For a revolution in art. Scanning The problem of capitalism and revolution in the political teaching, creativity and work of Richard Wagner

(The article was written in 1849 in Zurich, after fleeing Dresden and visiting Paris. Translation by I. Yu-sa, 1908)

Artists' complaints about the harm caused to art by the revolution have now become almost universal. Their complaints are not raised against street barricades, not against an instant and strong shock to the state system, and not against a quick change of government; the impression left by such powerful events in themselves is, in most cases, relatively superficial and soon passes; and only some of the consequences of these shocks are the reason why it responds so murderously to art classes. In fact, the revolution shakes the system of the previous, pre-existing labor acquisition and the basis for the accumulation of wealth, and even the previous physiognomy; after the revolution, many are gnawed by care and painful anxiety; indecision towards enterprises paralyzes credit; whoever wants to be sure of keeping what is theirs refuses fortune-telling proceeds; there is stagnation in industry, and... art has nothing to live on.

It would be cruel to deny human participation to the thousands stricken by this need. If, for example, recently some beloved artist was accustomed to receive a golden reward from a sufficient and wealthy part of our society for his works and had the same prospects for a sufficient, carefree life, now it is painful for him to see himself rejected from fearfully clasped hands and left to inaction instead labor acquisition. In this way, he fully shares the fate of the artisan, who is now forced to idly lay down his dexterous hands on a starving stomach, with which he could previously deliver a thousand pleasant conveniences to the rich. He, therefore, has the right to complain about his fate, for whoever feels grief, nature has provided him with the opportunity to cry. But whether he has the right to identify himself with art, to pass off his own disaster as the disaster of art, to accuse the revolution, which has blocked the flow of sufficient funds for him, of being the fundamental enemy of art - this can still be considered a question. Before resolving it, we must turn to those true artists who have proven that they practiced art and loved it for its own sake; it is known about them that they suffered even when art flourished. The question, therefore, relates to art itself and its essence, but we should not be interested in an abstract analysis of it here, because the point is to substantiate and clarify the meaning of art as a result of state life and recognize art as a social product. A quick review of the main moments of European art history should provide us with the desired service and help clarify the upcoming, no doubt, question.

With some reflection, we cannot take a single step in our art without stumbling upon its connection with the art of the Greeks. In reality our modern Art constitutes only one link in the chain of artistic development throughout Europe, and it originates from the Greeks.

The Greek genius, as it manifested itself during its flowering in state and art, after it had transcended the rude natural religion of its Asiatic homeland and placed at the pinnacle of its religious outlook the beautiful, strong and free man, found its corresponding expression in Apollo, the chief and national deity Hellenic tribes.

Apollo, who killed the chaotic dragon Python, who destroyed the vain sons of the boastful Niobe with his deadly arrows, who through the mouth of his priestess at Delphi revealed the primitive law of the Greek spirit and being and thus held a calm, clear mirror of the indigenous, invariably Greek nature - Apollo was the executor of the will of Zeus on earth, he was the embodiment of the Greek people.

We must imagine Apollo during the heyday of the Greek spirit not in the form of an effete “leader” of the muses, as one later, magnificent sculpture conveyed him to us, but with features of clear severity, beautiful and strong, as the great tragedian Aeschylus knew him. This is the concept that Spartan youth received about him when they developed their slender body in beauty and strength through dancing and wrestling; The young man also had such a concept about him when he first mounted a horse to go to unknown countries for brave adventures, or when he joined the ranks of his comrades, among whom he had no other aspirations, except for the desire for beauty and courtesy, which were all his strength, his wealth. This is how the Athenian saw him, when all the needs of his beautiful body, his tireless spirit, forced him to reproduce his own being in ideal works of art; when his voice, full and sonorous, rang out in choral singing to simultaneously glorify the deeds of the deity and give the dancers an inspired dance rhythm... When he covered the harmoniously installed columns with a nobly graceful roof, raised the vast semicircles of the amphitheater above each other and outlined deeply conceived routines scenes. This is how this beautiful deity saw him, and the tragic poet inspired by Dionysius, when he pointed out to all the fine arts, naturally growing out of the most beautiful era of human life, that bold connecting word, that sublime poetic goal that should unite them all, as if in one focus , and create the highest ideal work of art - drama.

The actions of gods and people, their sufferings and pleasures, captured strictly and clearly, as in the eternal rhythm and eternal harmony of all life at that time, in the sublime being of Apollo became real and true. Everything that lived in this work of art, everything that found complete expression in it - everything lived in the viewer, whose eye and ear, whose spirit and heart were alive and really understood everything, heard and saw everything in clear ideas. Such a day of tragedy was a celebration of the deity, since here it appeared clear and understandable: the poet was his main priest, who really lived in his work of art, led round dances, sang to the choir and announced the sayings of divine knowledge in sonorous stanzas. Such was the Greek work of art, such was Apollo, becoming true, living art - such was the Greek people in its highest truth and beauty.

This people, manifesting itself in everything, in every person, with a wealth of individuality and originality, is tirelessly active, barely achieving one goal and immediately taking on another, being in constant friction with each other in daily changing alliances, in daily changing either unsuccessful or successful battles , pursued today by extreme danger, and tomorrow threateningly pressing on the enemy, always being in a stage of unstoppable, freest development - these people flocked from the national assembly, from the court, from the fields, from ships, from a military camp, from the most remote areas in numbers of about thirty thousand to the amphitheater to see the performance of "Prometheus", this most profound of all tragedies, to gather before the most powerful work of art, to understand one's own activities and to merge with one's being, one's community, one's god and thus be among the noblest, deepest silence again the same person he was a few hours ago amid restless activity.

Jealously guarding his personal independence, pursuing in all directions the “tyrant” who, no matter how wise and noble, could still encroach on his bold, free will; despising that trust, which, under the flattering shadow of someone else's care, grows into inert, selfish calm; always on guard, tirelessly reflecting external influences and not subordinating any ancient traditions to its free real life, activity and thought, - the Greek fell silent before the call of the choir, willingly and voluntarily submitted to the deeply thought-out agreement of stage routines and that Great Necessity, the meaningful speech of which the tragedian conveyed to him through the lips of his gods and heroes on the stage. In tragedy, the Greek again found himself, but in an even more ennobled form in connection with his national being; he spoke to himself, to his deep nature, which became clear to him, - he spoke in drama, in the Pythian oracle, being at the same time a god and a priest... He was a divine man, for in him there was a comprehensiveness that, like an earthly color, grows from the earth, rises smoothly to the sky to produce a luxurious flower, the delicate fragrance of which is to be offered as a gift to eternity. This flower was a work of art, and its aroma was Greek inspiration, which even now brings us into rapture and extorts from us the confession that it would be better to be a Greek for half a day before tragic work art than in eternal times by a non-Greek god!

The degeneration of the tragedy coincides exactly with the time of the fall of the Athenian state. When the great public spirit collapsed into a thousand selfish directions, then the great artistic tragedy into individual, constituent artistic parts; on the ruins of the tragedy the comedian Aristophanes cried with a furious laugh, and that’s all artistic creativity finally paused before the strict thoughtfulness of philosophy, which inquisitively sought the reason for the short duration of earthly beauty and strength. It is not art, but philosophy that belongs to these two millennia that have passed from the time of the fall of Greek tragedy to the present day. And although art from time to time pierced with its brilliant rays the darkness of unsatisfied thought and the painstaking madness of humanity, it was only exclamations of grief and joy of individuals who, escaping in this common desert, like happy strangers from an immense distance, reached a lonely murmuring spring and in They quenched their thirst with him, not daring, however, to offer his refreshing drink to the world. Therefore, art began to serve one direction, one creative thought, which at one time or another oppressed suffering humanity, fettering its freedom. And never since then has art been an expression of free social thought, since in art there is the highest independence. And this highest independence cannot exist in view of a goal imposed on it from the outside.

The Romans, whose national art early gave way to the influence of the developed Greek arts, used the services of Greek architects, sculptors and painters; their great minds were trained in Greek rhetoric and poetry; but their great stage was not opened either to the gods and heroes of myth, or to free dances, or to the songs of the sacred choir... Only wild animals, lions, panthers, elephants, had to devour each other in order to flatter the Roman gaze, and gladiators, educated and developed in strength and dexterity, they were supposed to seduce the Roman ear with their dying groans.

These rude conquerors of the world felt good only in their positive realism; the demands of their imagination were satisfied only in the material implementation of the idea. The philosopher who fearfully avoided public life, they calmly left it to abstract thinking; but they themselves, even in public life, loved to expose themselves to the most concrete passion - the passion of murder, in order to be able to see the torment of a person in absolute physical reality.

The Roman gladiators and fighters were the sons of all European nations, and their noble kings were all slaves of the Roman emperor, who thereby clearly proved to them that all people are equal, as, in turn, the Roman emperor was often clearly demonstrated by his faithful praetorians that he is also nothing but a slave.

This mutual, comprehensively and irrefutably proven slavery required, as a universal property in the world, a corresponding striking expression. Open humiliation and shame of all; consciousness of the complete loss of human dignity; finally, “the inevitably emerging disgust for the only material pleasures left to them, the deep contempt for all their own activity, from which, along with freedom, both inspiration and creativity had long since disappeared - this miserable existence without true full activity could not find expression in art. Art is joy about oneself, about life and about universal thought. The property of these times - at the end of the period of Roman rule - on the contrary, was contempt for oneself, disgust for life, disgust and horror for everything. Therefore, it was not art that became the expression of this era, but Christianity.

Christianity justifies the shameful, unnecessary and miserable existence of man on earth by the wondrous love of God, who did not at all create man for a joyful and conscious existence, as the wonderful Greeks mistakenly thought, but imprisoned him here in a disgusting punishment cell in order to prepare him as a reward for the instilled contempt for himself. after death there is endless, most comfortable and inactive bliss. Man not only could, but also had to remain in a state of deep and inhuman darkness, did not dare to show any vital activity, since this earthly damned life was the world of the evil one, the world of passions; miserable activity in this world is to please the evil one, and for it anyone who would take advantage of his life and its joyful powers would have to undergo the eternal torment of hell. Then nothing was required from a person except “faith,” that is, recognition of his meagerness, and the cessation of all self-activity to liberate himself from this meagerness, from which the undeserved “mercy of God” was supposed to save him.

The historian does not know for sure whether this was what the son of the Galilean carpenter wanted, who, seeing the plight of his fellows, said that he came into this world in order to bring “not peace, but a sword”; who, in indignation filled with love, smashed the hypocritical Pharisees, who cowardly flattered the Roman authorities in order to crush and enslave the common people even more heartlessly; who, finally, preached universal love, which could not be expected from people who had reason to despise themselves. The researcher stops before the unparalleled zeal of the miraculously converted Pharisee Paul, who, in converting the pagans, followed the instructions: “Be wise as serpents,” etc.; he can judge the easily recognizable historical soil, thanks to which such a deep and general decline of civilized humanity took place and which fertilized the embryo of the finally completed Christian dogma. But a sincere artist will immediately understand that Christianity was not creativity and could not reproduce real living creativity.

The free Greek, who placed himself first in nature, could create art out of man's love for himself; a Christian, having equally neglected nature and himself, could offer sacrifices to his God only on the altar of humility; he could not offer Him the gift of his labors, activities, exploits, but imagined to gain His favor by abstaining from any independent and bold creativity. Creativity is the highest activity of a highly developed person of the concrete world, who is in harmony with nature and himself; things of the real world should give a person the highest joy, and he must create a creative instrument from it, since the will to create can only be drawn from the real world. A Christian, if he wanted to create a work of art corresponding to his faith, should, on the contrary, draw this will from the essence of the abstract spirit, God's mercy, and find this instrument in it; but what image could he choose in this case? Isn’t it physical beauty, which was for him “the image of Satan”? And how could the spirit ever produce anything accessible to our senses?

