Which is better truth or compassion epigraph. Which is better, truth or compassion based on the play At the Bottom (Gorky Maxim)

Just for every firefighter under the cut))) Under the sea, two pages of printed text, as for me - delusional nonsense, according to the teacher of literature - a good essay))

Which is better: truth or compassion? What is more needed?
(Composition based on the play by M. Gorky "At the Bottom")

Showing the life of the inhabitants of the rooming house - people who have sunk to the very bottom of life, M. Gorky throughout the play tries to find the answer to the question: what is better, what people need more: truth or compassion?
According to the author himself, compassion and pity give rise to "comforting lies" and carry only harm. And Gorky expresses his thoughts through Sateen's monologue: "Lie is the religion of slaves and masters. ... Truth is the god of a free man!" And Luka, as the antagonist character of Sateen, was introduced into the play precisely in order to show all the futility, senselessness of compassion, because in the end, after the old man left, everything became not only not better, but even worse! But, despite the author's intention, it is impossible to say unequivocally who is right - Satin or Luke, and what would be better for a person - a cruel truth or a comforting lie.
When the reader first meets the inhabitants of the rooming house, he sees degraded, desperate people thrown to the sidelines of life. No one cares about anyone, even the neighbors are only busy with their own problems. However, these people also have their own dreams, desires, someone, like the Baron, has memories of a past life - and it is impossible to understand whether they are true or invented, like Nastya's "true love". And Luka, appearing for the first time in this dark and inhospitable place, finds a kind word for almost everyone. So, he tells the Actor about the hospital, Anna - that she will be fine in the next world, in words he believes Nastya's stories. And as if a sunbeam penetrates the rooming house - people are inspired by hope, they believe - or, like Vaska Pepel, want to believe - Luka, because his words coincide with their own dreams. Luka is crafty - he is not like Bubnov, who believes that "bring the whole truth as it is", Luka tells people exactly what they want to hear, even if it goes against the true state of affairs. Compassion is not alien to him, and he is ready to pity the people gathered in the rooming house. In his life, he saw a lot, and came to the conclusion that "you can't always cure the soul with the truth." A vivid example of this can be the story told by Luke about a man who believed in a righteous land: he lived, worked and endured hardships and hardships, because he believed that there is such a land! But, having learned the truth, he lost all meaning of life: "... went home - and strangled himself! .." The truth did not bring anything good to this man, only deprived him of the hope that he lived. And so is Luke - he supports the inhabitants of the rooming house, encourages them and gives hope, even if it is false. And under its influence, it would seem that completely desperate people begin to dream, even make plans. They are changing for the better, they draw strength from the appeared hope to fight for their dream. Vaska Pepel is ready to leave for Siberia and start life there from scratch, he says words that a completely degraded thief would not say: "We must live like this ... so that I can respect myself." The actor goes to work, saves money for a hospital and even remembers his stage name. It would seem that everything is going well, because now people have hope, there is a goal in life - and this raises them above their previous position.
But what - as soon as Luka disappears, as the haze of bright hopes dissipates, the heroes are faced with the cruel truth of life, in which, however, Satin plays an important role with his sarcastic, contemptuous and incriminating remarks. And, having lost their hope, the heroes return to their former state, only now it is even more difficult for them to overcome adversity on their life path, their spiritual strength is already running out, and for someone, like an Actor, this manifests itself to an extreme degree, like the man in the story of the righteous land. And this, too, is Luke's fault. As Kleshch rightly put it: “he beckoned them somewhere ... but he didn’t say the way ...” Again, faced with the cruel truth, the heroes are disappointed in life. And the stronger their disappointment, the stronger was the hope for the best. And here again we can turn to the story of the righteous land. After all, the inhabitants of the rooming house do not understand it at all in the way that Luka wants to present it: "I could not stand the deception," says Natasha. Who and why told this man that a righteous land exists? Why give him false hope, if in the end the disappointment in life turned out to be so great that suicide turned out to be the best way out for the hero? After all, in fact, this story practically does not differ from the events unfolding in the play. And Luke's compassion, his comforting lie, told not at all for selfish purposes, but to encourage - all this went only to the detriment of the heroes.
But at the same time, this tragic ending is also the fault of the characters themselves. After all, the words of the old man were not an absolute lie: Vaska Pepel could start his life from scratch in Siberia, and the Actor, even if he did not find a hospital, could rise from the bottom of life. Luke only gave them the initial impetus, I will give them hope and faith that the realization of their dreams is possible. Another thing is that, having lost external support and encouragement with the departure of Luke, they could not find in themselves that inner core that would allow them to continue to pursue their intended goal. Weak in spirit, they would need constant support from the outside - but there was only one person in the rooming house who was ready for this - Luka. But he left, and Satin remained, who is alien to such: "What good is it to you if I regret?" he asks Klesch. And oddly enough, it is Satin who best understands Luke and his motives: "The old man is not a charlatan!<…>I understand the old man... yes! He lied... but it was out of pity for you."
And after all, not everyone in the rooming house Luka gave advice or tried to encourage. Satin, Bubnov, Kleshch - Luka did not even approach them with consolations, because they do not need it. The tick clearly distinguishes between truth and lies, even if he himself doesn’t need the truth: “It’s true - what’s the truth here? And without it - there’s nothing to breathe ...” - he says. Bubnov does not dream, he is indifferent to others and is in favor of "blaming the whole truth as it is." Satin is a sharpie, a gambler - why does he need Luke's pity? After all, he himself does not accept pity, considering himself a "free man": "You must respect a person! Do not pity ... do not humiliate him with pity ... you must respect!" he says. Of course, the words about respect spoken by people like Satin do not sound particularly true, but here the author himself speaks the words of Satin, and this is the author's position.
So which is better, truth or compassion? Strong people do not need any compassion or pity - in case of failure, faced with the true state of things, they will be able to survive it and move on with renewed vigor, if, of course, they themselves need it. The situation is different with people like the Actor: on the one hand, compassion and "white lies" can keep them hopeful, can give them the strength to endure and move on; on the other hand, faced with the cruel truth, the loss of hope can finally deprive them of their strength and desire to fight on. Thus, each person must decide for himself what is best for him: truth or compassion. In the end, as the same Luke said: "What you believe is what you are."

