Essay on the topic: A gentle soul or a cunning beast in the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov. A gentle soul or a beast of prey Lopakhin a beast of prey or a gentle soul essay

Lopakhin, it is true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense.
A. P. Chekhov
“The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov is a play about a ruined noble nest. The owners of the cherry orchard, Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and Leonid Andreevich Gaev, are bankrupt landowners, they are forced to sell the estate at auction in order to pay off their debts. By the will of fate, Lopakhin becomes the new owner.
Who is he - Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin?
Lopakhin himself says this about himself: “... rich, a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, then he’s a man.”

Lopakhin, who had never studied anywhere, is a gifted person; he managed to get out into the world and become a merchant. Unlike other residents and guests of the house, he works a lot and sees the meaning of his life in this. True, Gaev calls him a “fist,” but for some reason he is not ashamed to ask him for a loan. Lopakhin readily gives money to both Gaev and Ranevskaya and, it seems, amuses his pride with this. It is no coincidence that he repeatedly proudly emphasizes that his grandfather and father were serf “slaves” in a house where “they were not even allowed into the kitchen,” and he is now in this house on equal terms with the owners. At the end of the play, he buys this estate, “there is nothing more beautiful in the world!” Thus, he seemed to take revenge on the former owners of the house and Garden for the humiliation of his childhood, when he, “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai, ran here barefoot in the winter.” His desire to “take an ax to the cherry orchard” is a desire to part with the humiliating past (cut it down at the root) and start a new life.
And Lopakhin is capable of great things, on a large scale. He feels the beauty of the land and believes that “living here, we ourselves should truly be giants.” But instead of heroic scope, Lopakhin has to deal with such not very beautiful things as purchasing a garden from its bankrupt owners. And they are ugly because he twice admitted to Ranevskaya (and seemingly sincerely) that he is grateful to her and loves her “like his own... more than his own”; gave her advice on how to save the house and garden so as not to sell, even offered to loan her fifty thousand, and ultimately he bought the entire estate himself. Of course, it would have been sold anyway, but Lopakhin, a “subtle soul,” himself feels some awkwardness of what happened. I wanted to save, but it was as if I destroyed it. Therefore, he says with tears: “Oh, if only this would all pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” We see the inconsistency of Lopakhin's character and actions.
“Eternal student” Petya Trofimov gives Lopakhin two mutually exclusive characteristics: “a predatory beast” and “a subtle, gentle soul.” And, it seems to me, it is impossible to put the conjunction “or” between them. Can we say that Lopakhin is a “beast of prey” in relation to Ranevskaya? Don't think. After all, he is trying as best he can so as not to bring the matter to auction. But Ranevskaya and Gaev didn’t lift a finger to help themselves. Lopakhin wanted to be the savior of the cherry orchard, but he did it in accordance with his merchant understanding. This is salvation in a new way. The value of the cherry orchard is different for Ranevskaya and for Lopakhin: for her it is a family nest, with which many dear memories are associated, for him it is property that can generate income.
At the same time, Lopakhin is no stranger to experiences, some sentimentality, which manifested itself in memories of childhood, in sincere gratitude to Ranevskaya for her attention to him in the past. With his advice, reminders, and offer to give part of the money, he tries to soften the inevitable blow that awaits the owners of the estate. And although Lopakhin is triumphant, unable to hide his joy from the purchase, he still sympathizes with the bankrupt bars. Yes, Lopakhin does not have enough tact to not start work in the garden until the former owners leave, but where does tact come from from an illiterate person who has never been taught good manners anywhere?..
The image of Lopakhin is ambiguous, and therefore interesting. The contradictions of Lopakhin's character precisely make up the drama of the image.