Any reflection here is fruitless: historical phenomena here most clearly express to us the consequences of both opposite directions. The Greeks gathered for the edification of a few, full contents, a clock in the amphitheater, the Christian imprisoned himself in a monastery for the rest of his life; there the people's assembly judged, here the Inquisition; there the state elevated itself to honest, open democracy, here to hypocritical absolutism.

Hypocrisy, in general, is the most outstanding feature and true physiognomy of all Christian centuries down to the present day; and this vice appears more and more clearly and noticeably as humanity, despite Christianity, was refreshed from its inner inexhaustible source and matured to the fulfillment of its true task. Nature is so strong, so capable of creating a lot again, that no imaginary power is able to stop its productive force. In the senile veins of the Roman world flowed the healthy blood of the Germanic nations; Despite the adoption of Christianity, the new rulers of the world had a strong desire for activity, a passion for bold enterprises and unbridled arrogance. Just like we are throughout average history We encounter the continuous struggle of civil power against the despotism of the Roman Church, and the artistic life of this era could be expressed in a direction diametrically opposed to the spirit of Christianity. As an expression of a harmoniously tuned unity - which was the art of the Greek world - the art of the Christian-European world could not exist precisely because it was irreconcilably divided between conscience and vitality, between the phantom and reality. The chivalric poetry of the Middle Ages, which, like the institution of chivalry itself, was supposed to smooth out this split, could in its most successful inventions present only the lie of this reconciliation; The bolder and higher she rose, the more sensitive became the gap between real life and imaginary existence, between the rude, passion-driven behavior of those knights in real life and their over-effeminate appearance in works of art. That is why real life turned the original noble, not devoid of charm, folk custom into something disgustingly dirty and vicious; such a life could no longer on its own, striving for its own satisfaction, nourish artistic aspirations, but was forced in every activity to seek support for Christianity, which fundamentally condemned and condemned all worldly joy. Knightly poetry was honest fanatical hypocrisy, extravagance and an evil joke of heroism: it gave a decent generally accepted system - instead of nature.

And only when the religious flame of the church burned out and when the church openly began to manifest itself as tangible civil despotism, and even in connection with no less sensitive political absolutism, was the so-called “revival of the arts” destined to take place. They finally wanted to see the real world, as until now they had only seen a church decorated with gold. However, for this, first of all, it was necessary to give natural feelings their right and open their eyes. And the fact that during the Renaissance they began to imagine objects of religion as enlightened creations of fantasy, in their concrete beauty that awakened artistic pleasures, testified only to the denial of Christianity itself; and the very necessity of drawing religious inspiration from these new works of art was offensive to Christianity. Nevertheless, the church appropriated this newfound artistic direction, did not disdain pagan decorations and, without hesitation, presented herself in hypocritical lighting.

But the secular nobility also received their share in the revival of the arts. After a long struggle with the masses of the people, the princes, with their secure wealth, arose a desire for a more subtle use of this wealth; for this purpose they attracted to themselves as paid servants the arts adopted from the Greeks; “free” art began to serve noble gentlemen, and it is difficult to say who was the greater hypocrite - Louis XIV, when he forced skilful poems about Greek hatred of tyrants to be recited in the court theater, or Corneille and Racine, when, in return for the special favor of their masters, they invested in the lips of their theatrical heroes, the desire for independence and the political virtue of the ancient Greeks and Romans. But could there be true creativity where it did not blossom out of life as an expression of free, conscious and universal thought, but was taken into service by the forces of those gentlemen who so zealously hindered the free development of the social idea? Probably, not. And yet we will see that art, instead of freeing itself from the authoritarian rule of the church and witty kings, sold itself to another, much more unsightly mistress - industry.

The Greek Zeus Almighty sent to the gods, when they were rushing around the world, a messenger from Olympus, the handsome young Hermes; he was the active thought of Zeus: inspired, he descended from the heights to the earth to resemble the omnipresence of the supreme god; he was present even at the death of a person, he accompanied the shadow of the deceased into the quiet kingdom of the night; Thus, wherever the great necessity of the natural order clearly manifested itself, Hermes clearly acted as the fulfilled thought of Zeus.

The Romans had their own god Mercury, whom they likened to the Greek Hermes. His winged activity did not have such a meaning: it was a symbol of the activity of those trading, profit-gathering merchants who flocked to the center of the Roman kingdom from all over the world to provide these magnificent gentlemen of “this world” with all kinds of sensual pleasures for the appropriate price, of course. For the Roman, trade had the meaning of deception, and although the flea market seemed to him an inevitable evil with his continuously increasing desire for pleasure, he deeply despised its vanity; Therefore, Mercury became for him the god of deceivers and swindlers. But this god, despised by the proud Romans, took revenge on them and became ruler of the world in their place. Cover his head with the radiance of Christian hypocrisy, decorate his chest with the soulless sign of feudal orders of chivalry, which have already ceased to exist, and you will find God in him modern world, the saint - the high-born god of the five percent, the ruler and organizer of our modern creative festivals. You will see him embodied before you in flesh and blood, in the form of a feignedly pious English banker, whose daughter married a ruined knight - Commander of the Order of the Garter, when first-class singers of Italian opera sing before him, even more likely in his own salon than in the theater (only not on Sunday): it is more honorable for him to pay them more at home than to go to the theater himself. That's who Mercury is, and his servant is modern art.

Such is the art that now fills the entire civilized world! Essentially it is industry, its moral goal is profit, its aesthetic intention is the entertainment of the bored. It sucks its vital juices from the heart of our modern society, from the center of its circular movement - from money circulation; it borrows from the lifeless remnants of medieval knightly decency a piece of heartless charm and sometimes descends from its usual circle into the lower strata of the proletariat, where, not despising the contribution of the poor (after all, one must live like a Christian), it weakens and destroys everything humane wherever it spills their poisonous juices.

It chose the theater as its favorite place to stay, just like Greek art during its heyday; and it has the right to do so, because it represents a symbol of modern social life.

Our modern stage expresses the prevailing spirit of our social life, depicts it daily as widely as any other art, since it organizes its festivals every day in all the cities of Europe. It would seem that it, as a widespread dramatic art, should reflect the highest successes of our culture; but in fact these are only flowers of rotting empty, soulless, unnatural order of human affairs and relationships.

We don’t even need to characterize these circumstances more closely here: we just need to honestly consider the content and public activities of ours, especially theatrical arts to find out that the dominant spirit of the public is in it as in a mirror image: after all, art has always been like that.

So, we do not find in our public stage art real drama, this indivisible greatest work of the human spirit; our theater offers only a convenient shelter for the tempting production of isolated, superficially related, artificial works, but not works of art. The extent to which our theater is unable to closely unite all branches of art with the goal of their best, complete expression is evidenced by its division into two parts: drama and opera. Thanks to this division, drama is deprived of the idealizing expression of music, and opera has lost its content and purpose of real drama. For the same reason the drama could not rise to the ideal poetic power and, not to mention the decline of the public only because of the poverty of the means of expression, it had to fall from its former height, from the warming elements of passion into cold intrigue; the opera became some kind of chaos of sensual elements without restraint and boundaries, from which everyone could choose what most suited his lusts: now the graceful leap of a dancer, now the crazy passage of a singer, now the brilliant effect of set painting, now the baffling eruption of an orchestral volcano . Don’t we hear nowadays that such and such an opera is a “creative work” because it contains “many beautiful arias and duets”, and that the orchestral instrumentation is “more than excellent”, etc.? The goal that alone justifies the use of these various means, the great dramatic goal, does not even occur to anyone else.

Such reasoning is stupid, but honest: it simply proves what is important to the viewer. There are also a fair number of beloved artists who do not deny that they have no higher ambition than to please these limited viewers. They reason correctly: when a prince, after a tense dinner, or a banker after a difficult speculation, or a worker after his tiring work, goes to the theater, then they want to relax, unwind, have fun, they do not want to strain their attention, or worry. This reason is so convincingly true that we can only object to the fact that it would be much more correct to use everything possible to satisfy this need, but not the material and purpose of art. To this they will tell us that if they did not use art even in this way, then it would cease to exist and would then not find a place in public life, that is, that the artist would have nothing to live with.

And although from this point of view everything is deplorable and pitiful, it is open, truthful and honest: this is a civilized decline and modern Christian stupidity!

What can we say about the hypocritical intentions of our contemporary representative of art, whose glory is now in turn when he feigns true artistic inspiration, captures ideas, takes advantage of subtle circumstances, does not forget dramatic shocks, sets heaven and hell in motion - in a word, how true artist of the moment he is experiencing, does everything he shouldn’t do, just to find a market for his product?

What shall we say about that representative of our art who, in contrast to the first, abandons the intention of merely entertaining, but, at the risk of even seeming boring, wants to be known as thoughtful, bears the costs of staging his works (this, of course, only a born rich man can do) and brings , therefore, the most significant sacrifices from a modern point of view? Why such a waste? Ah, there is something else besides money: precisely what you can now get for yourself, among other pleasures, for money: fame! But what kind of glory can be won in our public art, if not glory among those whose taste such “art” is designed for, whose paltry demands force the vain artist to submit? And he will deceive himself and the public, giving them his motley work, and the public will deceive themselves and him when they give him their approval; this mutual lie is not inferior to the great lie of modern glory, since we, in general, know how to decorate our selfish passions in beautiful words: “patriotism”, “honour”, “sense of legitimacy”, etc.

But why do we consider it necessary to mutually and openly deceive each other, if not because lies really exist in the bad conscience of prevailing circumstances? And just as it is true that beauty and truth really exist, it is also true that true art really exists. The greatest and noblest minds, minds before which one would joyfully bow down like brothers, Aeschylus and Sophocles, have raised their voices for centuries in this desert; we heard them, and their voice still sounds in our ears; but we have erased from our vain, empty heart the echo of their voice; we laugh at their creativity, but tremble before their glory; we recognized them as artists, but we put a ban on their art, since they alone could not create a completely sincere single creative work, but we had to continue its development. The tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles was, after all, only the work of Athens.

What is the use now of the fame of these great men? What benefit did Shakespeare bring us, who, as the second Creator, discovered the infinite wealth of true human nature? What was the “use” of Beethoven’s giving music a manly, independent poetic power? Ask the miserable caricatures of our theater, ask the public representatives of our farcical opera music and you will get an answer! But is it still necessary to ask? Oh no! You know this very well; You don’t want it to be different, you’re just pretending you don’t know it!

What is your “art” now, your “drama”?

The February Revolution in Paris drove the public out of the theaters, and many of them were about to cease to exist. After the June days, Cavaignac came to their aid, authorized to maintain the existing social order and demanding funds for the existence of theaters. He did this because with the cessation of theaters the proletariat would increase in number. This is the only interest the state has in theaters! It sees in the theater, firstly, an industrial institution, secondly, entertainment that reduces the activity of the mind, and a means that can sometimes successfully avert a threatening danger, since it dulls excited minds that, in extreme dissatisfaction, choose for themselves those paths which the humiliated human personality must follow in order to revive himself... at least at the cost of the existence of our theatrical - and very useful - institutions.

Well, now it is sincerely expressed, but with the frankness of these words one can hear the complaints of modern representatives of art and their hatred of the revolution. But what does art itself have to do with these worries and complaints?

Let us now compare the social art of modern Europe in its main features with the art of the Greeks in order to clearly clarify their characteristic differences.

