Methodological development “Principles of working on polyphonic works in the piano class of the Children's Art School. Polyphony - what is it? Types of polyphony Annual technical requirements

Music, determined by the functional equality of individual voices (melodic lines, melodies in the broad sense) of a polyphonic texture. IN musical piece polyphonic composition (for example, in the canon of Josquin Despres, in the fugue of J. S. Bach), the voices are equal in compositional-technical (techniques of motive-melodic development are the same for all voices) and logical (equal bearers of “musical thought”) relations. The word “polyphony” also refers to a musical theoretical discipline that is taught in secondary and higher education courses. music education for composers and musicologists. the main task disciplines of polyphony - practical study of polyphonic compositions.

Accent

The stress in the word “polyphony” fluctuates. In the Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian Languages, published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1847, the only emphasis is given on the second “o”. Russian general lexical dictionaries of the 2nd half of the 20th century and beginning of the XXI centuries, as a rule, place the only stress on the second syllable from the end. Musicians (composers, performers, teachers and musicologists) usually place the accent on "o"; The newest (2014) Great Russian Encyclopedia and the “Musical Spelling Dictionary” (2007) adhere to the same spelling norm. Some specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias allow spelling options.

Polyphony and harmony

The concept of polyphony (as a warehouse) is not correlative to the concept of harmony (sound structure), therefore it is fair to talk, for example, about polyphonic harmony. Despite all the functional (musical-semantic, musical-logical) independence of individual voices, they are always coordinated vertically. In a polyphonic piece (for example, in Perotin’s organum, in Machaut’s motet, in Gesualdo’s madrigal), the ear distinguishes consonances and dissonances, chords and (in ancient polyphony) concords, and their connections, which manifest themselves in the unfolding of music in time, are subject to the logic of one or another Lada. Any polyphonic piece has a sign of integrity of pitch structure, musical harmony.

Polyphony and polyphony

Typology

Polyphony is divided into types:

• Subglottic polyphony, in which it is played along with the main melody echoes, that is, slightly different options (this coincides with the concept of heterophony). Characteristic of Russian folk song.
• Imitation polyphony, in which the main theme is heard first in one voice, and then, possibly with changes, appears in other voices (there may be several main themes). The form in which a theme is repeated without modification is called a canon. The pinnacle of forms in which the melody varies from voice to voice is the fugue.
• Contrasting thematic polyphony (or polymelodism), in which different melodies are heard simultaneously. First appeared in the 19th century [ ] .
• Hidden polyphony- hiding thematic intonations in the texture of the work. Applied to free style polyphony, starting with the small polyphonic cycles of J. S. Bach.

Individually characteristic types

Some composers, who made especially intensive use of polyphonic techniques, developed a specific style characteristic of their work. In such cases, they speak, for example, of “Bach polyphony”, “Stravinsky polyphony”, “Myaskovsky polyphony”, “Shchedrin polyphony”, Ligeti’s “micropolyphony”, etc.

Historical sketch

The first surviving examples of European polyphonic music are non-parallel and melismatic organums (IX-XI centuries). In the 13th-14th centuries, polyphony was most clearly manifested in the motet. In the 16th century, polyphony became the norm for the vast majority of artifacts of composer music, both church (polyphonic) and secular. Polyphonic music reached its greatest flowering in the works of Handel and Bach in the 17th-18th centuries (mainly in the form of fugues). In parallel (starting around the 16th century), the homophonic structure quickly developed, which clearly dominated over the polyphonic one during the Viennese classics and in the era of romanticism. Another rise in interest in polyphony began in the second half of the 19th century. Imitative polyphony, focusing on Bach and Handel, was often used by composers of the 20th century (Hindemith, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc.).

Strict writing and free writing

In the polyphonic music of the pre-classical era, researchers distinguish two main trends in polyphonic composition: strict letter, or strict style(German strenger Satz, Italian contrappunto osservato, English strict counterpoint), and free letter, or free style(German freier Satz, English free counterpoint). Until the first decades of the 20th century. in Russia, the terms “counterpoint of strict writing” and “counterpoint of free writing” were used in the same meaning (in Germany, this pair of terms is still used to this day).

The definitions “strict” and “free” related primarily to the use of dissonance and voice control. In strict writing, the preparation and resolution of dissonance was regulated by extensive rules, violation of which was considered as technical ineptitude of the composer. Similar rules were developed in relation to voice acting in general, the aesthetic canon of which was balance, for example, the balance of an interval jump and its subsequent filling. At the same time, listing and parallelism of perfect consonances were prohibited.

IN free writing the rules for the use of dissonance and the rules of voicing (for example, the prohibition of parallelism of octaves and fifths) generally continued to apply, although they were applied more freely. “Freedom” was most clearly manifested in the fact that dissonance began to be used without preparation (the so-called unprepared dissonance). This and some other assumptions in free writing were justified, on the one hand, by the musical rhetoric characteristic of the era (for example, it was used to justify “dramatic” interference and other violations of the rules). On the other hand, greater freedom of voicing was determined by historical necessity - polyphonic music began to be composed according to the laws of the new major-minor tonality, in which the tritone became part of the key consonance for this pitch system - the dominant seventh chord.

To the “era of strict writing” (or strict style) refer to the music of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (XV-XVI centuries), meaning, first of all, church music Franco-Flemish polyphonists (Josquin, Ockeghem, Obrecht, Willaert, Lasso, etc.) and Palestrina. In theory, the compositional norms of strict style polyphony were determined by G. Zarlino. The masters of the strict style mastered all the means of counterpoint, developed almost all forms of imitation and canon, and widely used techniques for transforming the original theme (reversal, rakhohod, increase, decrease). In harmony, strict writing relied on a system of diatonic modal modes.

The Baroque era until the 18th century. inclusive, historians of polyphony call it the “era of free style.” The increased role of instrumental music stimulated the development of chorale arrangements, polyphonic variations (including passacaglia), as well as fantasies, toccatas, canzones, ricercaras, from which the fugue was formed by the middle of the 17th century. In harmony, the basis of polyphonic music written according to the laws of free style was the major-minor tonality (“harmonic tonality”). Largest representatives free style polyphonies - J. S. Bach and G. F. Handel.

Polyphony and polyphonism in literature

In the Russian language of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in a meaning similar to modern polyphony, the term “polyphonism” () was used (along with the term “polyphony”). In literary criticism of the 20th century. (M. M. Bakhtin and his followers) the word “polyphonism” is used in the sense of discordance, the simultaneous “sounding” of the author’s “voice” and the “voices” of literary characters (for example, they talk about the “polyphonism” of Dostoevsky’s novels).

see also

Notes

1. The Great Russian Encyclopedia (Vol. 26. Moscow: BRE, 2014, p. 702) records the only stress in this word, on “o”.

Types of polyphony

There are several types of polyphony: heterophony, subvocal, imitative, multi-themed polyphony.

