A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
Question
How is the image of Lopakhin interpreted? Why doesn't Gaev like him?
Answer
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, replacing the nobility. Chekhov wrote to Stanislavsky: “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently, without tricks.”
The vulgarity of life comes at him from all sides, he acquires the features of a rogue merchant, and begins to flaunt his origin and lack of culture.
Answer
“Good God! My father was a serf to your grandfather and father..."
“...My dad was a man, an idiot, he didn’t understand anything, he didn’t teach me, he just beat me when he was drunk, and that was with a stick. In essence, I’m just as much of a blockhead and an idiot. I haven’t studied anything, my handwriting is bad, I write in such a way that people are ashamed of me, like a pig.”
Question
Why does Petya say about him “a beast of prey” and “a gentle soul”? How to understand this?
Answer
This character is no stranger to sentimentality. He is sensitive to poetry in the broad sense of the word, he has, as Petya Trofimov says, “thin, gentle fingers, like an artist... a subtle, gentle soul.”
Lopakhin is sincerely ready to help Ranevskaya, he is almost in love with her. In the end he buys a cherry orchard, i.e. acts contrary to his wishes.
Lopakhin is very dependent on time. He constantly looks at his watch, urging himself and others: “It’s time,” “Hurry up.” He is so dependent on time that he does not dare follow his feelings: he wants to see Ranevskaya, talk to her - and leaves, postponing the conversation. His life has its own “ghosts,” ambiguities, and uncertainties, for example, his relationship with Varya. Bitterly, Lopakhin admits to Petya: “And how many people, brother, are there in Russia who exist for no one knows why.” Lopakhin has taken possession of the cherry orchard, but feels the fragility of his position and anticipates a radical change in life. Thus, in Lopakhin a “beast of prey” and a “tender soul” coexist.
Question
What quality will win in Lopakhino?
Answer
Pragmatism
Question
What features of Lopakhin are attractive?
Question
Why do Gaev and Ranevskaya refuse Lopakhin's offer?
Answer
Lopakhin is a pragmatist, a man of action. Already in the first act, he joyfully announces: “There is a way out... Here is my project. Please pay attention! Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, near the railway, and if the cherry orchard and the land along the river are divided into dacha plots and then rented out as dachas, then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year in income.”
True, this “exit” into a different, material plane - the plane of benefit and benefit, but not beauty, therefore it seems “vulgar” to the owners of the garden.
Conclusions
The meaning of Lopakhin’s complex and contradictory image is to show the new “masters of life.” Lopakhin's remarks contain judgments that are not typical of his image. Most likely, thoughts about the homeland, about an awkward, unhappy life are the voice of the author himself.
Questions
Why doesn't Lopakhin propose to Varya?
What future of Russia is he talking about?
Why does he more than once call life “stupid”, “awkward”?
What is unique about Lopakhin’s speech?
How does his attitude towards Ranevskaya and Gaev characterize?
Literature
1. D.N. Murin. Russian literature second half of the 19th century century. Methodological recommendations in the form of lesson planning. 10th grade. M.: SMIO Press, 2002.
2. E.S. Rogover. Russian literature XIX century. M.: Saga; Forum, 2004.
3. Encyclopedia for children. T. 9. Russian literature. Part I. From epics and chronicles to the classics of the 19th century. M.: Avanta+, 1999.
LOPAKHIN AS A SYMBOL OF THE REAL RUSSIA. The role of Lopakhin A.P. Chekhov believed in the play " Cherry Orchard"central". In one of his letters he said: “...if it fails, then the whole play will fail.” What is special about this Lopakhin and why exactly his A.P. Chekhov placed at the center of the figurative system of his work?
Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin - merchant. His father, a serf, became rich after the reform of 1861 and became a shopkeeper. Lopakhin recalls this in a conversation with Ranevskaya: “My father was a serf to your grandfather and father...”; “My dad was a man, an idiot, he didn’t understand anything, he didn’t teach me, he just beat me when he was drunk and kept hitting me with a stick. In essence, I’m just as much of a blockhead and an idiot. I haven’t studied anything, my handwriting is bad, I write in such a way that people are ashamed of me, like a pig.”
