In the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” (1830), only two characters are involved in the conflict - Mozart and his antagonist Salieri. Both images are artistically fictional and only conditionally coincide with their historical prototypes - the Austrian composer Mozart and the Italian composer Salieri, who lived in Vienna from 1766 to 1825.
Although Mozart and Salieri belong to the “chosen ones of heaven”, to people of art, they are opposite in their attitude towards the world, towards the Divine world order. Existence, Mozart is sure, is arranged fairly and, in principle, harmoniously: earth and sky are in moving balance. Earthly life divided into “prose” and “poetry”, it has low life and high life.
High life contains features and signs of heaven, giving an idea of the ideal and heavenly bliss. Only a select few are given the happiness of feeling the ideal and conveying the harmony of being; the rest of the people live in a low life, immersed in the worries of the day, and the harmony of being is hidden from them. But without such people “the world could not exist.”
The highest purpose of the “chosen ones,” of whom there are “few,” is to feel and embody world harmony, to show in art (in poetry, in music) an image of perfection. Art remains art only when it refuses the “despicable benefit” - to instruct, teach, when it is created not for the sake of self-interest, but for the sake of art itself. This is how an artist should and should look at his work. Here Pushkin conveyed his creative sense of self, known to us from his other works.
It is not for the needs of “despicable life” that the composer composes music. But this does not mean that he despises people immersed in everyday prose, or avoids depicting pictures of low life. For Mozart, low life is part of all existence, but being marked by God’s gift imposes on him as an artist a special destiny that does not elevate him above people, but distinguishes him from them. Feeling his chosenness, he follows the “command of God,” and this command instructs the composer to leave “the needs of low life” and despise its “benefits, its benefits, its self-interest.” Art requires complete dedication, without promising anything in return - no awards, no fame.
Pushkin does not reject the idea of “serving the muses,” and this brings Mozart and Salieri closer. However, Salieri differs from Mozart in that he expects “despicable benefits” from his work - fame, gratitude from the crowd (“... I found consonances with my creations in the hearts of people”), and awards. He is not marked by “chosenness”, he seeks it “as a reward / Burning love, selflessness, / Labor, diligence, prayers. “and in this way wants to enter the circle of the chosen ones, the “priests.” But no matter how much Salieri strives to become a “priest,” deep down in his soul he still feels himself not among the chosen ones, but among the “children of the dust.” Mozart is perceived as God, as a “cherub,” that is, a messenger from heaven who “brought us songs of heaven.” Meanwhile, Mozart feels that, despite the God's grace, he is not God at all, but an ordinary mortal (“Salieri. You, Mozart, are a god, and you don’t know it yourself. / I know, I. Mozart. Bah! right? Maybe. / But my deity is hungry”).
If for Mozart “life” and “music” are two consonances of being, ensured by the proportionality of happiness and grief, joy and sadness, fun and sadness, then for Salieri “life” does not seem to exist. Salieri is deaf to one of the consonances of existence. The tragedy begins with the fatal realization of the collapse of the world, the Divine world order in the mind and soul of Salieri. Feeling and acutely experiencing harmony in music, Salieri lost the gift of hearing the harmony of being. This is where Salieri’s demonic rebellion against the world order stems. Salieri loves solitude. He is depicted by Pushkin either as a boy in church, or in a “silent cell,” or alone with himself, fenced off from life. Drawing the spiritual image of Salieri, Pushkin more than once accompanies him with images of death. Even Salieri's music lessons are filled with cold, killing sensitivity, a soulless craft brought to automatism.
Unlike Mozart, Salieri really despises “low life” and life in general. “I don’t like life much,” he admits. Having isolated himself from life, Salieri sacrificed himself to art, creating an idol, which he began to worship. Salieri's dedication turned him into an “ascetic” and deprived him of the fullness of living sensations. He does not have the variety of moods that Mozart experiences; one tone predominates in his experiences - emphatically stern seriousness. Music becomes a feat of sacred rites for Salieri. He is a “priest” not in a figurative, but in a literal sense. As a “priest,” he performs the sacrament and rises above the uninitiated. The gift of a musician does not so much distinguish Salieri from people, but rather, in contrast to Mozart, elevates him above them, allowing the composer to stand outside of ordinary life. The violinist’s bad performance, which makes Mozart laugh, but not contempt for the person, Salieri perceives as an insult to art, Mozart and a personal insult, giving him the right to despise the blind old man.
Since Salieri’s attitude to art is serious, and Mozart’s, on the contrary, is careless, Mozart seems to Salieri to be a mystery of nature, an injustice of heaven, the embodiment of a “divine mistake.” Genius was given to Mozart not as a reward for his work and refusal of “idle amusements,” but just like that, for no reason, by fatal accident. Pushkin gave Mozart part of his soul. In his works, he constantly called himself a carefree and idle singer. Mozart for Pushkin - “ perfect image"artist-creator, who has no analogies with the images of artists created European literature and to a certain extent breaking with typical ideas. Pushkin's Mozart is the chosen one, marked by fate, overshadowed from above.
Pushkin excluded the connection between genius and labor. He only hinted that Mozart was “disturbed” by musical ideas, that he constantly thought about the requiem, which haunted him. Pushkin brought out Salieri as a tireless and selfless worker. Genius is not a consequence of work and not a reward for work. Neither love of art nor diligence imparts genius to an artist if he is not endowed with it from above. Of course, Pushkin cannot be suspected of underestimating work, but it is important for him to expose the thought: careless Mozart was “chosen” by heaven, the hard worker Salieri was not chosen. Mozart composes music, he is filled musical themes. Salieri's work is mentioned in the past tense. He only talks about music, is inspired by other people's harmony, but does not create anything.
Salieri cannot come to terms not with Mozart's genius, but with the fact that genius was given for free to an insignificant person, in his opinion, unworthy of this genius. And not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of all the priests of music, the servants of art, Salieri takes the responsibility, the sacred duty, to restore justice, to correct the mistake of heaven.
Mozart's chosenness is art, harmony, “the one thing that is beautiful.” Salieri's chosenness is murder for the sake of art.
All these sophisms (false conclusions) of Salieri are rejected by Mozart. Particularly expressive is the scene where Salieri, in front of Mozart’s eyes, throws poison into his glass. An everyday gesture here directly turns into a philosophical gesture, and ordinary poison turns into “poison of thought.”
Mozart accepts Salieri's challenge and with his death refutes both his reasoning and his crime. This scene makes it clear that Salieri is destined not to be a genius, but to be a murderer. In order to restore the broken world order, Salieri separates Mozart the man from Mozart the composer, the “idle reveler” from his inspired music. He sets himself an impossible task - to “cleanse” Mozart’s genius from the careless darling of fate, to save music by killing its creator. But since Salieri understands that by poisoning Mozart, he will also kill his genius, he needs strong arguments, supported by lofty considerations about serving the muses. “What good is it if Mozart is alive / And new heights will he still achieve it? / Will he thereby raise art?” - Salieri asks himself and answers: “No. »
The tragedy of Salieri is not only that he separated “life” from “music” and “music” from “life”. Salieri is not “chosen”, not marked by the grace of God. He thinks that dedication to music should be rewarded, and wants to receive a reward - to become a genius - from music itself. But it is not music that rewards genius. God rewards. This is the natural law of existence that underlies it. Salieri denies God's law and instead puts forward his own, personal one, finding himself in a moral trap. Remaining consistent, he must kill both Mozart the man and Mozart the composer. The comforting idea of the immortality of Mozart's inspired music after his death does not help. Salieri has to reckon with the fact that it is his fault that a genius dies. This consciousness is tragic for Salieri, it penetrates his soul. He wants to prolong the enjoyment of Mozart’s music and at the same time suffers, unable to resist the “heavy duty” that seems to have fallen upon him from above.
