Analysis of the first act of A. M. Gorky’s drama “At the Lower Depths.”

Gorky's play “At the Lower Depths” excited society with its appearance. Her first performance caused a shock: were real homeless people on stage instead of actors?

The action of the play in a cave-like basement attracts attention not only with the unusualness of the characters, but also with its polyphony of voices. It is only at the first moment, when the reader or viewer sees the “heavy stone vaults” of the ceiling, “Bubnov’s bunks”, “a wide bed covered with a dirty chintz canopy” that it seems that the faces here are all the same - gray, gloomy, dirty.

But then the heroes started talking, and...

-...I say, - a free woman, her own mistress... (Kvashnya)

Who beat me yesterday? Why were they beaten? (Satin)

It's harmful for me to breathe dust. My body is poisoned by alcohol. (Actor)

What different voices! What different people! What different interests! The exposition of the first act is a discordant chorus of characters who seem to not hear each other. Indeed, everyone lives in this basement the way they want, everyone is concerned with their own problems (for some it is a problem of freedom, for others it is a problem of punishment, for others it is a problem of health, survival in the current conditions).

But here the first turning point of the action - the dispute between Satin and the actor. In response to the actor’s words: “The doctor told me: your body, he says, is completely poisoned with alcohol,” Satin , smiling, pronounces the completely incomprehensible word “organon”, and then adds “sycambre” to the Actor.

What is this? A play on words? Nonsense? No, this is the diagnosis that Satin gave to society. Organon is a violation of all rational foundations of life. This means that it is not the Actor’s body that is poisoned, but human life, the life of society, that is poisoned and perverted.

Sicambre translated into Russian means “savage”. Of course, only a savage (according to Satin) may not understand this truth.

There is also a third “incomprehensible” word in this debate - “macrobiotics”. (The meaning of this concept is known: the book of the German doctor, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Hufeland was called “The Art of Extending Human Life,” 1797). The “recipe” for prolonging human life, which the Actor offers: “If the body is poisoned,... it means that it is harmful for me to sweep the floor... breathe dust...”, evokes a clearly negative assessment of Satin. It is in response to this statement by the Actor that Satin mockingly says:

"Macrobiotics...ha!"

So, the thought is indicated: life in a shelter is absurd and wild, because its very rational foundations are poisoned. This is understandable to Satin, but the hero, apparently, does not know the recipes for treating the basics of life. The line “Macrobiotics... ha!” can be interpreted differently: what is the point of thinking about the art of prolongation such life. The turning point of the first scene attracts attention not only because the reader determines the dominant thought about the fundamentals of life, it is also important because it gives an idea of ​​the level of intelligence of the roommates in the person of Satin. AND the idea that there are smart, knowledgeable people in the shelter is amazing.

Let's also pay attention to how Satin presents his beliefs. It would be quite understandable if the night shelter beaten the day before directly spoke about the abnormal state of society that forces people to behave inhumanely. But for some reason he utters completely incomprehensible words. This is clearly not a demonstration of knowledge of foreign language vocabulary. Then what? The answer that suggests itself makes you think about the moral qualities of Satin. Maybe he spares the Actor’s pride, knowing about his heightened emotionality? Maybe he is generally not inclined to offend a person, even one who does not know much? In both cases we are convinced of Satin’s delicacy and tact. Isn’t it strange that such qualities exist in a “bottom” person?!

Another point that cannot be ignored: quite recently we saw: “Satin has just woken up, lies on his bunk and growls” (remark for act 1), now, talking with the Actor, Satin smiles. What caused such a sudden change in mood? Perhaps Satin is interested in the course of the argument, perhaps he feels in himself the strength (both intellectual and spiritual) that distinguishes him favorably from the Actor, who recognizes his own weakness, but perhaps this is not a smile of superiority over the Actor, but a kind, compassionate smile towards a person in need of support. No matter how we evaluate Satin’s smile, it turns out that real human feelings live in him, be it pride from realizing his own importance, be it compassion for the Actor and the desire to support him. This discovery is all the more surprising because the first impression of the roar of voices of the night shelters, not listening, insulting each other, was not in favor of these people. (“You’re a red goat!” /Kvashnya – Kvashnya/; “Be silent, old dog” /Kvashnya – Kvashnya/, etc.).

After an argument between Satin and Actor, the tone of the conversation changes sharply. Let's listen to what the heroes are talking about now:

I love incomprehensible, rare words... There are very good books and many interesting words... (Satin)

I was a furrier... I had my own establishment... My hands were so yellow - from the paint... I really thought that I wouldn’t wash them until my death... But here they are... My hands are just dirty... Yes! (Bubnov)

Education is nonsense, the main thing is talent. And talent is faith in yourself, in your strength. (Actor)

Job? Make the work enjoyable for me - maybe I will work, yes! (Satin)

What kind of people are they? Ragged, golden company...People! I am a working man... I’m ashamed to look at them... (Tick)

Do you have a conscience? (Ash)

What are the heroes of the “bottom” thinking and thinking about? Yes, about the same things that any person thinks about: about love, about faith in one’s strength, about work, about the joys and sorrows of life, about good and evil, about honor and conscience.

The first discovery, the first amazement associated with what I read from Gorky - here it is: people of the “bottom” are ordinary people, they are not villains, they are not monsters, they are not scoundrels. They are people just like us, they just live in different conditions. Maybe it was this discovery that shocked the first viewers of the play and is shocking more and more new readers?! May be…

If Gorky had completed the first act with this polylogue, our conclusion would have been correct, but the playwright introduces a new person. Luka appears “with a stick in his hand, a knapsack over his shoulders, a bowler hat and a kettle at his belt.” Who is he, the man who greets everyone: “Good health, honest people!”

Who is he, the man who claims: “I don’t care!” I respect swindlers too, in my opinion, not a single flea is bad: they’re all black, they all jump...” (?) Reflecting on the question of who Luka is, we think, first of all, that the playwright gives his hero a strange Name. Luke- this is holy, this is the same biblical hero?