But times change, and “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai, who ran barefoot in the winter,” broke away from his roots, “made his way into the people,” became rich, but never received an education: “My father, it’s true, was a man, but I’m a white vest, yellow shoes. With a pig's snout in a row... Only he's rich, he has a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, he's a man..." But don't think that this remark reflects only the hero's modesty. Lopakhin likes to repeat that he is a man, but he is no longer a man, not a peasant, but a businessman, a businessman.
Individual remarks and remarks indicate that Lopakhin has some kind of big “business” in which he is completely absorbed. He always lacks time: he either returns or is going on business trips. “You know,” he says, “I get up at five o’clock in the morning, I work from morning to evening...”; “I can’t live without work, I don’t know what to do with my hands; hanging out somehow strangely, like strangers”; “I sowed a thousand dessiatines of poppy in the spring and now I have earned forty thousand net.” It is clear that not all of Lopakhin’s fortune was inherited; most of it was earned by his own labor, and the path to wealth was not easy for Lopakhin. But at the same time, he easily parted with the money, lending it to Ranevskaya and Simeonov-Pishchik, persistently offering it to Petya Trofimov.
Lopakhin, like every hero of “The Cherry Orchard,” is absorbed in “his own truth,” immersed in his experiences, does not notice much, does not feel much in those around him. But, despite the shortcomings of his upbringing, he is acutely aware of the imperfections of life. In a conversation with Firs, he sneers at the past: “It was very good before. At least they fought." Lopakhin is worried about the present: “We must say frankly, our life is stupid...” He looks into the future: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” Lopakhin sees the reasons for this disorder in the imperfection of man, in the meaninglessness of his existence. “You just have to start doing something to understand how few honest, decent people there are. Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, I think: “Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should really be giants...”; “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are lighter, and it seems as if I also know why I exist. And how many people, brother, are there in Russia who exist for no one knows why.”
Lopakhin is truly the central figure of the work. Threads stretch from him to all the characters. He is the link between the past and the future. Of all characters Lopakhin clearly sympathizes with Ranevskaya. He keeps warm memories of her. For him, Lyubov Andreevna is “still the same magnificent” woman with “amazing”, “touching eyes”. He admits that he loves her “like his own... more than his own,” he sincerely wants to help her and finds, in his opinion, the most profitable “salvation” project. The location of the estate is “wonderful” - there is a railway twenty miles away and a river nearby. You just need to divide the territory into plots and rent them out to summer residents, while having a considerable income. According to Lopakhin, the issue can be resolved very quickly, the matter seems profitable to him, you just need to “clean up, clean... for example, ... demolish all the old buildings, this old house, which is no longer good for anything, cut down the old cherry orchard...”. Lopakhin is trying to convince Ranevskaya and Gaev of the need to make this “only correct” decision, not realizing that with his reasoning he deeply hurts them, calling unnecessary rubbish everything that for many years was their home, was dear to them and sincerely loved by them. He offers to help not only with advice, but also with money, but Ranevskaya rejects the proposal to lease out the land for dachas. “Dachas and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry,” she says.
Convinced of the futility of his attempts to persuade Ranevskaya and Gaev, Lopakhin himself becomes the owner of the cherry orchard. In the monologue “I bought,” he cheerfully tells how the auction went, rejoices at how he “grabbed” Deriganov and “beat” him. For
Lopakhin, a peasant son, the cherry orchard is part of an elite aristocratic culture; he acquired something that was inaccessible twenty years ago. Genuine pride can be heard in his words: “If only my father and grandfather had risen from their graves and looked at the whole incident, like their Ermolai... bought an estate, the most beautiful of which is nothing in the world. I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen...” This feeling intoxicates him. Having become the owner of the Ranevskaya estate, the new owner dreams of a new life: “Hey, musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Come and watch how Ermolai Lopakhin takes an ax to the cherry orchard and how the trees fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see here new life... Music, play!.. A new landowner is coming, the owner of the cherry orchard!..” And all this in the presence of the crying old mistress of the estate!
