Analysis of the episode “Lopakhin’s first business proposal. A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" What Lopakhin did with the cherry orchard

“There is a mystery above the world and a mystery in the heart...” Above the world there is a mystery and a mystery in the heart, And here is a deserted and hazy dream. Everything in the world is simple, extraordinary; And the pale moon and the mountain slope. In the silence of the evening everything became a miracle, But only a miracle wants to be, And the heart, having become a dumb vessel, carries

4. The secret of the “inner party” The proclaimed goal of social utopias is general prosperity, but the remaking of man initiated for the sake of it soon reveals itself as the only real goal. This alteration has its own methodological sequence, which can be

His father was a serf of Ranevskaya’s grandfather and father, and traded in a shop in the village. Now Lopakhin has become rich. His characterization is given by Chekhov, including in the first person. However, he speaks of himself with irony that he remained a “man and man.” Talking about his childhood, the hero notes that his dad was a man who did not understand anything. He did not teach his son, but only beat him when he was drunk. Lopakhin admits that he, too, is, in essence, “a blockhead and an idiot.” He didn’t learn anything, his handwriting is bad.

Lopakhin's business acumen

Of course, Lopakhin, whose characteristics interest us, has enterprise, business acumen and intelligence. The scale of its activities is much wider than that of its previous owners. He's energetic. Moreover, the bulk of this hero’s fortune was earned by his own labor. The path to wealth was not easy for him. Individual remarks and remarks indicate that this merchant has some kind of big “business”. He is completely absorbed in it. At the same time, Lopakhin easily parted with his money, lending it to Simeonov-Pishchik and Ranevskaya, persistently offering it to Petya Trofimov. This hero always lacks time: he either goes on business trips or returns. By his own admission, he gets up at five o'clock in the morning and works from morning to evening. Ermolai Alekseevich says that he cannot live without work. It is Lopakhin who looks at his watch more often than others in the work. His characterization is supplemented by this essential detail already at the beginning of the work. His first line in the play is: "What time is it?" This merchant is constantly mindful of time.

Perception of Lopakhin by the characters in the play

The characters in the play perceive this hero differently. Their reviews of him are very contradictory. This is a “good, interesting person” for Ranevskaya, a “fist” and “boor” for Gaev, “a man of enormous intelligence” for Simeonov-Pishchik. Petya Trofimov gives him a humorous description, saying that he is a predatory beast that eats everything that gets in his way, and this is why he needs metabolism.”

Lopakhin's moment of supreme triumph

Lopakhin seeks to help Ranevskaya. He invites her to divide the garden into plots and rent them out. This hero feels his enormous power, which requires release and application. In the end, Lopakhin buys the cherry orchard. His characterization is supplemented in this important scene with some significant features. For him, the episode when he announces the purchase to the former owners of the garden is a moment of supreme triumph. Now Lopakhin is the owner of the estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He begins to “wave his arms” more and more - he is intoxicated by the consciousness of his own luck and strength. Compassion for Ranevskaya and triumph in him are in conflict in this episode.

A businessman with the soul of an artist

Chekhov said that Lopakhin's role in the work is central, that the whole play will fail if it fails. He wrote that Ermolai Alekseevich is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense; he must behave decently, “without tricks,” and intelligently. At the same time, Chekhov warned against a petty, simplified understanding of the image of Lopakhin. He is a successful businessman, but he has the soul of an artist. His thoughts about Russia sound Lopakhin's words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions in It is this hero who in the play owns the most heartfelt words spoken about the cherry orchard: “an estate that is not more beautiful in the world.”

Chekhov introduced features characteristic of some Russian entrepreneurs of the early 20th century into the image of Lopakhin, a merchant, but at the same time an artist at heart. We are talking about such names that left their mark on Russian culture as Savva Morozov, Shchukin, Tretyakov, and the publisher Sytin.

The final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist is very significant. The characterization of Lopakhin’s image given by this character is ambiguous. As we have already said, he compared it to a predatory beast. But at the same time, Petya Trofimov tells Lopakhin that he still loves him: like an artist, he has delicate, thin fingers and a vulnerable soul.