Lopakhin - “tender soul” or “beast of prey”

Related posts:

1. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! A.P. Chekhov Chekhov, unlike many of his predecessors, does not have a central character around whom he would build...
2. All of Russia is our garden. A.P. Chekhov The action in the play “The Cherry Orchard” takes place in Ukraine, not far from Kharkov. Cherry orchards are quite common here...
3. The estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. Spring, cherry trees are blooming. But the beautiful garden will soon have to be sold for debts. For the last five years, Ranevskaya and her seventeen-year-old...
4. Language is a spiritual treasury into which people have invested their acquisitions for centuries. No, it's not money, of course. And these are not even precious stones. These are others...
5. I want to live in a large two-story house with large, bright windows overlooking the garden. I want this house to have spacious rooms with high ceilings....
6. According to the writer, the novel is “something more than a literary work. This is a living creature, a story about the spiritual world of one woman,” covering forty years of her...
7. SOUL - according to the ancient Ukrainian Magi - the spiritual flesh of a person is alive, which means giving, behavior, activity, love - share. To take place in human nature. Magi...
8. A MOST POETICAL LORD FOR THE WORLD Robert BURNS 1759-1796 “My heart is in the highlands and my soul...” (1789) Scotland is made up of two historical and geographical parts: the Highlands (literally – the highlands) and...

Composition

“Tender soul or predatory beast”?

In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" is about the sale of a cherry orchard. The cherry orchard is dying, the owners of which Ranevskaya and Gaev do nothing to save it, they are only moved: “Oh, my dear, my tender, beautiful cherry orchard!”, “... without the cherry orchard I don’t understand my life!” The whole point is that the nobility, accustomed to living idlely, spending, but not making money, failed to adapt to the new conditions. Lyubov Andreevna has long “lost” her entire fortune, her estate has been mortgaged and remortgaged, but, due to habit, she cannot change her wasteful lifestyle. Ranevskaya does not understand that the coming time requires from her constant efforts necessary for material survival. The merchant Ermolai Lopakhin really wants to help Ranvskaya and Gaev.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.Lopakhin's speech is clear and logical. “Here is my project. Attention please!" - he busily addresses Gaev and Ranevskaya and further develops his project for saving the cherry orchard. You can hear the confidence of a businessman in his tone: “Make up your mind! There is no other way, I swear to you. No and no!" This advice seems to Gaev “rudeness”, a lack of understanding of the beauty and significance of the cherry orchard.

Of course, Lopakhin, realizing that the cherry orchard was dying, that the estate would go under the hammer, found his own way of salvation, but this method is very pragmatic. I can't agree with him. Is this salvation? This is the death of beauty, charm, a place where the soul could enjoy beauty, especially during the flowering period of the garden. Yes, the carelessness and impracticality of the old owners of the cherry orchard are contrasted with Lopakhin’s energy and economic determination. And so Lopakhin becomes the owner of the estate created by the hands of his ancestors. He says triumphantly: “If only my father and grandfather would get up from their graves and look at the whole incident, like their Ermolai, the beaten, illiterate Ermolai, who ran barefoot in the winter, how this same 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. I’m dreaming, it’s only imagining it, it’s only seeming...” That’s what Lopakhin is all about! It is a predatory beast that will stop at nothing for profit. A gentle soul with his love for loved ones, desire to help - all this fades into the background. He tries to read, falls asleep over a book. He is not devoid of an aesthetic sense and admires the picture of poppies blooming in his fields. Trofimov notes that he has “thin, gentle fingers, like an artist... a subtle, gentle soul.” He is generally a kind and warm-hearted person, which most clearly follows from his attitude towards Ranevskaya. But all these features do not at all change or obscure Lopakhin’s acquisitive, predatory essence. Lopakhin's true role as a representative of capital in the play is clear. This role is characterized by the words of Trofimov: “Just as in the sense of metabolism a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that gets in its way, so you are needed.” The beast of prey wins in it. Just think, what kind of new life can be built by destroying a beautiful cherry orchard and giving the land to dachas? Life and beauty are destroyed. The summer residents will complement what Lopakhin started.

Lopakhin, it is true, is a merchant, but a decent one

human in every sense.

A.P. Chekhov. From letters

"The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov is a play about a ruined noble nest. The owners of the cherry orchard, Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and Leonid Andreevich Gaev, are bankrupt landowners, they are forced to sell the estate in order to pay off their debts. Memories of the past, today's life and worries about the future are inevitably connected by the heroes with the fate of the cherry orchard. The cherry orchard in the play symbolizes the poetry of old life. The fate of the owners seems to be repeated in the fate of their garden. The estate with the cherry orchard is being sold at auction. By the will of fate, Lopakhin becomes the new owner.