Lopakhin is also cruel towards Varya. For all the subtlety of his soul, he lacks humanity and tact to bring clarity to their relationship. Everyone around is talking about the wedding and congratulating. He himself talks about marriage: “What? I wouldn't mind... She's a good girl..." And this is his sincere words. Varya, of course, likes Lopakhin, but he avoids marriage, either from timidity, or from an unwillingness to give up freedom, the right to manage his own life. But, most likely, the reason is excessive practicality, which does not allow such a miscalculation: marrying a dowryless woman who has no rights even to a ruined estate.
S1- What is the function of the image of a comet in the context of the events of L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”?
The image of a comet in L.N. Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace” is a symbol of a new, prosperous life. The author characterizes it using such figurative and expressive means as epithets: “white light”, “a huge, bright comet”, comparison: “suddenly, like an arrow pierced into the ground, it stuck here.” Despite the fact that for everyone the bright star foreshadowed the apocalypse, for Pierre it represents a happy future. This is confirmed by the lines: “It seemed to Pierre that this star fully corresponded to what was in his soul, which had blossomed towards a new life, softened and encouraged.” The image of a comet is the “spiritual guide” of the hero Pierre Bezukhov to a new, bright life.
C2- In which works of Russian literature of the 19th – 20th centuries. Do natural phenomena act as signs of future events?
Russian writers often resorted to the symbolism of natural phenomena as a sign of future events in the work. In the poem “The Twelve” by A.A. Blok, a blizzard is an uncontrollable element that personifies revolution. “Wind, wind! The man can’t stand on his feet.” In M. Bulgakov’s novel “ White Guard“, the image of “red, trembling Mars” is also symbolic. It acts as a sign of war and the bloodshed, death and suffering associated with it. Natural phenomena in these works they have great semantic meaning; the authors turn them into symbols of the future.
S1- What is the role of Sophia’s dream in revealing the heroine’s mental torment?
The dream that Sophia talks about in her monologue plays an important role in revealing the heroine’s mental torment. She is in love with Molchalin, her father’s secretary, but Famusov wants to marry her to another rich Skalozub, and even says: “Whoever is poor is not a match for you.” This is what Sophia’s torment is based on. The author shows how strong feelings are main character to Molchalin through a dream, in the description of which he uses such figurative means of expression, as epithets: “flowery meadow”, “dark room”, comparison: “pale as death, and hair on end”, rhetorical exclamations: “and hair on end!”, “he shouts after him!” Thus, sleep plays an important role in revealing state of mind and the experiences of the main character.
S1- What does the story of the “son of an eagle” in M. Gorky’s story “Old Woman Izergil” make you think about?
The story of the “son of an eagle” in M. Gorky’s story “Old Woman Izergil” makes you think about the life position of a person (Larra), who elevates himself above others. Also requires reflection on the consequences of pride. The author describes Larra using words such as: “only his eyes were cold and proud, like those of the king of birds.” This character considers himself the first on earth and sees nothing but himself. Larra kills an innocent girl because she refused him: “I killed her because it seemed to me that she pushed me away... And I needed her.” For this act and for his pride, the hero was punished with eternal life (and in life, due to his character, he was doomed to eternal loneliness).
In the comedy by A.P. Chekhov, the cherry orchard is a relic of the Ranevskys, with which this family has fond memories. Selling the estate is the last extreme for them. They hope that the garden will be saved, they hope that they will be able to buy it at auction. And then it is acquired by one of the characters in the play, the merchant Lopakhin. In his monologue, he openly declares that he wants to cut down the orchard, his emotions are reflected through a rhetorical exclamation: “Yermolai Lopakhin will hit the cherry orchard with an ax and the trees will fall to the ground!” The garden is not only a place with which members of the Ranevsky family have memories, but also a symbol of a beautiful, but now unnecessary life. Lopakhin destroys this life, and that is why he cannot be considered a true savior cherry orchard.