Heterophony (from the Greek eteros - other and ponn - sound) - a type of polyphony that occurs during a joint (vocal, instrumental or mixed) performance of a melody, when deviations from the main melody occur in one or more voices. Indentationvariations may be caused by natural differences performance capabilities human voices and instruments, as well as the imagination of the performers. Although reliable written monuments, illustrating the history of the development of heterophony, are absent; traces of the heterophonic origin of folk polyphony have been preserved everywhere. Examples of heterophony.

Organum from Hukbald's Musicaenchiriadis

Dance song of the 13th century (from the collection of X. I. Moser “TönendeAltertümer”)

Lithuanian folk song "Austausrelе, teksauleле" ("The dawn is busy")

Heterophony is characterized by unison (octave) endings, parallel movement of voices (in thirds, fourths and fifths), and the predominance of synchronicity in the pronunciation of words. Expressive Possibilities heterophonies were used by I. Stravinsky in the ballets “The Rite of Spring” and “Petrushka”.

Subvocal polyphony - a type of polyphony characteristic of Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian folk music, as well as folklore-oriented works of professional musical art. During choral performances of songs in slow and moderate movement (lyrical plangent and wedding, slow round dance, Cossack) there is a branch from the main tune and independent variants of the melody are formed - subvocals (eyeliner, dishkant, goryak and others). Signs of subvocal polyphony: a variable number of voices (usually 3, sometimes 5 or more), free switching on and off of voices, an abundance of crossings, the use of imitations (inaccurate), unison and octave endings, simultaneous pronunciation of syllables of the text. Examples subvocal polyphony.

Song from the collection of E. V. Gippius and Z. V. Evald "Songs of Pinezhye"

Song from the collection of A. M. Listopadov "Songs of the Don Cossacks"

The expressive possibilities of subvocal polyphony were used by Mussorgsky in “Boris Godunov” (prologue), Borodin in “Prince Igor”, S. S. Prokofiev in “War and Peace” (soldier’s choirs), M. V. Koval in the oratorio “Emelyan Pugachev” ( peasant choir).

In composers' creativity, there are two main types of polyphony - imitative and non-imitative (multi-colored, contrasting).Imitation polyphony (from Latin - “imitation”) - carrying out the same topic alternately in different voices. The techniques of imitative polyphony are varied. For example, a fragment from G. Dufay’s mass “ Avereginacaelorum"

IN multi-themed polyphony Different, sometimes contrasting, melodies sound at the same time. As, for example, in the first movement of Symphony No. 5 by D. D. Shostakovich

The distinction between imitative and multi-themed polyphony is arbitrary due to the great fluidity inherent in polyphonic music. When a melody is combined in inversion, increase, decrease and in a rake movement, the horizontal differences between the melodies are intensified and bring the imitative polyphony closer to contrasting:

Complete tasks

1. Determine the type of polyphony:

A)

Canon(from Greek – “norm”, “rule”) is a polyphonic form based on the imitation of a theme by all voices, and the entry of voices occurs before the end of the presentation of the theme, that is, the theme is superimposed on itself by its various sections. (The time interval for the entry of the second voice is calculated in the number of measures or beats). The canon ends with a general cadence or a gradual “turning off” of voices.

Invention(from Lat. - “invention”, “invention”) - a small polyphonic play. Such pieces are usually based on an imitative technique, although they often contain more complex techniques characteristic of a fugue. In the repertoire of music school students, 2- and 3-voice inventions by J. S. Bach are common (3-voice inventions in the original were called “sinphonies”). According to the composer, these pieces can be considered not only as a means to achieve a melodious manner of playing, but also as a kind of exercise for developing the polyphonic ingenuity of a musician.

Fugue –(from lat., ital. – “running”, “escape”, “fast current”) – a form of polyphonic work based on repeated imitation of a theme in different voices. Fugues can be composed for any number of voices (starting from two).

The fugue opens with the presentation of the theme in one voice, then other voices introduce the same theme in succession. The second presentation of the topic, often with its variation, is usually called a response; While the answer sounds, the first voice continues to develop its melodic line (counterposition, that is, a melodically independent construction that is inferior to the theme in brightness and originality).

The introductions of all voices form the exposition of the fugue. The exposition can be followed by either a counter-exposition (second exposition) or a polyphonic elaboration of the entire theme or its elements (episodes). In complex fugues, a variety of polyphonic techniques are used: increase (increasing the rhythmic value of all sounds of the theme), decrease, inversion (reversal: intervals of the theme are taken in the opposite direction - for example, instead of a fourth up, a fourth down), stretta (accelerated entry of voices, “overlapping” at each other), and sometimes combinations of similar techniques. In the middle part of the fugue there are connecting constructions of an improvisational nature, called interludes. A fugue can end with a coda. The fugue genre has great importance in both instrumental and vocal forms. Fugues can be independent pieces, combined with a prelude, toccata, etc., and finally, be part of great work or cycle. Techniques characteristic of fugue are often used in developing sections of sonata form.

Double fugue as already mentioned, it is based on two themes, which can enter and develop together or separately, but in the final section they are necessarily combined in counterpoint.

Complex fugue It can be double, triple, quadruple (on 4 topics). The exhibition usually shows all themes that are contrasting in their means of expression. There is usually no developmental section; the last exposition of the topic is followed by a combined reprise. Exhibitions can be joint or separate. The number of themes is not limited in simple and complex fugue.

Polyphonic forms:

Bakh I.S. Well-tempered clavier, inventions

Tchaikovsky P. Symphony No. 6, 1 part (working out)

Prokofiev S. Montagues and Capulets

Polyphonic forms - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Polyphonic forms" 2017, 2018.

It happens that I begin to develop an idea in which I believe, and almost always at the end of the presentation I myself cease to believe in what is being stated. F. M. Dostoevsky

And in this sense, it can be likened to an artistic whole in polyphonic music: the five voices of a fugue, successively entering and developing in contrapuntal consonance, are reminiscent of the “voicing” of Dostoevsky’s novel. M. M. Bakhtin

In accordance with the views of M. Bakhtin, aesthetic and literary phenomena not only reflect life reality in the forms of literature and art, but are also one of the fundamental existential-ontological foundations of this life reality itself. M.M. Bakhtin is deeply convinced that the aesthetic manifestations of existence are initially rooted in various spheres of life - in the rituals of culture, in the communication of people, in the life of the real human word, in the intonations and interruptions of voices, in texts and works of iconic culture. In his opinion, aesthetic activity collects “scattered meanings of the world” and creates for the transient an emotional equivalent and a value position, with which the transient in the world acquires a valuable event weight, involved in being and eternity.

Aesthetic and literary phenomena are considered by M. Bakhtin as potentially and actually dialogical, for they are born in the conjunction of such existential-ontological categories as individual and sociocultural, human and eternal, directly sensory and architectonic-semantic, intentional and “external”, etc. In the understanding of M.M. Bakhtin, the aesthetic principle is inseparable from the value-ethical relationship, and since the goal, value and mediator of the aesthetic-axiological relationship is another person, it is dialogical from the very beginning.