The public art of the Greeks, which reached its culmination in the tragedy, was an expression of the deep and noblest essence of the people's self-consciousness; but the essence of our self-consciousness is nothing more than the exact opposite and negation of our public art. For the Greek, the performance of tragedy was a religious holiday; the gods acted on its stage and gave people their wisdom; our bad conscience degrades the theater so much in public opinion that even the police need to intervene to prohibit the theater from touching religious objects, which equally characterizes both our religion and our art. In the vast premises of the Greek amphitheater, the entire people were present during the performance; in our noble theaters only the wealthy part of it wanders idly. The Greek drew his inspiration from the data of higher social development; we are from the data of our social barbarism. The upbringing of a Greek made him, from a very early age, the object of artistic attention and artistic pleasure, and our stupid, mostly designed for future industrial earnings education gives us stupid and arrogant satisfaction from our artistic ignorance and forces us to look for objects of the desired artistic pleasure only outside of us, approximately with with the same calculation with which a libertine seeks fleeting love pleasure from a prostitute. The Greek was thus himself an actor, singer and dancer; his participation in the presentation of the tragedy was for him the greatest pleasure - a work of art, and quite thoroughly he considered himself worthy of the right to this pleasure due to his beauty and education; we are only training a certain part of our social “proletariat”, which is found in every class, for our entertainment; dirty vanity, the desire to please and, under certain conditions, the chance of quick and abundant profit distinguish the ranks of our theatrical personnel. Where the Greek artist, in addition to his own enjoyment of the work, was rewarded with success and the approval of society, there contemporary artist is maintained and receives payment. So, we come to point out precisely and sharply this essential difference, namely: Greek art was precisely Art, and our art is only an artistic craft.

The true Artist already enjoys his creativity, the very processing and formation of the material; his creative productivity in itself constitutes for him a satisfying activity, and not “work.” For a craftsman, only the “goal” of his work is important, the “benefit” that his work will bring him; the activity that he applies to them does not please him, but constitutes only a burden and an inevitable necessity that he would most willingly impose on the machine: work interests him only forcibly; therefore, he is not “present” with her spiritually, but is constantly outside of her, at the goal that he would like to achieve as quickly as possible. And although a craftsman’s direct goal of his activity is to satisfy some material need, for example, the arrangement of his home, household items, clothing, but gradually, as he accumulates useful items, he begins to feel an inclination to process the material in a way that corresponds to his personal taste; therefore, after producing the most necessary things, his creativity, directed towards less necessary objects, naturally rises to the artistic; if he parted with the products of his labors, instead of which he will be left with only their abstract monetary equivalent, then he will not be able to raise his activity above the activity of the machine, and it will become difficult and sad work for him. And this work is the property of slaves of industry; our modern factories give us gloomy picture the deepest humiliation of man: constant work that kills the soul and body, work without desire and love for him, and often even without a goal. Even here one cannot fail to recognize the regrettable influence of Christianity. Christianity set the goal of man outside the boundaries of his earthly existence, and this goal was an abstract “God” located outside of man; therefore, life could become an object of human concern only to the extent that its inevitable needs forced it; entering life, a person felt obliged to preserve it until “God” was pleased to free him from this burden; therefore, his needs did not arouse in him a desire for artistic processing of the material consumed to satisfy them; only the abstract goal of the meager “preservation of life” justified sensory activity. Thus, with horror, we see the “spirit of Christianity” embodied in any modern paper mill: for the benefit of the rich, the god of industry is invented, who preserves the life of the poor worker - the “Christian” - until such time as the trading position of the heavenly stars mercifully finds it possible to release him to “ a better world."

The Greek did not know crafts in the proper sense. Caring for the so-called “everyday” needs, which, frankly speaking, constitutes the main task of our private and public life, never seemed so important to the Greek as to become the subject of special and prolonged attention for him. His mind lived only in society, in political unity; The need of this public was the only thing for him to care about, and it could be satisfied by patriotic, state, artistic activities, but not by crafts. The Greek emerged into the fold of the public from his unsightly, simple household; It would seem shameful and humiliating for him to indulge in refined luxury and voluptuousness behind the luxurious walls of private palaces, which now constitutes the only content of the life of some hero of the stock exchange; This is precisely what distinguished the Greek from the selfish eastern barbarian. He groomed his body in public baths and gymnasiums; his simple, noble clothing was in most cases the subject of artistic concern for women, and if anywhere he came across the need to engage in crafts, then thanks to his innate properties he soon found the artistic side in them and elevated them into art. He refused to do rough housework, leaving it to slaves. It was this slave who became the fatal turning point of world destinies. The slave, for whom the right of his servile existence was recognized, discovered the insignificance and short-term nature of all the beauty and strength of the Greeks as a special class of humanity, and clearly proved once and for all that beauty and strength as the main features of social life can only have a fruitful duration when they are characteristic to all people.

Unfortunately, the matter was limited to only this evidence. In reality, the revolution of mankind continues to swirl for centuries in the spirit of reaction: reaction drew a beautiful free man into its whirlpool and made him a slave; Thus, it was not the slave who was freed, but the free one who became a slave.

The Greek recognized freedom only in the beautiful strong man, and only he was such a person; whoever was outside his society, outside the sphere of the priest of Apollo, was a barbarian for him, and if he used his services, then a slave. It is absolutely true that it was not the Greek who was truly a barbarian and a slave; but he was still a man, and his barbarity and slavery were not his innate attributes, but they were his destiny, they were historical violence against human nature, just as now this sin weighs down on society and the entire civilization - and from it healthy childbirth in a healthy climate they became crippled and fell into poverty. But this historical violence was soon to turn back and fall upon the free Greek; in fact, if the voice of humanity did not exist then, then the barbarian had only to subjugate the Greek, and along with his freedom his strength and beauty should also have fallen; and two hundred million people randomly united in the Roman state were soon to understand with deep contrition that if not all people can be equally free and happy, then all must be equally miserable slaves.

So, we have remained slaves to this day, but only with the comforting knowledge that we are all, without exception, slaves; slaves who were once advised by the Christian apostles and Emperor Constantine to patiently give up their unhappy present for a better future after death; slaves who are now taught by bankers and factory owners to find the purpose of existence in manual labor for their daily food. At one time, only Emperor Constantine felt free from this slavery, as he controlled the despotically useless lives of his “believing” subjects; Only those who are rich now feel free (at least in the sense of social slavery), because, free from the need to earn a living, he freely develops his strength. And just as in the days of Roman rule and in the Middle Ages the desire for liberation from universal slavery consisted in the desire for absolute domination, so now it exists in the form of greed for money; and we should not be surprised if even art goes for money, because everything strives for its independence, for its God; our god is money, our religion is profit.

Art itself will forever remain what it is; but we must only say that it is not at all present in modern society; it lives, as it has always lived, only in the consciousness of the individual, as one indivisible beautiful art.

Therefore, the only difference is that among the Greeks it existed in the public consciousness, while with us it exists only in the individual consciousness with complete indifference to it on the part of society. Consequently, art in its heyday was conservative among the Greeks because it was a true and appropriate expression of social consciousness; with us, true art must be revolutionary, since it exists only in contradiction with general position business

Among the Greeks, a complete dramatic work of art was the totality of everything represented from the Greek world; being in close connection with history, it was the expression of the entire nation, which appeared in drama and comprehended itself with the noblest pleasure. Every division of this pleasure, every fragmentation of forces gathered at one point, every disintegration of elements in different directions - everything was supposed to reduce the price of this divine work of art, and, like a national state created on national principles, Greek art was supposed to flourish, but not change.

Therefore art was conservative, just as they were conservative at that time noblest people the Greek state, and the representative of this conservatism was Aeschylus; his best conservative work is "Orestheia". In this work, he contrasted himself as a poet with the young Sophocles and treated him as an old statesman would have treated the revolutionary-minded Pericles. The victories of Sophocles and Pericles were in the spirit of the progressive development of mankind; the defeat of Aeschylus was the first step back from the heights of Greek tragedy, it was the first moment of the collapse of the Athenian state.

During the subsequent decline of tragedy, art more and more ceased to be an expression of social consciousness: drama was divided into its component parts: rhetoric, plastic arts, painting, music, etc. left the round dances in which they had previously acted together to now go on separate paths and develop independently, selfishly and alone.

And the revival of the arts was greatly facilitated by the fact that for the first time we encountered isolated manifestations of Greek art after the collapse of the tragedy; the great universal work of Greek art should not have been encountered in its entirety by our wild and fragmented mind: we still would not have been able to understand it. But we managed to assimilate these individual types of art. These - since the time of the Greco-Roman world - noble crafts have stood close to our understanding. The craft spirit has awakened vividly in our cities among the new burghers; princes and nobles wanted to build castles more gracefully and decorate their halls with better paintings than what the crude art of the Middle Ages could provide them with. The clergy mastered rhetoric for pulpits, music for church choirs; and the individual arts of the Greeks were drawn into the new craft world, as far as they were clear to them and seemed useful.

Each of these separate arts, abundantly nurtured and nourished for the enjoyment and amusement of the rich, generously flooded the world with its products; great minds created a lot of beauty in them, but true art was not revived either after the Renaissance or with it, because the finished work of art, the great, the only expression of a free society is drama, tragedy, although great tragedians created here and there, as yet has not been reborn and must only be reborn again.

Only the great revolution of mankind, the beginning of which was once destroyed by a Greek tragedy, can give us this work of art, because only a revolution can again, better and more nobly reproduce from its depths what it absorbed and tore out from the conservative spirit of the former, beautiful, but limited in its development period.

Only revolution, and not restoration, can return this sublime work to us. The task that faces us is infinitely greater than the one that has already been solved. If Greek art embraced the spirit of a beautiful nation, then the art of the future must go beyond national boundaries in order to embrace the spiritual life of free humanity; the national can serve him only as an ornament, a feature of individual diversity, but not as an inhibiting condition. We have, therefore, a different task than restoring only the Greek; There has already been an attempt to restore pseudo-Greek art, but what haven’t commissioned artists of our time undertaken?

But nothing could ever come of this except a meaningless comedy: these were manifestations of the same hypocritical tendency that we meet throughout our entire history of civilization and which consists in a studious evasion of everything that is natural. No, we do not want to become Greeks again, since we know what the Greeks did not know and why they died. The fall of Greece, which we still managed to understand in a state of deep grief, shows us our tasks; it tells us that we must love all people in order to love ourselves again, and thus be able to find satisfaction in ourselves again.

Yes, we will rise from the shameful slave yoke of craftsmanship with its insignificant monetary soul to free artistic humanity, whose soul will be bright; we will throw off the yoke of the burdened day laborers of industry and become wonderful, strong people to whom the world belongs as an ever-inexhaustible source of the highest artistic pleasure. To achieve this goal, we need the all-powerful power of a universal revolution, since only it, which first contributed to the disintegration of the Greek tragedy and the Athenian state, will show us the path to the final goal.

But where can we get this strength if we are in a state of complete powerlessness? Where to get human strength against the oppressive pressure of such a civilization that completely neglects man? Against an arrogant culture that uses the human mind as the steam power of a machine? Where can we get light to illuminate the prevailing cruel superstition that this civilization, this culture is of greater importance than man himself, and that man has meaning and value in it only as an instrument of commanding abstract forces, and not in himself? Where the learned physician is unable to indicate remedies, we finally turn in despair to the forces of nature. Nature, and only she alone, can unravel the threads of the world's destinies. Since the advent of Christianity, which devalued human life, culture has neglected man and thereby created an enemy for itself, who will inevitably destroy it in the end, since there is no place for man in it; this enemy is the only and eternally living nature. Human nature will dictate to its two sisters - culture and civilization - the law: “As far as I allow, you can live and prosper; As far as my absence extends in you, so much will you die and dry up!”