However, the murder of Mozart returns Salieri to a new tragic situation - he forever falls out of the ranks of geniuses: the poisoning of Mozart, disguised with excuses, receives a precise and direct name - “villainy”.
Mozart and Salieri (opera)
"Mozart and Salieri"(opus 48) - an opera by composer N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov based on the text of the drama by A. S. Pushkin “Mozart and Salieri” from the cycle “Little Tragedies”.
The composer himself named the genre of his work as follows: dramatic scenes.
The opera is dedicated to the memory of composer A. S. Dargomyzhsky.
Time of creation: 1897.
Original language: Russian.
Premiere: Moscow Russian private opera by S. I. Mamontov; November 6 (18), 1898; under the direction of I. A. Truffi.
[edit] Literary basis
The literary basis was the drama by A. S. Pushkin “Mozart and Salieri”, and this is not just a basis, but the text was preserved as much as possible.
“Mozart and Salieri” is a work by Pushkin, finally created by him in the Boldin autumn of 1830; however, it was conceived much earlier - back in 1826. First publication: in the almanac “Northern Flowers” 1832. Also in 1832, the production premiered in St. Petersburg.
The basis for Pushkin’s work was... gossip. Yes, that's right. The death of the brilliant composer Mozart began to be talked about as non-accidental, and rumors attributed the crime to his friend and competitor, composer Antonio Salieri. It has been indisputably and repeatedly proven that Salieri did not commit this murder, but Pushkin’s version is not based on reality. It makes no sense to look for features of real-life musicians in Pushkin’s poetic work. Pushkin used their names to create his own images - generalized artists: bright, original and talented, and maliciously envious, who in their hatred are ready to commit any crime. And Pushkin’s creation must be viewed only from these positions: Pushkin’s Mozart is not the real Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but the ideal of a creative personality, and Pushkin’s Salieri is not the real Antonio Salieri, but an envious person who sees in another creator only a competitor and therefore mercilessly destroys him. Musicologist Solomon Volkov believes that Pushkin’s Mozart is generally much more similar to Pushkin himself than to the real composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Both images in the tragedy are fictitious, although they conditionally coincide with their prototypes - these are the Austrian musician Mozart and the Italian musician Salieri. Literary critic Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky identified this outstanding Pushkin's work So: ““Mozart and Salieri” - a question about the essence and mutual relations of talent and genius”. There are other opinions in which the concepts of genius and talent are combined, and the image of a worker-craftsman is contrasted.
Within the framework of his aspects, the philosopher-theologian Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov considered this Pushkin tragedy, while noting the same thing: this is not biographical work: ““Mozart and Salieri” is a tragedy about friendship, but its deliberate name is “Envy,” as Pushkin originally called it.”. S. Bulgakov deliberately narrowed the topic to friendship-competition - and this is his right as the author of his own article. But you can view the work from any other angle. It could be family history(say, the hatred of a brother for a brother or an uncle who hates a nephew because he is more gifted than his own children) or the essence of a team (classmates or employees), spreading rot and persecuting the “not like that” who has crept into their group... According to S. Bulgakov, this there must be connected people.
It must be said that the volume of literary criticism on this very small - just a few pages - work significantly exceeds the work itself. And their number is increasing. The interest in this particular work of A. Pushkin is enormous. And the reason for this is not the great musicians themselves, whose names the author used, but the reason is How he used them, what a monstrous part human soul affected. Modern literary critic Alexander Andreevich Bely also notes that in fact the fact of the crime was not established: “It is not legally established, and one cannot believe in it. Yes, Pushkin didn’t need this.”. Yes, that’s right: Pushkin brought out people who did not really exist in his drama, he was not writing a biographical essay, and therefore whether a crime actually happened or not was not of interest to him, he did not know for sure (let us repeat the words of the literary critic: Yes, Pushkin didn’t need this). His work is about something else. He did not create real images, but generalized ones, opposite to each other: talent and - no, not complete mediocrity, but - professional worker. Pushkin moved away from the specific biographies of Mozart and Salieri (and he did not approach them at all!), creating and prototyping two options, two schemes of life and action: talent and mediocrity.
At the same time, naturally, we should not forget that crimes are still committed by hardened scoundrels, and those who envy quietly and without disturbing anyone are not one of them.
There is another important aspect - the absence of the theme of retribution for crime. Of course, we can say that Pushkin has just a different topic. But with Pushkin nothing happens by chance. And Pushkin does not have the theme of retribution and punishment for crime - because this does not exist at all. For This there will be no punishment for the crime. And there are reasons for this, good reasons. For the authorities carry out the punishment. And they, these authorities, need someone who is honest honestly working off the fees, sings their praises, and not some kind of talent. And the authorities will always support those they can rely on; and go and rely on God’s gift! An honest worker has already secured all the necessary connections that will always get him out of any trouble and ensure peace and contentment, because he is “theirs.”
It was in his drama “Mozart and Salieri” that Pushkin wrote phrases that took the form almost social phenomenon; there are two of them, which have become catchphrases: “Everyone says: there is no truth on earth. But there is no truth - and higher" And “Genius and villainy are two incompatible things”- for this article they are interesting because both were included in Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera. Let's focus on the second one. Illiterate “admirers” of the great Russian genius, who clearly do not have time to read the work itself, cite these words as Pushkin’s, as dogma from the great poet. But in fact, these words, like many things in Pushkin, are full of irony and deceit - for the words, of course, are Pushkin’s, but they are spoken by the characters: first Mozart - in a conversation about the great French playwright Pierre Beaumarchais at the very moment when Salieri pours poison into Mozart, that is, at the very climax drama - at the time of murder; and then, at the end, Salieri repeats the same words. Let us recall that the great French playwright, who is discussed in Pushkin’s drama, in real life did not correspond much to the “incompatibility” of the concepts of Genius and Villainy.
But as for the characters of Mozart and Salieri themselves, we repeat once again - they cannot be identified with real real people. Both Mozart and Salieri are real - with their true characters, ideas, habits, relationships and actual biographies did not interest Pushkin at all: he, using their real names, created his own literary work- about the creator and the professional worker, about talent and the envious person - an eternal theme for humanity. And in highest degree realistic. Hatred and envy of someone who exists nearby, but is better, brighter, more capable - oh, how often it leads to crime, and to a crime not spontaneous, but deliberate, prepared, with reliable protection for criminals - and therefore even more terrible. That's what this drama is about, and not at all about Mozart and Salieri. Pushkin created a work about humanity, and not about specific people.