M.M. Bakhtin’s dialogical worldview enriched it with many original concepts: aesthetic event (as an “event of being”), dialogical and monological, out-of-placeness, polyphony, carnivalization, ambivalence, familiar laughter culture, “internally convincing and authoritarian word”, “autonomous participation" and "participatory autonomy" of art, the tearful aspect of the world, etc.

M. M. Bakhtin’s aesthetic system is based on a deep understanding of the differences between monologue and dialogic artistry. He believes that monological aesthetics is based on the culture of monological consciousness as “the teaching of those who know and possess the truth of those who do not know and make mistakes,” which has become established in European thinking as the culture of monistic reason. In a monologue novel, the author knows all the ways to solve the problems of the heroes; he describes and evaluates them as fully defined and framed by the “solid frame of the author’s consciousness.”

In Dostoevsky's works, Bakhtin first of all finds shining example dialogical aesthetics is the aesthetics of “polyphony” (polyphony), in which the voices of the characters are equated with the voice of the author or even presented in a more detailed and convincing manner. A dialogical-polyphonic work becomes fundamentally open, freely indefinable, incomplete “event of existence” and as a result of this the monological author’s consciousness becomes impossible - omniscient, all-evaluating, all-creating, final-determining.

The aesthetics of a monologue novel is traditionally associated with the prose genre; the aesthetics of a dialogical-polyphonic novel reveals such rich ideological, compositional and artistic content that it allows us to consider its originality from the point of view of poetics.

M. Bakhtin sees the decisive feature of Dostoevsky’s artistic style in the fact that the most incompatible materials are distributed “not in one horizon, but in several complete and equivalent horizons, and not the material itself, but these worlds, these consciousnesses with their horizons are combined into a higher unity, so to say, of the second order, into the unity of a polyphonic novel.”

The musical term “polyphony,” which M. M. Bakhtin introduced to designate dialogic polyphony (as opposed to monological polyphony, i.e. homophony), turned out to be unusually capacious and broad and began to denote a type of artistic thinking, a type of aesthetic worldview, a method of artistic creativity .

The dialogue of a polyphonic work has a double intentionality: external, sociocultural, semiotic-compositional and internal, psycho-spiritual, deep-transcendent. External intentionality is extremely multifaceted and inexhaustible: the dialogue of heroes and their value orientations; dialogue between words and silence; multilingualism, diversity of styles; polyphony of novel imagery and value chronotopes; dialogue between the artist and the “memory of the genre”, with a real or potential hero, with non-artistic reality; stylization and parody, etc. A polyphonic work is a “clump” of dialogicality, it is a meeting of many semiotic-cultural phenomena and processes: texts, images, meanings, etc.

The internal intentionality of a polyphonic work lies in the fact that the author of the novel unusually expands the display of the inner life of the characters and deepens the penetration into the mental and spiritual life of the heroes, and does this not “from the outside,” by author's description and commentary, but “from the inside,” from the point of view of the hero himself. M. Bakhtin is convinced that in a dialogical-polyphonic work the comprehension of psychology inner world heroes is carried out not through “objectively externalizing”, objectively completing” observation and description-fixation, but through the display of constant dialogical attention-intentionality to another person, hero, character.

M.M. Bakhtin’s humanitarian-dialogue understanding of freedom elevates a person above any external forces and factors of his existence - the influences of the environment, heredity, violence, authority, miracle, mysticism - and transfers the locus of control in the “events of his existence” to the sphere of consciousness. The polyphony of consciousness, discovered by Dostoevsky and comprehended by M. Bakhtin, is the main sphere of generation and manifestation of human subjectivity, and therefore the Freudian idea of ​​the unconscious, subconscious (“it”) in the world of dialogical human existence is a force external to consciousness that destroys personality. Bakhtin believes that Dostoevsky, as an artist, explored not the depths of the unconscious, but the heights of consciousness and convincingly showed that the dramatic collisions and vicissitudes of the life of consciousness often turn out to be more complex and powerful than Freud’s unconscious complexes.

In the system of dialogical and aesthetic ideas of M.M. Bakhtin, the central role is played by the category of “extra-locality”, comparable in meaning to such concepts as “dialogue”, “two-voices”, “polyphony”, “ambivalence”, “carnivalization”, etc. The phenomenon of non-locality gives the answer to the most important question dialogue theories about how one person can understand and feel another person.

The decisive reason for this is that, in the process of feeling into another person, the understanding of the need not only to feel into another, but also to return to oneself through “out-of-placeness” - aesthetic or ontological - is ignored. It is very important that, by identifying with another person, I “dissolve” in him and lose the feeling and awareness of my own place in the world or in the current situation. When completely merging with the feelings of another person, there is a literal infection with “internal feelings,” and “external” aesthetic or ontological contemplation, which generates an “excess of vision” as an “excess of being,” becomes impossible. The ontological basis of aesthetic externality is the fact that I cannot see myself with the same degree of comprehensiveness as another person, and when perceiving another person I have an “excess of vision” that is impossible when perceiving myself. My vision of myself is marked by “lack of vision” and “excess of internal self-perception,” and in relation to another person I have “excess of (external) vision” and lack of “internal perception” of the mental experiences and states of another person.

“Outsideness,” according to Bakhtin, characterizes an aesthetic position that allows one to see and create a complete image of the hero without introducing the author’s subjectivity.

M.M. Bakhtin’s worldview may seem to be one of the options for “aestheticization of life” and “aestheticization of action,” however, in reality, Bakhtin’s dialogical aesthetics is directly opposed to both the cult of “pure aesthetics” and the identification of ethics and aesthetics. When Bakhtin declares “expressive and speaking being” the object of (dialogue) aesthetics, then the three words “expression”, “speaking” and “being” are placed for him not in different departments - “aesthetics”, “linguistics” and “ontology” - but are combined into the unmerged and indivisible unity of the “first philosophy”, embodying a living, beautiful and genuine reality human act and “human-human” existence.

“The essence of polyphony is precisely that the voices here remain independent and, as such, are combined in a unity of a higher order (!) than in homophony. If we talk about individual will, then in polyphony it is precisely the combination of several individual wills that occurs, a fundamental going beyond the limits of one will. One can say this: the artistic will of polyphony is the will to combine many wills."

We are already familiar with a similar world - this is the world of Dante. A world where unreconciled souls, sinners and righteous, repentant and unrepentant, condemned and judges communicate. Here everything coexists with everything, and multiplicity merges with eternity.

The world of Karamazov's man - everything coexists! Everything at the same time and forever!

Dostoevsky really has little interest in history, causality, evolution, progress. His man is ahistorical. The world too: everything always exists. Why the past, social, causal, temporal, if everything coexists?

I felt a falsehood here and decided to clarify... But, duh... Is absolute truth possible? Is something unambiguous that does not give rise to protest valuable? No, absolutely barren. The system is good, but it has the ability to devour itself. (Oh, lambs of systems! Oh, shepherds of absolutes! Oh, demiurges of the only truths! How is it? - Mazdak, oh-oh-oh-oh!..)