In the misanthropic progress of culture, we, in any case, see the happy consequence that someday its severity and limitation will increase so much that it will cause in a depressed human being the right strength elasticity in order to throw away all burdens and constraints with one stroke; In this way only nature would make its enormous power known to all culture.

But how can this protesting force be expressed in the present state of affairs? Is it not expressed primarily as a protest of the artisan in the moral consciousness of his ability to work and the vicious inaction or immoral activities of the rich? Does not this power, in revenge on its oppressors, wish to raise the principle of work into the only legitimate religion of society, according to which the rich would work together with everyone? But they express the fear that the recognition of this principle can only elevate and strengthen the dominant and disgraceful power of handicraft, and that then the arts will forever lose the opportunity to exist. Indeed, this is the fear of many true friends of art and even of many humanists who sincerely reflect on the protection of the noblest lot of our civilization. But they misjudge the real essence of the great liberation movement: they are misled by the paraded theories of our doctrinaire socialists, who want to make impossible commitments with the modern composition of our society; they are deceived by the immediate expression of the indignation of the suffering part of our society, which actually flows from a deep, noble natural desire for a worthy use of life; when a person will not have to earn material support at the cost of all his strength and various arts; and just as the knowledge of all men will ultimately find its expression in one active knowledge of free harmonious humanity, so all these richly developed arts will find a universally intelligible form in the magnificent human Drama. Tragedies will be holidays for humanity: in them, free from all custom and etiquette, the free, strong and beautiful person and the joy and sorrow of his love, and worthily, majestically he will complete the great sacrifice of love with his death.

Art will again be conservative; but in the truth and constancy of its highest flourishing it will preserve itself and will not cry out for its preservation for some purpose outside itself, for this art will not seek money!

“Utopias! Utopias!” - I hear the great sages and sweeteners of our modern state and artistic barbarism, the so-called “practical people”, who “in practice” know how to help themselves daily only with lies and violence, or, when they are honest, in the end, will cry out. , ignorance.

“A beautiful ideal, which, like any ideal, should only be imagined by us, but can never be achieved by a person doomed to imperfection,” - this is how the good-natured dreamer, a supporter of the heavenly kingdom, grieves, in which, at least for him personally, God will correct this incomprehensible error in the creation of the world and man.

In fact, they live, suffer, lie and blaspheme, being in the most unattractive position, in the dirty sediment of a truly fictitious and therefore unfulfilled utopia, they work and try to overdo each other in the art of hypocrisy in order to preserve the lies of this utopia, in which they, crippled by vile passions, sink in a very pitiful manner lower and lower onto the smooth and bare soil of sober truth. Therefore, they shout about the only possible salvation for them from their enchanted circle as a chimera, about a utopia, just as patients in a madhouse consider their crazy thoughts to be the truth and the truth to be madness.

If history generally knows a real utopia, some unattainable ideal, then it is Christianity, because it has clearly shown and is still showing every day that its principles are unrealizable. And how can his ideals be realized and brought into life when they were directed against life, denied life and cursed it? The content of Christianity is purely spiritual, superspiritual: it preaches obedience, humility, disdain for everything earthly, and in this disdain - brotherly love; What kind of fulfillment of those covenants is visible in the modern world, which nevertheless calls itself “Christian” and firmly relies on religion as an inviolable basis? Where then comes the pride of hypocrisy, usury, plunder of the gifts of nature and selfish contempt for suffering brothers? What determines such a sharp contrast between ideas and life? Only because the idea itself is sick, that it arose out of short-term fatigue and weakening of human nature and sinned against the true healthy nature of man. But it was here that nature proved the power of its forces and its invincible creative wealth, since if this all-encompassing idea, which denies even marriage and abstinence from it and considers it the greatest virtue, had come true, then the entire human race would have been destroyed. But look how, despite the almighty Church, the human race is growing and multiplying! Even your Christianly economical statesmanship does not know what to do with this abundance of people; and that is the only reason why you even seek social murderous means to exterminate people! Yes, you would be glad if Christianity exterminated man, so that the only abstract god of your “I” alone could have a place in this world!

These are the people who shout about “utopias”, when the healthy human mind appeals to the only visible and really existing nature against their insane attempts and does not yet demand anything from the divine mind of man except a change in animal life to another, more carefree, albeit laborious one life! And besides this, we want nothing more than to build on this single foundation a grandiose, rich edifice of truly beautiful art of the future!

A true artist who understood current situation art, must work for the artistic works of the future. In fact, in each of the related arts, this high self-awareness has long been reflected in numerous works. This alone caused the suffering of the inspired creators of the most noble works of art. In fact, what made an architect suffer, forced to split his creative power between orders for barracks and rented houses? What oppressed the painter, forced to paint the disgusting face of some millionaire? What humiliated the musical creator when he had to compose dinner music, and the poet forced to write novels for ordinary hired libraries? What, finally, could his suffering consist of? The fact is that he had to waste his creative power on earning money and turn his art into a craft! What should a playwright finally experience if he wants to combine all the arts in one highest thing - drama? The sum total of the sufferings of all other artists!

What an artist creates must become a work of art only in front of the public, and dramatic work enters life through the theatrical stage. But what do these theatrical institutes, which have the means of all the arts, represent today? They are only industrial enterprises even where the states or princes themselves have taken upon themselves their maintenance; their management is mostly entrusted to the same persons who only yesterday managed grain speculation, and tomorrow will devote their acquired knowledge to some sugar enterprise; sometimes, however, they expand their knowledge of theaters into the mysteries of the office of chamberlain or other similar ones. As long as theatrical institutions, according to the prevailing public view, are looked upon as a means of monetary circulation that brings interest on capital, theaters will be managed only by clever commercial speculators, and management itself will only be exploitation, while artistic management, such as if the true goals of the theater, in any case, would hardly be able to pursue it modern goal. But precisely for this reason it should be clear that if the theater were to be turned in any way to its natural noble goal, it would first of all have to be freed from the necessity of industrial speculation.

How is this possible?

How can a single institution be freed from a duty to which all people and every human enterprise are now subject? Yes, it is the theater that must lead the way in this liberation, since it is a comprehensive artistic institution; and while a person is not yet able to freely express his noblest activity - artistic, how can he hope for liberation and independence in other, more base directions? Let's get started when the state and military service ceased to be industrial enterprises, to the liberation of public art, because it has an incredibly important task and an extremely significant activity in our social movement.

Sooner and better than an outdated and in fact unrecognized religion, more valid and lively than the incapable, long-entangled state wisdom, eternally young art, always reviving itself with the passage of time and with itself, will indicate a beautiful and high goal to the fickle due to the shallows. and rocks to the flow of social movements - the goal of noble humanity.

If you, friends of art, really wish to preserve it from the threatening storms, then understand that it must not only be preserved, but must first actually achieve its true full life!

It seems incredible that this fearful revolution - which you, people of shaken faith, do not understand and which you prevent - would create something better out of our error-filled condition; but if you really desire transformation; towards a more perfect and moral life, - help us with all your might to return art to itself and its noble activity! You, suffering brethren of all parts of human society, reflecting with great annoyance on how to become free people from slaves of money, understand our task and help us raise art to the height of its dignity! Then you will see craft elevated to art, a servant of industry - into a beautiful, self-confident man, turning to nature, the sun and stars, death and eternity with a clear smile on his lips, with the exclamation: “You also belong to me, and I am your master!”

Oh, if you, to whom I turned, agreed and became like-minded people, how easy it would be with your will to take those simple measures that would undoubtedly lead to the prosperity of the theater - this most important institution of art! It must be the business of the state and society to immediately weigh the means against the end in order to enable the theater to serve only its highest true purpose. This goal will be fulfilled when the material means of the theater reach such a degree that its management becomes purely artistic, but no one will be able to conduct this management except all those artists who unite in the name of art and ensure their beneficial mutual activities with the appropriate principle; only the most complete freedom can bind them in the effort to act in accordance with the intention for which they must be freed from the necessity of industrial speculation; and this intention is an art, understood only by free people, but not by slaves of earnings.

The judge of their works will be a free society. But in order to give this society freedom and independence regarding art, it would be necessary to take one step further along the road begun: the public should have free access to theatrical performances. As long as money is necessary for all everyday needs, as long as a person without it only has access to air and partly water, such a measure would lead to the fact that theatrical performances, (The article was written in 1949 in Zurich, after the flight of which the public so willingly gathers , were not exhibited as offerings for a fee, which, as we know, leads to the most misunderstanding of the nature of artistic representations; in this case, it should be the business of the state, or rather of a proper society, to reward artists for their works by all means, and not individually, but all together. Where the means for such a development of the matter are insufficient, it would be better for the present and the future to completely destroy the theater, capable of existing only in the form of an industrial enterprise, at least for such a period until the need of society becomes stronger enough to make a common sacrifice for her satisfaction.

If, therefore, modern human society is as humane and noble as can be achieved through the influence of art alone - which we hope for in view of the approaching universal revolution - then theatrical performances will be the first universal enterprise in which the concept of money and earnings will completely disappear; this will happen because education will develop more and more in the artistic direction, and in the future we will all become such artists that only as artists - first of all for the sake of art, and not for the sake of the associated goal of acquiring income - will we unite for a universal free activity.

Art and its institutions, the desired organization of which could only be outlined here in cursory outline, may thus become the forerunners and models of all future social institutions; the same spirit that unites the artistic organism to achieve its true goal would appear again in any other social association that sets itself a certain goal worthy of man, since our entire future social life, if we achieve the right path, should be of only an artistic character, as it is only befitting the noble abilities of man.

Then Christ would prove to us that we are all equal and brothers; Apollo would have given this great brotherhood the stamp of strength and beauty, he would have led man out of doubt about his dignity to the consciousness of his highest divine power.

So let us erect our altar of the future in life and living art for the two majestic teachers of humanity: for Christ, who suffered for humanity, and Apollo, who raised humanity to its joyful dignity!

Page 16 of 30

"Art and Revolution".