(Let us turn to the Biblical Encyclopedia. Let us take an interest in what is said there about Luke: “Luke the Evangelist is the writer of the third Gospel and the book of the Acts of the Apostles. He is not named at all as the writer of the last book, but the general and continuous tradition of the Church from the very beginning attributed to him the compilation of the said book of the New Testament. According to the testimony of Evsenius and Jerome, Luke was a native of the city of Antiochus, the Apostle Paul calls him. beloved doctor. His thorough acquaintance with Jewish customs, way of thinking, phraseology make it somewhat probable that he was at first a proselyte, a foreigner who accepted the Jewish faith, although on the other hand, from his classical style, the purity and correctness of the Greek language in his Gospel, one can rather conclude that that he came not from the Jewish, but from the Greek race. We do not know what prompted him to accept Christianity, but we know that after his conversion, having become deeply attached to the Apostle Paul, he devoted his entire subsequent life to serving Christ. There is an ancient legend that Luke was one of the 70 disciples sent by the Lord to every city and place where you yourself wanted to go(Luke X, 1). Another ancient legend says that he was also a painter and attributes to him the drawing of the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, the latter of which is still kept in the Great Assumption Cathedral in Moscow. Regarding the manner of his activities upon entering the apostolic ministry, we find precise and definite information described by him himself in the book of Acts. They think that in his touching Gospel narrative about the appearance of the risen Lord, the two disciples who went to Emmanus under another disciple, whose name is not mentioned, are, of course, Luke himself (chap. XIV). It is not known for certain when Luke joined the Apostle Paul and became his companion and collaborator. Maybe it was in 43 or 44 AD. Then he accompanied the apostle to Rome until the time of his first imprisonment there and remained with him. And during the second bond of the Apostle, shortly before his death, he was also with him, while all the others left the Apostle; This is why Paul’s words at the end of II Timothy are so moving: “Damas left me, loving the present age, and went to Thessalonica, Crescent to Galatea, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." After the death of the Apostle Paul, nothing is known from the Holy Scriptures about the subsequent life of Luke. There is a tradition that he preached the Gospel in Italy, Macedonia and Greece and even in Africa and died peacefully at the age of 80. According to another legend, he died a martyr’s death under Domitian, in Achaia, and for lack of a cross was hanged on an olive tree.”

Based on these ideas about Luke, we can say that Luke is a healer of hearts, a wanderer, a bearer of Christian morality, a teacher of lost souls in many ways reminiscent of the Evangelist Luke.

At the same time, another question arises: maybe Luke is a crafty, two-faced person? Or maybe Luke is “luminous” (after all, this is how this name is translated)?

It is very difficult to answer these questions unambiguously, because even the playwright himself sometimes saw in his hero a saint, sometimes a liar, sometimes a comforter.

Luke's first words are alarming: he is so indifferent towards people that they are all the same to him?!(“Everyone is black, everyone is jumping”) Or maybe he is so wise that he sees in everyone just a Human?!(“Good health, honest people!”). Cinder is right when he calls Luka "entertaining." Indeed, he is humanly interesting, ambiguous, wise in an old man’s way: “It always turns out like this: a person thinks to himself - I’m doing well! Grab – and people are unhappy!”

Yes, people may be unhappy that the “old man” sees their secret desires and understands more than the heroes themselves (remember Luke’s conversations with Ash); people may also be dissatisfied with the fact that Luke speaks so convincingly and so wisely that his words are difficult to dispute: “How many different people on earth are in charge... and they frighten each other with all sorts of fears, but there is still no order in life and no purity...”.

Luka’s first step in the shelter is the desire to “place”: “Well, at least I’ll place the litter here. Where is your broom? The subtext of the phrase is obvious: Luka appears in the basement to make people's lives cleaner. But this is one part of the truth. Gorky is philosophical, so there is another part of the truth: maybe Luka appears, raises dust (excites people, makes them worry, become concerned about their existence) and disappears. (After all, the verb “place” also has this meaning. Otherwise, one would have to say “sweep”, “sweep”).

Already at his first appearance, Luke formulates several basic principles of his attitude towards life:

1) – They pieces of paper- everyone is like that - they're all no good.

2) - And everything is people! No matter how you pretend, no matter how you wobble, if you were born a man, you will die a man...

3) –And All I see people are becoming smarter more and more interesting...And Even though they live worse and worse, they want everything better... Stubborn!

4) – A is it possible for a person that way throw? He- whatever it is – and always worth the price!

Now, reflecting on some of the provisions of Luke’s life truth, we can approach the moment of truth: in a terrible, unrighteous life there is one value and one truth that cannot be disputed. This truth is man himself. Luke declares this upon his appearance.

The playwright thought about the problem of man for many years. Probably, the appearance of Luke in the first act of the play “At the Bottom” is the climax of this action not only because the hero outlines one of the main problems of the play - how to treat a person; Luke's appearance is the most striking moment also because rays of thought stretch from him to the next actions of the drama.

“There is no man without a name,” - the Actor’s discovery in the second act;

“Man is the truth,” is Satin’s final confession. Such confessions are phenomena of the same order.

The epiphany of the characters in the finale of the play, the optimistic sound of “At the Bottom” became possible, including because Luke appeared in the play, acting on the dark world like “acid” on a rusty coin, highlighting both the best and worst aspects of life. Of course, Luka’s activities are diverse, many of the actions and words of this hero can be interpreted in exactly the opposite way, but this is quite natural, because man is a living phenomenon, changing and changing the world around him. No matter what you say Luke, no matter how he argues for this or that position, he wisely, humanly, sometimes with a grin, sometimes with a sly, sometimes seriously, leads the reader to the understanding that there is a Man in the world, and everything else is the work of his hands, his mind, conscience. It is this understanding that is valuable in Gorky’s hero, who appeared among people who had lost faith and disappeared when that HUMAN GRAIN, which for the time being had been dormant, hatched in people, woke up, and came to life. With the appearance of Luke, the life of the shelters takes on new, human dimensions.

The first act of the play has been read. The relationships between the characters and the personal characteristics of the night shelters are examined, and the compositional features of this important action for the play are revealed. Along with the intermediate conclusions that we made during the analysis, it is probably worth making a general conclusion about the sound of the first action.