Dostoevsky knew how to find complexity even in the unambiguous: in the one - the plural, in the simple - the composite, in the voice - the chorus, in the statement - negation, in the gesture - contradiction, in the sense - ambiguity. This is a great gift: to hear, to know, to publish, to distinguish all the voices in oneself at the same time. M. M. Bakhtin.

Dostoevsky's hero-ideas are these very points of view. This new philosophy: philosophy of points of view (Long before the creation of this philosophy, Dostoevsky had already widely used it. Bakhtin, one of the first to discover this, said: he thought not with thoughts, but with points of view, consciousnesses, voices. Vyacheslav Ivanov and Ortega spoke about Dostoevsky’s polyphony.) . The consciousness of one hero is opposed not by truth, but by the consciousness of another; there are many equal consciousnesses here. But each individually is limitless. "Dostoevsky's hero is an endless function." Hence the endless internal dialogue.

This is how a character is built, this is how every novel is built: intersections, consonances, interruptions - a cacophony of replicas of an open dialogue with the inner, unmerged voices merging in the dodecaphonic music of life.

Not duality, not dialecticity, not dialogue - a chorus of voices and ideas. A great artist is a person who is interested in everything and who absorbs everything into himself.

An artist of many truths, Dostoevsky does not separate or separate them: everyone knows the truth of everyone; all truths are in everyone's consciousness; choice is personality. Not just the persuasiveness of everything, but bringing the most unacceptable to the limit of persuasiveness - that is what polyphony is.

The Dostoevsky phenomenon: exploring all possibilities, trying on all masks, an eternal proteus, always returning to himself. This is where no point of view is the only correct and final one.

So, Demons is a visionary book by Dostoevsky and one of the most prophetic books in world literature, which we passed by without shuddering or heeding the warnings. Demons are still relevant - that's what's scary. Dramatizing Demons, A. Camus wrote: “For me, Dostoevsky is first and foremost a writer who, long before Nietzsche, was able to discern modern nihilism, define it, predict its terrible consequences and try to indicate the path to salvation.”

The Brothers Karamazov, or the decline of Europe

There is nothing outside, nothing inside, for what is outside is also inside J. Boehme

Hesse proposed a completely unexpected interpretation of Dostoevsky, connecting his ideas with Spengler’s “decline of Europe.” Let me remind you that O. Spengler, predicting the exhaustion European civilization, in search of her successor, settled on Russia. Hesse came to a slightly different conclusion: the decline of Europe is its acceptance of the “Asian” ideal, so clearly expressed by Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.

But what is this “Asian” ideal that I find in Dostoevsky and which I think that he intends to conquer Europe? - asks Hesse.

This, in short, is a rejection of all normative ethics and morality in favor of a certain understanding, all-acceptance, a certain new, dangerous and terrible holiness, as Elder Zosima proclaims it, as Alyosha lives it, as Dmitry and especially Ivan Karamazov formulate it with the utmost clarity .

The “new ideal,” which threatens the very existence of the European spirit, writes G. Hesse in 1919, anticipating 1933, seems to be a completely immoral way of thinking and feeling, the ability to discern the divine, the necessary, the fateful in both evil and ugliness, the ability to honor and bless them. The prosecutor's attempt in his long speech to portray this Karamazovism with exaggerated irony and expose it to ridicule by ordinary people - this attempt in fact does not exaggerate anything, it even looks too timid.

“The Decline of Europe” is the suppression of Faustian man by Russians, dangerous, touching, irresponsible, vulnerable, dreamy, ferocious, deeply childish, prone to utopias and impatient, who have long intended to become European.

This Russian man is worth a look. He is much older than Dostoevsky, but it was Dostoevsky who finally introduced him to the world in all its fruitful meaning. A Russian person is Karamazov, this is Fyodor Pavlovich, this is Dmitry, this is Ivan, this is Alyosha. For these four, no matter how different they are from each other, are firmly welded together, together they form the Karamazovs, together they form the Russian man, together they form the future, already approaching man of the European crisis.

The Russian person cannot be reduced to a hysteric, a drunkard or a criminal, a poet or a saint; in it all this is placed together, in the totality of all these properties. The Russian man, Karamazov, is at the same time a murderer and a judge, a brawler and the most tender soul, a complete egoist and a hero of the most perfect self-sacrifice. The European, that is, a strong moral, ethical, dogmatic point of view is not applicable to him. In this person, external and internal, good and evil, God and Satan are inextricably fused.

That is why a passionate thirst accumulates in the souls of these Karamazovs supreme symbol- God, who would also be the devil at the same time. Dostoevsky’s Russian man is such a symbol. God, who is also the devil, is an ancient demiurge. He was there originally; He, the only one, is on the other side of all contradictions, he knows neither day nor night, neither good nor evil. He is nothing and he is everything. We cannot know it, because we know anything only in contradictions, we are individuals, tied to day and night, to heat and cold, we need God and the devil. Beyond the boundaries of opposites, in nothing and in everything, only the demiurge lives, the God of the universe, who knows no good and evil.

Russian people are eager to get away from opposites, from certain properties, from morality, is a person who intends to dissolve, returning back to the principum individuationis (Principle of individuation. (Latin)). This man loves nothing and loves everything, he is not afraid of anything and is afraid of everything, he does nothing and does everything. This person is again the primordial material, the unformed material of soul plasma. In this form, he cannot live, he can only die, falling like a meteorite.

It was this man of disaster, this terrible ghost, that Dostoevsky evoked with his genius. The opinion was often expressed: it was fortunate that his “Karamazovs” were not finished, otherwise they would have blown up not only Russian literature, but all of Russia and all of humanity. The Karamazov element, like everything Asian, chaotic, wild, dangerous, immoral, like everything in the world in general, can be assessed in two ways - positively and negatively. Those who simply reject this whole world, this Dostoevsky, these Karamazovs, these Russians, this Asia, these demiurge fantasies, are now doomed to impotent curses and fear, they have a bleak position where the Karamazovs clearly dominate - more than ever before. But they are mistaken, wanting to see in all this only the factual, visual, material. They look at the decline of Europe as if it were terrible disaster with an opening heavenly roar, either as a revolution full of massacres and violence, or as a triumph of criminals, corruption, theft, murder and all other vices.

All this is possible, all this is inherent in Karamazov. When you deal with Karamazov, you don’t know what he’s going to shock us with in the next moment. Maybe he’ll hit you so hard that he’ll kill you, or maybe he’ll sing a piercing song to the glory of God. Among them are Alyosha and Dmitry, Fedora and Ivan. After all, as we have seen, they are determined not by any properties, but by the readiness to adopt any properties at any time.

But let the fearful not be horrified by the fact that this unpredictable man of the future (he already exists in the present!) is capable of doing not only evil, but also good, capable of establishing the kingdom of God just like the kingdom of the devil. What can be founded or overthrown on earth is of little interest to the Karamazovs. Their secret is not here - nor is the value and fruitfulness of their immoral essence.