IN highest degree the following proposition, put forward by Wagner at the very beginning of the brochure, is progressive: “We will not at all engage here in abstract definitions of art, but we set ourselves another, in our opinion, quite natural, task: to substantiate the significance of art as a function of social life, political structure; establish that art is a product of social life.” As can be seen, this statement by Wagner is in sharp, irreconcilable contradiction with reactionary “theories” such as
so-called “pure” art, supposedly independent of social and political life. Further, Wagner writes: “... art has always been a beautiful mirror of the social order.”
Wagner argues that the ideal of social order is ancient Greece, which gave birth to the greatest creation of art - Greek tragedy. Correctly assessing the great artistic achievements of the ancient Greek theater, Wagner, at the same time, like many bourgeois art historians, idealizes the ancient social
a system that was in fact a slave-owning formation, although for its time progressive in comparison with the tribal community, but infinitely far from the ideal.
The pages in the brochure “Art and Revolution” devoted to criticism of Christianity, which, as Wagner says, contributed to the fall of art and the transformation of the artist into a “slave of industry” have a progressive significance. Wagner gives Christianity the most merciless characterization: “Christianity justifies the dishonest, useless and miserable existence of man on earth with the miraculous love of God, who did not create man at all... for a joyful, increasingly self-aware life and activity on earth; no, he locked him up here in a disgusting prison to cook him
to him after death, as a reward for the fact that he was filled here on earth with complete contempt, the most peaceful eternity and the most brilliant idleness.” “Hypocrisy,” writes Wagner, “is, generally speaking, the most outstanding distinctive feature all centuries of Christianity, right up to the present day...” “...Art, instead of freeing itself from supposedly enlightened rulers, which were
spiritual power, “rich in spirit” and enlightened princes, sold themselves body and soul to a much worse master: Industry... This is the art that currently fills the entire civilized world: its true essence is industry, its aesthetic pretext is entertainment for the bored.” .
It is necessary to correctly understand Wagner’s inaccurate formula: by “industry” he understands the bourgeois-capitalist system, which he severely criticizes as a system incompatible with the free development of art. It is under the conditions of this system, where everything is determined by the power of money, that art becomes a craft and an object of trade.
This is what Wagner rebelled against with all his strength and passion! Where is the way out? In the revolution. “The Great Revolution of all mankind,” says Wagner, can revive true art. “True art can rise from its state of civilized barbarism to its worthy height only on the shoulders of our great social
movements; he has a common goal with him, and they can achieve it only if they both recognize it. This goal is a beautiful and strong man: let the Revolution give him Strength, Art - Beauty." It is also necessary to note Wagner’s inconsistency, which is a reflection of the limitations of petty-bourgeois revolutionism: criticism
capitalism is combined with a lack of understanding of the real social situation and the true tasks of the revolution; While asserting the correct idea about the dependence of art on social life and politics, Wagner simultaneously speaks of its incompatibility with any power or authority and calls all this “the highest freedom.” Such denial state power and the state in general is nothing more than a manifestation of petty-bourgeois anarchism.
In the same work, Wagner, still briefly, raises the question of “true drama,” which will be neither drama nor opera (in the old sense) and where all types of art will merge. Wagner develops the ideas of reform of musical drama widely and in detail in such works as “ Piece of art of the Future" (1850), "Opera and Drama" (1851), partly "Address to Friends" (1851), written as a preface to three opera librettos: "The Flying Dutchman", "Tannhäuser", "Lohengrin".

report inappropriate content

Current page: 1 (book has 1 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

Alexander Alexandrovich Blok
Art and Revolution
(About the work of Richard Wagner)

1

In his powerful and cruel work, like all powerful things, entitled “Art and Revolution,” Wagner establishes the following truths:

Art is the joy of being yourself, living and belonging to society.

Art was like this in the 6th century BC. Chr. in the Athenian state.

Along with the collapse of this state, extensive art also collapsed; it has become fragmented and individual; it has ceased to be the free expression of a free people. For all two thousand years - from that time until our time - art has been in an oppressed position.

The teaching of Christ, who established the equality of people, degenerated into Christian teaching, which extinguished the religious fire and entered into an agreement with a hypocritical civilization that managed to deceive and tame artists and turn art into the service of the ruling classes, depriving it of power and freedom.

Despite this, true art has existed for two thousand years and continues to exist, manifesting itself here and there as a cry of joy or pain of a free creator breaking free from the shackles. Only a great and worldwide Revolution can return to people the fullness of free art, which will destroy the centuries-old lie of civilization and raise the people to the heights of artistic humanity.

Richard Wagner appeals to all brothers who suffer and feel deep anger to help him jointly lay the foundation for that new organization of art, which can become the prototype of the future new society.

2

Wagner's work, which appeared in 1849, is related to the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, which appeared the year before. Marx's manifesto, whose worldview had finally been defined by this time as the worldview of a “real politician,” represents a new picture for its time of the entire history of mankind, explaining the historical meaning of the revolution; it is addressed to the educated classes of society; fifteen years later, Marx found it possible to turn to the proletariat: in the manifesto of the International (1864), he turned to the practical experience of the last worker.

The creation of Wagner, who was never a “real politician”, but was always an artist, is boldly addressed to the entire intellectual proletariat of Europe. Being connected with Marx ideologically, vitally, that is, much more firmly, it is connected with the revolutionary storm that then swept across Europe; the wind for this storm was sown, as now, among others, by the Russian rebellious soul, in the person of Bakunin; this Russian anarchist, hated by “real politicians” (including Marx), with a fiery belief in a global conflagration, took part in organizing the uprising in Dresden in May 1849; Wagner, inspired by Bakunin, himself fought on the Dresden barricades. When the uprising was suppressed by Prussian troops, Wagner had to flee from Germany. The creation in question, as well as a number of others that complement and explain “Art and Revolution”, and finally, Wagner’s greatest creation - the social tetralogy “The Ring of the Nibelungs” - were conceived and executed in the late forties and early fifties and carried out by him beyond the reach of Prussian vulgarity.

3

The proletariat, to whose artistic instinct Wagner appealed, did not heed his call in 1849. I consider it worthwhile to recall that all too well known to artists and, alas, still unknown to many “ educated people“The truth is that this circumstance did not disappoint Wagner, just as something random and temporary in general can never disappoint a real artist, who cannot make mistakes and be disappointed, because his work is the work of the future. However, Wagner the man had a bad time, since the ruling class, with its characteristic dull rage, could not stop poisoning him for a long time. He resorted to the usual method for European society - indirectly and humanely starving people who were too bold and did not like him. The last significant representative of Wagner's persecution was the famous Max Nordau; Again, one cannot help but mention with bitterness that this “explainer” fifteen years ago was a “god” for many Russian intellectuals, who too often, due to a lack of musical feeling, fell against their will into various dirty embraces. It is still difficult to say whether the fact that Pobedonostsev used the same Max Nordau in his time (to criticize the parliamentary system dear to her heart) served as a lesson for the Russian intelligentsia.

The artist's star led Wagner away from the poverty of Parisian attics and from seeking outside help. Fame and fortune began to pursue him. But both fame and fortune are crippled by European petty-bourgeois civilization. They grew to monstrous sizes and took on ugly shapes. The national theater conceived by Wagner and erected in Bayreuth became a gathering place for a miserable tribe - jaded tourists from all over Europe. The social tragedy "The Ring of the Nibelungs" became fashionable; For a long series of years before the war, in the capitals of Russia we could observe huge theater halls, tightly packed with chirping ladies and indifferent civilians and officers - right down to the last officer, Nicholas II. Finally, at the beginning of the war, the news spread throughout all the newspapers that Emperor Wilhelm had attached a siren to his car, playing the leitmotif of the god Wotan, always “looking for something new” (according to the text of “The Ring of the Nibelungs”).

However, this new hail of slaps did not hit the face of the great artist Wagner. The second method, which has long been used by the average person - to accept, devour and digest (“assimilate”, “adapt”) the artist when it was not possible to starve him to death - did not lead to the desired end, just like the first. Wagner is still alive and still new; when the Revolution begins to sound in the air, Wagner’s Art also sounds in response; his creations will still be heard and understood sooner or later; these creations will not be used for entertainment, but for the benefit of people; for art, so “remote from life” (and therefore dear to the hearts of others) in our days, leads directly to practice, to action; only his tasks are broader and deeper than those of “realpolitik” and therefore more difficult to implement in life.

4

Why was Wagner not starved to death? Why was it not possible to gobble it up, vulgarize it, adapt it and hand it over to the historical archive, like a frustrated, no longer useless instrument?

Because Wagner carried within himself the saving poison of creative contradictions, which bourgeois civilization has not yet been able to reconcile and which it will not be able to reconcile, because their reconciliation coincides with its own death.

The so-called advanced thought already takes this circumstance into account. While in the outskirts of the mind puzzles are still being solved and various “religious,” moral, artistic and legal dogmas are being turned this way and that, the pioneers of civilization have managed to “get in touch” with art. New techniques have emerged: artists are “forgiven”; artists are “loved” for their “contradictions”; artists are “allowed” to be “outside politics” and “outside real life.”

There is, however, one contradiction that cannot be resolved. In Wagner it is expressed in “Art and Revolution”; it refers to Jesus Christ.

Calling Christ in one place with hatred “the unfortunate son of a Galilean carpenter,” Wagner in another place proposes to erect an altar to him.

It is still possible to somehow get along with Christ: in the end, he is already, as it were, “put out of the brackets” by the civilized world; People are “cultured”, which means they are also “tolerant”.

But the way of relating to Christ is strange and incomprehensible. How can you hate and build an altar at the same time? How is it possible to hate and love at the same time? If this extends to the “abstract”, like Christ, then perhaps it is possible; but what if this way of relating becomes common, if they begin to treat everything in the world in the same way? To the “homeland”, to “parents”, to “wives” and so on? It will be unbearable because it is restless.

It was this poison of hateful love, unbearable for a tradesman even “seven spans of culture in his forehead,” that saved Wagner from death and desecration. This poison, spilled throughout all his creations, is the “new” that is destined for the future.

The new time is alarming and restless. Anyone who understands that the meaning of human life lies in worry and anxiety will no longer be an ordinary person. This will no longer be a smug nonentity; it will be new person, a new step towards an artist.

The problem of capitalism and revolution in the political teaching, creativity and work of Richard Wagner

N. A. Kravtsov

R. Wagner is one of the thinkers and, of course, cultural figures of the 19th century who condemned capitalism. At a quick glance, what strikes the eye first of all is the rejection of the exploitation of the proletariat, which Wagner views as the cause of the intellectual degradation of the working people. He writes: “Such is the fate of the slave of Industry; our modern factories show us a pitiful picture of the deepest degradation of man: continuous labor, killing soul and body, without love, without joy, often even almost without a goal... The slave is not free even now, but the free man has become a slave.”[2] Wagner is outraged that the proletariat “creates everything useful in order to obtain the least benefit for itself.” The German researcher W. Wolf pointed out: “How seriously he [Wagner] was concerned about this problem is clear from a letter to Ludwig II dated August 25, 1879. Having learned that at one large factory they had fired old workers, depriving them of all means of subsistence, Wagner immediately wondered if he could help them with his concerts. He calmed down only when other measures were taken in favor of those dismissed.”[3]

At the same time, we see that Wagner had an aversion to the repressive apparatus of capitalist society, even in cases where repression was directed against representatives of the oppressed class quite rightly. Another German researcher, Martin Gregor-Dellin, testifies to an episode relating to Wagner’s stay in Riga: “Once in Riga, the clothes of Mina (Wagner’s first wife - N.K.) were stolen. The discouraged maid Lizhen immediately exposed her admirer. The police informed Wagner that if the value of the stolen goods exceeded 100 rubles, the accused would be exiled to Siberia. Wagner set the cost as low as possible, but he was unable to save the man because he turned out to be a repeat offender. Wagner happened to see him in chains and shaved bald when sent to Siberia. He was terribly impressed and promised himself never to expose anyone again.”[4]

However, justice requires that, when speaking about Wagner’s criticism of capitalism, we remember: at one time (1850s), he, like Hitler later, identified capitalism with the omnipotence of Jewish capital and, like Hitler, dreaming of an anti-capitalist revolution, the last thing he had in mind was an economic revolution, paradoxical as it may seem to those brought up on Marx’s theory of revolution.

But if Hitler’s concept of revolution is inseparable from fundamental anti-intellectualism, then in Wagner’s plan for the great transformation of the world, intellectuals and artists are assigned almost a decisive role. His anti-bourgeois attitude is the conscious position of a true aristocrat of spirit. Wagner's complex and amazingly rich artistic thinking is truly incompatible with bourgeois vulgarity. Political reality irritated him, but not primarily because the oppression of the proletariat was disgusting for him, not because he saw a danger to the future of Germany in an unreasonable domestic or foreign policy. It’s just that the burghers, who were increasingly penetrating into power, opposed his artistic ideals by the very manner of their thinking. Universal and international art, close to everyone due to its intellectual completeness (and not a primitively understood “popularity”), similar to the synthetic drama of the ancient Greeks, is Wagner’s ideal. This ideal is unattainable in conditions of the triumph of bourgeois tastes. Soviet researcher B. Levik notes: “Like other advanced artists, he was opposed to the capitalist system. But he was dominated not so much by political as by artistic considerations, an ever-growing confidence in the impossibility of the free development of art and the realization of beautiful ideals in such conditions.”[5]

The only form of populism for which the bourgeois has the ability - whether in politics or art - is populism. But Wagnerian populism never stoops to populism. It is important to remember that in the later period of his work Wagner increasingly spoke out against the falsely understood “democratization” of art, against the dictates of fashion in art.