The illusory nature of victory

Lopakhin does not want to destroy the cherry orchard. His characterization would be incorrect if we thought so. He only proposes to reorganize it, dividing it into plots for dachas, making it “democratic” and accessible to the public for a reasonable fee. However, at the end of the play, Lopakhin ("The Cherry Orchard") is not shown as a triumphant winner who has achieved success. His characterization in the finale is very contradictory. And the old owners of the garden are depicted not only as defeated. Intuitively, Lopakhin feels the relativity and illusory nature of his own victory. He says that he wants this unhappy, awkward life to change as soon as possible. These words are supported by his fate: Ermolai Alekseevich alone is able to appreciate the significance of the cherry orchard, but he destroys it with his own hands.

The characterization of Lopakhin from “The Cherry Orchard” is noted as follows: for some reason, the good intentions and personal good qualities of this hero are at odds with reality. Neither those around him nor he himself are able to understand the reasons for this.

Lopakhin was not given personal happiness either. His relationship with Varya results in his actions that are incomprehensible to others. He still does not dare to propose to this girl. Lopakhin, moreover, has a special feeling for Lyubov Andreevna. He awaits Ranevskaya’s arrival with special hope and wonders whether she will recognize him after five years of separation.

Relationship with Varya

In the last act, in the famous scene, when the failed explanation between Varya and Lopakhin is described, the characters talk about a broken thermometer, about the weather - and not a word about what is most important to them at that moment. What’s the matter, why didn’t the explanation take place, why didn’t this love work out? Varya’s marriage is discussed throughout the entire play almost as a done deal, and yet...

What separates Lopakhin and Varya?

Apparently, the point is not that the groom is a businessman incapable of showing love. It is in this spirit that Varya explains to herself their relationship. She believes that he simply has no time for her, since Lopakhin has a lot to do. Probably, Varya is not a match for this hero after all: he is a broad-minded person, an entrepreneur, a person of great scope and at the same time an artist at heart. Varin’s world is limited by economy, housekeeping, and keys on his belt. This girl, moreover, is homeless and has no rights even to the now ruined estate. Lopakhin, for all the subtlety of his soul, lacks tact and humanity in order to bring clarity to their relationship.

The dialogue of the characters described in the second act does not clarify anything at the textual level in the relationship between Varya and Lopakhin. But it becomes clear at the subtext level that these people are infinitely distant. The characterization of the hero Lopakhin allows us to judge that with Varya he would hardly have found his happiness. Ermolai Alekseevich had already decided that he should not be with this girl. Here Lopakhin plays the role of provincial Hamlet, who decides for himself the famous question: “To be or not to be?” And he decides: “Okhmelia, go to the monastery...”.

What separates Varya and Lopakhin? Perhaps the relationship of these heroes is determined largely by the motive of the fate of the cherry orchard, their attitude towards it? Varya, like Firs, worries about the fate of the estate and garden. And Lopakhin “sentenced” him to felling. Thus, the death of the cherry orchard comes between the heroes.

But, probably, there is another reason, which is not formulated in the play (like many other things, sometimes the most important thing in Anton Pavlovich) and lies in the sphere of the subconscious. This is Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya.

Lopakhin and Ranevskaya

The characterization of Lopakhin from The Cherry Orchard would be incomplete without an analysis of the relationship between these two characters. The fact is that Ranevskaya, when Lopakhin was still a “boy” with his nose bloody from his father’s fist, took him to the washstand and said: “He’ll heal before the wedding.” Ranevskaya's sympathy, in contrast to her father's fist, was perceived by Lopakhin as a manifestation of femininity and tenderness. Lyubov Andreevna, in fact, did what a mother was supposed to do. Perhaps it is she who is involved in the fact that this merchant has such a “subtle, gentle soul.” But it is precisely this characteristic of Lopakhin in the play “The Cherry Orchard” that makes the image of the merchant we are interested in contradictory. Ermolai Alekseevich kept a wonderful vision in his soul. So, in the first act, he tells Lyubov Andreevna that she once did so much for him, and that he loves her “more than his own.” This is the characteristic of Ranevskaya and Lopakhin, their relationship.