Let's ask ourselves, What role does the first act play in the context of the drama? This question can be answered in different ways: firstly, it outlines the themes that will be heard throughout the entire play; secondly, here are formulated (still very approximately) the principles of attitude towards a person, which will be developed by both Luke and Satin during the course of the drama; thirdly, and this is especially important, already in the first act of the play, in the arrangement of characters, in their words, we see the writer’s attitude towards MAN, we feel that The main thing in the play is the author’s view of man, his role and place in the world. From this point of view, it is interesting to turn to Gorky’s confession, voiced in the article “On Plays”: “The historical man, the one who created everything in 5-6 thousand years what we call culture, in which a huge amount of his energy is embodied and which is a grandiose superstructure over nature, much more hostile than friendly to him - this man, as an artistic image, is a most excellent being! But a modern writer and playwright deals with an everyday person who has been brought up for centuries in conditions of class struggle, is deeply infected with zoological individualism and in general is an extremely motley figure, very complex, contradictory... we must show it to oneself in all the beauty of its confusion and fragmentation, with all the “contradictions of the heart and mind.”

Already the first act of the drama “At the Bottom” realizes this task, which is why we cannot unambiguously interpret not a single character, not a single remark, not a single action of the heroes. The historical layer that interested the writer is also obvious in the first act: if we take into account the historical roots of Luke, the reader can trace the path of Man from the very beginning to the contemporary moment of the playwright, to the beginning of the 20th century. Another layer is obvious in the first act - the social and moral one: Gorky considers Man in all the diversity of his manifestations: from the saint to the one who finds himself “at the bottom” of life.

Falling to the bottom of society is as easy as passing two bytes. To do this, you do not need to have special knowledge or skills. But not everyone can remain human, think not only about everyday things, but also speak out on philosophical topics. After all, a person who is at the bottom has only three options: slide into the abyss, turn into a philosopher, or rise from the ashes.

The legacy of Maxim Gorky

Alexey Maksimovich Peshkov cherished the dream that the world would be inhabited by “new people.” People who are impeccable in terms of intellectual and physical development, manners and principles. These new people are distinguished by their fearlessness and thirst for freedom, they don’t care about any obstacles, they can achieve anything they want. And even if their goals are beyond the realm of possibility, they can do it.

During this time, he managed to write 5 novels, 10 novellas, 18 stories and essays, 16 plays and published 3 cycles of journalistic articles. The writer, novelist and playwright was nominated 5 times for the Nobel Prize in Literature. He became known as one of the most famous Russian thinkers and writers. He left behind a rich legacy, and one of the pearls of his collection is the play “At the Bottom.”

"At the Bottom"

The play “At the Bottom” saw the world in 1902. Before publishing the material, the author for a long time could not choose which title to choose. He had a choice among several options: “The Bottom”, “Nochlezhka”, “At the Bottom of Life”, “Without the Sun”. Ultimately, the play received the short and laconic title “At the Bottom.” Two years after its release, in 1904, the play was awarded the Griboyedov Prize.

The first performance based on the work was staged on December 18, 1902 at the Moscow Art Theater. During Soviet times, the production delighted audiences 9 times. The last time she was seen was in 1956. But this did not detract from her success. More than once the play was staged abroad in cities such as Berlin, Krakow, Helsinki, Paris, Tokyo, New York, London, Tunisia. From 1996 to the present, more than 20 productions have been staged in different countries of the world. The play was filmed 10 times not only by domestic cinema, but also in Hungary, Japan and France.

What attracted the public so much to this play: the problem of moral choice; the realization that each person has his own truth; or did the very image of the bottom in the play “At the Bottom” touch the strings of the human soul? Let's try to figure it out.

M. Gorky, “At the Bottom”: summary

The events of the work take place in a place like a flophouse. The lodging house is the property of M.I. Kostylev. People live here who have long sunk to the bottom of society. Some of them still believe that they can get out of this hell and change their destiny for the better, while others have long given up and slipped into the farthest channels of the “bottom.”

There are complex relationships between the residents of the shelter. They have different destinies, different views on life, so it is difficult for them to find a common language, which is why quarrels constantly arise. The owner's wife, Vasilisa, loves Vaska Pepla, who earns his living by stealing. She persuades the thief to kill her husband so that they will be free and no one will bother them. Only Vaska does not reciprocate Vasilisa’s feelings, since he has long been in love with her younger sister Natalya. Vasilisa notices this and mercilessly beats Natalya, which is why she ends up in the hospital. After being discharged, she no longer returns to the shelter.

What next does the work that M. Gorky created (“At the Depths”) tell about? The summary even in the second part is tragic. A new man, Luka, appears among the guests and inspires everyone that life will get better. But when a conflict arises between Kostylev and Vaska, as a result of which Vaska accidentally kills Kostylev and the thief is arrested, Luka miraculously disappears. The actor, who had become attached to Luka and believed him, is upset by his disappearance and hangs himself in the yard. The reader is struck by the final phrase of the work, uttered by Satin after he learned of the death of the Actor: “What a fool, he just ruined the song.”

People of the bottom

The people of the bottom in Gorky's play "At the Depth" are the most ordinary. They found themselves in a difficult life situation. The main characters of the work:

• Mikhail Kostylev is in charge of the shelter.
• Vasilisa is Kostylev’s wife, loves the thief Ash.
• Natalya, Vasilisa’s sister, suffers beatings from her older sister and disappears after leaving the hospital.
• Luke is a wanderer who suddenly appears and disappears, skillfully comforting everyone with lies.
• Vaska Pepel is a thief who wants to change his destiny.
• Mite is an ordinary hard worker who wants to return to his past life.
• The Baron is an impoverished aristocrat, confident that the best moments of his life are in the past.
• Satin is a sharper, he is sure that the main thing for a person is spiritual freedom
• An actor who once really performed on the big stage, is now a drunkard who couldn’t think of anything better than to commit suicide.

Play Analysis

Why did Gorky write “At the Lower Depths”? Analysis of this work shows that among the moral dirt of outcasts of society there is a small smoldering ember that unobtrusively hisses: “Man is proud, man is good!” This is especially clearly visible when guests face a small problem.

True or false?

The problem of moral choice in Gorky's play “At the Lower Depths” is very acute. What should people believe? A sweet lie or a bitter truth, with which Gorky spiced up his play “At the Depths”? The analysis shows that the wanderer Luke is the master of sweet lies in the work; he is sure that people need to be told what they want to hear. He reassures all the inhabitants of the shelter. Gives you faith that there is a chance to change your life if you do this or that. But when he suddenly disappears, everyone becomes uneasy. The guests feel abandoned, and the Actor, who believed Luke’s words more than anyone else, commits suicide.