Every human formation, every culture, every civilization, every order is based on an agreement regarding what is permitted and prohibited. A person who is on the path from an animal to a distant human future must constantly suppress, hide, deny much, infinitely much in himself in order to be a decent person, capable of human coexistence. Man is filled with animals, filled with the ancient world, filled with monstrous, hardly tamed instincts of bestial cruel egoism. All these dangerous instincts are present, always present, but culture, agreement, civilization have hidden them; they are not shown, learning from childhood to hide and suppress these instincts. But each of these instincts breaks out from time to time. Each of them continues to live, not one is completely eradicated, not one is ennobled or transformed for a long time, forever. And after all, each of these instincts in itself is not so bad, no worse than any others, but in every era and every culture there are instincts that are feared and persecuted more than others. And that’s when these instincts wake up again, like unbridled, only superficially and with difficulty tamed elements, when the animals growl again, and the slaves whom for a long time suppressed and lashed with whips, rise with cries of ancient rage, and then the Karamazovs appear. When culture, this attempt to domesticate a person, gets tired and begins to waver, then the type of people who are strange, hysterical, with unusual deviations - like young men in adolescence or pregnant women - becomes more and more widespread. And in the souls arise impulses that have no name, which - based on the concepts of old culture and morality - should be recognized as bad, which, however, are capable of speaking in such a strong, such natural, such an innocent voice that all good and evil become doubtful, and every the law is unsteady.

The Karamazov brothers are such people. They easily treat any law as a convention, any lawyer as a philistine, they easily overestimate any freedom and difference from others, and with the ardor of lovers they listen to the chorus of voices in their own chest.

While the old, dying culture and morality have not yet been replaced by new ones, in this dull, dangerous and painful timelessness, a person must again look into his soul, must again see how the beast rises in it, how primitive forces that are higher than morality play in it. Those doomed to this, called to this, destined and prepared for this - these are the Karamazovs. They are hysterical and dangerous, they become criminals as easily as ascetics, they do not believe in anything, their crazy faith is the doubtfulness of all faith.

The figure of Ivan is especially amazing. He appears before us as a modern, adapted, cultured man - somewhat cold, somewhat disappointed, somewhat skeptical, somewhat tired. But the further he goes, the younger he becomes, the warmer he becomes, the more significant he becomes, the more Karamazov he becomes. It was he who composed The Grand Inquisitor. It is he who goes from denial, even contempt for the murderer for whom he holds his brother, to a deep sense of his own guilt and repentance. And it is he who experiences the spiritual process of confrontation with the unconscious more sharply and more bizarrely than anyone else. (But everything revolves around this! This is the whole meaning of the whole decline, the whole revival!) In the last book of the novel there is a strange chapter in which Ivan, returning from Smerdyakov, finds the devil in his room and talks with him for an hour. This devil is nothing more than Ivan’s subconscious, a surge of the long-settled and seemingly forgotten contents of his soul. And he knows it. Ivan knows this with amazing confidence and speaks about it clearly. And yet he talks with the devil, believes in him - for what is inside is also outside! - and yet he gets angry with the devil, pounces on him, even throws a glass at him - at the one he knows lives inside himself. Perhaps never before has a conversation between a person and his own subconscious been so clearly and clearly depicted in literature. And this conversation, this (despite outbursts of anger) mutual understanding with the devil - this is precisely the path that the Karamazovs are called upon to show us. Here, in Dostoevsky, the subconscious is depicted as a devil. And rightly so - because to our blinkered, cultural and moral view, everything repressed into the subconscious that we carry within ourselves seems satanic and hateful. But the combination of Ivan and Alyosha could give a higher and more fruitful point of view, based on the soil of the new future. And here the subconscious is no longer the devil, but the god-devil, the demiurge, the one who has always been and from whom everything comes. To establish good and evil anew is not the work of the pre-eternal, not the demiurge, but the work of man and his little gods.

Dostoevsky, in fact, is not a writer, or not primarily a writer. He is a prophet. It is difficult, however, to say what this actually means - a prophet! The prophet is a patient, just as Dostoevsky was in reality a hysteric, an epileptic. A prophet is a patient who has lost the healthy, kind, beneficent instinct of self-preservation, which is the embodiment of all bourgeois virtues. There cannot be many prophets, otherwise the world would fall apart. Such a patient, be it Dostoevsky or Karamazov, is endowed with such a strange, hidden, painful, divine ability that the Asian honors in every madman. He is a prophet, he is a knower. That is, in it a people, an era, a country or a continent have developed for themselves an organ, some tentacles, a rare, incredibly gentle, incredibly noble, incredibly fragile organ that others do not have, which others, to their great happiness, have remained in their infancy. And every vision, every dream, every fantasy or human thought on the way from the subconscious to consciousness can acquire thousands of different interpretations, each of which can be correct. The clairvoyant and prophet does not interpret his visions himself: the nightmare that oppresses him reminds him not of his own illness, not of his own death, but of the illness and death of the common, whose organ, whose tentacles he is. This commonality can be a family, a party, a people, but it can also be all of humanity.

In Dostoevsky’s soul, what we are accustomed to calling hysteria, a certain illness and capacity for suffering served humanity as a similar organ, a similar guide and barometer. And humanity is beginning to notice this. Already half of Europe, already at least half of Eastern Europe is on the path to chaos, rushing in a drunken and holy rage along the edge of the abyss, singing drunken hymns like Dmitri Karamazov sang. The offended man in the street mocks these hymns, but the saint and the clairvoyant listen to them with tears.

Existential thinker

Man must continually feel suffering, otherwise the earth would be meaningless. F. M. Dostoevsky

Existence only exists when it is threatened with non-existence. Being only begins to be when it is threatened with non-existence. F. M. Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky was one of those tragic thinkers, heirs of Indo-Christian doctrines, for whom even pleasure is a kind of suffering. This is not uncommon sense, not a lack of common sense, but the purifying function of suffering, known to the creators of all holy books.

I suffer, therefore I exist...

Where does this transcendental craving for suffering come from, where are its sources? Why does the road to catharsis go through hell?

There is such a rare phenomenon when an angel and a beast inhabit one body. Then voluptuousness coexists with purity, villainy with mercy and suffering with pleasure. Dostoevsky loved his vices and, as a creator, poeticized them. But he was a naked religious thinker and, like a mystic, he anathematized them. Hence the unbearability of torment and its apology. That is why the heroes of other books suffer from happiness, and his heroes suffer from suffering. Vice and purity drive them to sorrow. That is why his ideal is to be different from what he is, to live differently from how he lives. Hence these seraph-like heroes: Zosima, Myshkin, Alyosha. But he also endows them with a piece of himself - pain.

For Dostoevsky, the problem of freedom is inseparable from the problem of evil. Most of all, he was tormented by the eternal problem of the coexistence of evil and God. And he solved this problem better than his predecessors. This is the solution as formulated by N. A. Berdyaev:

God exists precisely because there is evil and suffering in the world; the existence of evil is proof of the existence of God. If the world were exclusively kind and good, then God would not be needed, then the world would already be God. God exists because there is evil. This means that God exists because there is freedom. He preached not only compassion, but also suffering. Man is a responsible being. And human suffering is not innocent suffering. Suffering is associated with evil. Evil is associated with freedom. Therefore freedom leads to suffering. The words of the Grand Inquisitor are applicable to Dostoevsky himself: “You took everything that was extraordinary, fortune-telling and uncertain, you took everything that was beyond the power of people, and therefore acted as if you did not love them at all.”