Lopakhin's words in the first act are a "confession" of Ermolai Alekseevich's first, long-standing love, filial gratitude, bright love for a beautiful vision that does not require anything in return and is not obligatory to anything.

Farewell to the past

However, what is once experienced is irrevocable. This “dear” for Lopakhin was not understood or heard. This moment probably became a turning point for him psychologically. For Lopakhin it became a reckoning with the past, a farewell to it. And a new life began for him. But now this hero has become more sober.

This is the characteristic of Ermolai Lopakhin, the central character of the play, according to Chekhov.

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 terrifies 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 is not something to be ridiculed.

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 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...

Lopakhin, as stated in the author's remark at the beginning of the play, is a merchant. His father was a serf of Ranevskaya’s father and grandfather, and traded in a shop in the village. Now Lopakhin has become rich, but he says with irony about himself that he remains “a man, a man”: “My dad was a man, an idiot, he didn’t understand anything, he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk... In essence, I’m the same idiot and 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.”

Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya and offers to divide the garden into plots and rent them out. He himself feels his enormous power, which requires application and release. In the end, he buys a cherry orchard, and this minute becomes the moment of his highest triumph: he becomes the owner of the estate where his “father and grandfather were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” The further he goes, the more he acquires the habit of “waving his arms”: “I can pay for everything!” - he is intoxicated by the consciousness of his strength, luck and the power of his money. Triumph and compassion for Ranevskaya conflict in him at the moment of his highest triumph.

Chekhov emphasized that Lopakhin’s role is central, that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail,” “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he must behave quite decently, intelligently, quietly, without tricks " At the same time, Chekhov warned against a simplified, petty understanding of this image. He is a successful businessman, but with the soul of an artist. When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love. His words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions in Dead Souls. The most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play belong to Lopakhin: “an estate that is not more beautiful in the world.”

In the image of this hero, a merchant and at the same time an artist at heart, Chekhov introduced features characteristic of some Russian entrepreneurs of the early twentieth century who left their mark on Russian culture - Savva Morozov, Tretyakov, Shchukin, the publisher Sytin.

The final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist is significant: “After all, I still love you. You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, gentle soul...” About a real entrepreneur, about Savva Morozov, M. Gorky said similar enthusiastic words: “And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in the dust and trembling for the success of the play - I am ready to forgive him all his factories, which, however, he does not need, I love him, for he disinterestedly loves art, which I can almost feel in his peasant, merchant, acquisitive soul.

Lopakhin does not propose to destroy the garden, he proposes to rebuild it, divide it into summer cottages, make it publicly available for a reasonable fee, “democratic.” But at the end of the play, the hero who achieved success is shown not as a triumphant winner (and the old owners of the garden - not only as defeated, that is, victims on some battlefield - there was no “battle”, but only something absurd, sluggishly everyday, certainly not “heroic”). Intuitively, he feels the illusory and relative nature of his victory: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would soon change.” And his words about “an awkward, unhappy life”, which “you know it’s passing,” are supported by his fate: he alone is able to appreciate what a cherry orchard is, and he himself destroys it with his own hands. For some reason, his personal good qualities and good intentions are absurdly at odds with reality. And neither he himself nor those around him can understand the reasons.

And Lopakhin was not given personal happiness. His relationship with Varya results in his actions incomprehensible to her and others; he still does not dare to propose. In addition, Lopakhin has a special feeling for Lyubov Andreevna. He awaits Ranevskaya’s arrival with special hope: “Will she recognize me? We haven’t seen each other for five years.”

In the famous scene of the failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act, the characters talk about the weather, about the broken thermometer - and not a word about the most important thing at that moment. Why did the explanation not take place, why did love not take place? Throughout the entire play, Varya’s marriage is discussed as a matter almost decided, and yet... The point, apparently, is not that Lopakhin is a businessman incapable of showing feelings. Varya explains their relationship to herself precisely in this spirit: “He has a lot to do, he has no time for me,” “He is either silent or joking. I understand, he’s getting rich, he’s busy with business, he has no time for me.” But, probably, Varya is not a match for Lopakhin: he is a broad-minded person, a man of great scope, an entrepreneur and at the same time an artist at heart. Her world is limited by housekeeping, economy, keys on her belt... Moreover, Varya is a homeless woman who has no rights even to a ruined estate. For all the subtlety of Lopakhin’s soul, he lacks the humanity and tact to bring clarity to their relationship.