And we should treat N. Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera based on Pushkin’s plot in exactly the same way. Actually, the composer used Pushkin’s work not just as a plot, but as a text that he set to music. This structure was not an innovation; it continued the tradition started by A. S. Dargomyzhsky when creating his opera “The Stone Guest”. That is why the opera “Mozart and Salieri” is dedicated to the memory of Dargomyzhsky.
[edit] Russian opera
To explain this tradition, it is necessary to make a short excursion into the history of the development of Russian opera.
Musical art came to Russia from Western Europe and was persistently implanted by the imperial power - like all European culture. The imperial treasury did not skimp on fees for visiting Europeans, and they gladly came to the cold, feudal country, because they could not count on such sums anywhere except Russia. So everyone was happy. Such a policy justified itself: by the 19th century, its own Russian culture had emerged, which began to create, on the basis of European culture, its own nationally Russian works.
The main characteristic of the direction of Russian opera was given by music critic Viktor Korshikov, summing it up in the article “A. S. Dargomyzhsky “The Stone Guest” (Based on the book: Viktor Korshikov. Do you want me to teach you to love opera. About music and more. Moscow: YAT Studio, 2007): “Without the “Stone Guest” it is impossible to imagine the development of Russian musical culture. It was three operas - “Ivan Susanin”, “Ruslan and Lyudmila” and “The Stone Guest” that created Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin. “Susanin” is an opera where the main character is the people, “Ruslan” is a mythical, deeply Russian plot, and “The Guest”, in which drama prevails over the sweet beauty of sound.” .
Exactly beauty of sound European music of the time was preferred. Europe, which did not go through the difficult path of slavish suppression of the national spirit (or passed too long ago that it was forgotten by the 19th century), did not create such rebellious powerful works. A young music critic - forever remaining young, but, as we all know, not everything and not always determines age - named three operas that gave direction to Russian opera art: if the first two - “Life for the Tsar” and “Ruslan and Lyudmila” - are truly Russian in the spirit of the plot, then “The Stone Guest” is not even about Russia at all. And the point is not at all in the Russian plot. The point is in the musical intensity of the realistically depicted paintings and in the structure. In the opera “The Stone Guest,” composer A. S. Dargomyzhsky used Pushkin’s exact text without changes for the first time. And this new style was immediately picked up by Russian composers. Musicologist Alexander Maikapar wrote: “When in 1863 Dargomyzhsky first had the idea of writing a one-act opera “The Stone Guest,” using Pushkin’s text for this, without changing anything in it, then, as he himself admitted, he “recoiled before the enormity of this work.”. Dargomyzhsky composed his opera until 1869, never having time to complete it. And in October 1868, M. P. Mussorgsky began writing the opera “Boris Godunov”, also deciding to use the original text of Pushkinskaya tragedy of the same name. Then other Russian operas followed in the same style, designed in the same arioso-recitative manner; the style has grown into a tradition. Literary basis became, in a certain sense, unshakable, like the foundation on which the entire “building” of the opera grew. Musicologist A. Maikapar just exclaims: “It’s amazing how wonderfully the works of the genius A.S. Pushkin fit to music!”. Similar “literary priority”, where "drama is superior to the sweet beauty of sound", was not created by any other musical culture.
Thus, the music in the opera “Mozart and Salieri” clearly follows Pushkin’s text, almost without subjecting it to changes, in some places only shortening it a little - which was required by the musical phrase, nothing more.
[edit] History of creation
The opera's libretto clearly follows Pushkin's text. However, some small reductions were made (those interested can familiarize themselves with the text of the libretto and make sure that it almost repeats Pushkin’s, here).
Rimsky-Korsakov began work on the opera in early 1897, setting one short scene to music.
Only a few months later, in the summer of 1897, the composer returned to this work - and already in August the opera was finished.
[edit] Music
“Mozart and Salieri” is Rimsky-Korsakov’s most laconic opera. Her main distinguishing feature- the finest psychological development of images. A very short orchestral introduction immediately introduces the action - Salieri's monologue “Everyone says: there is no truth on earth! But there is no higher truth". Thus, the action immediately captivates the listener. And after Salieri’s gloomy minor monologue - again immediately - Mozart’s arrival is characterized by lighter music, which ends with the melody of an aria from Mozart’s Don Giovanni (Zerlina’s aria “Well, beat me, Masetto”), performed by a street violinist.
This is how, with such rapid changes, the composer leads to main stage- the murder of Mozart.
Musicologist M. Druskin especially notes the latter musical sounds operas: "Final short monologue Salieri, extremely dramatic, ends with solemnly gloomy chords" .
Music critic A. A. Gozenpud believes that the main thing actor The opera is not Mozart, but Salieri - it is this image that is psychologically clearly verified by the composer’s musical palette. “Salieri of Pushkin and Rimsky-Korsakov is not a petty criminal, he is a priest of a narrow idea. For her and in her name, he commits murder, but with the same conviction he will commit suicide.”, writes A. A. Gozenpud.
[edit] First performances
The very first performances of the opera were, as usual, for a circle of “insiders,” that is, the audience were close friends and relatives of the composer.
Envy and talent in Pushkin’s tragedy “Mozart and Salieri”
The passion that burns the soul of Salieri (“Mozart and Salieri”), envy. Salieri “deeply, painfully” envies his brilliant, but careless and funny friend Mozart. Envious with disgust and heartache discovers in himself this feeling, previously unusual for him:
Who can say that Salieri was proud?
Someday a despicable envier,
A snake, trampled by people, alive
Sand and dust gnawing helplessly?
The nature of this envy is not entirely clear to the hero himself. After all, this is not the envy of mediocrity towards talent, or the envy of a loser towards the darling of fate. "Salieri great composer, devoted to art, crowned with glory. His attitude towards creativity is one of selfless service. However, there is something terrible and frightening in Salieri’s admiration for music. For some reason, images of death flicker in his memories of his youth, of his years of apprenticeship:
Killing the sounds
I tore apart the music like a corpse. Believed
I algebra harmony.
These images do not arise by chance. Salieri has lost the ability to easily and joyfully perceive life, he has lost the very love of life, so he sees the service of art in dark, harsh colors. Creativity, Salieri believes, is the destiny of the chosen few and the right to it must be earned. Only a feat of self-denial opens access to the circle of dedicated creators. Anyone who understands the service of art differently is encroaching on what is sacred. In the carefree gaiety of the brilliant Mozart, Salieri sees, first of all, a mockery of what is sacred. Mozart, from Salieri’s point of view, is a “god” who is “unworthy of himself.”
The soul of the envious person is also burned by another passion: pride. He deeply feels resentment and feels like a stern and fair judge, an executor of the highest will: “. I chose to stop him. " Mozart's great works, argues Salieri, are ultimately destructive for art. They awaken in the “children of the dust” only “wingless desire”; created without effort, they deny the need for ascetic labor. But art is higher than man, and therefore Mozart’s life must be sacrificed “or we will all die.”
The life of Mozart (of a person in general) is made dependent on the “benefits” that he brings to the progress of art:
What good is it if Mozart lives?
And will it still reach new heights?