At first glance, it seems that truth and compassion are two completely different concepts that are difficult to compare with each other. But in the play M.A. Gorky, they oppose each other. Is it better to tell the truth or show compassion? In my opinion, it is difficult to unambiguously answer this question. Let's try to find the answer in the play "At the bottom".

The drama "The Lower Depths" presents people with completely different pasts, but the same present.

All of them are mired in poverty and misery. Heroes do not live, but only exist, spending their lives in a dark, dirty closet. Satin stands out against the background of all the inhabitants of the rooming house. In the past, he was fond of reading interesting books, worked as a telegraph operator. But one day, while protecting his sister, he ended up in prison for almost 5 years. And after the prison ended up in this rooming house. Satin's life is not going well: he likes to drink and play cards. But despite all these shortcomings, he knows how to subtly, clearly and philosophically express his thoughts. Satin proclaims the cult of man. He claims that a person is capable of much, admires his power and potential. Sateen is a fighter for truth. The hero believes that every person deserves to know the truth, no matter how hard it would be, and that only strong personalities can accept it. Only the truth can make a person realize and understand the full horror of his situation, can push him to go further, overcoming obstacles, improve and change his life for the better, and compassion only inspires false hopes. Truth makes a person strong and confident. As the hero himself stated: "Lie is the religion of slaves." It is this point of view that the author of the play, Maxim Gorky, adheres to. In particular, the hero Satin speaks through him.

As an opposition to Sateen, Luke, who unexpectedly appeared in the rooming house, is presented. His worldview is different from Sateen's. Luka is a wanderer, who has come from nowhere and who knows where he is on his way. By nature, he is a kind, sensitive, sympathetic person. Luke showed compassion, pitied, gave hope and comfort. He, like no one else, was able to influence these low people. His speeches awakened in people the desire to live and improve their lives. But his compassion is sometimes associated with lies and deceit. And as he himself believes, his lie is for the good. Luke only instills deceptive illusions in the souls of vulnerable people. In my opinion, only weak personalities will fall for these illusions.