The truth in Gorky’s play “At the Lower Depths” is personified by its hero, Satin. This man is not the best representative of the human race - he is dishonest, likes to drink, gets into fights, and is pessimistic about the future. But there is a little more knowledge and understanding of what is happening. It is from him that the simple truth comes: “You need to be proud of being a human being.” Satin is not a charismatic personality who can lead a crowd, he is not a revolutionary, not a psychologist or a politician - he simply pointed out the obvious, which lit a special spark in the eyes of every inhabitant who had not yet completely despaired. And it will not fade away when Satin disappears, as happened with Luke’s beautiful lie.

The image of the bottom in the play “At the Bottom”

What else can be said about this creation of a classic of Russian literature? Why is it so captivating even to our contemporaries? Maybe because the topic raised by Alexey Maksimovich is relevant at all times?

The play written by M. Gorky (“At the Depths”) can rightfully be called social and philosophical. Here, social life and philosophical reflections do not intersect, but complement each other perfectly, making the play a full-fledged, living and real work. The image of the bottom in the play “At the Bottom” represents the harsh reality of the lower strata of society. There are no fictitious facts here, but only real life, such as it is. The fate of the outcasts, those who no longer have a chance to rise. For the first time in world drama, the hopeless fate of “former people” was shown. In the sticky darkness of the musty basement, crippled people, disfigured by fate, gathered. Every day they desperately fight for their existence. Some people have enough strength to survive, while others surrender to the embrace of death. The only ray of hope in this pitchless darkness was brought by Luke, who reassured people and then disappeared. It is difficult not to give up in such a situation, but Satin’s words instill in people faith not in the future, but in their own human dignity. The image of the bottom in the play “At the Bottom” is a torture chamber, where His Majesty disappointment acts as the executioner. It mercilessly beats people who have long been covered in dirt.

The image of the bottom in the play “At the Bottom” is something dark and hopeless, but with a person inside. And where there is a person, there will always be a little hope, because a person is wonderful.

The truth is always recognizable

The public reacted ambiguously to the play written by M. Gorky (“At the Depths”). People have always been alien to the suffering of the lower class of society. But the truthfulness of his story, the characters and fates of his heroes became recognizable not only in the Soviet Union, but throughout the world - from America to Japan.

The subject of depiction in Gorky’s drama “At the Bottom” is the consciousness of people thrown to the bottom of life as a result of deep social processes taking place in Russian society at the turn of the century. In order to embody such an object of depiction by stage means, he needs to find an appropriate situation, an appropriate conflict, as a result of which the contradictions in the consciousness of the night shelters, its strengths and weaknesses would appear. Is social conflict suitable for this?

Indeed, social conflict is presented on several levels in the play. Firstly, there is a conflict between the owners of the shelter, the Kostylevs, and its inhabitants. It is felt by the characters throughout the entire play, but it turns out to be static, devoid of dynamics, and not developing. This happens because the Kostylevs themselves are not so far away from the inhabitants of the shelter in social terms, and the relationship between them can only create tension, but not become the basis of a dramatic conflict that can “start” a drama.

In addition, each of the heroes in the past experienced their own social conflict, as a result of which they found themselves at the “bottom” of life, in a shelter.

But these social conflicts are fundamentally taken off stage, pushed into the past and therefore do not become the basis of a dramaturgical conflict. We see only the result of social turmoil, which had such a tragic impact on people’s lives, but not these clashes themselves.

The presence of social tension is already indicated in the title of the play. After all, the very fact of the existence of the “bottom” of life also presupposes the presence of a “rapid stream,” its upper course, to which the characters strive to approach. But this cannot become the basis of a dramatic conflict - after all, this tension is also devoid of dynamics, all attempts of the heroes to escape from the “bottom” turn out to be futile. Even the appearance of the policeman Medvedev does not give impetus to the development of the dramatic conflict.

Perhaps the drama is orchestrated by a traditional love conflict? Indeed, he is present in the play. It is determined by the relationships between Vaska Pepel, Kostylev’s wife Vasilisa, the owner of the shelter and Natasha.

It will be the appearance of Kostylev in the rooming house and a conversation between the roommates, from which it is clear that Kostylev is looking for his wife Vasilisa in the rooming house, who is cheating on him with Vaska Ash. The beginning is a change in the initial situation, entailing the emergence of a conflict. The plot turns out to be the appearance of Natasha in the rooming house, for whose sake Ashes leaves Vasilisa. As the love conflict develops, it becomes clear that the relationship with Natasha enriches Ash and revives him to a new life.

The climax, the highest point in the development of the conflict, is fundamentally moved off stage: we do not see exactly how Vasilisa scalds Natasha with boiling water, we only learn about this from the noise and screams behind the stage and the conversations of the night shelters. The murder of Kostylev by Vaska Ash turns out to be a tragic denouement of a love conflict.

Of course, a love conflict also becomes a facet of a social conflict. He shows that the anti-human conditions of the “bottom” cripple a person and the most sublime feelings, even such as love, lead not to personal enrichment, but to death, mutilation, murder and hard labor. Having thus unleashed a love conflict, Vasilisa emerges victorious and achieves all her goals at once: she takes revenge on her former lover Vaska Ash and her rival Natasha, gets rid of her unloved husband and becomes the sole mistress of the flophouse. There is nothing human left in Vasilisa, and her moral impoverishment shows the monstrosity of the social conditions in which both the inhabitants of the shelter and its owners are immersed.

But a love conflict cannot organize stage action and become the basis of a dramatic conflict, if only because, unfolding before the eyes of the night shelters, it does not include them themselves. They are keenly interested in the ups and downs of these relationships, but do not participate in them, remaining only outside spectators. Consequently, a love conflict also does not create the situation that can form the basis of a dramatic conflict.

Let us repeat once again: the subject of depiction in Morky’s play is not only and not so much the social contradictions of reality or possible ways to resolve them; he is interested in the consciousness of the night shelters in all its contradictions. Such a subject of depiction is typical for the genre of philosophical drama. Moreover, it also requires non-traditional forms of artistic expression: traditional external action (event series) gives way to the so-called internal action. Everyday life with its petty quarrels between night shelters is reproduced on stage, some of the characters appear and disappear again, but these circumstances do not turn out to be plot-shaping. Philosophical issues force the playwright to transform traditional forms of drama: the plot is manifested not only in the actions of the characters, but in their dialogues. It is the conversations of the night shelters that determine the development of the dramatic conflict: Gorky transfers the action into an extra-event series.