To answer the question that became the title of the work, let's try to understand the cause-and-effect relationship of the events described in Chekhov's last play.
What's happening? After a long absence, the owner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and her daughter Anya return to their native estate. They are met by the landowner's brother Gaev, the neighbor-landowner Simeonov-Pishchik and the merchant Lopakhin. The latter was born into a family of serfs and considers himself a “man-man,” even though he has money. He reminds Ranevskaya of her urgent sadness: soon her cherry orchard, her family nest with Gaev, will be sold at auction for debts. But then the fun begins.
For Lyubov Andreevna and Leonid Andreevich, the estate with the cherry orchard is very expensive. They passed here; the warmest and most painful memories are associated with this estate (Ranevskaya’s six-year-old son drowned in a local river several years ago). The very thought of parting with the estate horrifies Lyubov Andreevna, and her brother is also not happy about this prospect. However, none of them takes any real action to save their shrine. Both brother and sister are poorly adapted to life, wasteful and short-sighted. But they have a fair tendency towards reflective nostalgia, and one could enjoy their suffering with them if there were no reason for the latter. But alas. Attachment to one's native place does not deserve ridicule.
Lopakhin, having talked about the situation and the upcoming auction, immediately offers a solution: you need to divide the garden into summer cottages and rent them out. In this way, it will be possible to preserve the estate and at the same time significantly increase income. But both Ranevskaya and Gaev reject this proposal without any hesitation. How so? Cut it out?! The most interesting and wonderful place in the entire province - to ruin?
Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin is a man of action. This is a merchant, but a merchant not by origin, but by current social status. Earned by the sweat of your brow. He is a hard worker who is alien to unnecessary reflections, accustomed to working “from the plow” and increasing his fortune with work. At the same time, he cannot be classified as a soulless and callous person, ready to sell everyone and everything for a penny.
Returning to the topic of the work - why can’t Lopakhin become the savior of the cherry orchard? It’s more likely not “why can’t he”, but why would he give in, generally speaking? For what reason should he save the cherry orchard? He does not seek to destroy it. And he doesn’t strive to get his hands on it at any cost. In order for Lopakhin to “save” him, one condition would have to be met.
From the very first lines we see that Ermolai Alekseevich is not indifferent to his former mistress. He waits with trepidation for her arrival, worries whether she will recognize him when she meets... He remembers Ranevskaya’s kindness when she, while still a girl, helped him, a boy, wash off the blood from his face from his father’s blow. He is full of desire to help. Instead of simply buying out the estate, cutting down the garden and implementing the idea with the summer residents himself, he proposes this idea to Lyubov Andreevna. And your help in doing so. The desire to make money from the sale of the cherry orchard gives way to affection for its owners, and Lopakhin tries to reason with them to the last.
If Ranevskaya could have seen her destiny in this hero, everything might have turned out differently. And the cherry orchard would remain safe and sound. But the landowner continues to see in Ermolai Alekseevich the same boy with a broken nose, no match for herself - she doesn’t even think about anything like that, she’s all in her Parisian dramas.
Lopakhin is no longer a boy. Tender feelings are wonderful, but he is first and foremost a man of action. And he buys the estate at auction. With the same calculation that he once offered to the now former landowners to cut down the trees and rent out their summer cottages. Alas, the analogies are obvious: without destroying the old, you cannot build a new one. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this topic was more pressing than ever. Another question is that Lopakhin is not the true personification of novelty; he will be surpassed by Petya Trofimov and Anechka, who are rushing into a bright future, sweeping away bridges behind them.