Will he elevate art?
Thus the noblest and most humanistic idea of art is used to justify murder. In Mozart, the author emphasizes his humanity, cheerfulness, and openness to the world. Mozart is happy to “treat” his friend with an unexpected joke and he himself sincerely laughs when the blind violinist “treats” Salieri with his pathetic “art.” From Mozart's lips, it is natural to mention playing on the floor with a child. His remarks are light and spontaneous, even when Salieri (almost not jokingly!) calls Mozart “god”: “Really? May be. But my deity is hungry.”
Before us is a human, not a priestly image. A cheerful and childish man sits at the table in the Golden Lion, and next to him is the one who says about himself: “. I love life a little." Brilliant composer plays his “Requiem” for a friend, not suspecting that his friend will become his executioner. A friendly feast becomes a feast of death.
The shadow of the fatal feast flashes already in Mozart’s first conversation with Salieri: “I am cheerful. Suddenly: a grave vision. " The appearance of a messenger of death is predicted. But the severity of the situation lies in the fact that the friend is the messenger of death, the “coffin vision.” Blind worship of the idea turned Salieri into a “black man,” into a Commander, into stone. Pushkin's Mozart is endowed with the gift of intuition, and therefore he is tormented by a vague premonition of trouble. He mentions the “black man” who ordered the Requiem, and suddenly feels his presence at the table, and when the name Beaumarchais comes out of Salieri’s mouth, he immediately remembers the rumors that stained the name of the French poet:
Oh, is it true, Salieri,
That Beaumarchais poisoned someone?
At this moment, Mozart and Salieri seem to change places. In the last minutes of his life, Mozart for a moment becomes the judge of his killer, pronouncing again, sounding like a sentence for Salieri:
. genius and villainy
Two things are incompatible.
The actual victory goes to Salieri (he is alive, Mozart is poisoned). But, having killed Mozart, Salieri could not eliminate the source of his moral torture - envy. This deeper meaning is revealed to Salieri at the moment of farewell to Mozart. He is a genius because he is endowed with the gift of inner harmony, the gift of humanity, and therefore the “feast of life” is available to him, the carefree joy of being, the ability to appreciate the moment. Salieri was severely deprived of these gifts, so his art is doomed to oblivion.
Salieri's words about Michelangelo Buonarotti remind us of a fairly well-known legend, according to which Michelangelo, while painting one of the Vatican Cathedrals, killed the sitter in order to more believably depict the torment of the dying Christ. Murder for the sake of art! Pushkin would never justify this. What does Raskolnikov say? “One death and a hundred lives in return - but this is arithmetic!” (Remember, by the way, that Salieri “believed harmony with algebra.”) A brick for general happiness! To sacrifice one life for the sake of a bright future, what the socialists have always justified, with whose ideas the humanist writer always argued, to sacrifice one worthless life for the sake of eternal art.
Who gave a person the right to decide whether someone else's life matters to humanity? Do we have the right to control at least our own lives? Both Dostoevsky and Pushkin prove that no murder can be justified even by a seemingly lofty goal.
Both Salieri and Raskolnikov want to be great. Rather, not even to be, but to seem. Salieri immediately understands that he can only be great if there is no Mozart; Raskolnikov himself says that “I wanted to seem like Napoleon.” And this is another proof that murder is not justified: even the purpose of the murder turns out to be far-fetched. It is characteristic that both Salieri and Raskolnikov try to at least partially justify themselves by presenting their victim in the most unfavorable light.
From a similar understanding of the essence of the crime comes a partial similarity in its artistic depiction. Salieri is verbose in the tragedy, Raskolnikov is endowed with lengthy internal monologues and confessions. The victims are given much less attention in the works. Two conclusions can be drawn from this: firstly, the authors are much more interested in the personality of the criminal, the philosophical roots of the crime, and secondly, both authors come to the conclusion that the criminal is looking for a way out for his idea in words. Salieri has been carrying poison with him for 18 years, Raskolnikov has been tormented by his idea for a long time - an article outlining the idea was written six months before the murder. The idea puts pressure on a person from within, torments him.
In the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri,” A. S. Pushkin was the first to draw a conclusion that clearly shattered all theories of “supermen”: “Genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” Both A.S. Pushkin and F.M. Dostoevsky were worried about the same problems, problems of a universal human scale.
Dostoevsky rethought Pushkin’s conclusion and, most importantly, transferred the idea of the “superman” to his contemporary reality, at a time when Russia was excited by socialist ideas. Dostoevsky warned people: do not allow people striving for power to allow themselves to decide the fate of little people, so that your sisters and mothers are made into a brick in the house of future happiness. It’s surprising why we are all so deaf to the prophecies of great thinkers?
“Little tragedies” by A.S. Pushkin. The tragedy "Mozart and Salieri"
Sections: Literature
Goal: to introduce students to new pages of the work of A.S. Pushkin (“Mozart and Salieri” from the series “Little Tragedies”); develop the ability to analyze text; cultivate humanism; instill aesthetic values.
Group of experts. Musicologist: work with the biography of Salieri. Art critic: working with author's notes to the text. Philosopher: message about rationalistic philosophy of the 18th century. Historian: acquaintance with the letters of A.S. Pushkin about the death of Salieri. Linguist: lexical meaning of the word requiem.
“The most important thing is the path”
— Today we continue our acquaintance with “Little Tragedies” by A.S. Pushkin, in which the poet denounces human vices. In “The Stingy Knight” it’s stinginess. And what vice Pushkin exposes in the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri”, we must determine by the end of the lesson. And a group of experts (student representation) will help us.
- What's happened tragedy? (This dramatic work, in which the character of the hero is revealed in a hopeless situation, in a struggle that dooms him to death).
— What does the definition of genre already aim us at? (To a tragic end).
— Who is this tragedy about? (It's about two composers).
- The personification of which human qualities is each of them? (Good and evil).
“The most essential thing is the path,” said the philosopher Hegel. And each composer goes his own way. Today we will find out what it will be like.
- So, let's turn to the tragedy. The formation of which personality does Pushkin depict in detail, starting from childhood and ending with the formation of personality? (Pushkin does not show spiritual path, passed through by Mozart, but Salieri depicts the formation of his personality in detail).
- Let's remember Salieri's first monologue. What have you learned about biographies Salieri, what path did he take to become famous? Was it easy? (Students' retelling).
- Analyze the first monologue. (The boy reveals a character of rare firmness. His attitude towards music studies is different seriousness(“I rejected idle amusements”), determination(“stubbornly renounced sciences alien to music”), perseverance(“through intense, intense persistence, I overcame early adversity”). Salieri's years of study were by no means covered with roses. It soon became clear that he lacked the talent to compose music. Music theory was especially difficult. The boy had to immerse himself in it headlong, so there was simply not enough for him to develop other aspects of his personality. Salieri's education clearly took on some kind of flawed, one-sided character. He becomes a voluntary recluse. But in order to achieve his goal, the young man is ready to endure any hardship. In the end, his efforts were rewarded.
- Let's listen historian. What else can you find out about Salieri’s biography? Was he really like that? (Student's speech) Matches artistic image with the historical?