Both truth and compassion did not force the heroes to take action to change their lives, but only aroused desire. Perhaps this is because people are so exhausted and weak that they are not able to correct their bad situation. They resigned themselves to hopelessness. So, analyzing this work, it is impossible to accurately answer the question we asked earlier: “Which is better - truth or compassion?”. Each person will have their own point of view on this situation. Personally, I agree with Satin. It seems to me that compassion with an admixture of lies does not lead to good.

The drama of M. Gorky "At the Bottom" is a complex, multifaceted work with a deep philosophical content. What makes a person a person? What helps and hinders life? What are the paths to finding happiness? The author is looking for an answer to these questions together with his heroes - the inhabitants of the Kostylevo rooming house.

It is interesting that on the issues that have long worried the minds of thinkers, the play speaks not of the masters of philosophical disputes, but of the people of the “bottom”, uneducated or degraded, tongue-tied or unable to find the right words. Each of the shelters has a certain outlook on life, professes its own “truth”: Bubnov and Baron, insensitive people far from illusions, are supporters of the cruel “truth of the fact”, content with rough reality; Anna, Ashes, Kleshch, Nastya, Actor live a dream, but at the same time they suffer, they crave sympathy.

However, in my opinion, only two inhabitants of the rooming house, Luka and Satina, can be considered as peculiar “ideologists” of the “bottom”. After all, Gorky formulated the “basic question” of the drama as follows: “Which is better: truth or compassion? What is more needed? Satin stands up for the truth in the play, Luke preaches compassion.

Satin is a strong person who has received a certain education. Once he served at the telegraph office, where he picked up "smart" words. Now he is a smart gambler. It is paradoxical that a cheater sings the truth, that is, a person living a lie. Nevertheless, Sateen's monologues are bright, emotional, aphoristic: “Man is the truth! Lies are the religion of slaves and masters ... Truth is the god of a free man! .. ”Satin's views are close to Gorky. In one of his letters, the author, as it were, echoes his hero: "There is only man, everything else is opinion."

Satin affirms the “bottom” as the norm of existence, the only one worthy of a real person. He himself neglects the opportunity to live on honestly earned money. According to Satin, people should be respected, and not “humiliate with pity”, not lie to them, but finally finish them off with the truth: it’s more noble that way.

Another point of view is held by the wanderer Luke. This hero is kind, indulgent to weaknesses, tolerant of other people's sins, responsive to requests for help. “They crumpled a lot, that’s why it’s soft,” he says about himself.

Another nice feature of Luka is his genuine interest in life, in other people, in each of whom he is able to discern individuality, “zest”: “Any flea is not bad ...”

Luke, of course, is needed by the sufferers, of whom there are many in the play: Nastya, Ash, Natasha, Actor, Anna, Kleshch. They need comfort and encouragement - a kind of anesthesia from the troubles that haunt them and a stimulant of interest in life. In order to console the interlocutor, Luka does not come up with any recipes, he only skillfully supports the dream that has developed for each of the rooming houses: he convinces the Actor of the existence of a hospital for alcoholics, in Anna he strengthens faith in the afterlife, in Nastya - in ideal love.

“What you believe is what you are,” says the wanderer. In my opinion, a good motto for the "bottom". As if confirming his words, Luke tells a parable to the roommates: the dream of a “righteous land” gave a person the strength to live, but the truth pushed him to commit suicide.

According to Satin, Luke's speeches are “a comforting lie, a reconciling lie”, “a lie for salvation”. One can argue for a long time about the expediency of such a deception. However, in my opinion, one cannot but agree with Beranger, whose poem is constantly recited by the Actor:

Lord, if the truth is holy

The world does not know how to find the road,

Honor to the madman who will inspire

Mankind has a golden dream!

I think Luca is such a "madman".

Reflecting on the “main issue” of the drama “At the Bottom”, Gorky experiences the philosophy of Satine and Luke with his life, shows how the sharper’s speeches influenced the rooming houses and how the wanderer’s monologues influenced them.

Before the unexpected departure of Luke, the well-being of the inhabitants of the "bottom" is noticeably improving; most of them are gaining faith in the possibility of a better life. The old man advises the dying Anna to be patient and promises a heavenly life in heaven. The woman believed him and died peacefully. According to the philosophy of Sateen, who, by the way, quite calmly looked at the suffering of a dying woman, it was not worth humiliating her: after all, a lie under the guise of pity cannot but humiliate a person.