In general, can any benefit come from bourgeois populism if the main thing is not eliminated - the dependence of art on trading, which we see everywhere in the kingdom of Industry? A.F. Losev wrote with delight about Wagner: “No one could fight vulgarity in music and art as masterfully as Wagner did. The bourgeoisie will never forgive the fatal inner breakdown that was caused by Wagner’s work. In this sense, Wagner could never become a museum curiosity; and to this day, every sensitive musician and music listener cannot regard it calmly, academically, and historically dispassionately. Wagner’s aesthetics are always a challenge to every bourgeois vulgarity, no matter whether musically educated or musically uneducated.”[6] This protest of Wagner is especially understandable now. Today in Russia art is not just a “servant of Mercury”. In our country, bourgeois vulgarity has reached great “heights”. Popular music itself becomes a form of commerce, an industry. But even this is not enough for the representatives who are stupefied by the daily “parties.” creative intelligentsia" They put their travestied “art” at the service of the gods of politics, being ready to participate in any election campaign. As a result, the inevitable happens: art, which has become a form of trading, will one day necessarily become a form of prostitution.

The supreme god-intellectual Wotan understands that he good intentions is not enough to build world harmony. He is bound by his own laws, not free, forced to make compromises and justify unseemly means to achieve noble goals. He needs a Hero, free and brave, who will help him. The philosophical plot of the drama is completed.

Wotan cannot feel safe, since the thick-headed Fafner has become the keeper of the ring. However, as the supreme god - the creator and keeper of the law, he cannot again commit deception and take the ring from the giant, who got it not by theft, like Alberich, but on the basis of an agreement with him, Wotan. All he has to do is take the ring from Fafner free man, and free from the rule of law. This can only be the illegitimate son of Wotan from an earthly woman - Sigmund. Wotan's throne must be protected from dark forces by his fanatical daughters, the Valkyries, and the souls of heroes who ascended to Valhalla. However, Wotan lacks the courage to put his plan into action. The free act of the free hero Sigmund - his incestuous marriage with his sister - horrifies the wife of the supreme god. It demands the fulfillment of the Law. Wotan submits and all the pleas of his beloved daughter Brünnhilde, in whom his spiritual beginning is embodied, are in vain. Law conquers spirituality. The authorities lack the courage to become an ally of the rebel hero. The hero is defeated, Brünnhilde, who has taken his side, is immersed in eternal sleep, and her bed is guarded by a magical flame, lit on the orders of Wotan by the cunning and treacherous Loge. The show sees this as an allegory of lies and frightening tales that the authorities and the church resort to to hide the truth.

However, the line of heroes continues in Siegmund's son, Siegfried. He is even freer than his father: having grown up in ignorance, he knows neither law nor fear. His very birth from an incestuous relationship is a challenge to the law. But the situation is becoming more and more complex. Siegfried was raised by the dwarf Mime, Alberich's brother, who dreams of taking possession of the Rhine Gold with the help of his powerful pupil. Now the “aristocracy” and the “bourgeoisie” are concerned with making the hero their ally. Shaw himself does not sympathize with him too much: “The father was a devoted and noble man, but the son does not know any law except his own mood; he can’t stand the ugly dwarf who nursed him... In short, he is a completely immoral person, Bakunin’s ideal, a forerunner of Nietzsche’s “superman”. He is extremely strong, full of life and cheerful; he is dangerous and destructive to everything he does not love, and gentle to what he loves.” It must be admitted that Shaw is really witty, seeing in the anarchist-revolutionary of Wagner's times a descendant of the intellectual aristocracy, nurtured by bourgeois society!

The hero, in a sense, remains outside the influence of other “social strata”. He inherited from Wotan only fragments of a sword, which he melts down himself, ignoring the art of his dwarf mentor. He kills the keeper of gold - Fafner, but not for the sake of gold, but out of a desire to know fear. Having become the owner of gold, he does not know its meaning. For him it is only a battle trophy. Siegfried, raised as a “bourgeois” by Mime, thus does not become a bourgeois himself. Without the slightest pity, he beheads his treacherous teacher, who tried to poison him. But he also ignores his aristocratic ancestors. Wotan's spear is crushed by his sword. The fire of the cunning Loge is not afraid of him. The hero awakens Brünnhilde from sleep. It is curious that in the love scene between Siegfried and Brünnhilde, Shaw refuses to see any allegory and views it as a “purely operatic element.” Although his method of artificial analogies could in this case provide food for thought: if Siegfried is a revolutionary hero, and Brünnhilde embodies the spiritual, noble principle of aristocratic power, then their union can well be considered as the revolutionaries’ desire to build a liberal system of government! Shaw analyzes the fourth part of the tetralogy solely as a love drama in the Ibsen spirit.[7]

Undoubtedly, it would be absurd to see in The Ring a purely political treatise presented in dramatic form. The Soviet researcher G.V. Krauklis was mistaken when he wrote that “the main idea of ​​the tetralogy was the denunciation of capitalism contemporary to Wagner.”[8] In general, in relation to “The Ring”, as well as, for example, to Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” or “Faust” Goethe, it is quite difficult to speak of a “fundamental idea.”

The allegory of capitalism that Shaw sees in “The Ring” can be attributed to “good old” England, where the aristocracy retained its political power and, by force or cunning, did not easily allow the bourgeoisie to gain access to it, to France during the Restoration, to Bavaria during the time of Ludwig II, but certainly not to capitalism in general. Wagner still considers capitalism to be a force hostile to the aristocratic state, and believes in a state that will become a fighter against Industry. He does not understand that the process of merging power and capital has already begun. Shaw notices this limitation of Wagner's ideas. Essentially, the English writer sees that Wagner, like Marx, is largely mistaken regarding the historical prospects of capitalist society. His analysis of the results that the European revolutionary movement in the second half of the 19th century, in terms of Wagner’s allegories: “Alberich regained his ring and became related to the best families of Valhalla. He abandoned his long-standing desire to remove Wotan and Loge from power. He became convinced that since his Nibelheim was an unpleasant place and since he wanted to live beautifully and prosperously, he should not only allow Wotan and Loge to take care of the organization of society, but also pay them generously for this. He wanted luxury, military glory, legality, enthusiasm and patriotism” [9] (Nazism would later grow from among the Alberichs!). What about Siegfried and similar anarchist heroes? They were either shot among the Paris Communards, or drowned in the verbal disputes of the First International...

Too bold parallels between Wagner and Marx, however, are inappropriate. Where Marx has historicism, Wagner has fatalism and voluntarism. Marx proceeds from economic determinism. Wagner primarily starts from problems of a moral order. The gold in The Ring is initially a harmless toy of the Daughters of the Rhine. It becomes dangerous due to the moral limitations of Alberich, who is capable of renouncing love due to greed. Everything would have been different if Fafner and Fasolt had not been stupid and narrow-minded, and Wotan’s laws had not been based on the principle of positive morality. Here Wagner is close to the liberalism of the 18th century, which saw wealth as something completely harmless and reduced all the problems associated with it to the problem of abuses stemming from moral depravity. If Marx hopes for a political movement, then Wagner ultimately hopes for the overcoming of political man, as such, for his replacement by artistic man. Siegfried is more of a prototype of an artistic person, a bearer of intuitive morality, than a revolutionary in the political sense of the word. Here Shaw, who sees in him a semblance of an anarchist of the Bakunin type, is mistaken. Wagner began work on the “Ring” already in 1849, when before his eyes both the socialists and the anarchists suffered a crushing defeat. However, a similar erroneous interpretation of this image is also inherent in the National Socialists, which, in fact, is where all the distortions of Wagnerian ideology characteristic of the Third Reich began.

What is undoubtedly related in the political doctrines of Marx and Wagner is the very condemnation of capitalism as a vicious social system and the recognition of the dependence of consciousness on being (although Wagner does not absolutize the latter principle). “In Art and Revolution he argues that art depends on the socio-political reality of the modern world. In “The Work of Art of the Future” he tries to show what a detrimental effect this dependence has on various areas of art...”[10]

In Wagner, as in Marx, we see a condemnation of property to the extent that it becomes the main principle public organization. He writes: “In our social consciousness, property has become almost more sacred than religion: violation of religious law is tolerated, but any encroachment on property entails merciless punishment.”[11]

Wagner is also close to Marx in the principle of attitude towards history, expressed by him in a letter to August Röckel: “To desire the inevitable and to realize it ourselves.”[12]

An interesting remark made by Thomas Mann in 1933: Wagner “would undoubtedly be recognized today as a Bolshevik in the field of culture.”[13]

The question of how aware Wagner was of Marxism is quite complex. There is no evidence that Wagner studied the works of Marx or was even familiar with them. One thing is more or less clear. During his Swiss emigration, Wagner became close acquaintance with the poet Georg Gerwig. The latter was a close friend of Marx and an active figure in the labor movement. Gregor-Dellin does not allow the idea that Gerwig did not mention Marx and his teachings in conversations with Wagner. [14] However, it must be borne in mind that the acquaintance with Gerwig took place when Wagner had already written his main political works. It is hardly possible to talk about the significant influence of these conversations on his political consciousness.

It should also be remembered that, strictly speaking, Wagner condemns not capitalism in itself, but any society that encroaches on the spiritual freedom of man. The same G.V. Krauklis rightly noted that in Tannhäuser, among other things, there is a noticeable criticism of the moral limitations of feudal society. [15] In principle, disagreeing with any attempt to reduce Wagner’s ideology to a criticism of the exploitative society of his day, we cannot but admit that Wagner undoubtedly had an anti-bourgeois attitude, as well as a certain solidarity with the ideology of socialism. In a hymn written on the eve of the barricades of 1848, Wagner puts the following words into the mouth of the Goddess of the Revolution: “I will destroy the power of man over others, the power of the dead over the living, matter over the spirit; I will destroy the power of government, laws and property. I will destroy the established order that divides one humanity into hostile peoples, into the strong and the weak, into those under the shadow of the law and those outside the law, into the rich and the poor, for this order makes everyone unhappy. I will destroy the established order that makes millions the slaves of a few, and those few the slaves of their own power and wealth. I will destroy the established order that separates work from pleasure, which turns work into torture, and vice into pleasure, which makes one unhappy from need, another from satiety. I will destroy the established order, which forces people to waste their energy in vain, serving the power of the dead, soulless matter, which condemns half of humanity to inaction, and the other half to useless acts...” [16] In his twilight years, Wagner spoke in a private conversation about social -democracy: “The future belongs to this movement, and our absurd repressive measures will only contribute to its spread.”[17]

However, Wagner's “socialism” is unique. Gregor-Dellin is right when he emphasizes that Wagner is characterized by elitist socialism, which presupposes the establishment of universal happiness “from above” and, with all the sympathy for the exploited, is still inseparable from some contempt for the social lower classes - that socialism in which “everyone is equal, but intellectuals and artists are a little more equal than others."[18]

So, Wagner wanted social reforms. But here is his reaction to real historical events: “I remember that the descriptions french revolution filled me with sincere disgust for her characters. I was completely ignorant of the previous history of France, and it was natural that my tender sense of humanity was outraged by the terrible cruelty of the revolutionaries. This purely human indignation was so strong in me that subsequently I had to make great efforts to force myself to think carefully and understand the purely political significance of these powerful events.”[19]