N. A. Berdyaev considered the main thing in Dostoevsky to be stormy and passionate dynamism human nature, a fiery, volcanic whirlwind of ideas - a whirlwind that destroys and... cleanses people. These ideas are not Platonic eidos, prototypes, forms, but “damned questions”, the tragic fate of existence, the fate of the world, the fate of the human spirit. Dostoevsky himself was a scorched man, burned by internal hellish fire, inexplicably and paradoxically turning into heavenly fire.

Tormented by the problem of theodicy, Dostoevsky did not know how to reconcile God and a worldview based on evil and suffering.

Let’s not engage in scholasticism, finding out what Dostoevsky gave to existentialism and what he took from it. Dostoevsky already knew much of what existentialism had discovered in man and what he would still discover. The fate of individual consciousness, the tragic incongruity of existence, problems of choice, rebellion leading to self-will, the supreme importance of the individual, the conflict between the individual and society - all this was always in the center of his attention.

All of Dostoevsky's work, in essence, is philosophy in images, and a higher, disinterested philosophy, not intended to prove anything. And if someone tries to prove something to Dostoevsky, then this only indicates incommensurability with Dostoevsky.

This is not an abstract philosophy, but artistic, living, passionate, in it everything plays out in human depths, in spiritual space, there is a continuous struggle between the heart and mind. “The mind seeks deity, but the heart does not find it...” His heroes are human-ideas living a deep inner life, hidden and inexpressible. All of them are milestones of future philosophy, where no idea denies another, where questions have no answers and where certainty itself is absurd.

Everything is good, everything is permitted, nothing is disgusting - this is the language of the absurd. And no one except Dostoevsky, Camus believed, knew how to give the world of the absurd such close and such painful charm. “We are not dealing with absurd creativity, but with creativity in which the problem of the absurd is posed.”

But the existentialist Dostoevsky is also amazing: amazing again for his multiplicity, combination of complexity and simplicity. Seeking the meaning of life, having tested the most extreme characters, he answered the question, what is living life, answers: it must be something terribly simple, the most ordinary, and so simple that we cannot believe that it is so simple, and, naturally, we have been passing by for many thousands of years, without noticing or recognizing it.

Dostoevsky's existentiality is both close and far from the absurdity of existence - and it would be strange if it were only far or only close. With most of his heroes he affirms this absurdity, but with Makar Ivanovich he teaches teenagers to “bow” to man (“it is impossible to be a man without bowing”), with most of his heroes he affirms the inviolability of being and immediately contrasts it with a miracle - a miracle in which he believes. This is the whole of Dostoevsky, whose enormity surpasses the brilliance and brightness of Camus’s thought.

Dostoevsky is one of the founders of the existential understanding of freedom: how tragic fate, as a burden, as a challenge to the world, as a difficult-to-define relationship between debt and obligations. Almost all of his heroes have been released and do not know what to do with it. The starting question of existentialism, which makes it always a modern philosophy, is how to live in a world where “everything is permitted”? Then comes the second, more general one: what should a person do with his freedom? Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, the paradoxist, the Grand Inquisitor, Stavrogin, Dostoevsky is trying, without fear of results, to think through these damned questions to the end.

The revolt of all his antiheroes is a purely existential protest of the individual against herd existence. “Everything is permitted” by Ivan Karamazov is the only expression of freedom, Camus will then say. It cannot be said that Dostoevsky himself thought so (this is what distinguished him from the Europeans), but I would not interpret his “everything is permitted” only in an ironic or negative way. A person, perhaps, is allowed everything, because a saint has no choice, but he must emerge as a person - such is the broad interpretation that follows not from one work, but from the entire work of the writer.

Dostoevsky's man is alone in front of the world and defenseless: alone. Face to face before everything that is inhuman and human. The pain of loneliness, alienation, the tightness of the inner world are the cross-cutting themes of his work.

Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: on the way to a new metaphysics of man

The topic “Dostoevsky and Nietzsche” is one of the most important for understanding the meaning of the dramatic changes that occurred in European philosophy and culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. This era is still a mystery; it became both the heyday of the creative powers of European humanity and the beginning of a tragic “break” in history, which gave rise to two world wars and unprecedented disasters, the consequences of which Europe was never able to overcome (this is supported by the ongoing decline traditional culture, which began after the end of World War II and continues to this day). In this era, philosophy again, as it was in the 18th century, which ended with the Great French revolution, came out of the offices onto the streets, became a practical force, steadily undermining the existing order of things; in a certain sense, it was she who caused the catastrophic events of the first half of the twentieth century, which had a metaphysical connotation as never before. At the center of the turning point, which captured absolutely all forms of European civilization and ended at the beginning of the twentieth century with the emergence of non-classical science, “non-classical” art and “non-classical” philosophy, was the problem of man, his essence, the meaning of his existence, the problem of man’s relationship with society, the world and the Absolute .

We can say that in culture the second half of the 19th century century, a kind of “liberation of man” took place - the liberation of a separate empirical personality, existing in time and invariably moving towards death, from the oppression of “otherworldly”, transcendental forces and authorities. Humane Christian God turned into the World Mind - omnipotent, but cold and “mute”, infinitely far from man and his petty everyday concerns.

And only a few, especially insightful and sensitive thinkers, understood that we need to go forward, not backward, we need not just to deny new trends, but to overcome them through inclusion in a broader context, through the development of a more complex and deep worldview, in which these new trends will find their rightful place. The significance of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche lies precisely in the fact that they laid the foundations of this worldview. Being at the very beginning long journey, which culminated in the creation of a new philosophical model of man, they could not yet clearly and unambiguously formulate their brilliant insights.

The statement about the similarity of the quests of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky is not new; it was found quite often in critical literature. However, starting from classic work L. Shestova “Dostoevsky and Nietzsche (philosophy of tragedy)” in most cases we're talking about about the similarity of the ethical views of the two philosophers, and not at all about their unity in the approach to the new metaphysics of man, the consequences of which are certain ethical concepts. The main obstacle to realizing this fundamental similarity in the philosophical views of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky has always been the lack of a clear understanding of the metaphysical dimension of the views of both thinkers. Nietzsche’s sharply negative attitude towards any metaphysics (more precisely, towards the positing of “metaphysical worlds”) and Dostoevsky’s specific form of expression of his philosophical ideas (through artistic images of their novels) make it difficult to isolate this dimension. Nevertheless, solving this problem is both possible and necessary. Indeed, as a result of that philosophical “revolution”, headed by Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, new approaches to the construction of metaphysics were developed - in Russian philosophy, these approaches were most consistently implemented in the 20th century in the systems of S. Frank and L. Karsavin , in the Western universal model of new metaphysics (fundamental ontology) was created by M. Heidegger. In this regard, the decisive role of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky in the formation of the philosophy of the twentieth century would be completely incomprehensible if they had nothing to do with the new metaphysics that arose under their influence.