Thanks to Luka, Pepel lives by the dream of an honest life in Siberia, and Nastya - by faith in ideal love. According to Satin, it is necessary to return them to prosaic reality ...

Heeding the assurances of Luke, inspired by the hope of healing, the Actor begins to work and even stops drinking for a while. But now Satin takes up the matter, whose name, probably not by chance, is consonant with the name of Satan. He robs the Actor of the most valuable thing - a dream, and he has no choice but to hang himself.

So, the drama "Down Under" is an example of an opportunity to help people with compassion or truth. Absolutely unambiguous answer to the question: “Which is better: truth or compassion? What is more needed? - not in the work.

I think Gorky has a certain sympathy for both Satin and Luka. And there can be no single correct solution to such a problem: the truth, of course, is better than deception, but sometimes compassion, “a comforting lie,” is more needed.

Nikolay Basenko

M. Gorky (real name Alexei Peshkov) is the largest literary figure of the Soviet era. He began to write in the 19th century, even then his works seemed to everyone revolutionary and propagandistic. However, the early work of the writer is significantly different from the subsequent. After all, the author began with romantic stories. Gorky's play "At the Bottom" is an example of a realistic drama, in the center of which is the image of the oppressed, hopeless life of the lower classes of Russian society. In addition to social issues, there is an extensive philosophical layer in the work: the characters of the play talk about important issues, in particular, about what is better: truth or compassion?

Genre problem

As for the genre of this work, not all researchers are unanimous in their opinions. Some people think that it is most fair to call the plays social drama. After all, the main thing that Gorky shows is the problems of people who have sunk to the bottom of life. The heroes of the play are drunkards, cheaters, prostitutes, thieves... The action takes place in a godforsaken rooming house, where no one is interested in their "neighbor". Others believe that it would be more correct to call the work a philosophical drama. According to this point of view, in the center of the image there is a clash of views, a kind of conflict of ideas. The main question that the heroes argue about is: what is better - truth or compassion? Of course, everyone answers this question in their own way. And in general, it is not completely clear whether there is an unambiguous answer. One way or another, the philosophical layer in the play is connected with the appearance of Luke in it, which encourages the inhabitants of the rooming house to think about their own lives.

Heroes of the play

The main characters of the play are the inhabitants of the rooming house. The action involves the owner of the rooming house Kostylev, his wife Vasilisa, Actor (former actor of the provincial theater), Satin, Kleshch (locksmith), Natasha, Vasilisa's sister, thief Vaska Pepel, Bubnov and Baron. One of the characters is a "stranger", Luka, who appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere after the third act. These characters appear throughout the play. There are other characters, but their roles are auxiliary. The Kostylevs are a married couple who can hardly digest each other. Both of them are rude and scandalous, besides cruel. Vasilisa is in love with Vaska Pepel and persuades him to kill her elderly husband. But Vaska does not want to, because he knows her, and knows that she wants to exile him to the labor market in order to separate him from her sister Natalya. The actor and Sateen have a special role in the drama. The actor drank himself a long time ago, his dreams of a big stage are not destined to come true. He, like the man in Luke's story who believed in a righteous land, commits suicide at the end of the play. Sateen's monologues are important. In a sense, he confronts Luka, although at the same time, he does not accuse him of lying, unlike the other inhabitants of the rooming house. It is Satin who answers the question: what is better - truth or compassion. Several deaths occur. Anna, Klesch's wife, dies at the very beginning of the play. Her role, though not long, but very important. Anna's death against the backdrop of a game of cards makes the situation tragic. In the third act, Kostylev dies in a fight, which further aggravates the situation of the inhabitants of the rooming house. And at the very end, the Actor's suicide occurs, which, however, almost no one pays attention to.

Philosophical content of the play

The philosophical content of the drama falls into two layers. The first is the question of truth. The second is the answer to the central question in the drama: which is better, truth or compassion?