The fear of a rioting crowd haunted Wagner during the revolution of 1848, when he wrote: “Like everyone who cares about the good, the violent initiatives of the crowd ... are the greatest misfortune that can happen in history. The recent past has given us sufficiently horrifying examples of such savage and primitive behavior.”[20]

However, the reaction to the July Revolution in Leipzig is completely different - joyful youthful excitement: “From that day, history suddenly opened up before me, and, of course, I took the side of the revolution entirely: it was, in my eyes, a brave and victorious struggle, free from those the terrible excesses that stained the first French Revolution.”[21] Wagner becomes involved in street events. He mainly participates in the revolution through participation in student corporations, despite the fact that “political life in Leipzig was expressed in only one thing: antagonism between students and the police.” Wagner, at one time frightened by the horrors of the first French Revolution, now succumbs to general madness: “I remember with horror the intoxicating effect that this senseless, frantic rage of the crowd had on those around me, and I cannot deny that I myself, without the slightest personal reason, accepted participation in the general destruction and how a man possessed in a rage destroyed furniture and smashed dishes... I was whirled like a madman in a general whirlwind of a purely demonic principle, which in such cases takes over the fury of the crowd.”[22]

Moreover, which is very characteristic, Wagner never lives in anticipation of the coming storm. He joins the revolution as an unexpected performance, and not a long-awaited battle. Just four years before the revolution of 1848, Wagner organizes a demonstration of devotion to the Saxon king upon the latter's return from England. In his autobiography, oil flows like a river on this occasion: “A gentle warm air blew from England over little Saxony, which filled us with proud joy and love for the king... Heartfelt love for the German monarch, which prompted me to undertake this undertaking...” and so on. [23] Already on the eve of the revolution, Wagner does not even foresee its coming: “Among my acquaintances, I belonged to those who least of all believed in the proximity and even in general in the possibility of a world political revolution.” European news causes Wagner to doubt its revolutionary significance. Even when he learns of the overthrow of Louis-Philippe, he does not believe in the seriousness of what is happening: “It not only surprised, but directly amazed me, although doubt about the seriousness of the events brought a skeptical smile to my face.” In Saxony, the revolution began from above - with the formation, at the initiative of the king, of a liberal government. Wagner’s reaction is again exaltation towards the king: “The king rode through the streets in an open carriage. With the greatest excitement I followed his meetings with the masses of the people and sometimes even hurried to run to where, it seemed to me, it was especially necessary to please and console the heart of the monarch with an enthusiastic manifestation. My wife was truly frightened when I returned home late at night, completely exhausted and hoarse from screaming.” He perceives events of a more radical order, taking place in parallel in Europe, only “as interesting newspaper news.” Moreover, at this stage he is interested not so much in the revolutionary pathos of events as in “the emergence of a pan-German idea.”[24]

It is curious that at this time the problem of the revolution of artistic life interested Wagner almost more than the issues of political transformation. He proposes projects for organizing the theater and reforming the court chapel. One of the statements that we find in the section of Wagner’s autobiography relating to revolutionary events is indicative: “I thought a lot about the future forms of human relations when the bold desires and hopes of socialists and communists are fulfilled. Their teachings, which were then just taking shape, gave me only general grounds, since I was not interested in the very moment of political and social revolution, but in the order of life in which my projects related to art could find fruition.”[25]

In his autobiography, Wagner constantly denies his active role in revolutionary events. He emphasizes that he was simply carried away by a stormy stream into the thick of things. “Decisive battles could be expected in the near future. I did not feel a passionate desire to take an active part in them, but without looking back I was ready to rush into the flow of movement, wherever it led me.” [26] The excitement was almost childish: “I felt a special revival. I suddenly wanted to play with something that you usually attach serious importance to.” [27] The terror of the reaction intensifies the excitement: “This spectacle greatly shocked me, and I somehow immediately understood the meaning of the cry that was heard from all sides: “To the barricades!” To the barricades!” Carried away by the crowd, I moved with them to the town hall... From that moment, I remember quite clearly, the course of extraordinary events deeply interested me. I did not feel a direct desire to intervene in the ranks of the fighters, but excitement and participation in what was happening grew in me with every step.”[28] The next step is indignation at the sight of the impending danger of the Prussian occupation. Wagner writes appeals to the soldiers of the Saxon army, demanding support for the patriots. However, most of the subsequent actions, Wagner carefully emphasizes, he still performed, “driven by the passionate interest of the observer.”

For some time the revolution really seems to him to be something of an innocent game. “I was overcome by a complacent mood, not devoid of humor. It seemed that all this was not serious, that a peace-loving proclamation on behalf of the government would put everything in order.”[29] But with the direct attack of the Prussian troops, everything changes: “From that moment, my participation in the events began to take on a more passionate coloring.”[30] However, , despite constant contacts with the leaders of the uprising and friendship with the omnipresent Bakunin, Wagner’s actions were devoid of any clear direction or, at least, internal logic. With the delight of an observer, he rushes around the barricades, just as Berlioz did in a similar situation (with the latter it was completely anecdotal: while he had found weapons for himself to participate in the revolution, it had already ended.) Further, Wagner notes: “What previously excited In me, sympathy, not devoid of irony and skepticism, and then causing great surprise, expanded into an important event and full of deep meaning. I did not feel any desire, no calling to take on any specific function, but on the other hand, I completely gave up on all considerations about my personal situation and decided to surrender to the flow of events: to surrender to the mood with a joyful feeling similar to despair.”[31]

However, those who, based on these lines, would consider Wagner’s participation in revolutionary events as an unconscious impulse, not based on any clear political worldview, are wrong. Authors who adhere to this interpretation forget that the autobiography “My Life” was written at a time when Wagner had already been acquitted and favored by the German political elite and it was not at all beneficial for him to emphasize the awareness of his revolutionary antics. But you can’t hide an sew in a bag! In 1848, “Wagner was thirty-five years old. He has already lived half his life. He was a mature man, fully aware of his words and actions; he was not a young madman... Thus, while participating in the revolution, he was perfectly aware of both his goals and the means of achieving them.”[32]

Immediately after the fiasco that befell the Saxon movement, Wagner, in Swiss emigration, returned to thoughts about the artistic revolution. At the same time, he remains an optimist regarding the prospects for a radical reorganization of social life: “I was convinced that both in the sphere of art and in our entire social life in general, a revolution of enormous importance would soon come, which would inevitably create new conditions of existence, cause new needs... Very soon a new relationship between art and the tasks of social life will be established. These bold expectations... arose in me under the influence of an analysis of the European events of that time. The general failure that befell previous political movements did not disorient me in the least. On the contrary, their powerlessness is explained only by the fact that their ideological essence was not understood with complete clarity, was not expressed in a specific word. I saw this essence in the social movement, which, despite the political defeat, did not lose any of its energy, but, on the contrary, became more and more intense.” It immediately becomes clear that we are talking about social democracy.[33]

“The Dresden Revolution and its final result,” he writes elsewhere, “made me realize that I was not a real revolutionary in any case. The sad outcome of the uprising clearly taught me that a real... revolutionary should not stop at anything in his actions: he should not think about his wife, nor about children, nor about well-being. Its only goal is destruction... I belong to a breed of people that is incapable of this terrifying goal; people like me are revolutionaries only in the sense that we can build something on a new foundation; we are attracted not by destruction, but by change.”[34]

Thus, Wagner’s refusal from the revolution, which researchers talk about so much, did not come from disappointment in it and its goals, but from disbelief in the possibility of its implementation. In addition, he seemed to have come to the conclusion that his projects in the field of art could be realized in addition to furthering the goals of the then revolutionaries. In the end, Wagner was not the only romantic who renounced the revolution. Another genius of the romantic era, Hector Berlioz, also made this journey. Romain Rolland, for whom the comparison of Wagner and Berlioz acquired particular research importance (as the personification of the confrontation between French and German romanticism), was indignant: “Just as this pioneer of free music in the second half of his life was afraid, apparently, of himself, retreated before conclusions from his principles and returned to classicism - so Berlioz the revolutionary begins to grumpily vilify the people and the revolution, “republican cholera”, “dirty, stupid republic of hook and rag pickers”, “vile human bastard, a hundred times more stupid and bloodthirsty in their revolutionary leaps and grimaces than the baboons and orangutans of Borneo.” Ungrateful! To these revolutions, this turbulent democracy, these human storms, he owed the best sides of his genius - and he renounces them! He was a musician of a new time - and returned to the past! "[35] Wagner did not go so far as to denigrate the revolution in such a way. Unlike Berlioz, having become more conservative in politics, he did not become conservative in music. Just the opposite.

The same Rolland, discussing the significance of Wagner’s public renunciation of the very fact of his active participation in revolutionary events, wisely notes: “If it is true that Wagner subsequently declared that “he was then in the grip of delusion and carried away by passion,” then for this historical period it does not matter. Delusions and passions are an integral part of all life; and we have no right to eliminate them from anyone’s biography on the pretext that twenty or thirty years later the hero rejected them. After all, for some time they guided his actions and inspired his thoughts.”[36]

Speaking about Wagner's revolutionary spirit, which clearly cooled down in the mature period of his work, we must not lose sight of the specifics of this revolutionary spirit. The History of Theoretical Sociology correctly emphasizes: “Neither the revolution, nor the society of the future, nor the communist man had, according to Wagner’s concept, a goal and meaning in themselves. They received both from art, from aesthetic reality, which alone was self-sufficient, self-legitimate and end in itself. The revolution worried Wagner as an aesthetic revolution, the society of the future - as a society of artists, the communist man - as an artist, and all this together - as the embodiment of the eternal ideals of art... But nevertheless, this social reality was always in mind, and the prospect for the development of art - higher reality - was associated with the prospect of social development, political struggle, with the prospect of revolution.”[37]

Wagner himself wrote: “I have never been involved in politics in the strict sense of the word... I paid my attention to the phenomena of the political world exclusively to the extent that the spirit of the Revolution was manifested in them, that is, the revolt of pure Human Nature against the political-legal Formalism.”[38]

Gregor-Dellin speaks in the same spirit: “Wagner was never a “political figure”; if he took part in revolutionary events, it was only for “purely human” reasons. He is a revolutionary for the love of art...” [39] “He was never capable of patient and thorough penetration into economic, scientific and social theories. He memorized mainly slogans, final provisions, the basis of which was unknown to him... Whatever extremism Wagner showed in his social, revolutionary and anarchist ideas, one thing is clear: he took root in him thanks to his personal experience of poverty, due to the disgust he had at the form of a corrupt artistic community, in which he saw a reflection of the state and society as a whole.”[40]

Earlier, H. S. Chamberlain had remarked: “The peculiarity of his point of view was that he did not believe that political revolution capable of healing a sick society... The uprising was for him a phenomenon of an internal, moral order; it is a feeling of indignation against modern injustice: and this sacred anger is the first stage on the path to “rebirth””[41].