Without pretending to be a final solution to this very difficult task, to identify that common metaphysical component of the views of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, which determined their significance as the founders of non-classical philosophy. As a central element, we will choose something that was absolutely of the greatest importance for both thinkers and constituted the most famous and at the same time the most mysterious part of their work - their attitude to Christianity and especially to the main symbol of this religion - the image of Jesus Christ.

The metaphysical depth of Dostoevsky's quest became apparent only at the beginning of the twentieth century, during the heyday of Russian philosophy.

Only now have we finally come closer to a complete and comprehensive understanding of all that is most important in Dostoevsky’s philosophy. In his work, Dostoevsky tried to substantiate a system of ideas according to which a specific human personality is perceived as something absolutely significant, primary, irreducible to any higher, divine essence. Dostoevsky's heroes and he himself talk a lot about the fact that without God, man has neither existential, metaphysical, nor moral foundations in life. However, the traditional, dogmatic concept of God does not suit the writer; he tries to understand God himself as a certain instance of being, “additional” in relation to man, and not opposite to him. God from the transcendental Absolute turns into the immanent basis of a separate empirical personality; God is the potential fullness of a person’s life manifestations, its potential absoluteness, which each person is called upon to realize in every moment of his life. This determines the paramount importance of the image of Jesus Christ for Dostoevsky. Christ for him is a person who has proven the possibility of realizing that fullness of life and that potential absoluteness that is inherent in each of us and which everyone can at least partially reveal in their being. This is precisely the meaning of the God-humanity of Christ, and not at all that he united the human principle with some super- and extra-human divine essence.

From two theses - “There is no God” and “God must exist” - Kirillov draws a paradoxical conclusion: “That means I am God.” The easiest way is to follow the straightforward interpreters of Dostoevsky to declare that this conclusion testifies to Kirillov’s madness, and it is much more difficult to understand the true content of the hero’s reasoning, which reveals a system of ideas that is apparently extremely important for Dostoevsky.

Expressing the conviction that “man did nothing but invent God” and that “there is no God,” Kirillov speaks of God as a force and authority external to man, and it is precisely this kind of God that he denies. But since there must be an absolute basis for all meanings in the world, there must be a God, it means that he can only exist as something internal to an individual human personality; That’s why Kirillov concludes that he is God. Essentially, in this judgment he asserts the presence of a certain absolute, divine content in each person. The paradox of this absolute content is that it is only potential, and each person is faced with the task of revealing this content in his life, of making it actual from potential.

Only one person was able to come closer in his life to the realization of the fullness of his absoluteness and thereby gave an example and model for all of us - this is Jesus Christ. Kirillov understands better than others the significance of Christ and his great merit in identifying the true goals of human life. But besides this, he also sees what others do not see - he sees the fatal mistake of Jesus, which distorted the revelation he brought to the world and, as a result, did not allow humanity to correctly understand the meaning of his life. In his dying conversation with Verkhovensky, Kirillov thus sets out his vision of the story of Jesus: “Listen to the big idea: there was one day on earth, and in the middle of the earth there were three crosses. One on the cross believed so much that he said to the other: “Today you will be with me in paradise.” The day ended, both died, went and found neither heaven nor resurrection. What was said did not come true. Listen: this man was the highest in the whole earth, he was what she lived for. The whole planet, with everything on it, without this person is just madness. There was nothing like this before or after Him, and never, even before a miracle. That’s the miracle, that there has never been and will never be the same” (10, 471-472).

“What was said was not justified” not in the sense that Christ and the thief did not acquire a posthumous existence - as for Dostoevsky himself, for Kirillov it is obvious that after death a person will certainly face some other existence - but in the sense that that the indicated other being is not “heavenly,” perfect, divine. It remains as “open” and full of various possibilities as man’s earthly existence; it may equally turn out to be both more perfect and more absurd - similar to the “bathhouse with spiders”, the eerie image of eternity that arises in Svidrigailov’s imagination

Before moving on to understanding the metaphysical foundations of Nietzsche’s worldview, let us make one “methodological” remark. The most important problem that arises in connection with the formulated interpretation of Kirillov’s story is how permissible it is to identify the views of Dostoevsky’s heroes with his own position. One can partially agree with the opinion expressed by M. Bakhtin that Dostoevsky strives to “give the floor” to the heroes themselves, without imposing his point of view on them; in this regard, of course, it is impossible to directly attribute the ideas expressed by the characters to their author. But, on the other hand, it is no less obvious that we have no other method for understanding philosophical views the writer, except for consistent attempts to “decipher” them through an analysis of the life positions, thoughts and actions of the characters in his novels. Already the first approaches to such an analysis show the incorrectness of Bakhtin’s assertion that all Dostoevsky’s heroes speak only in their own “voice.” An indicative coincidence of ideas and points of view is revealed, even if we are talking about very different people (let us recall, for example, the amazing “mutual understanding” between Myshkin and Rogozhin in “The Idiot”). And they acquire especially great importance in the context of comparing the positions of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, since, according to a very successful expression, with which most researchers of the German thinker will probably agree, Nietzsche in his life and in his work appears as a typical hero of Dostoevsky. And if it were necessary to indicate more specifically whose history and whose destiny Nietzsche embodied in real life, then the answer would be obvious: it is Kirillov.

A correct understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy, avoiding traditional errors, is possible only on the basis of a holistic perception of his work, equally taking into account his most famous writings and his early works, in which the goals that inspired Nietzsche throughout his life are especially clear. It is in Nietzsche's early works that one can find the key to his true worldview, which he in a certain sense hid behind the overly harsh or overly vague judgments of his mature works.

In the articles from the series “Untimely Reflections” we find a completely unambiguous expression of Nietzsche’s most important belief, which formed the basis of his entire philosophy - the belief in the absolute uniqueness of each person. At the same time, Nietzsche insists that this absolute uniqueness is not already given in each of us, it acts as a kind of ideal limit, the goal of the life efforts of each individual, and each individual is called upon to reveal this uniqueness in the world, to prove the absolute significance of his arrival in world. “In essence,” writes Nietzsche in the article “Schopenhauer as an Educator,” “every person knows well that he lives in the world only once, that he is something unique, and that even the rarest case will not merge so wonderfully again.” motley diversity into the unity that constitutes his personality; he knows it, but hides it like a bad conscience - why? Out of fear of a neighbor who demands convention and himself hides behind it... Only artists hate this careless flaunting of other people's manners and self-imposed opinions and expose the secret, the evil conscience of everyone - the position that every person is a miracle that happens once ..." The problem of every person is that he hides behind everyday opinion and habitual stereotypes of behavior and forgets about the main thing, the true purpose of life - the need to be himself: "We must give ourselves an account of our existence; therefore, we also want to become the true helmsmen of this existence and not allow our existence to be tantamount to a meaningless accident.”