In this regard, it would probably be possible to single out three main figures: the past (Ranevskaya and Gaev, with their absolute helplessness in the face of the time of change and the inability to adapt in any way to the changing reality surrounding them), the present with memory (Lopakhin, who, although becomes the new owner of the estate, but remembers everything that happened there previously, including the fact that as a boy, he did not dare to go beyond the threshold of the kitchen on this estate) and the future, reckless and merciless (Trofimov, Anya). There are characters who will not find a place anywhere in the listed time dimensions, but we are not talking about them now.
The final scene makes you think. Lopakhin, having received Ranevskaya’s estate at his disposal, does not feel triumphant. Pride in front of my father and grandfather, former serfs on this land - yes. But not a real celebration. There is also bitterness in his words. This is a temporary victory, but is it really a victory? The living warm threads connecting the successful entrepreneur Lopakhin with the yard boy, who has a kind and grateful memory, are torn. Ranevskaya will leave for her Paris. The past will hurt and stop; Who cares much about what's left behind anymore? But the future, which is being built with the loss of elements of spiritual warmth dear to the heart...
Lopakhin didn’t save the cherry orchard. He did not save the era of the nobility, which was fading into oblivion, which was replaced by people of action guided not by the heart, not by the memory of their ancestors, not by respect for their native culture, but by pure reason and banal commercial gain. The tragedy of the hero is that he, a hard worker and a truly talented businessman, will not be able to join the new time without again paying for it with a piece of his concern and warmth. And only the measured knock of the ax will become the accompaniment of the onset of a new round of history on its eternal serpentine...
The famous play “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov is based on a completely everyday situation - the sale of an old noble estate. But it is not the fate of the beautiful cherry orchard that worries the writer: the garden is only a symbol that personifies the whole of Russia. Therefore, the fate of the country, its past, present and future become main theme Chekhov's work.
The relationships between the characters show the historical process of replacing the old class of nobility with a new class of entrepreneurs in Russia.
Ranevskaya and Gaev are representatives of a bygone era; they are the old owners of the cherry orchard. They were replaced by a new social force - the bourgeoisie, embodied in the image of the entrepreneur Lopakhin.
This character is one of the main ones in the drama “The Cherry Orchard”, and Chekhov paid special attention to him. He wrote: “Lopakhin’s role is central. If it fails, then the entire play has failed.” Therefore, readers (viewers) are presented with a complex and contradictory character. Ermolai Alekseevich is generally a simple, kind, warm-hearted person. He came from a peasant background. But he has no aggressiveness or hidden anger towards the Gaevs and Ranevskys, who lived by the labor of his ancestors. On the contrary, he sincerely wants to help Lyubov Alekseevna’s family and offers the right plan to save his beloved cherry orchard. His sober practical mind suggests right decisions. This hero is businesslike and enterprising, but he thinks only about his own benefit and money. Everything that Lopakhin achieved, he achieved only thanks to his intelligence, hard work and ambition. This distinguishes him from Gaev and Ranevskaya, landowners who are a thing of the past, who are accustomed to living only at the expense of their peasants.
But Lopakhin cannot become the true savior of the cherry orchard. Firstly, because he is spiritually limited. Ermolai Alekseevich is not able to understand the beauty of the garden. Instead of beautiful flowering trees, he sees only good plots for dachas and, wanting to get as much personal gain as possible, barbarously destroys the cherry orchard, which for Gaev and Ranevskaya was a symbol of an idyllic time, purity, innocence, dreams, hopes and memories. And secondly, this character is only a temporary master of life. The dominance of the capitalists is short-lived, because they seek to build a new Russia, destroying its past and everything that was beautiful that was in it. And here it is clearly visible author's position: The new class of entrepreneurs, despite their energy and strength, brings destruction with them.
And Lopakhin himself understands that he is only the temporary owner of the cherry orchard. He feels that new, young forces will come that will turn Russia into a blooming garden. And from the feeling that he is only an intermediate link in the historical chain, that he cannot save the cherry orchard, Lopakhin remains dissatisfied with life. It seems to him that everything is going wrong and therefore exclaims: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
Updated: 2018-03-14
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
