LOPAKHIN
LOPAKHIN is the hero of A.P. Chekhov’s comedy “The Cherry Orchard” (1903).
Unlike other characters in the comedy, whose “perspective of feelings” goes into the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs) or into the future (Trofimov, Anya), L. is entirely in the “present,” transitional, unstable time, open in both directions “ temporary chains" (Chekhov). “A boor,” Gaev unequivocally certifies him. According to Trofimov, L. has a “subtle, gentle soul” and “fingers like an artist.” Both are right. And in this rightness of both is the “psychological paradox” of the image of L.
“A man like a man” - despite the watch, the “white vest” and “yellow boots”, despite all his wealth - L. works like a man: he gets up “at five o’clock in the morning” and works “from morning to evening.” He is in constant business fever: “we have to hurry,” “it’s time,” “time doesn’t wait,” “there’s no time to talk.” In the last act, after purchasing the cherry orchard, his business excitement turns into some kind of nervous business fever. He is no longer only in a hurry, but also in a hurry to others: “Hurry up,” “It’s time to go,” “Come out, gentlemen...”.
L.’s past (“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 all with a stick”) has grown into the present and echoes in it: with stupid words (“Okhmeliya...”, “to date"); inappropriate jokes; “bad handwriting”, because of which “people are ashamed”; falling asleep over a book in which “I didn’t understand anything”; shaking hands with a footman, etc.
L. willingly lends money, being in this sense an “atypical” merchant. He “simply”, from the heart, offers them to Petya Trofimov on the road. He sincerely cares about the Gaevs, offering them a “project” to save them from ruin: to divide the cherry orchard and the land along the river into summer cottages and then rent them out as summer cottages. But it is precisely at this point that an insoluble dramatic conflict begins: in the relationship between the “rescuer” L. and the “rescued” owners of the estate.
The conflict is not about class antagonism, economic interests or hostile personalities. The conflict is located in a completely different area: in the subtle, almost indistinguishable sphere of the “culture of feelings.” In the scene of Ranevskaya’s arrival, L. sees her bright joy when meeting with home, childhood, past; observes Gaev’s emotion and Firs’ excitement. But he is unable to share this joy, this excitement, this “chillness” of feelings and moods - he is unable to sympathize. He would like to say “something very pleasant, cheerful,” but he is overwhelmed by a different joy and a different excitement: he knows how he can save them from ruin. He is in a hurry to make his “project” public and comes across Gaev’s indignant “Nonsense” and Ranevskaya’s embarrassed words: “My dear, I’m sorry, you don’t understand anything.” Saying the words about the need to “clean up” here, “clean”, “demolish”, “cut down”, he does not even understand what an emotional shock this plunges the owners of the family estate with which their whole life is connected. This line turns out to be impassable for either side of the dramatic conflict.
The more actively L. seeks consent to demolish the old house and cut down the cherry orchard, the deeper the abyss of misunderstanding becomes. As the action progresses, the emotional tension of this confrontation also grows, at one pole of which is Lopakhin’s “I will either burst into tears, or scream, or faint. I can't! You tortured me! - and on the other is Ranevskaya’s feeling: “If you really need to sell, then sell me along with the garden.” L. cannot understand that for Ranevskaya a simple “yes” means complete self-destruction and self-destruction of the individual. For him, this question is “completely empty.”
The poverty of the emotional “spectrum”, mental “color blindness”, deafness to distinguishing shades of feelings make it impossible for L. to have close, heartfelt contact with Ranevskaya, whom he “loves like his own, more than his own.” In L. there is growing some kind of vague consciousness of his deprivation, a heavy bewilderment in front of life. He strives not to give free rein to these thoughts and “clogs” them with hard work: “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then the thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I exist.” In hours of insomnia, he is capable of large-scale generalizations: “Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should truly be giants.” But in life this leads to “waving his arms” and Ranevskaya’s aloof remark: “You needed giants... They are only good in fairy tales, they frighten attacks.” In the world of noble culture, L.'s rough harshness and definiteness of feelings are inappropriate. Indifferent to the beauty and poetry of the cherry orchard, L. has his own ideas about beauty: “I sowed a thousand dessiatines of poppy seeds in the spring and now I have earned forty thousand net. And when my poppy bloomed, what a picture it was!”