In the exhibition we see people who, in essence, have come to terms with their tragic situation at the “bottom” of life. Everyone, with the exception of the Tick, does not think about the possibility of getting out of here, but is busy only with thoughts about today or, like the Baron, are turned to nostalgic memories of the past.

The beginning of the conflict is the appearance of Luke. Outwardly, it does not affect the lives of the shelters in any way, but in their minds hard work begins. Luka immediately becomes the center of their attention, and the entire development of the plot is concentrated on him. In each of the heroes, he sees the bright sides of his personality, finds the key and approach to each of them - and this makes a true revolution in the lives of the heroes. The development of internal action begins at the moment when the heroes discover in themselves the ability to dream of a new and better life. It turns out that those bright sides that Luka guessed in each of Gorky’s characters constitute his true essence. It turns out that the prostitute Nastya dreams of beautiful and bright love; An actor, a drunkard, a degraded alcoholic, remembers his creativity and seriously thinks about returning to the stage; “hereditary” thief Vaska Pepel discovers in himself a desire for an honest life, wants to go to Siberia and become a strong master there. Dreams reveal the true human essence of Gorky's heroes, their depth and purity. This is how another facet of the social conflict appears: the depth of the characters’ personality, their noble aspirations find themselves in blatant contradiction with their current social position. The structure of society is such that a person does not have the opportunity to realize his true essence.

From the first moment of his appearance in the shelter, Luka refuses to see the shelters as swindlers. “I respect swindlers too, in my opinion, not a single flea is bad: all are black, all jump...” - this is what he says, justifying his right to call his new neighbors “honest people” and rejecting Bubnov’s objection: “ I was honest, but the spring before last.” The origins of this position are in Luke’s naive anthropologism, which believes that a person is initially good and only social circumstances make him bad and imperfect.

Luke's position in the drama appears to be very complex, and the author's attitude towards him seems ambiguous. Luke is absolutely disinterested in his preaching and in his desire to awaken in people the best, hitherto hidden sides of their nature, which they did not even suspect: they contrast so strikingly with their position at the very “bottom” of society. Luke sincerely wishes the best for his interlocutors and shows real ways to achieve a new, better life. And under the influence of his words, the heroes really experience a metamorphosis. The actor stops drinking and saves money in order to go to a free hospital for alcoholics, not even suspecting that he does not need it: the dream of returning to creativity gives him the strength to overcome his illness, and he stops drinking. Ash subordinates his entire life to the desire to leave with Natasha for Siberia and get back on his feet there, to become a strong master. The dreams of Nastya and Anna, Kleshch's wife, are completely illusory, but these dreams also give them the opportunity to feel happier. Nastya imagines herself as a heroine of pulp novels, demonstrating in her dreams about the non-existent Raoul or Gaston the feats of self-sacrifice of which she is truly capable; Dying Anna, dreaming of an afterlife, also partly escapes from a feeling of hopelessness. Only Bubnov and Baron, people completely indifferent to others and even to themselves, remain deaf to Luke’s words. Luka’s position is revealed by the dispute about what the truth is that he had with Bubnov and the Baron, when he mercilessly exposes Nastya’s baseless dreams about Raul: “Here... you say - the truth... She, the truth, is not always due to a person’s illness... you can’t always cure a soul with truth...". In other words, Luke affirms the life-giving nature of comforting lies for a person. But is it only lies that Luke asserts?

Our literary criticism has long been dominated by the concept according to which Gorky unequivocally rejects Luke’s comforting sermon. But the writer’s position is more complicated.

The author's position is expressed primarily in the development of the plot. After Luke leaves, everything happens completely differently from what the heroes expected and what Luke convinced them of. Vaska Pepel will indeed go to Siberia, but not as a free settler, but as a convict accused of murdering Kostylev. The actor, who has lost faith in his own abilities, will exactly repeat the fate of the hero of the parable about the righteous land, told by Luke. Trusting the hero to tell this plot, Gorky himself will beat him in the fourth act, drawing exactly the opposite conclusions. Luke, having told a parable about a man who, having lost faith in the existence of a righteous land, hanged himself, believes that a person should not be deprived of hope, even illusory. Gorky, showing the fate of the Actor, assures the reader and viewer that it is false hope that can lead a person to a noose. But let's return to the previous question: in what way did Luke deceive the heroes of the play?

The actor accuses him of not leaving the address of the free hospital. All the heroes agree that Luke instilled false hope in their souls. But he didn’t promise to bring them out of the “bottom” of life - he simply instilled in them hope that there was a way out and that it was not closed to them. That self-confidence that awoke in the minds of the night shelters turned out to be too fragile and lifeless, and with the disappearance of the hero who was able to awaken it, it immediately faded away. The point is the weakness of the heroes, their inability and unwillingness to do at least a little in order to resist the ruthless social circumstances that doom them to the Kostylevs' shelter. Therefore, he addresses the main accusation not to Luke, but to the heroes who are unable to find the strength to oppose their will to reality. Thus, Gorky manages to reveal one of the characteristic features of the Russian national character: dissatisfaction with reality, a sharply critical attitude towards it and a complete unwillingness to do anything to change this reality. This is why Luke finds such a warm response from the night shelters: after all, he explains the failures of their lives by external circumstances and is not at all inclined to blame the heroes themselves for their failed lives. And the thought of trying to somehow change these circumstances does not occur to either Luke or his flock. That is why the heroes experience the loss of Luke so dramatically: the hope awakened in their souls cannot find internal support in their characters; they will always need external support, even from such a helpless person in a practical sense as the “patchless” Luka.

Luka is an ideologist of passive consciousness, so unacceptable for Gorky.

According to the writer, a passive ideology can only reconcile the hero with his current situation and will not encourage him to try to change this situation, as happened with Nastya, Anna, the Actor, who, after the disappearance of Luka, lost all hope and the internal strength he had acquired to realize it - and laid the blame for this not on himself, but on Luke. But who could object to this to the hero, who could oppose at least something to his passive ideology? There was no such hero in the shelter. The point is that the “bottom” cannot develop a different ideological position, which is why Luke’s ideas are so close to its inhabitants. But his sermon gave impetus for a certain antithesis, for the emergence of a new life position. Satin became its spokesman.

He is well aware that his state of mind is a reaction to Luke's words:

“Yes, it was he, the old yeast, who fermented our roommates... Old man? He is smart!.. The old man is not a charlatan! What is truth? Man - that's the truth! He understood this... you don’t!.. He... acted on me like acid on an old and dirty coin...”