- What worries Salieri, because he is famous, refer to the final part of the monologue.
Why does Salieri destroy his works so often? (There are two possible reasons for this. The first is high exactingness, strict exactingness of the artist. Salieri is trying to bring the case to her. But most likely the main reason is in the uselessness of his works. Salieri is so far from living life that composing music becomes a game for him musical forms- no more. None true content he cannot invest in it. But even in such an inferior form, Salieri’s work did not exclude either delight or tears of inspiration.)
— What famous people’s names does Salieri pronounce, and for what reason? Word art critic(When composing music, Salieri proceeds “from the form”, is occupied with it alone. Only he alone knew how difficult it is, even with a sample in front of him, to conjure over sounds, trying to put at least some content into them. Gluck, Puccini, Haydn. How many it took him strength to “figure out” the style of each of them! In the end, as we know, Salieri was rewarded for his great patience. The works he wrote in imitation of these composers begin to please the public).
- But why can’t Salieri’s works live a long life? This is a philosophical question, and will help us answer it philosopher. ( In the 18th century, rationalist philosophy was widespread. Philosophy – 1. A science that studies the laws of development of nature, society, and thinking. 2. Methodological principles underlying any science. 3. A system of ideas, views on the world and the place of man in it.
Rationalistic (from Latin “ration” - mind) philosophy is the philosophy of the mind. Salieri understood this clearly. He preferred to convince himself that what he did as an apprentice was nothing other than genuine creativity, that it was possible to compose music this way: by adopting the style of a “fashionable” composer).
- But now it lights up on the musical horizon new star - Mozart. Perhaps the most striking feature of this hero is the inextricable connection of his creativity with life and people.
- Name it words - characteristics, revealing the inner image of the heroes.
about Mozart
about Salieri
— What can we say about the two composers? What personalities are in front of us? (Mozart, suspecting nothing, said the words: if the whole world existed from geniuses, then there would be no one to cook the porridge. To each his own - there is no bottom or top. The world could not exist if only geniuses lived. Mozart realizes that he is a genius, the height of human feeling is aware that the world is filled with big and small people, everyone needs to be loved).
- What Mozart appears before us for the first time? (Human life pulsates in him. Mozart is different: lively, active, life-loving both in art and in life. So he goes to Salieri to show his new composition. Having heard near the tavern how an incompetent violinist parodies his work, he brings him too with himself. “I wanted to treat you with an unexpected joke,” he explains, sensing that Salieri was not in a good mood because he was not in the mood for jokes. at the moment is not inclined, but that the violinist again plays Mozart’s music, and not his...)
- Let's move to another era, to another country and listen to the heroes themselves. What worries the life-loving Mozart in scene 2? Why? It will sound in the background "Requiem" Mozart How does music convey the mood of the composer? (Staging of scene 2 by previously prepared students). The fate of Mozart is tragic, a genius who lives and works in a society where envy and vanity reign, where criminal ideas arise and there are people ready to carry them out. He is sensitive to danger, but does not know that it comes from his friend Salieri. Therefore, in scene 2, Mozart is visited by sad moods and he feels the approach of death. He is gloomy: his imagination is haunted by a black man who is “the third” sitting with him and Salieri. Man in Black- an image of a world hostile to Mozart.
— Disturbing music? Music seems to prepare us for something tragic, irreparable, mournful. Compare the mood of the music and Mozart's inner world.
— We listened to an excerpt from "Requiem" Mozart, what is this work? Word musicologist(Requiem is a large funeral piece of music for choir and orchestra, service for the deceased, music for the funeral church service; bearing a mournfully elegiac and solemnly heroic character. Mozart wrote the requiem in the summer and autumn of 1791).
- The requiem is a large work, since the funeral procession lasts a very long time, we listened to the shortest, but most beautiful part - "Lacrimosa" which can be translated as “tears”. Is the name symbolic?
- Why is Salieri crying? (After the poisoning, Salieri says: “I cry: it hurts and pleases me.” It hurts because it kills a genius, and it feels good because it kills. The fate of the killer himself is no less tragic. The wrong direction that Salieri’s work took was expressed in that he turned art into a means of satisfying his own claims. His spiritual end comes simultaneously with the physical death of Mozart. The small tragedy contains two large ones).
— Why such music? By composing a requiem, Mozart embraces human grief. Pushkin does not say a word about the material difficulties of life - a well-known feature of the biography of the great composer. Agreeing to compose a requiem, he is guided by the duty of the artist, and not by material circumstances. This makes the hero more courageous and morally perfect.
- Which feeling born in Salieri's soul? What motivates Salieri to commit a crime? What vice does A.S. Pushkin expose in this tragedy? (Envy is born).
— "Envy"- the original name of the tragedy. Why does Pushkin change his name?
— We have two tragedies before us: Mozart and Salieri.
— How did this story end, how did people find out about what happened? Let's listen historian.(Pushkin expressed the fact that Mozart was poisoned by Salieri first artistically, then ethically (in one of his letters): “At the first performance of Don Giovanni, at a time when the entire theater, full of amazed connoisseurs, silently reveled in Mozart’s harmony, a whistle sounded - everyone turned indignantly, and the famous Salieri left the hall - in a rage, consumed by envy. Salieri died 8 years ago. Some German magazines said that on his deathbed he allegedly confessed to a terrible crime - the poisoning of the great Mozart. An envious person who could boo Don Juan “could poison his creator.” But at the time of the hearing on this issue, Salieri was acquitted. This means that this story is an artistic invention of the poet, which is very deeply rooted in the minds of people. thinks about the merciless murder of a friend).
- Who noticed what the phrase will be repeated twice? Does this question end the tragedy?
Sachala pronounces it Mozart: “ Genius and villainy are two incompatible things. Isn’t it true?”
Potomee pronounces Salieri: “ Genius and villainy are two incompatible things. Not true.”
— How can you and I answer the question: Are genius and villainy two incompatible things? Is it true.
— What did Pushkin’s pages reveal to you? How did you understand the heroes? How are poetry, music, and a painter’s creations born? Who are these creators? Geniuses– an original, creative gift in a person; high natural gift.
— What has the tragedy of A.S. Pushkin taught us today? There is no need to envy, there is no need to be afraid of difficulties, you need to be brave and act like a human being.
It cannot be said that the plot is based on Pushkin’s fiction. But also real historical fact poisoning one composer by another is not either. This plot is based on gossip magazines. Knowing how this gossip is formed, it can be assumed that a certain magazine publication in Austria, wanting to gain popularity, wrote that Salieri poisoned Mozart. Other journalists picked up and inflated this “sensation” to incredible proportions. It is only known that the unfortunate Salieri throughout many years I couldn’t wash myself away from the label of envious and poisoner. The original source of this gossip is unknown. But it took root, and after Salieri’s death it was reported that Salieri had confessed to the murder on his deathbed.
Some writers accuse Pushkin of erecting a famous Italian composer slander. We will not blame our poet for this, who created such a remarkable tragedy in its psychologism. Moreover, this legend was not an invention on his part. It is not his fault that he relied on magazine rumors, thanks to which, it should be noted, from the pen of the great poet two wonderful literary heroes were born - the images of Salieri and Mozart.