With the greatest openness, L.’s melancholy inner strength broke through in the scene of his return from the auction. The drunken courage of the monologue - with the stomping of feet, with laughter and tears - expressed the “subtle and gentle” soul of the “boor”. Let it be “somehow by accident” (K.S. Stanislavsky), “almost involuntarily”, “unexpectedly for himself,” but he still bought Ranevskaya’s estate. He did everything to save the owners of the cherry orchard, but did not have the mental tact not to cut it down in front of the former owners: he was in a hurry to clear the “past” from the site for the “future.”
The first performer of the role of L. was L.M. Leonidov (1904). Other performers include B.G. Dobronravov (1934), V.S. Vysotsky (1975).
N.A. Shalimova
Literary heroes. - Academician. 2009 .
See what "LOPAKHIN" is in other dictionaries:
Lopakhin- Lop ahin, and (lit. character; businessman) ... Russian spelling dictionary
Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (1988); born February 11, 1941; works at the Russian Center for Drug Expertise of the Russian Ministry of Health and Medical Industry; area of scientific activity: pharmacology... Large biographical encyclopedia
The Cherry Orchard Genre: lyrical tragicomedy
The Cherry Orchard The Cherry Orchard Genre: Comedy
The Cherry Orchard The Cherry Orchard Genre: Comedy
The Cherry Orchard The Cherry Orchard Genre: Comedy
This term has other meanings, see They fought for their homeland. They fought for their homeland... Wikipedia
- (1938 1980), Russian poet, actor, author and performer of songs. Tragically confessional poems, romantic lyrical, comic and satirical songs, ballads (collections: “Nerve”, 1981; “I, of course, will return...”, 1988). In songwriting... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
One of the central characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the merchant Lopakhin. Despite the fact that the action takes place around the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and her cherry orchard, Lopakhin can confidently be called a character equivalent to the landowner. His fate is closely connected with the Ranevskaya family, because his father served with Lyubov Andreevna while still a serf. Ermolai himself managed to get out of the “men”, becoming a merchant and independently, without the help of his parents, making a fortune for himself. Lopakhin's energy, diligence and hard work deserve undoubted respect.
However, Ermolai himself in his soul cannot tear himself away from his origins, sincerely considering himself a fool and an ordinary man, illiterate and stupid. He says he knows nothing about books and has bad handwriting. But the reader perceives Lopakhin as a hard worker, because the hero cannot imagine his life without work. The merchant knows how to make money, knows the value of time, but at the same time he is not a tight-fisted grabber - he is just as easily ready to part with his money if it can help someone. Lopakhin sincerely worries about Ranevskaya and her garden, helping to find a way out of the situation.
Among the many characters in the work, Ermolai Lopakhin is the only one who not only talks and worries about the garden, but also tries to do something. He comes up with several real ideas for saving the site, but due to the inaction of the owners themselves, they all fail. Thus, in the image of Lopakhin, positive, seemingly mutually exclusive, but so harmoniously existing traits are closely intertwined: business acumen and sincere humanity, the desire to help a loved one.
Other characters speak about Ermolai in completely different ways. Ranevskaya warmly treats her old acquaintance, who almost grew up before her eyes, but perceives him as a person from a different circle, although she is interested in the merchant. A diametrically opposite attitude is observed on the part of her brother, Gaev: he calls Lopakhin a boor and a fist. The merchant himself is not at all bothered by this characteristic - for him, the attitude of Lyubov Andreevna is much more important.
The story of Lopakhin and Varya is of considerable importance in the work. Their relationship leads to a wedding, but Ermolai never marries the girl. This happens due to a mismatch of characters: Varya considers the merchant to be a practical businessman, incapable of love. However, after analyzing the images of these heroes, we can draw the opposite conclusion - Varya herself is drier, limited to household chores, while Lopakhin is a man of a broad soul and fine organization. Absolute misunderstanding of each other will lead to the collapse of love relationships.