Truth in the play

The hero Luka, an old man, comes to the rooming house and begins to promise a bright future to all the heroes. He tells Anna that after death she will go to heaven, where peace awaits her, there will be no troubles and torments. Luka tells the actor that in some city (he forgot the name) there are clinics for drunkards where you can get rid of alcoholism absolutely free. but the reader immediately understands that Luke has not forgotten the name of the city, because what he is talking about simply does not exist. Peplu Luka advises to go to Siberia and take Natasha with him, only there they will be able to improve their lives. Each of the inhabitants of the rooming house understands that Luka is deceiving them. But what is truth? That's what the debate is about. according to Luke, the truth cannot always be healed, but a lie that is spoken for good is not a sin. Bubnov and Pepel declare that the bitter truth is better, even if it is unbearable, than a lie. But Tick is so confused in his life that he is no longer interested in anything. The truth is that there is no job, no money, and no hope for a better existence. The hero hates this truth as much as Luke's false promises.

Which is better: truth or compassion (based on Gorky's play "At the Bottom")

This is the main question. Luke solves it unambiguously: it is better to lie to a person than to bring him pain. As an example, he cites a man who believed in a true land, he lived and hoped that someday he would get there. But when he found out that there was no such land, there was no hope left, and the man strangled himself. Pepel and Bubnov deny such a position, they are sharply negative towards Luka. Satin takes a slightly different position. He believes that Luka cannot be accused of lying. After all, he lies out of pity and mercy. However, Satin himself does not accept this: a person sounds proud, and one cannot humiliate him with pity. The question "which is better - truth or compassion" in the play "At the bottom" is unresolved. Is there any answer to such a complex and vital question? Perhaps there can be no single answer. Each hero solves it in his own way, and each person has the right to choose what is better - truth or compassion.

Based on Gorky's play "At the Bottom", they write essays and write on various topics, but one of the most popular concerns this particular problem, the problem of lying "for salvation."

How to write an essay?

First of all, you need to remember about the correct composition. In addition, in an essay-reasoning, it is necessary to give as an example not only episodes from the work, but also to reinforce what was said with examples from life or other books. The theme "Which is better: truth or compassion" does not allow one-sided interpretation. it must be said that in each situation it is necessary to act differently. Sometimes the truth can kill a person, then the question is: did the person say this, being afraid of sin, or, on the contrary, decided to harm his neighbor and act cruelly. However, not everyone wants to be deceived either. If a person has a chance to fix something, to start life differently, isn't it better to know the truth? But if there is no other way, and the truth turns out to be disastrous, then you can lie. What is better: truth or compassion, what is more needed - everyone decides in his own way at a certain point in his life. You should always remember about philanthropy and mercy.

So, the play is a complex work with a two-level conflict. At the philosophical level, this is a question: what is better - truth or compassion. The heroes of the Gorky play turned out to be at the bottom of their lives, perhaps Luke's lie for them is the only bright moment in life, so can then what the hero says be considered a lie?

“Which is better truth or compassion?

Plan

1) Introduction. The famous play by Gorky.

2) The inhabitants of the rooming house.

3) Comforter Luke.

4) Satin and his famous monologue. Revealing Luke.

5) The third disputing party is Bubnov.

6) So what is better - truth or compassion?

a) Bubnov - Luka.

c) compassion

7) Conclusion.

The play by M. Gorky “At the bottom”.

In the nine hundred years, a severe economic crisis erupted in Russia.

After each crop failure, masses of ruined peasants roamed the country in search of work. And factories and plants were closed. Thousands of workers and peasants found themselves homeless and without means of subsistence. Under the influence of the most severe economic oppression, a huge number of tramps appear who sink to the “bottom” of life.

Taking advantage of the hopeless situation of impoverished people, enterprising owners of dark slums found a way to benefit from their stinking basements, turning them into rooming houses where the unemployed, beggars, vagrants, thieves and other “former people” found shelter.

Written in 1902, the play depicted the lives of these people. Gorky's play is an innovative literary work. Gorky himself wrote about his play “It was the result of my almost twenty years of observation of the world of “former people”, among which I include not only wanderers, inhabitants of rooming houses and, in general, “lumpen proletarians”, but also some of the intellectuals, “demagnetized”, disappointed, insulted and humiliated by failures in life. I felt and understood very early that these people are incurable.

