage and secure a suitable partner. His anxiety highlights the fear of social failure, showcasing how external influences impact personal choices and relationships, emphasising the importance of status and respectability.

Q15: How does the setting contribute to the mood of the play?

A15: The rural estate setting enhances the play’s comedic and absurd mood. It reflects the characters’ wealth and social status while creating a confined space for their interactions. The domestic environment contrasts with their petty arguments, emphasising the absurdity of their conflicts and the farcical nature of their relationship.

Q16: What does the play suggest about the nature of love and marriage?

A16: The play suggests that love and marriage are often transactional, driven by societal expectations and material interests rather than genuine affection. The characters’ focus on wealth and land underscores the notion that romantic relationships may prioritise social standing over emotional connection, highlighting the absurdity of such values.

Q17: How do misunderstandings drive the plot in “The Proposal”?

A17: Misunderstandings fuel the plot as Lomov and Natalya misinterpret each other’s intentions and emotions. Their inability to communicate effectively leads to humorous conflicts, showcasing the characters’ insecurities and revealing how poor communication can derail important moments. It ultimately highlights the absurdities in human relationships.

Q18: What role does status play in the characters’ interactions and motivations?

A18: Status is central to the characters’ interactions, influencing their motivations and decisions. Lomov and Natalya desire to secure their social standing through marriage, emphasising the play’s critique of societal values prioritising wealth and power over genuine emotional connections and compatibility.

Long Answer Type Questions: 

Q1: What is Lomov’s central conflict with the characters Chubukov and Natalya regarding the ownership of Oxen Meadows, and how does it escalate during their argument?

A1: Lomov’s central conflict with Chubukov and Natalya concerns the ownership of Oxen Meadows, a piece of land. Lomov claims that Oxen Meadows belongs to him, but Natalya argues that it has always been part of her family’s property. Chubukov sides with his daughter, calling Lomov a thief and liar. The argument starts small but quickly escalates as all three become more emotional and stubborn. 

They insult each other and lose control, with their tempers flaring. Lomov gets so stressed that he almost faints, but even then, the fight continues. The argument shows how pride and greed over something small can blow up into a major conflict between neighbours.

Q2: How does the discussion about the dogs, Guess and Squeezer, reflect the personalities of Lomov, Chubukov, and Natalya, and what does this argument reveal about their relationships?’

A2: The argument about the dogs, Guess and Squeezer, reflects the stubborn and competitive personalities of Lomov, Chubukov, and Natalya. Lomov believes his dog, Guess, is superior because it costs more and comes from good hunting stock, while Natalya argues that her dog, Squeezer, is better because it’s younger and stronger. Chubukov jumps in, agreeing with his daughter and mocking Lomov’s dog. 

The argument quickly becomes heated and ridiculous, like the one about Oxen Meadows. It reveals that the characters are more concerned with winning arguments than finding common ground. Their constant need to prove themselves shows how prideful and argumentative they are, even over trivial matters like dogs, highlighting their relationships’ tense and petty nature.

Q3: Describe the transformation in Natalya’s feelings toward Lomov throughout the scene. What prompts her change of heart, and how does her reaction contribute to the play’s comedic elements?

A3: Natalya’s feelings toward Lomov change dramatically throughout the scene. At first, she argues fiercely with him about Oxen Meadows and the dogs, showing anger and stubbornness. However, when Chubukov reveals that Lomov came to propose, her feelings shift instantly. She becomes upset and regrets arguing, suddenly seeing him as a desirable match. 

The quick change of heart adds to the play’s comedic elements because it shows how easily the prospect of marriage sways her emotions. Her desperation to call Lomov back and make amends after the heated argument is exaggerated and humorous. The dramatic contrast between her aggressive behaviour and sudden affection creates a ridiculous and funny situation, contributing to the play’s lighthearted tone.

Q4: What role does Chubukov play in the conflict between Lomov and Natalya, and how does his attitude shift during the scene? Provide examples from their interactions.