Who is he - Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin? Lopakhin himself says this about himself: “... rich, a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, then he’s a man.” Lopakhin, who had never studied anywhere, is a gifted person; he managed to get out into the world and become a merchant. Unlike other residents and guests of the house, he works a lot and sees the meaning of his life in this. True, Gaev calls him a “fist,” but for some reason he is not ashamed to ask him for a loan. Lopakhin readily gives money to both Gaev and Ranevskaya and, it seems, amuses his vanity with this. It is no coincidence that he repeatedly proudly emphasizes that his grandfather and father were serfs “slaves” in a house where “they were not even allowed into the kitchen,” and he is now in this house on equal terms with the owners. At the end of the play, he buys this estate, “which is not more beautiful in the world!” Thus, he seemed to take revenge on the former owners of the house and garden for the humiliation of his childhood, when he, “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai, ran here barefoot in the winter.” His desire to “take an ax to the cherry orchard” is a desire to part with the humiliating past (cut it down at the root) and start a new life.

And he is capable of great things, on a large scale. Lopakhin feels the beauty of the land and believes that “living here, we ourselves should truly be giants.” But instead of heroic scope, Lopakhin has to deal with not very beautiful things, like purchasing a garden from its bankrupt owners. And they are ugly because he twice admitted to Ranevskaya (and seemingly sincerely) that he is grateful to her and loves her “like his own... more than his own”; gave her advice on how to save the house and garden so as not to sell, even offered to loan her fifty thousand, and in the end he bought the entire estate himself. Of course, it would have been sold anyway, but Lopakhin, a “subtle soul,” himself feels some awkwardness because of what happened. I wanted to save, but it was as if I destroyed it. Therefore, with tears he says: “Oh, if only this would all go away, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” In other words, we see the inconsistency of Lopakhin’s character and actions.

“Eternal student” Petya Trofimov gives Lopakhin two mutually exclusive characteristics: “a predatory beast” and “a subtle, gentle soul.” And, it seems to me, you cannot put an “or” conjunction between them. Trofimov defines Lopakhin’s role as a necessary link in the natural development of society, in which people like Ranevskaya and Gaev should become a thing of the past, and people like Lopakhin, active, energetic, will come (and are already coming) to replace them. Can we say that Lopakhin is a “beast of prey” in relation to Ranevskaya? Don't think. After all, he did everything in his power to avoid bringing the matter to auction. But the “klutzes” Ranevskaya and Gaev didn’t lift a finger to help themselves.

Lopakhin wanted to be the savior of the cherry orchard, but he did it in accordance with his merchant understanding. This is salvation in a new way. The value of the cherry orchard for Ranevskaya and for Lopakhin was different: for her it is a beautiful family nest, with which many dear memories are associated, for him it is property that can give money.

But at the same time, Lopakhin is no stranger to experiences, some sentimentality, which manifested itself in memories of childhood, in sincere gratitude to Ranevskaya for her attention to him in the past. With his advice, reminders, and offer to give part of the money, he is trying to soften the inevitable blow due to bankruptcy. And although Lopakhin is triumphant, unable to hide his joy from the purchase, he still sympathizes with the bankrupt bars. Yes, Lopakhin does not have enough tact not to start work in the garden before the departure of the former owners, but where can he (tact) come from an illiterate person who has never been taught good manners anywhere?..

The image of Lopakhin is ambiguous, and therefore interesting. The contradictions of Lopakhin's character precisely make up the drama of the image.

When creating the play “The Cherry Orchard,” A.P. Chekhov paid great attention to the image of Lopakhin as one of the central images of the comedy. In revealing the author's intention, in resolving the main conflict, it is Lopakhin who plays a very important role. Lopakhin is unusual and strange; he caused and continues to puzzle many literary critics. In fact, Chekhov's character does not fit into the usual scheme: a rude, uneducated merchant destroys beauty without thinking about what he is doing, caring only about his profits. The situation for that time was typical not only in literature, but also in life. However, if you imagine Lopakhin as such even for a moment, the entire carefully thought-out essay on the topic of Chekhov’s images collapses.