And his famous monologue about a person, in which he asserts the need for respect, but not pity, and considers pity as humiliation, affirms a different position in life. However, this is only the beginning, only the very first step towards the formation of an active consciousness capable of changing social circumstances, of confronting them, and not of a simple desire to isolate oneself from them and try to get around them, which is what Luke insisted on.

The tragic ending of the drama (the suicide of the Actor) also raises the question of the genre nature of the play “At the Lower Depths”.

Do we have any reason to consider “At the Bottom” as a tragedy? Indeed, in this case, we will have to define the Actor as a hero-ideologist and consider his conflict with society as ideological, because the hero-ideologist affirms his ideology through death. Tragic death is the last and often the only opportunity not to bow to the opposing force and to affirm ideas.

I think not. His death is an act of despair and lack of faith in his own strength and rebirth. Among the heroes of the “bottom” there are no obvious ideologists opposed to reality. Moreover, their own situation is not understood by them as tragic and hopeless. They have not yet reached that level of consciousness when a tragic worldview of life is possible, for it presupposes a conscious confrontation with social or other circumstances.

Gorky clearly does not find such a hero in Kostylev’s doss house, at the “bottom” of life. Therefore, it would be more logical to consider “At the Bottom” as a socio-philosophical and social-everyday drama.

When thinking about the genre nature of the play, you need to turn to its conflict, show what clashes are the focus of the playwright’s attention, which becomes the main subject of the image. In our case, the subject of Gorky’s research is the social conditions of Russian reality at the turn of the century and their reflection in the minds of the heroes. At the same time, the main, main subject of the image is precisely the consciousness of the night shelters and the aspects of the Russian national character that manifest themselves in it.

Gorky is trying to determine what the social circumstances were that influenced the characters’ characters. To do this, he shows the backstory of the characters, which becomes clear to the viewer from the characters' dialogues. But it is more important for him to show those social circumstances, the circumstances of the “bottom” in which the heroes now find themselves. It is this position that equates the former aristocrat Baron with the sharper Bubnov and the thief Vaska Pepl and forms common features of consciousness for all: rejection of reality and at the same time a passive attitude towards it.

Inside Russian realism since the 40s. XIX century, with the emergence of the “natural school” and the Gogol movement in literature, a direction has emerged that characterizes the pathos of social criticism in relation to reality. It is this direction, which is represented, for example, by the names of Gogol, Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, that is called critical realism. Gorky in the drama “At the Lower Depths” continues these traditions, which is manifested in his critical attitude towards the social aspects of life and, in many respects, towards the heroes immersed in this life and formed by it.

A very complex work was created by Maxim Gorky. “At the Bottom,” the summary of which cannot be conveyed in a few phrases, prompts philosophical reflections on life and its meaning. Carefully written images offer the reader their point of view, but, as always, it is up to him to decide.

The plot of the famous play

Analysis of “At the Lower Depths” (Gorky M.) is impossible without knowledge of the plot of the play. A common thread running through the entire work is the debate about human capabilities and man himself. The action takes place in the Kostylevs' shelter - a place that seems to be forgotten by God, cut off from the civilized world of people. Every inhabitant here has long ago lost professional, social, public, spiritual, and family ties. Almost all of them consider their situation abnormal, hence the reluctance to know anything about their neighbors, a certain bitterness, and vices. Finding themselves at the very bottom, the characters have their own position in life and know only their own truth. Can anything save them, or are they lost souls to society?

“At the Lower Depths” (Gorky): heroes of the work and their characters

In the debate going on throughout the play, three life positions are especially important: Luka, Bubnova, Satina. They all have different fates, and their names are also symbolic.

Luke is considered the most difficult way. It is his character that prompts reflection on what is better - compassion or truth. And is it possible to use lies in the name of compassion, as this character does? A thorough analysis of “At the Lower Depths” (Gorky) shows that Luka personifies precisely this positive quality. He eases Anna's death throes and gives hope to Actor and Ash. However, the disappearance of the hero leads others to a catastrophe that might not have happened.

Bubnov is a fatalist by nature. He believes that a person is not able to change anything, and his fate is determined from above by the will of God, circumstances and laws. This hero is indifferent to others, to their suffering, and also to himself. He floats with the flow and doesn't even try to get ashore. Thus, the author emphasizes the danger of such a credo.

When analyzing “At the Bottom” (Gorky), it is worth paying attention to Satin, who is firmly convinced that man is the master of his destiny, and everything is the work of his hands.

However, while preaching noble ideals, he himself is a cheater, despises others, and longs to live without working. Smart, educated, strong, this character could get out of the quagmire, but does not want to do so. His free man, who, in the words of Satin himself, “sounds proud,” becomes the ideologist of evil.

Instead of a conclusion

It is worth considering that Satin and Luka are paired and similar heroes. Their names are symbolic and non-random. The first is associated with the devil, Satan. The second, despite the biblical origin of the name, also serves the evil one. Concluding the analysis of “At the Lower Depths” (Gorky), I would like to note that the author wanted to convey to us that truth can save the world, but compassion is no less important. The reader must choose the position that will be correct for him. However, the question about a person and his capabilities still remains open.

Analysis of the first act of A. M. Gorky’s drama “At the Lower Depths.”

Gorky's play “At the Lower Depths” excited society with its appearance. Her first performance caused a shock: were real homeless people on stage instead of actors?

The action of the play in a cave-like basement attracts attention not only with the unusualness of the characters, but also with its polyphony of voices. It is only at the first moment, when the reader or viewer sees the “heavy stone vaults” of the ceiling, “Bubnov’s bunks”, “a wide bed covered with a dirty chintz canopy” that it seems that the faces here are all the same - gray, gloomy, dirty.

But then the heroes started talking, and...

-...I say, - a free woman, her own mistress... (Kvashnya)

Who beat me yesterday? Why were they beaten? (Satin)

It's harmful for me to breathe dust. My body is poisoned by alcohol. (Actor)

What different voices! What different people! What different interests! The exposition of the first act is a discordant chorus of characters who seem to not hear each other. Indeed, everyone lives in this basement the way they want, everyone is concerned with their own problems (for some it is a problem of freedom, for others it is a problem of punishment, for others it is a problem of health, survival in the current conditions).