In Yermolai’s soul there also lives another, unspoken, but noticeable feeling to the reader - his bright and reverent love for Ranevskaya. He is ready to do anything at her request - even marry someone else. However, the landowner herself treats Lopakhin a little condescendingly, like a child whom she once washed. And when the merchant finally realizes the non-reciprocity of what he has kept inside for so long and cherished, a turning point occurs. Lopakhin buys an estate; the awareness of his own power and importance intoxicates him. Being a completely intelligent man, Ermolai understands that, having bought a garden, he will not be able to take possession of Ranevskaya’s feelings, and his dream will be lost completely and irrevocably. After the sale of the estate, the family leaves, Ranevskaya herself leaves for Paris, and he is left completely alone.
LOPAKHIN AS A SYMBOL OF THE REAL RUSSIA. The role of Lopakhin A.P. Chekhov considered the play “The Cherry Orchard” to be “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 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 the 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 up... for example, ... demolish all the old buildings, this old house, which is no longer good for anything, cut down the old cherry orchard...”. Lopakhin tries 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 there 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 a new life here... Music, play!.. A new landowner is coming, the owner of a 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 these are 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.
The plot of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is based on the sale of an estate for debts. This family nest belonged to an aristocratic family, but its owner spent a lot of money abroad, and the estate was not properly cared for. Although Ranevskaya’s daughters tried to live frugally, her habits led to losses, and the estate was sold under the hammer.
The merchant Lopakhin E.A. plays one of the important roles in the play; he was previously a serf under Ranevskaya’s grandfather and father, and was engaged in trading in a shop. By the time described in the play, Lopakhin had managed to get rich. The character himself is ironic to himself, saying that the man remained a man. Lopakhin says that his father did not teach him, but only beat him after drinking, which is why he himself, according to his speeches, is “a blockhead and an idiot,” he has bad handwriting, and did not undergo training.
Characteristics of the hero
Although Lopakhin has not been trained, he can be called smart, he is also enterprising and has an enviable business acumen.
Also among the main qualities are:
- energy. He is busy;
- hardworking The character plants poppies and does other work, earning money with his labor;
- generous. He easily lends money to Ranevskaya and other people because he can;
- employment. A man constantly checks his watch, gets ready or describes himself immediately after returning;
- industrious. Without work, he doesn't know what to do with his hands.
Other participants in the play have different opinions about Lopakhin, Ranevskaya considers him interesting and good, but Gaev says that he is a boor. Simeonov-Pivshchik considers him a man of great intelligence, Petya Trofimov calls him a rich man, and yet has a positive attitude. He also notes his subtle and unclear soul, gentle fingers, like an artist.
The image of the hero in the play
(A. A. Pelevin— Lopakhin A.A., S.V. Giatsintova— Ranevskaya L.A., V.V. Maruta— Simeonov-Pishchik, Moscow Theater named after. Lenin Komsomol, 1954)
It is Lopakhin who is the only active character, and his energy is directed towards making money. The author wrote Lopakhin as a central figure, and refers to people who value art, and not just raked in money. The soul of an artist lives in the hero, he speaks tender words, he was the only one who offered a way out of the situation - rebuilding the garden. Lopakhin is secretly in love with Ranevskaya, understands the impossibility of the future fate of the estate under the same management, and in general he soberly assesses the situation. As a result, Lopakhin buys the estate at auction, but still understands the absurdity of his life and cannot live in harmony with himself.
What message is conveyed through Lopakhin?
(Alexander Savin— Lopakhin A.A., Galina Chumakova— Ranevskaya L.A., Altai Youth Theater , 2016 )
Chekhov loved to examine and show Russia symbolically, putting more into each image. The play poses the question of who the future of the country belongs to. In the history of the play, the words of the characters almost always diverge from their actions, just as Ranevskaya, promising not to return to Paris, leaves, and Lopakhin admires the cherry orchard, but cuts it down.
Lopakhin clearly shows an example of human misunderstanding; in his heart he wanted to be with the landowner, and he was offered the idea of marrying Varya. It broke his heart and tore his delicate soul. In theory, he emerged victorious, because the estate passed into his possession, but the result was tragic, and his feelings remained unrequited.