But the play not only completed the theme of tramps, but also resolved the new revolutionary demands that were put before the masses during the period of intense class struggle between the pre-revolutionary era.

The topic of bosyatstvo at that time worried not only Gorky. Heroes, for example, Dostoevsky, too, "have nowhere else to go." This topic was also touched upon by: Gogol, Gilyarovsky. The heroes of Dostoevsky and Gorky have many similarities: this is the same world of drunkards, thieves, prostitutes and pimps. Only he is shown even more terribly and realistically by Gorky. This is the second dramatic work by Gorky the playwright after The Petty Bourgeois (1900-1901). At first, the author wanted to name the play “The Bottom”, “At the Bottom of Life”, “The Nochlezhka”, “Without the Sun”. In Gorky's play, the audience saw for the first time the unfamiliar world of outcasts. Such a harsh, merciless truth about the life of the social lower classes, about their hopeless fate, the world dramaturgy has not yet known. Gorky in this play showed terrifying pictures of Russian reality, the vices of the capitalist system, the inhuman conditions of bourgeois Russia, the "lead abominations of life." The writer in this play opposed the self-proclaimed "prophets" who arrogate to themselves the right to decide what share of the truth should be told to the "crowd" and what should not. The play sounds like an appeal to the people themselves to seek truth and justice. “We get only the amount of truth that we can achieve,” - this is how the wonderful German writer Bertolt Brecht developed Gorky's idea. This play, like "The Petty Bourgeois" caused fears in the authorities. The authorities feared demonstrations in honor of Gorky. It was allowed to be staged only because they considered it boring and were sure that the performance would fail, where instead of a “beautiful life” there were dirt, darkness and poor, embittered people on the stage.

Censorship crippled the play for a long time. She especially objected to the role of the bailiff. The troubles, however, were crowned with partial success: a telegram came from St. Petersburg, from the censorship: “The bailiff can be released without words.” But the audience was already clear about the role of the authorities in the existence of the bottom.

Plehve, Minister of the Interior, objected to the production. “If there was a sufficient reason, I would not have thought for a minute to exile Gorky to Siberia,” he said and ordered that the production of the play should no longer be allowed.

"At the bottom" was an unprecedented success. The advanced reader and viewer correctly understood the revolutionary meaning of the play: the system that turns people into residents of Kostylev's rooming house must be destroyed. The auditorium, according to Kachalov, accepted the play violently and enthusiastically as a play - a petrel, which foreshadowed the coming storms and called for storms.

The success of the performance is largely due to the magnificent production of the Moscow Art Theater directed by K. S. Stanislavsky and V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, as well as the wonderful performance of the artists - I. M. Moskvin (Luka), V. I. Kachalov (Baron), K. S. Stanislavsky (Satin), V. V. Luzhsky (Bubnov) and others. In the season of 1902 - 1903, the performances "Petty Bourgeois" and "At the Bottom" accounted for more than half of all the performances of the Moscow Art Theater.

The play was created over eighty years ago. And all these years it has not ceased to cause controversy. This can be explained by the many problems posed by the author, problems that at different stages of historical development acquire new relevance. This is due to the complexity and inconsistency of the author's position. The fact that the complex, philosophically ambiguous ideas of the writer were artificially simplified, turned into slogans adopted by the official propaganda of recent years, influenced the fate of the work, its perception. Words: “Man… that sounds proud!” often became poster inscriptions, almost as common as “Glory to the CPSU! ”, and the children memorized Sateen’s monologue by heart, however, they corrected it beforehand, throwing out some of the hero’s remarks (“Let's drink for a man, Baron!”). Today, I want to re-read the play “At the Bottom”, having an unbiased look at its characters, carefully thinking about their words and peering at their actions.

It's good when a book you read leaves a mark on your soul. And if it is bright, we suddenly think about what meaning this work has for us, what it has given us. The famous words of Satin, spoken at the dawn of the twentieth century, determined the creative line of the writer. He loved people, so his imagination, permeated with a wonderful dream of a great vocation of man, gave rise to such amazing images as Danko. But he also spoke with a passionate, ardent protest against everything that belittled a person.

The play is a formidable indictment of the system, which gives rise to bunkhouses, in which the best human qualities perish - intelligence (Satin), talent (Actor), will (Tick).