Life is more complex than any schemes, and therefore the proposed situation cannot at all be Chekhovian. Among the Russian merchants, people appeared who clearly did not correspond to the traditional concept of merchants. The duality, inconsistency, and internal instability of these people are vividly conveyed by Chekhov in the image of Lopakhin. Lopakhin's inconsistency is especially acute because the situation is extremely dual. Ermolai Lopakhin is the son and grandson of a serf.

For the rest of his life, the phrase Ranevskaya said to a boy beaten by his father was probably etched in his memory: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll live before the wedding...” He feels like an indelible mark on himself from these words: “Little man... My father, it’s true, was a man.” , and here I am in a white vest, yellow shoes... and if you think about it and figure it out, then a man is a man...

“Lopakhin suffers deeply from this duality. He destroys the cherry orchard not only for the sake of profit, and not so much for its sake. There was another reason, much more important than the first - revenge for the past. He destroys the garden, fully aware that it is “an estate better than which there is nothing in the world.”

And yet Lopakhin hopes to kill the memory, which, against his will, always shows him that he, Ermolai Lopakhin, is a “man”, and the bankrupt owners of the cherry orchard are “gentlemen”. With all his might, Lopakhin strives to erase the line separating him from the “gentlemen.” He is the only one who appears on stage with a book.

Although he later admits that he didn’t understand anything about it. Lopakhin has his own social utopia. He very seriously considers summer residents as a huge force in the historical process, designed to erase this very line between “peasants” and “gentlemen.” It seems to Lopakhin that by destroying the cherry orchard, he is bringing a better future closer. Lopakhin has the features of a predatory beast.

But money and the power acquired with it (“I can pay for everything!”) crippled not only people like Lopakhin. At the auction, the predator in him awakens, and Lopakhin finds himself at the mercy of the merchant's passion.

And it is in excitement that he finds himself the owner of a cherry orchard. And he cuts down this garden even before its previous owners leave, not paying attention to the persistent requests of Anya and Ranevskaya herself. But Lopakhin’s tragedy is that he is not aware of his own “bestial” nature. Between his thoughts and actual actions lies the deepest abyss.

Two people live and fight in it: one - “with a subtle, gentle soul”; the other is a “beast of prey.” To my greatest regret, the winner is most often the predator. However, there is a lot that attracts people in Lopakhino. His monologue is surprising and deafening: “Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves must be truly giants...

"Yes, that's enough! Is this Lopakhin?! It is no coincidence that Ranevskaya is trying to lower Lopakhin’s pathos, to bring him down “from heaven to earth.” Such a “little man” surprises and frightens her. Lopakhin is characterized by ups and downs.

His speech can be surprising and emotional. And then there are breakdowns, failures, indicating that there is no need to talk about Lopakhin’s true culture (“Every ugliness has its own decency!”). Lopakhin has a desire, a real and sincere thirst for spirituality.

He cannot live only in the world of profit and cash. But he also doesn’t know how to live differently. Hence his deepest tragedy, his fragility, a strange combination of rudeness and softness, bad manners and intelligence. Lopakhin's tragedy is especially clearly visible in his monologue at the end of the third act. The author's remarks deserve special attention.

At first, Lopakhin tells a completely business-like story about the progress of the auction, he is openly happy, even proud of his purchase, then he himself is embarrassed... He smiles affectionately after Varya leaves, is gentle with Ranevskaya, bitterly ironic to himself... “Oh, I wish all this would pass sooner.” , it would be more likely that our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change...” And then: “There comes a new landowner, the owner of the cherry orchard!

I can pay for everything!” That's enough, is that all? Will Lopazsin ever understand all his guilt before Firs, who is boarded up in his house, before the destroyed cherry orchard, before his homeland? Lopakhin can be neither a “tender soul” nor a “beast of prey.” These two contradictory qualities coexist in him at the same time. The future does not promise him anything good precisely because of its duality and inconsistency.