But here the first turning point of the action - the dispute between Satin and the actor. In response to the actor’s words: “The doctor told me: your body, he says, is completely poisoned with alcohol,” Satin , smiling, pronounces the completely incomprehensible word “organon”, and then adds “sycambre” to the Actor.

What is this? A play on words? Nonsense? No, this is the diagnosis that Satin gave to society. Organon is a violation of all rational foundations of life. This means that it is not the Actor’s body that is poisoned, but human life, the life of society, that is poisoned and perverted.

Sicambre translated into Russian means “savage”. Of course, only a savage (according to Satin) may not understand this truth.

There is also a third “incomprehensible” word in this debate - “macrobiotics”. (The meaning of this concept is known: the book of the German doctor, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Hufeland was called “The Art of Extending Human Life,” 1797). The “recipe” for prolonging human life, which the Actor offers: “If the body is poisoned,... it means that it is harmful for me to sweep the floor... breathe dust...”, evokes a clearly negative assessment of Satin. It is in response to this statement by the Actor that Satin mockingly says:

"Macrobiotics...ha!"

So, the thought is indicated: life in a shelter is absurd and wild, because its very rational foundations are poisoned. This is understandable to Satin, but the hero, apparently, does not know the recipes for treating the basics of life. The line “Macrobiotics... ha!” can be interpreted differently: what is the point of thinking about the art of prolongation such life. The turning point of the first scene attracts attention not only because the reader determines the dominant thought about the fundamentals of life, it is also important because it gives an idea of ​​the level of intelligence of the roommates in the person of Satin. AND the idea that there are smart, knowledgeable people in the shelter is amazing.

Let's also pay attention to how Satin presents his beliefs. It would be quite understandable if the night shelter beaten the day before directly spoke about the abnormal state of society that forces people to behave inhumanely. But for some reason he utters completely incomprehensible words. This is clearly not a demonstration of knowledge of foreign language vocabulary. Then what? The answer that suggests itself makes you think about the moral qualities of Satin. Maybe he spares the Actor’s pride, knowing about his heightened emotionality? Maybe he is generally not inclined to offend a person, even one who does not know much? In both cases we are convinced of Satin’s delicacy and tact. Isn’t it strange that such qualities exist in a “bottom” person?!

Another point that cannot be ignored: quite recently we saw: “Satin has just woken up, lies on his bunk and growls” (remark for act 1), now, talking with the Actor, Satin smiles. What caused such a sudden change in mood? Perhaps Satin is interested in the course of the argument, perhaps he feels in himself the strength (both intellectual and spiritual) that distinguishes him favorably from the Actor, who recognizes his own weakness, but perhaps this is not a smile of superiority over the Actor, but a kind, compassionate smile towards a person in need of support. No matter how we evaluate Satin’s smile, it turns out that real human feelings live in him, be it pride from realizing his own importance, be it compassion for the Actor and the desire to support him. This discovery is all the more surprising because the first impression of the roar of voices of the night shelters, not listening, insulting each other, was not in favor of these people. (“You’re a red goat!” /Kvashnya – Kvashnya/; “Be silent, old dog” /Kvashnya – Kvashnya/, etc.).

After an argument between Satin and Actor, the tone of the conversation changes sharply. Let's listen to what the heroes are talking about now:

I love incomprehensible, rare words... There are very good books and many interesting words... (Satin)

I was a furrier... I had my own establishment... My hands were so yellow - from the paint... I really thought that I wouldn’t wash them until my death... But here they are... My hands are just dirty... Yes! (Bubnov)

Education is nonsense, the main thing is talent. And talent is faith in yourself, in your strength. (Actor)

Job? Make the work enjoyable for me - maybe I will work, yes! (Satin)

What kind of people are they? Ragged, golden company...People! I am a working man... I’m ashamed to look at them... (Tick)

Do you have a conscience? (Ash)

What are the heroes of the “bottom” thinking and thinking about? Yes, about the same things that any person thinks about: about love, about faith in one’s strength, about work, about the joys and sorrows of life, about good and evil, about honor and conscience.

The first discovery, the first amazement associated with what I read from Gorky - here it is: people of the “bottom” are ordinary people, they are not villains, they are not monsters, they are not scoundrels. They are people just like us, they just live in different conditions. Maybe it was this discovery that shocked the first viewers of the play and is shocking more and more new readers?! May be…

If Gorky had completed the first act with this polylogue, our conclusion would have been correct, but the playwright introduces a new person. Luka appears “with a stick in his hand, a knapsack over his shoulders, a bowler hat and a kettle at his belt.” Who is he, the man who greets everyone: “Good health, honest people!”

Who is he, the man who claims: “I don’t care!” I respect swindlers too, in my opinion, not a single flea is bad: they’re all black, they all jump...” (?) Reflecting on the question of who Luka is, we think, first of all, that the playwright gives his hero a strange Name. Luke- this is holy, this is the same biblical hero?

(Let us turn to the Biblical Encyclopedia. Let us take an interest in what is said there about Luke: “Luke the Evangelist is the writer of the third Gospel and the book of the Acts of the Apostles. He is not named at all as the writer of the last book, but the general and continuous tradition of the Church from the very beginning attributed to him the compilation of the said book of the New Testament. According to the testimony of Evsenius and Jerome, Luke was a native of the city of Antiochus, the Apostle Paul calls him. beloved doctor. His thorough acquaintance with Jewish customs, way of thinking, phraseology make it somewhat probable that he was at first a proselyte, a foreigner who accepted the Jewish faith, although on the other hand, from his classical style, the purity and correctness of the Greek language in his Gospel, one can rather conclude that that he came not from the Jewish, but from the Greek race. We do not know what prompted him to accept Christianity, but we know that after his conversion, having become deeply attached to the Apostle Paul, he devoted his entire subsequent life to serving Christ. There is an ancient legend that Luke was one of the 70 disciples sent by the Lord to every city and place where you yourself wanted to go(Luke X, 1). Another ancient legend says that he was also a painter and attributes to him the drawing of the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, the latter of which is still kept in the Great Assumption Cathedral in Moscow. Regarding the manner of his activities upon entering the apostolic ministry, we find precise and definite information described by him himself in the book of Acts. They think that in his touching Gospel narrative about the appearance of the risen Lord, the two disciples who went to Emmanus under another disciple, whose name is not mentioned, are, of course, Luke himself (chap. XIV). It is not known for certain when Luke joined the Apostle Paul and became his companion and collaborator. Maybe it was in 43 or 44 AD. Then he accompanied the apostle to Rome until the time of his first imprisonment there and remained with him. And during the second bond of the Apostle, shortly before his death, he was also with him, while all the others left the Apostle; This is why Paul’s words at the end of II Timothy are so moving: “Damas left me, loving the present age, and went to Thessalonica, Crescent to Galatea, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." After the death of the Apostle Paul, nothing is known from the Holy Scriptures about the subsequent life of Luke. There is a tradition that he preached the Gospel in Italy, Macedonia and Greece and even in Africa and died peacefully at the age of 80. According to another legend, he died a martyr’s death under Domitian, in Achaia, and for lack of a cross was hanged on an olive tree.”