In the tragedy "Mozart and Salieri" the main characters are opposed to each other. The conversation will be about the comparative characteristics of Mozart and Salieri - the prototypes of the great composers of the same name. In this review it will be a little difficult to separate literary heroes from them real prototypes, since Pushkin sought to recreate the images of living people.
One of them - Salieri personifies the genius of evil, who is strangled by envy. He realizes that he has to work hard to succeed. The Italian is overly self-critical of himself and others, tense. And this tension breaks through his music.
A contrast, a different attitude to life and to their creations, is revealed among the main characters in relation to the old violinist. Mozart laughs at his performance. He is happy that his music has reached the people. And he doesn’t care at all that the violinist plays poorly and is often out of tune.
Salieri only sees that the violinist is shamelessly distorting a brilliant work. And there is no doubt that if a violinist were to play an aria from any of Salieri’s operas, he would strangle the musician for such a performance. But Salieri’s music, written according to the canons of harmony and musical literacy, did not leave the theater stage, and street violinists did not perform it.
Mozart is 35 years old, full of strength, at the peak of his capabilities and talent. He enjoys life and treats everything with humor.
Salieri carried poison with him for 18 years. The monologue admits that at some point he also envied Hayden's lightness and musicality (Franz Joseph Haydn, (1732-1809) - Austrian composer, contemporary of the heroes of the tragedy). But then he managed to drown out the temptation with the dream that a Master might appear, stronger than Gaiden. There were moments when Salieri wanted to kill himself, which is also a sin before God. But he was stopped from taking this step by the hope of experiencing more moments of delight and inspiration. In Mozart, Salieri found his worst enemy. During lunch in a tavern, he poured poison into Mozart's glass.
The killer always finds an excuse for his crime. The justification for Salieri is an imaginary salvation.
I was chosen to
Stop it - otherwise we will all die,
We are all priests, ministers of music,
I’m not alone with my dull glory….
What good is it if Mozart lives?
And will it still reach new heights?
Will he elevate art? No;
It will fall again as he disappears:
The image of Mozart personifies genius. To say that this is a genius for good would be too simplistic. Mozart is a Divine Genius, to whom talent and ease in music are given from God. He is a very easy-going and cheerful person in life. He loves life and strives to enjoy it. And this trait of the young composer also irritates Salieri. He cannot understand how it is possible, having such talent, such abilities, to be wasted on trifles. “You, Mozart, are unworthy of yourself,” says Salieri.
But last days Mozart is overshadowed. It seems to him that he is being pursued by the “man in black” who ordered the Requiem. It is known that after starting work on the Requiem, the real (not literary) Mozart fell ill. The work was intense and took away his strength. Mozart felt that the Requiem was killing him. Obviously, the information, presented in a mystical sauce, was leaked to the press, and Pushkin knew about it. The black man in the tragedy is an image of death hovering over the brilliant composer.
Salieri did not live to be 75 years old. He is known as the greatest mentor who trained great composers. Among them are L. Beethoven, F. Liszt, F. Schubert. He wrote more than 40 operas and minor works. But Salieri's works are too serious for "average minds", in to a greater extent known to specialists. Mozart's operas are staged in theaters. His music is heard at concerts. People enjoy listening to Mozart in recordings, and sometimes, without thinking about the authorship, they set beautiful melodies from Mozart as ringtones on their phones.
WHAT PERSON WAS SALIERI?
Could the great Schubert write something like this about a bad, angry, envious person?
Professor Boris Kushner answers this question like this:
“What kind of person was Salieri? I think the answer to this question is already clear to some extent. A bad person will not be able to show the same feeling of gratitude that Salieri discovered in relation to his teachers Gassmann and Gluck. And of course bad person will not give free lessons and selflessly engage in the affairs of widows and orphans of musicians. This impression is complemented by the notes of Salieri himself, left by him to Ignaz von Mosel, and by the testimony of his contemporaries. Salieri writes about his life ingenuously and even, it seems, somewhat naively. The descriptions of his early awakening attraction to music and even passing details, such as his addiction to sweets, are touching. The pages of memoirs that talk about Salieri’s first love and his marriage evoke heartfelt sympathy” (209).
Unfortunately, the idea of Salieri as a gloomy, rational man, alien to the true joys of life and knowing nothing but music is quite widespread. But this is not true at all. Memoirs of contemporaries and later biographical works characterize Salieri as a very positive and friendly person. Here, for example, is what the famous tenor and composer Michael Kelly, Mozart’s friend and participant in the premiere of “The Marriage of Figaro”, writes in his “Memoirs”:
“One evening Salieri invited me to accompany him to the Prater. At that time he was composing his opera “Tarar” for the Grand Opera in Paris. We settled down on the banks of the Danube, behind a cabaret, where we drank soft drinks. He pulled from his pocket a sketch of an aria he had composed that morning and which had subsequently become popular. Ah! Povero Calpigi. While he sang this aria to me with great expressiveness and gesticulation, I looked at the river, and then suddenly I noticed a large wild boar crossing it, just near the place where we were sitting. I started to run, and the composer followed my example, leaving behind Povero Calpigi and, what is much worse, a flask of excellent Rhine wine. We then laughed a lot about what happened, finding ourselves out of danger. In fact, Salieri could joke about everything in the world, he was a very pleasant person, deeply respected in Vienna, and I consider it great happiness that he paid attention to me” (210).
Johann Friedrich Rochlitz, who knew Salieri well, gives us the following description of him: “Hospitable and amiable, friendly, cheerful, witty, inexhaustible in anecdotes and quotes, an elegant little man, with fiery sparkling eyes, tanned skin, always sweet and neat, lively temperament, easily flammable , but just as easily reconciled" (211).
Salieri's biographer Adolphe Julien writes:
“Kind, cheerful, highly spiritual, compassionate. Salieri knew how to establish sincere friendships with many artists and amateurs. He was small in stature and always dressed with some sophistication, he had dark skin, dark and fiery eyes, an expressive look and great mobility in gestures. No one knew so many different juicy stories, and no one knew how to tell them with such enthusiasm in such a strange jargon, where Italian, German and French languages were mixed in equal proportions. A big lover of sweets, he could not pass by a candy store without going in and filling his pockets with jelly beans and sweets. He quickly became angry, but easily calmed down, giving excellent examples of great kindness. Time had not weakened his gratitude for what Gassmann had done for him in his youth, and he took up the education of his daughters, still so young after the death of their mother, providing for all their needs and making one of them an outstanding singer: he was their protector, like Gassman was his own protector" (212).