The words of Wagner himself seem to confirm what was said above: “I... developed in my mind ideas about this state of human society, the basis for which was the most daring wishes and aspirations of the then socialists and communists, who were so actively building their systems in those years, and these aspirations acquired meaning and significance for me only when political revolutions and constructions achieved their goals - then I, for my part, could begin to rebuild all art.”[42]

Wagner's revolutionary spirit cooled gradually. Those who see this process as happening instantly, after the collapse of the uprising of 1848, are wrong. In 1851, already working closely on the “Ring,” Wagner says in one of his letters: “Only a revolution can provide me with the artists and listeners I am waiting for; the coming revolution must necessarily put an end to all this insanity of theatrical life... With my work I will show the revolutionaries the meaning of this revolution in the noblest sense of the word. This audience will understand me; today’s public is not capable of this.”[43] And here is another letter: “My entire policy is nothing more than the most ardent hatred of our entire civilization, contempt for everything that stems from it, and nostalgia for nature. .. Despite all the cries of the working people, they are all the most pitiful of slaves... The tendency to serve is deeply rooted in us... In Europe, in general, I prefer dogs to these people who are nothing more than dogs. However, I do not lose hope for the future. Only the most terrible and devastating revolution can again make us from the civilized brutes that we are - people.”[44]

Only after receiving active help from the Bavarian king will Wagner give up his rebellion. But it is impossible to talk about his complete rejection of the revolution, given the role assigned to the king in the political thought of late Wagner. Without renouncing revolution as a process of global social reconstruction, Wagner ceases to identify it with rebellion, bloodshed, and the violent breakdown of an existing organization. Thus, Wagner’s rejection of the revolution is not a rejection of the goal, but a revision of the means to achieve it. The monarchism of late Wagner was a new form of his revolutionary spirit. The same revolution in meaning and significance, which in his younger years he expected to see coming “from below,” the elderly Wagner expected “from above.”

Bibliography

[1] Kravtsov N.A. Richard Wagner as a political thinker // Jurisprudence. 2003. No. 2. pp. 208–217.

[2] Wagner R. Art and Revolution // Wagner R. The Ring of the Nibelung. Favorite work. M., 2001. pp. 687–688.

[3] Wolf V. On the problem of Wagner’s ideological evolution // Richard Wagner. Sat. articles/ed.-comp. L. V. Polyakova. M., 1987. P. 69.

[4] Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. S. l.: Fayard, 1981. P. 126.

[5] Levick B. Richard Wagner. M., 1978. P. 49.

[6] Losev A.F. Historical meaning of the aesthetic worldview of Richard Wagner // Wagner R. Izbr. work. M., 1978. P. 8.

[7] Shaw G.B. The Perfect Wagnerite: A Commentary on the Nibelung’s Ring // http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/sring10.htm; http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1487

[8] Krauklis G.V. Overture to the opera “Tannhäuser” and Wagner’s programmatic and symphonic principles // Richard Wagner. Articles and materials. M., 1974. P. 140.

[9] Shaw G. B. The Perfect Wagnerite...

[10] Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 314.

[11] Wagner R. Know Thyself // Religion and Art. Richard Wagner's Prose Works. S. l., 1897. Vol. 6. P. 267.

[12] Quoted. by: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 242.

[13] Mann T. The suffering and greatness of Richard Wagner // Collection. op. T. 10. M., 1961. P. 172.

[14] Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 346–347.

[15] Krauklis G.V. Overture to the opera “Tannhäuser”... P. 139.

[16] Quoted. by: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 248–249.

[17] Ibid. P. 757.

[18] Ibid. P. 340.

[19] Wagner R. My life. St. Petersburg; M., 2003. P. 56.

[20] Wagner R. Letter to the King of Saxony dated June 21, 1848 (quoted in: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 230).

[21] Wagner R. My life. P. 57.

[22] Ibid. P. 58.

[23] Ibid. pp. 336–340.

[24] Ibid. pp. 431–436.

[25] Ibid. P. 450.

[26] Ibid. P. 465.

[27] Ibid. P. 467.

[28] Ibid. P. 468.

[29] Ibid. P. 472.

[30] Ibid. P. 473.

[31] Ibid. P. 478.

[32] Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 232.

[33] Wagner R. My life. pp. 559–560.

[34] Wagner R. Letter to his wife dated May 14, 1848 (quoted in: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 262).

[35] Rolland R. Musicians of our days // Musical and historical heritage. Vol. 4. M., 1989. P. 57.

[36] Ibid. pp. 64–65.

[ 37] History of theoretical sociology / comp. A. B. Goffman. In 4 volumes. T. 1. M., 1997. P. 469.

[38] Wagner R. A Communication to my Friends // The Art-Work of the Future. Richard Wagner's Prose Works. S. l., 1895. Vol. 1. P. 355.

[39] Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 330.

[40] Ibid. P. 150–151.

[41] Chamberlain H. S. Richard Wagner et le Genie français // Revue des deux mondes. T. 136. Paris, 1896. P. 445.

[42] Quoted. by: Gal G. Richard Wagner. Experience of characterization // Gal G. Brahms, Wagner, Verdi. Three masters - three worlds. Rostov/D., 1998. P. 259.

[43] Wagner R. Letter to Uhlig dated November 12, 1851 (quoted in: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 337).

[44] Wagner R. Letter to Ernst Benedict Kitz dated December 30, 1851 (quoted in: Gregor-Dellin M. Richard Wagner. P. 339).

To prepare this work, materials were used from the website http://www.law.edu.ru/

In his powerful and cruel work, like all powerful things, entitled “Art and Revolution,” Wagner establishes the following truths:

Art is the joy of being yourself, living and belonging to society.

Art was like this in the 6th century BC. Chr. in the Athenian state.

Along with the collapse of this state, extensive art also collapsed; it has become fragmented and individual; it has ceased to be the free expression of a free people. For all two thousand years - from that time until our time - art has been in an oppressed position.

The teaching of Christ, who established the equality of people, degenerated into Christian teaching, which extinguished the religious fire and entered into an agreement with a hypocritical civilization that managed to deceive and tame artists and turn art into the service of the ruling classes, depriving it of power and freedom.

Despite this, true art has existed for two thousand years and continues to exist, manifesting itself here and there as a cry of joy or pain of a free creator breaking free from the shackles. Only a great and worldwide Revolution can return to people the fullness of free art, which will destroy the centuries-old lie of civilization and raise the people to the heights of artistic humanity.

Richard Wagner appeals to all brothers who suffer and feel deep anger to help him jointly lay the foundation for that new organization of art, which can become the prototype of the future new society.

Wagner's work, which appeared in 1849, is related to the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, which appeared the year before. Marx's manifesto, whose worldview had finally been defined by this time as the worldview of a “real politician,” represents a new picture for its time of the entire history of mankind, explaining the historical meaning of the revolution; it is addressed to the educated classes of society; fifteen years later, Marx found it possible to turn to the proletariat: in the manifesto of the International (1864), he turned to the practical experience of the last worker.

The creation of Wagner, who was never a “real politician”, but was always an artist, is boldly addressed to the entire intellectual proletariat of Europe. Being connected with Marx ideologically, vitally, that is, much more firmly, it is connected with the revolutionary storm that then swept across Europe; the wind for this storm was sown, as now, among others, by the Russian rebellious soul, in the person of Bakunin; this Russian anarchist, hated by “real politicians” (including Marx), with a fiery belief in a global conflagration, took part in organizing the uprising in Dresden in May 1849; Wagner, inspired by Bakunin, himself fought on the Dresden barricades. When the uprising was suppressed by Prussian troops, Wagner had to flee from Germany. The creation in question, as well as a number of others that complement and explain “Art and Revolution”, and finally, Wagner’s greatest creation - the social tetralogy “The Ring of the Nibelungs” - were conceived and executed in the late forties and early fifties and carried out by him for beyond the reach of Prussian vulgarity.

The proletariat, to whose artistic instinct Wagner appealed, did not heed his call in 1849. I consider it worthwhile to recall the truth, all too well known to artists and, alas, still unknown to many “educated people,” that this circumstance did not disappoint Wagner, just as anything accidental and temporary can never disappoint a true artist, who is unable to make mistakes and be disappointed, because having it is a matter for the future. However, Wagner the man had a bad time, since the ruling class, with its characteristic dull rage, could not stop poisoning him for a long time. He resorted to the usual method for European society - indirectly and humanely starving people who were too bold and did not like him. The last significant representative of Wagner's persecution was the famous Max Nordau; Again, one cannot help but mention with bitterness that this “explainer” fifteen years ago was a “god” for many Russian intellectuals, who too often, due to a lack of musical feeling, fell against their will into various dirty embraces. It is still difficult to say whether the fact that Pobedonostsev used the same Max Nordau in his time (to criticize the parliamentary system dear to her heart) served as a lesson for the Russian intelligentsia.

The artist's star led Wagner away from the poverty of Parisian attics and from seeking outside help. Fame and fortune began to pursue him. But both fame and fortune are crippled by European petty-bourgeois civilization. They grew to monstrous sizes and took on ugly shapes. The national theater conceived by Wagner and erected in Bayreuth became a gathering place for a miserable tribe - jaded tourists from all over Europe. The social tragedy "The Ring of the Nibelungs" became fashionable; For a long series of years before the war, in the capitals of Russia we could observe huge theater halls, tightly packed with chirping young ladies and indifferent civilians and officers - right down to the last officer, Nicholas II. Finally, at the beginning of the war, the news spread all over the newspapers that Emperor Wilhelm had attached a siren to his car, playing the leitmotif of the god Wotan, always “looking for something new” (according to the text of “The Ring of the Nibelungs”).

However, this new hail of slaps did not hit the face of the great artist Wagner. The second method, which has long been used by the average person - to accept, devour and digest ("assimilate", "adapt") the artist when it was not possible to starve him to death - did not lead to the desired end, just like the first. Wagner is still alive and still new; when the Revolution begins to sound in the air, Wagner’s Art also sounds in response; his creations will still be heard and understood sooner or later; these creations will not be used for entertainment, but for the benefit of people; for art, so “remote from life” (and therefore dear to the hearts of others) in our days, leads directly to practice, to action; only his tasks are broader and deeper than those of “realpolitik” and therefore more difficult to implement in life.

Why was Wagner not starved to death? Why was it not possible to gobble it up, vulgarize it, adapt it and hand it over to the historical archive, like a frustrated, no longer useless instrument?

Because Wagner carried within himself the saving poison of creative contradictions, which bourgeois civilization has not yet been able to reconcile and which it will not be able to reconcile, because their reconciliation coincides with its own death.

The so-called advanced thought already takes this circumstance into account. While in the outskirts of the mind puzzles are still being solved and various “religious,” moral, artistic and legal dogmas are being turned this way and that, the pioneers of civilization have managed to “get in touch” with art. New techniques have appeared: artists are “forgiven”; artists are “loved” for their “contradictions”; artists are "allowed" to be - "outside politics" and "outside real life."

There is, however, one contradiction that cannot be resolved. In Wagner it is expressed in “Art and Revolution”; it refers to Jesus Christ.

Calling Christ in one place with hatred “the unfortunate son of a Galilean carpenter,” Wagner in another place proposes to erect an altar to him

It is still possible to somehow get along with Christ: in the end, he is already, as it were, “put out of the brackets” by the civilized world; People are “cultured”, which means they are also “tolerant”.

But the way of relating to Christ is strange and incomprehensible. How can you hate and build an altar at the same time? How is it possible to hate and love at the same time? If this extends to the “abstract”, like Christ, then perhaps it is possible; but what if this way of relating becomes common, if they begin to treat everything in the world in the same way? To the “homeland”, to “parents”, to “wives” and so on? It will be unbearable because it is restless.

It was this poison of hateful love, unbearable for a tradesman even “seven spans of culture in his forehead,” that saved Wagner from death and desecration. This poison, spilled throughout all his creations, is the “new” that is destined for the future.

The new time is alarming and restless. Anyone who understands that the meaning of human life lies in worry and anxiety will no longer be an ordinary person. This will no longer be a smug nonentity; this will be a new person, a new step towards an artist.

Blok Alexander Alexandrovich (1880-1921) Russian poet.