Each character in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is both tragic and comical at the same time. The heroes begin to resemble each other more and more the less they wish for it. For people, the desire to be unique is natural, and it is unknown whether this is good or bad. Chekhov shows life as a constant transition from comedy to tragedy and back. Mixing genres leads to mixing moods. There is no one to blame, the source of disappointment is life itself. And, as Chekhov said, if there are no guilty people, then everyone is guilty. He called not to absolutize any single truth, and the problems of “The Cherry Orchard” are universal.
It is interesting to note that Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin’s line ends in the play before anyone else. More than anything else, Chekhov's heroes love endless conversations about nothing - everything is an illusion. At first, Ranevskaya says with great conviction that she will never return to her lover in Paris, but...
People are confused. One common feature: all the characters dream, and use the conditional mood. However, they contrast themselves with each other. The characters are convinced of the opposition of their rights and truths, but Chekhov emphasizes their similarities: “No one knows the real truth.” He found a special genre form. There is no clear reading; it is a mixture of the dramatic and the comic.
According to some modern categories - a typical “new Russian”. The only active character. Unfortunately, almost all of his energy is focused on money. Chekhov considered the role of Lopakhin central to the play and wanted Stanislavsky to play it, but he preferred the role of Gaev. The author was not happy with the production, believing that the performance was a failure. According to the opinion, Lopakhin is far from being an arrogant nouveau riche (on the issue of “new Russians”), but belongs to the type of merchant-entrepreneurs (like, for example, Mamontov). These people understood and appreciated art, were real patrons of the arts, and invested huge amounts of money in museums.
Lopakhin is a man with the soul of an artist. It is he who says the most tender words about Ranevskaya’s estate. The hero wants to rebuild the cherry orchard, and not destroy it without a trace, and this plan is the only real one of all those outlined. Lopakhin understands perfectly well that the time of the cherry orchard is irrevocably gone, the estate has ceased to be a reality, turning into a ghost from the past. The behavior of Chekhov's characters is a dotted line; the most important thing is the director and actors. The relationship between Lopakhin and Varya is the dark side of the play. Lopakhin is controlled by a secret feeling for Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. In theory, Lopakhin’s marriage to Vara would be a profitable enterprise for him: he is a merchant, she is a noble daughter. But Lopakhin is a born artist, and Varya’s horizons are very limited (she dreams of a monastery). For her, marriage is not so much a feeling as a way to arrange her life. Or - to a monastery, or - marriage, or - to become a housekeeper. The thought does not occur to Varya that Lopakhin might not be visiting her. He doesn't love her, they have nothing to talk about. Another thing is Ranevskaya... Ermolai Alekseevich clearly pays much more attention to the experiences of the former mistress than he could, based on the practicality of his nature.
Evil appears in Lopakhin precisely after a conversation with Lyubov Andreevna, when she advises him to marry Vara. The two running themes of the play are the doomed cherry orchard and Lopakhin’s unrequited, unnoticed love for Ranevskaya. His last words are a wish for a speedy end to his unhappy, awkward life. It is he who understands the global absurdity of existence, he and only he sees the impossibility of living in harmony with oneself.
Chekhov poses the question very clearly: who is the future of Russia? For Lopakhin or for Yasha? It turned out - rather for Yasha. Russia - Lopakhin, Russia - Yasha... The opposition is revolution. That is why in the finale of the play Lopakhin is very unconvincing.
The good intentions of the heroes are completely at odds with their deeds. Lopakhin admires the garden, but cuts it down...
There is a feeling of complete misunderstanding between people. Chekhov believes that any tragedy and any misfortune can serve as a reason for laughter, because true grief is not afraid of ridicule. The leveling of things characteristic of absurdity: the cucumber and the tragedy of Charlotte, the funny Epikhodov and Buckle’s serious book. The insignificance of man is emphasized. The only thing that will remind him of him after Pischik’s death is his horse.
Logically, Lopakhin should have triumphed in the finale, having received ownership of the notorious Ranevskaya estate. But no... He doesn't look like an absolute winner in this situation. The victory came at too great a cost to him, and it’s not about money. That living, hot feeling that drives him through life, as a person who feels it more subtly than others, turned out to be trampled upon at some point. Obviously, this happened when the idea of the impossibility of developing any relationship with the former mistress of the estate became completely undeniable. Alas, it is difficult to build something new without violating the integrity of the old...