“Possessing an amazing capacity for work, the maestro from Legnago wrote from 1770 to 1804 42 operas and no less number of oratorios, cantatas, duets, trios, choruses and instrumental pieces. In 1804 he abandoned dramatic successes to devote himself entirely to the imperial choir. The resignation he asked for in 1821 was given to him only in 1824. One can only recognize that it is fair that the emperor fully retained his salary after he left his posts... Salieri was smart and possessed a variety of knowledge. He was amiable and had a character made for society; he charmed all the companies he visited with his piquant way of telling jokes. His language, a mixture of Italian, French and German, amused his listeners. If he sometimes showed himself too clever in taking advantage of the friendships he established with people, then, on the other hand, there were facts in his life when he looked the most attractive. Let's not forget that Salieri, already at an advanced age, always remembered the kindness of Gassmann, which he showed to him at the very beginning of his career. He did more than just remember it: he paid his debt to the memory of his benefactor, who, dying, left two girls deprived of support. The composer took care of them and paid all the expenses for their education. From his marriage he had three daughters, who tenderly looked after him and surrounded him with attention when he became old" (213).
Boris Kushner gives the following story showing how well-developed Salieri's sense of humor was:
“The composer lived in a house that his wife and her brother inherited from their father. The wife's brother was in charge of the house affairs. One day, the composer began to be harassed by visits from a certain lady who rented an apartment in the house and wanted to change the terms of the contract. Salieri's explanations that he had nothing to do with all this did not help. Then, during the next conversation, he told the lady that he could help her only in one way: let her write her request, and he would put it to music. The lady retreated" (214).
And here, for example, are humorous and at the same time very touching poems written by Salieri himself:
Sono ormai sessanta e otto,
Sor Antonio, gli anni vostri,
E mi dite che vi bollica
Spesso amore ancora in petto.
Eppur tempo mi parrebbe,
Di dover finir, cospetto.
Che ne dice Ussignoria?
Risposta: La ragione, si podria (215) .
They can be translated into Russian something like this:
To you already, Signor Antonio,
Sixty eight. It happens...
But in your chest you say
Love still burns.
Eh, it's long overdue
Calm the violent temper!
What do you say to this?
Answer: It's hard to argue, your truth.
In L. V. Kirillina’s essay “The Stepson of History” we read:
“From the late portraits of Antonio Salieri, a face looks at us that is not at all marked with the mark of Cain. The face is handsome and respectable, moreover, not dignified and arrogant and not coldly aloof, but quite inviting, somewhat soft and sensitive. None of his traits reveal hidden depravity, hypocrisy, cunning or ruthlessness. Whatever may be said about the dubiousness of the conclusions of physiognomy, the appearance of a person, especially in old age, usually allows us to guess about his life experience and reveals some character traits, often not the most pleasant ones. IN in this case we can only talk about the absence of traces of any strong passions or fatal actions. This is the face of a man who has lived a prosperous life and is not tormented by any furies, but at the same time has not become ossified in well-fed complacency” (216).
To imagine what Salieri looked like, it is best to look at the famous actor Oleg Tabakov in the play “Amadeus,” which has been played on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater since 1983. A.P. Chekhov. Tabakov has been playing this role consistently since the premiere. Here he is - a good-natured man with rosy cheeks and mischievous dimples. It is clear that Tabakov played and plays the character created by Peter Scheffner, but anyone who saw him in this role could not help but notice how Oleg Pavlovich sometimes leaves the given image and looks slyly into the hall, which exploded with applause. A great artist not only plays the role of a great composer, he also looks like him...
In fact, Salieri was rather short than average in height. The main traits of his character are listed by everyone: lively, amiable, witty, imaginative, likable, modest, sentimental, etc.
According to the literary critic and writer L.P. Grossman, “Salieri is not a smug mediocrity, he is a remarkable thinker and theorist, an outstanding philosopher of the arts, a tireless seeker of perfect beauty” (217).
Undoubtedly, Salieri had great musical talent. Adolphe Julien compares him to the composer Antonio Sacchini (Sacchini), born in 1730 in Florence and wrote 45 operas during his life. He writes: “Salieri, during his life and after his death, had a fate very similar to the fate of Sacchini: while alive, he did not occupy a position corresponding to his genius, and after his death he did not retain a sufficiently high position in the capricious memory of his descendants. He was unlucky to arrive at a transitional age, and although his musical knowledge enabled him to rise above Sacchini in the interpretation of the strongest and noblest feelings, he was eclipsed by the radiance of Gluck's glory. Both of them created wonderful works for the French stage, worthy of being ranked among masterpieces, both of them could have occupied the first row at any other time, but fate prepared for them to be born at the very moment when a genius of the highest order held the entire music world under his rightful dominion, devouring all that imitated him and destroying all that challenged him" (218).
So, Antonio Salieri was a composer whose works deserve to be considered masterpieces. First of all, this applies to the operas “Danaides” (a masterpiece in every sense of the word) and “Tarare” (an opera worthy of occupying the highest place in world musical history).
Of course, saying this, it should be understood that the aesthetics of that time were very different from modern ones. It is now customary to assert that Mozart’s music is “a symbol of undisguised genius”, that it “has a unique effect on a person”, “heals the bodies and souls of people”... In this sense, Mozart was lucky: his music has passed through the centuries and continues to serve as a role model and in the 21st century. However, at one time Mozart stood on a par with many wonderful composers(Gluck, Haydn, Boccherini, Galuppi, Paisiello, Cimarosa, etc.), who shared the applause of the audience. Salieri is rightfully included in their number. But the latter was also an organized and surprisingly efficient person, who did not wait months for inspiration, like many of his colleagues, and understood what deadlines were, which, however, did not prevent him from maintaining his self-esteem always and everywhere. Music became an ideal for him, but at the same time, in everyday life he was a person without obvious flaws: loyal, caring, grateful, ready to help his friends...
And yet, was he engaged in intrigue?
L. V. Kirillina gives an excellent answer to this question:
“No more than it was and, unfortunately, remains common for professional musicians and the artistic environment in general. Being a favorite of Emperor Joseph II and having strong connections at court, he could, if he wanted, bring a lot of trouble to his colleagues. There have been examples of such behavior in history: for example, J.B. Lully, taking advantage of the patronage Louis XIV, ruthlessly dealt with all competitors and actually became the musical “monarch” of France. Far from it in the best possible way behaved in Vienna during the time of Maria Theresa, the conductor of St. Stephen's Cathedral, G. Reuther, who did not give way to young musicians and threw out the young J. Haydn into the street when his voice broke. Salieri did nothing of the kind, and his struggle for a place in the sun never took on the character of a war of destruction. What Mozart called Salieri’s “intrigues” in his letters were rather petty intrigues or simply misunderstandings caused by a coincidence of circumstances (besides, Mozart himself, with his caustic tongue and some arrogance in dealing with fellow composers, was not at all an example of angelic meekness) " (219) .
Write something valuable interesting essay staying within a certain topic is as difficult as digging a deep but narrow hole. The proposed essay topics were quite narrow for me: they constrained my thought, did not allow it to develop freely, and therefore I chose a free one. I would call it this way: “The Theme of Freedom in Pushkin’s Mozart and Salieri.”
The theme of freedom in Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri"
This topic is interesting to me because it raises questions to which the answers are ambiguous.
Our experts can check your essay according to the Unified State Exam criteria
Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
For Pushkin, a man who can be called extremely free, this topic is very important and is raised in many of his works.