The dialogue of the characters in the second act at the text level does not clarify anything in the relationship between Lopakhin and Varya, but at the subtext level it becomes clear that the characters are infinitely distant. Lopakhin has already decided that he will not be with Varya (Lopakhin here is a provincial Hamlet, deciding for himself the question “to be or not to be”): “Okhmelia, go to the monastery... Okhmelia, oh nymph, remember me in your prayers!”

What separates Lopakhin and Varya? Perhaps their relationship is largely determined by the motif of the cherry orchard, its fate, and the attitude of the characters in the play towards it? Varya (along with Firs) is sincerely worried about the fate of the cherry orchard and estate. Lopakhin condemned the cherry orchard to cutting down. “In this sense, Varya cannot connect her life with Lopakhin’s life, not only for the “psychological” reasons prescribed in the play, but also for ontological reasons: the death of the cherry orchard comes between them literally, and not metaphorically.” It is no coincidence that when Varya learns about the sale of the garden, she, as stated in Chekhov’s remark, “takes the keys from her belt, throws them on the floor, in the middle of the living room, and leaves.”

But it seems that there is one more reason, not formulated in the play (like many things - sometimes the most important thing in Chekhov) and lying in the sphere of the psychological subconscious - Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya.

The play outlines another line, piercingly tender and elusive, outlined with exceptional Chekhovian tact and psychological subtlety: the line of Lopakhin and Ranevskaya. Let's try to formulate its meaning as it appears to us.

Once in childhood, still a “boy”, with a bloody nose from his father’s fist, Ranevskaya took Lopakhin to the washstand in her room and said: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding.” Moreover, in contrast to her father’s fist, Ranevskaya’s sympathy was perceived as a manifestation of tenderness and femininity itself. Actually, Lyubov Andreevna did what her mother should have done, and isn’t she involved in the fact that this strange merchant has a “subtle, gentle soul”? Lopakhin kept this wonderful vision, this love and gratitude in his soul. Let us remember his words in the first act, addressed to Lyubov Andreevna: “My father was a serf to your grandfather and father, but you, in fact, you once did so much for me that I forgot everything and love you like my own... . more than my own." This, of course, is a “confession” of long-standing love, first love - tender, romantic, love - filial gratitude, youthfully bright love for a beautiful vision, not obligating to anything and not demanding anything in return. Perhaps there is only one thing: so that this romantic image, sunk into the soul of a young man entering the world, is not somehow destroyed. I don’t think that this confession by Lopakhin had any other meaning than the ideal one, as this episode is sometimes perceived.

But once experienced is irrevocable, and this “dear” Lopakhin was not heard, was not understood (they did not hear or did not want to hear). This moment was probably a turning point for him psychologically; it became his farewell to the past, a reckoning with the past. A new life was beginning for him too. But now he has become more sober.

However, that memorable youthful episode also relates to the Lopakhin-Varya line. The romantic image of Ranevskaya from her best times - the times of her youth - became the ideal-standard that, without realizing it, Lopakhin was looking for. And here is Varya, a good girl, practical, but... Indicative, for example, is Lopakhin’s reaction in the second act to the words of Ranevskaya (!), who directly asks him to propose to Varya. It was after this that Lopakhin spoke with irritation about how good it was before, when men could be beaten, and began tactlessly teasing Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood caused by a lack of understanding of his condition. A note sharply dissonant with all its harmonious sound was introduced into the beautiful, ideal image of his youthful vision.

Among the monologues of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” about a failed life, Lopakhin’s unspoken feeling can sound like one of the most poignant notes of the play; this is exactly how Lopakhin was played by the best performers of this role in recent years, V.V. Vysotsky and A.A. Mironov.