A4: Chubukov plays a major role in escalating the conflict between Lomov and Natalya. Initially, he welcomes Lomov warmly, thinking he’s come to propose to Natalya. However, when Lomov and Natalya begin arguing about Oxen Meadows, Chubukov quickly takes Natalya’s side, insulting Lomov and making the argument worse. 

His attitude shifts from friendly to aggressive, calling Lomov names and accusing him of trying to cheat them. For example, he calls Lomov a “rascal” and tells him to take his land dispute elsewhere. But when Lomov leaves, and Chubukov realises Lomov wants to propose, he changes again, desperate to get Lomov back. His quick changes in attitude add to the chaos and humour of the scene, showing his impulsive nature.

Q5: Discuss the theme of marriage in the play. How do the characters’ initial disagreements reflect their views on marriage, and what ultimately leads to Lomov and Natalya’s engagement?

A5: The theme of marriage in The Proposal is tied to practical concerns rather than love. Lomov and Natalya’s initial disagreements about land and dogs reflect their personalities and stubbornness, but also how trivial matters distract them from the real reason Lomov visits. Marriage is a business deal between wealthy landowners to strengthen their social standing. 

Even though Lomov and Natalya argue fiercely, both families want the marriage because it is an excellent financial match. Lomov’s nervousness about proposing, combined with their heated arguments, shows the absurdity of their relationship. Ultimately, Chubukov pushes for the engagement, despite their fighting, because the advantages of the union are too important to let petty disputes stop it.

Important Excerpts from the play ‘The Proposal’ by Anton Chekhov:

Excerpt 1:

NATALYA: “Oxen Meadows are ours, and I shan’t give them up, shan’t give them up, shan’t give them up!”

Context: The line is from an argument between Lomov and Natalya over the ownership of Oxen Meadows. The dispute, which escalates throughout the play, begins when Lomov mentions that the meadows belong to him, but Natalya insists they are hers. Neither of them is willing to back down, showing their stubbornness and how trivial matters become major points of contention in their relationship.

Excerpt 2:

CHUBUKOV: “And that blind hen, yes, that turnip-ghost has the confounded cheek to make a proposal, and so on! What? A proposal!”

Context: The excerpt occurs after Lomov storms out of the house following the argument about Oxen Meadows. Chubukov, in a fit of anger, insults Lomov but suddenly realises that Lomov has come to propose to Natalya. The moment of realisation shifts the scene’s tone, adding humour to the characters’ misunderstandings.

Excerpt 3:

LOMOV: “My heart’s palpitating awfully. My foot’s gone to sleep. There’s something that keeps pulling in my side….”

Context: During the play, Lomov frequently mentions his poor health, using it to gain sympathy or to excuse himself from arguments. The excerpt occurs as he becomes physically overwhelmed by the escalating argument with Natalya over their dogs.

Excerpt 4:

LOMOV: “Excuse me, what’s it all about? Oh, now I understand … my heart… stars… I’m happy.”

Context: After a series of misunderstandings and arguments, Lomov finally realises he is engaged to Natalya. His physical ailments and confusion, followed by this sudden realisation, highlight the absurdity of the situation. Despite all the chaos, the two are now engaged.

Excerpt 5:

NATALYA: “But, still you will admit now that Guess is worse than Squeezer.”

Context: Even after getting engaged, Natalya reverts to the earlier argument about their dogs, showing that their quarrelsome relationship continues. The line adds humour as it indicates that their petty arguments are far from over, even though they are now engaged.

Excerpt 6:

CHUBUKOV: “You’re a fool! A fool! A fool! You’re mad!”

Context: The heated exchange occurs after Lomov and Natalya begin arguing about the dogs. Chubukov gets caught in their quarrel and calls both Lomov and Natalya fools. The outburst shows the ridiculousness of the escalating arguments over trivial matters.

Excerpt 7:

LOMOV: “And are you a hunter? You only go hunting to get in with the Count, and to intrigue!”

Context: The passage occurs during the argument about whose dog is better, Guess or Squeezer. Lomov accuses Chubukov of only hunting to gain favour with the Count, showing how petty their argument becomes. The absurd level of accusation adds to the play’s humour.