“Mozart and Salieri” is a work in which two personalities, two worldviews, and, accordingly, two different attitudes to freedom collide. Let's consider what it means to be free for Salieri. It is no coincidence that this hero appears first in the work, and the first thing we hear is a conversation about himself:
To me it's as clear as a simple scale
I was born with a love of art
I listened and listened - tears
Involuntary and sweet flowed
overcame
I'm early adversity, craft
I placed it at the foot of art,
I became a craftsman
One could argue that this is typical for drama, where the hero must introduce himself, tell about himself. Mozart also often says "I". But in Salieri this personal pronoun sounds like a spell, rushing out of all the cracks, especially in the line:
I know I am!
It is also important that in the first lines of the play Salieri is not only concentrated on his own self, but also immediately contrasts it with “everyone,” the opinion of the crowd:
Everyone says: there is no truth on earth,
But for me
It is also important that Salieri’s personal opinion opposes not only human opinion, but also higher powers: “but there is no truth higher.”
It turns out that Salieri sets himself up as a judge over the whole world: both human and divine. In his remarks, he unconsciously emphasizes that his beliefs are not just an opinion, but knowledge that does not allow doubt. Examples include lines like:
But there is no higher truth
The first step is difficult
And the first way is boring
Salieri understands freedom as complete independence from everyone and everything. Moreover, as independence, not allowing for another point of view. Salieri has already decided everything, and judges everyone with confidence, even aiming at higher powers:
Where is the rightness
The question arises: what does he base his worldview on? Salieri himself talks about this in the play:
I placed it at the foot of art
Gave obedient, dry fluency
I tore apart the music like a corpse. Believed
I algebra harmony….
From these lines it is clear that Salieri, in relation to music, acts as an owner. Just as a master masters an instrument, Salieri wants to master the element of music. He figured out its structure and mastered the technique. He had the feeling that he completely mastered the element of music, he could take, transmit, develop music, like a thing made by a master. He believes that there is nothing in the element of music that is beyond his control. And in this Salieri sees and asserts his freedom.
It is interesting that, considering himself to have mastered music, Salieri strives to subjugate life itself, the destinies of people, and direct the development of art. Pushkin sees a connection here, transitions from one idea to another. Having placed himself above the world, above the elements of music, Salieri also places himself above human life. Having made the truth relative (there is no truth on earth...), he begins to actively assert his truth. Salieri's freedom denies freedom to Mozart.
In Mozart we can observe a completely different freedom. We meet Mozart in a wide variety of connections with the world, in relation to which he feels himself a part of it, although this does not prevent him from feeling lonely.
Mozart's speech is very different from Salieri's. One immediately gets the feeling that it is not Mozart who owns the music, but the music who owns him. It is no coincidence that Pushkin chooses the following expressions for Mozart:
The other night
Insomnia tormented me...
two or three thoughts came into my head
I wanted
I need to hear your opinion...
So, we hear continuous passive constructions in Mozart’s speech. And even:
My requiem worries me.
Music owns Mozart, and it decides his fate, because even the Requiem came for him...
We can say to this: where is the freedom here?
A. S. Pushkin contributed his favorite words and themes to Mozart:
There are few of us who are happy and idle,
Neglecting despised benefits,
One beautiful priest...
The word "idle" in a certain sense is a synonym for "free". “Idle” is empty, freed from something. What is Mozart free from, unlike Salieri? From everything that controls Salieri: from the narrowness of the lonely, limited I, from the power of reason, logic, “algebra” that controls Salieri. From the desire to be the best (“like you and me”). Mozart is connected with the whole world; it is no coincidence that the wife, the boy, and the blind old man were featured in the short play. Mozart constantly turns to Salieri's point of view, he is in dialogue with him and with the whole world. Such connections in themselves can keep a person from any “villainy.”
To summarize, I will say the following: freedom can be directed towards oneself and from oneself towards the world. The first one enslaves a person to himself, and does not make a person whole. And it easily turns into a crime. The second freedom is not so noticeable from the outside. Dialogue with the world, openness to another person, consciousness, point of view - fills a person vitality, love, causes a desire to do good.
Art is not created by one person. A person who is closed in on himself will never create a great work. It’s like “shavings wrapped around its own emptiness.” It is no coincidence that Salieri achieved fame, but nowhere in Pushkin is it said about the impact his art had on people. Mozart's music brings tears. It was created by a person free from himself and therefore this music itself can change a person, free him, captivate him. There is a hint of this at the end of the play, where Salieri, listening to the Requiem, does more than just cry. For the first time, under the influence of this music, he began to doubt himself, that he was right. For the first time he turns to himself with the question of his own rightness.
MOZART - central character tragedy by A.S. Pushkin “Mozart and Salieri” (1830). Pushkinsky M. is as far from the real Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) as the entire plot of the tragedy, based on the legend (now refuted) that Mozart was poisoned by Antonio Salieri, who had a burning envy towards him. There is a well-known comment by Pushkin regarding the intrigue of the tragedy: “An envious person who could boo Don Juan could poison its creator.” In this statement the key word is the hypothetical “could”, indicating fiction. A similar indication is contained in Pushkin’s “mistakes” regarding Mozart’s works mentioned in the tragedy (for example, after the words “a blind violinist played voi che sapete in a tavern,” the remark follows “the old man plays an aria from Don Giovanni”; in fact, this is a line from Cherubino’s aria from "The Marriage of Figaro")
Regardless of the origin of such errors (whether they are accidental or intentional), the effect they create disavows the documentary nature of what is being depicted. The image of M. is presented in the tragedy in two ways: directly in action and in the monologues of Salieri, who only thinks about him, left alone with himself, corroded by envy of the “idle reveler”, illuminated by the immortal genius “not as a reward” for his work and diligence. M., as he appears in action, is close verbal portrait, compiled by Salieri. He is both a reveler and a “madman”, a musician who creates spontaneously, without any mental effort. M. does not have even a shadow of pride regarding his genius, there is no feeling of his own chosenness, which overwhelms Salieri (“I am chosen...”). Salieri's pathetic words: “You, Mozart, are a god” - he counters with an ironic remark that “my deity is hungry.” M. is so generous to people that he is ready to see geniuses in almost everyone: in Salieri, and in Beaumarchais, and for company in himself. Even the absurd street violinist is a miracle in M.’s eyes: he feels wonderful about this game, Salieri is wonderful about M.’s inspiration for the despicable buffoon. M.'s generosity is akin to his innocence and childish gullibility. The childishness in Pushkin’s M. has nothing in common with the mannered childishness of the hero of P. Schaeffer’s play “Amadeus,” which was fashionable in the 80s, in which M. was portrayed as a capricious and quarrelsome child, annoying with rudeness and bad manners. In Pushkin, M. is childishly open and artless. A notable feature is that M. does not have aparte remarks, pronounced “to the side” and usually expressing “second thoughts.” M. does not have such thoughts in relation to Salieri, and he, of course, does not suspect that the “cup of friendship” offered by him is poisoned. In the image of M., Pushkin’s ideal of a “direct poet” was expressed, who “laments his soul at the magnificent games of Melpomene and smiles at the fun of the square and the freedom of the popular print scene.” It was the “straightforward poet” in the person of M. who was given the highest wisdom that “...genius and villainy are two incompatible things” - a truth that Salieri never understood.