Based on these ideas about Luke, we can say that Luke is a healer of hearts, a wanderer, a bearer of Christian morality, a teacher of lost souls in many ways reminiscent of the Evangelist Luke.

At the same time, another question arises: maybe Luke is a crafty, two-faced person? Or maybe Luke is “luminous” (after all, this is how this name is translated)?

It is very difficult to answer these questions unambiguously, because even the playwright himself sometimes saw in his hero a saint, sometimes a liar, sometimes a comforter.

Luke's first words are alarming: he is so indifferent towards people that they are all the same to him?!(“Everyone is black, everyone is jumping”) Or maybe he is so wise that he sees in everyone just a Human?!(“Good health, honest people!”). Cinder is right when he calls Luka "entertaining." Indeed, he is humanly interesting, ambiguous, wise in an old man’s way: “It always turns out like this: a person thinks to himself - I’m doing well! Grab – and people are unhappy!”

Yes, people may be unhappy that the “old man” sees their secret desires and understands more than the heroes themselves (remember Luke’s conversations with Ash); people may also be dissatisfied with the fact that Luke speaks so convincingly and so wisely that his words are difficult to dispute: “How many different people on earth are in charge... and they frighten each other with all sorts of fears, but there is still no order in life and no purity...”.

Luka’s first step in the shelter is the desire to “place”: “Well, at least I’ll place the litter here. Where is your broom? The subtext of the phrase is obvious: Luka appears in the basement to make people's lives cleaner. But this is one part of the truth. Gorky is philosophical, so there is another part of the truth: maybe Luka appears, raises dust (excites people, makes them worry, become concerned about their existence) and disappears. (After all, the verb “place” also has this meaning. Otherwise, one would have to say “sweep”, “sweep”).

Already at his first appearance, Luke formulates several basic principles of his attitude towards life:

1) – They pieces of paper- everyone is like that - they're all no good.

2) - And everything is people! No matter how you pretend, no matter how you wobble, if you were born a man, you will die a man...

3) –And All I see people are becoming smarter more and more interesting...And Even though they live worse and worse, they want everything better... Stubborn!

4) – A is it possible for a person that way throw? He- whatever it is – and always worth the price!

Now, reflecting on some of the provisions of Luke’s life truth, we can approach the moment of truth: in a terrible, unrighteous life there is one value and one truth that cannot be disputed. This truth is man himself. Luke declares this upon his appearance.

The playwright thought about the problem of man for many years. Probably, the appearance of Luke in the first act of the play “At the Bottom” is the climax of this action not only because the hero outlines one of the main problems of the play - how to treat a person; Luke's appearance is the most striking moment also because rays of thought stretch from him to the next actions of the drama.

“There is no man without a name,” - the Actor’s discovery in the second act;

“Man is the truth,” is Satin’s final confession. Such confessions are phenomena of the same order.

The epiphany of the characters in the finale of the play, the optimistic sound of “At the Bottom” became possible, including because Luke appeared in the play, acting on the dark world like “acid” on a rusty coin, highlighting both the best and worst aspects of life. Of course, Luka’s activities are diverse, many of the actions and words of this hero can be interpreted in exactly the opposite way, but this is quite natural, because man is a living phenomenon, changing and changing the world around him. No matter what you say Luke, no matter how he argues for this or that position, he wisely, humanly, sometimes with a grin, sometimes with a sly, sometimes seriously, leads the reader to the understanding that there is a Man in the world, and everything else is the work of his hands, his mind, conscience. It is this understanding that is valuable in Gorky’s hero, who appeared among people who had lost faith and disappeared when that HUMAN GRAIN, which for the time being had been dormant, hatched in people, woke up, and came to life. With the appearance of Luke, the life of the shelters takes on new, human dimensions.

The first act of the play has been read. The relationships between the characters and the personal characteristics of the night shelters are examined, and the compositional features of this important action for the play are revealed. Along with the intermediate conclusions that we made during the analysis, it is probably worth making a general conclusion about the sound of the first action.

Let's ask ourselves, What role does the first act play in the context of the drama? This question can be answered in different ways: firstly, it outlines the themes that will be heard throughout the entire play; secondly, here are formulated (still very approximately) the principles of attitude towards a person, which will be developed by both Luke and Satin during the course of the drama; thirdly, and this is especially important, already in the first act of the play, in the arrangement of characters, in their words, we see the writer’s attitude towards MAN, we feel that The main thing in the play is the author’s view of man, his role and place in the world. From this point of view, it is interesting to turn to Gorky’s confession, voiced in the article “On Plays”: “The historical man, the one who created everything in 5-6 thousand years what we call culture, in which a huge amount of his energy is embodied and which is a grandiose superstructure over nature, much more hostile than friendly to him - this man, as an artistic image, is a most excellent being! But a modern writer and playwright deals with an everyday person who has been brought up for centuries in conditions of class struggle, is deeply infected with zoological individualism and in general is an extremely motley figure, very complex, contradictory... we must show it to oneself in all the beauty of its confusion and fragmentation, with all the “contradictions of the heart and mind.”

Already the first act of the drama “At the Bottom” realizes this task, which is why we cannot unambiguously interpret not a single character, not a single remark, not a single action of the heroes. The historical layer that interested the writer is also obvious in the first act: if we take into account the historical roots of Luke, the reader can trace the path of Man from the very beginning to the contemporary moment of the playwright, to the beginning of the 20th century. Another layer is obvious in the first act - the social and moral one: Gorky considers Man in all the diversity of his manifestations: from the saint to the one who finds himself “at the bottom” of life.