And before Gorky, “humiliated and insulted”, people of the bottom, tramps appeared on the stage. Playwrights and actors aroused the viewer's pity for them, philanthropic calls to help fallen people. Gorky stated something else in the play: pity humiliates a person, one must not pity people, but help them, change the very order of life that gives rise to the bottom.

But in the play we have before us not only a picture of the life of destitute, unfortunate people. “At the bottom” is not so much a domestic, as a philosophical play, a play-reflection. The characters reflect on life, the truth, the author reflects, forcing the reader and viewer to reflect. In the center of the play is not only human destinies, but a clash of ideas, a dispute about a person, about the meaning of life. The core of this dispute is the problem of truth and lies, the perception of life as it really is, with all its hopelessness and truth for the characters - people of the “bottom”, or life with illusions, in whatever diverse and bizarre forms they may represent.

What a person needs: “Lie is the religion of slaves and masters… Truth is the god of a free man!” is the main theme of the play. Gorky himself pointed out what the main problem of the play was: “The main question that I wanted to pose is what is it - which is better, truth or compassion? What is more needed? Is it necessary to bring compassion to the point of using a lie, like Luke?” This phrase of Gorky was placed in the title of my essay. Behind this phrase of the author is a deep philosophical thought. More precisely, the question is: what is better - truth or compassion, truth or lies for salvation. Perhaps this question is as complex as life itself. Many generations struggled to resolve it. Nevertheless, we will try to find an answer to the question posed.

The action of the play “At the Bottom” takes place in a gloomy, semi-dark basement, similar to a cave, with a vaulted, low ceiling that presses on people with its stone weight, where it is dark, there is no space and it is difficult to breathe. The situation in this basement is also wretched: instead of chairs, there are dirty stumps of wood, a rough-hewn table, and bunks along the walls. The gloomy life of the Kostylevo rooming house is depicted by Gorky as the embodiment of social evil. The heroes of the play live in poverty, filth and poverty. In a damp basement huddle people thrown out of life due to the conditions prevailing in society. And in this oppressive, gloomy and unpromising environment, thieves, cheaters, beggars, hungry, crippled, humiliated and insulted, thrown out of life gathered. The heroes are different in their habits, life behavior, past fate, but they are equally hungry, exhausted and useless: the former aristocrat Baron, the drunken Actor, the former intellectual Satin, the artisan locksmith Kleshch, the fallen woman Nastya, the thief Vaska. They have nothing, everything is taken away, lost, erased and trampled into the mud. People of the most diverse character and social status gathered here. Each of them is endowed with its own individual features. Worker Mite, living in the hope of a return to honest work. Ashes, longing for the right life. An actor absorbed in memories of his former glory, Nastya, passionately yearning for real, great love. All of them deserve a better fate. The more tragic their situation now. The people living in this basement are tragic victims of an ugly and cruel order in which a person ceases to be a person and is doomed to drag out a miserable existence. Gorky does not give a detailed account of the biographies of the heroes of the play, but the many features that he reproduces perfectly reveal the author's intention. In a few words, the tragedy of Anna's life fate is drawn. “I don't remember when I was full,” she says. “I was shaking over every piece of bread ... I was trembling all my life ... I was tormented ... as if I couldn’t eat more than another ... I went all my life in rags ... my whole unhappy life ...” The worker Klesh speaks of the hopelessness of his share: “There is no work ... there is no strength ... That's the truth ! No shelter, no shelter! You need to breathe… That's the truth!” A motley gallery of characters are victims of the capitalist order even here, at the very bottom of life, completely exhausted and destitute, they serve as an object of exploitation, even here the owners, petty-bourgeois owners, did not stop at any crime and are trying to squeeze a few pennies out of them. All the actors are sharply divided into two main groups: the bums-bedroomers and the owners of the rooming house, petty proprietors, petty bourgeois. The figure of the owner of the rooming house Kostylev, one of the "masters of life", causes disgust. Hypocritical and cowardly, he seeks to cover up his predatory desires with unctuous religious speeches. Just as disgusting is his wife Vasilisa with her immorality. She has the same greed, cruelty as an owner-philistine, making her way to her well-being at any cost. It has its own inexorable wolf laws.