The unconditionality of faith in perfection and truth may be based on ontological reality supreme perfection- this is how this faith was substantiated in the tradition of Christian Platonism. Rejecting such an ontological reality of perfection, Nietzsche, it would seem, has no reason to insist on the unconditionality of our faith. By doing this, he actually asserts the presence of something absolute in being, replacing the transcendental “ultimate reality” of the Platonic tradition. It is not difficult to understand that here we are talking about the absoluteness of faith itself, that is, about the absoluteness of the person professing this faith. As a result, the problem that arises for Nietzsche in connection with his statement about the unconditionality of faith in perfection is no different from a similar problem that arises in the work of Dostoevsky. The solution to this problem implied in Nietzsche's early writings is clearly consistent with the basic principles of Dostoevsky's metaphysics. Recognizing our empirical world as the only metaphysically real world, Nietzsche preserves the concept of the Absolute by recognizing the human personality as the Absolute. At the same time, in the same way as in Dostoevsky, the absoluteness of the personality in Nietzsche is manifested through its ability to say a decisive “no!” imperfection and untruth of the world, through the ability to find in oneself the ideal of perfection and truth, even if only “illusory,” but accepted unconditionally and absolutely, in spite of the crude factuality of the world of phenomena.

Everything that Nietzsche further writes about the meaning of the image of Jesus Christ further confirms this assumption: he interprets it in exactly the same way as Dostoevsky does in the stories of his heroes - Prince Myshkin and Kirillov. First of all, Nietzsche rejects any meaning of the actual teachings of Jesus; he emphasizes that the whole meaning in this case is concentrated in the “internal”, in the very life of the founder of the religion. “He speaks only of the innermost: “life,” or “truth,” or “light” is his word for expressing the innermost; everything else, all reality, all nature, even language, has for him only the value of a sign, a parable.” By calling the “knowledge” that Jesus carries within himself pure madness, ignorant of any religion, any concepts of cult, history, natural science, world experience, etc., Nietzsche thereby emphasizes that the most important thing in the personality of Jesus and in his life is - this is the ability to discover in oneself and make creatively significant that infinite depth that lurks in every person and determines his potential absoluteness. It is precisely the demonstration of the actual absoluteness of the individual personality that is the main merit of Jesus, who destroys the distinction between the concepts of “man” and “God.” “In the entire psychology of the Gospel there is no concept of guilt and punishment; as well as the concept of reward. “Sin,” everything that determines the distance between God and man, is destroyed—this is “the gospel.” Bliss is not promised, it is not associated with any conditions: it is the only reality; the rest is a symbol to talk about it...” In this case, what is fundamental is not the “union” of God and man, but, strictly speaking, the recognition by “God”, the “Kingdom of Heaven” of the internal state of the personality itself, revealing its infinite content.

The pathos of Nietzsche's struggle with historical Christianity behind authentic image Jesus Christ is associated with the understanding of the absolute principle in man himself - the principle realized in the concrete life of an empirical personality, through the constant efforts of this personality to identify its infinite content, its “perfection”, and not through involvement in the abstract and superhuman principles of “substance”, “ spirit", "subject" and "God". All this exactly corresponds to the main components of the interpretation of the image of Jesus Christ, which we found in Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons”, in the story of Kirillov. In addition to what was said earlier, one can give another example of the almost literal coincidence of Nietzsche’s statements and Kirillov’s aphoristically succinct thoughts; it is especially curious since it concerns the book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” i.e., it is associated with the period before Nietzsche’s acquaintance with the work of Dostoevsky (if you believe Nietzsche's own testimony). And Zarathustra’s judgment that “man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman,” and his message that “God is dead,” and his declaration of love to those who “sacrifice themselves to the earth, so that the earth once became the land of the superman,” all these key theses of Nietzsche are anticipated in one of Kirillov’s arguments, in his prophetic vision those times when a new generation of people will come who will not be afraid of death: “Now a person is not yet that person. There will be a new person, happy and proud. Whoever doesn’t care whether to live or not to live will be a new person. Whoever overcomes pain and fear will be God himself. And that God will not<...>Then new life, then a new man, everything new... Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the destruction of God and from the destruction of God to...<...>Until the earth and man changed physically. Man will become God and will change physically. And the world will change, and things will change, and thoughts, and all feelings” (10, 93).

French suites: No. 2 in C minor - Sarabande, Aria, Minuet. Small preludes and fugues. Tetr.1: C major, F major; Book 2: D major.

Selected works. Issue 1. Comp. and edited by L. Roizman: Allemander in D minor, Aria in G minor, Three pieces from music notebook V.F. Bach.

Handel G. 12 easy pieces: Sarabande, Gigue, Prelude, Allemande.

Selected works for piano. Comp. and ed. L. Roizman.

Six small fugues: No. 1 in C major, No. 2 in C major, No. 3 in D major;

Large form:

Handel G. Sonata in C major “Fantasia”. Concerto in F major, part 1.

Grazioli G. Sonata in G major.

Clementi M. Op.36 Sonatina in D major, part 1. Op.37 Sonatinas: E-flat major, D major. Op. 38 Sonatinas: G major, part 1, B-flat major.

Martini D. Sonata in E major, part 2.

Reinecke K. op.47 Sonatina No. 2, part 1. Rozhavskaya Yu. Rondo (Collection of pedagogical plays by Ukrainian and Soviet composers).

Schumann R. op.118 Sonata in G major for youth, part 3, part 4. Sonatas, Sonatinas: A minor, B flat major.

Shteibelt D. Rondo in C major.

Plays:

Berkovich I. Ten lyrical pieces for piano: Ukrainian melody (No. 4). Beethoven L. Allemande, Elegy.

Dargomyzhsky A. Waltz “Snuffbox”.

Dvarionas B. Little Suite: Waltz in A minor.

Cui C. Allegretto C major.

Ladukhin A. Op. 10, No. 5, Play.

Prokofiev S. op.65.Children's music: Fairy Tale, Walk, Procession of Grasshoppers.

Rakov N. 24 pieces in different keys: Snowflakes, Sad Melody.

Novellettes: Waltz in F sharp minor.

8 pieces on the theme of Russian folk songs: Waltz in E minor, Polka, Tale in A minor.

Eshpai A. “Quail”

Sketches:

Bertini A. 28 selected etudes from op.29 and 42: Nos. 1,6,7,10,13,14,17.

Geller S. 25 melodic etudes: Nos. 6,7,8,11,14-16,18.

Zhubinskaya V. Children's album: Etude.

Lak T. 20 selected studies from Op. 75 and 95: Nos. 1,3-5,11,19,20.

Leshgorn A. Op. 66. Etudes: No. 6,7,9,12,18,19,20. Op. 136. School of fluency. Books 1 and 2 (optional).

Selected studies for piano by foreign composers. Issue 5 (optional).

Selected etudes and plays by Russian and Soviet composers. Book 3 (optional).

Forms and methods of control

Certification:

Assessment of the quality of implementation of the Piano program includes ongoing monitoring of progress, intermediate and final certification of students. Academic concerts, auditions, and technical tests can be used as means of ongoing progress monitoring.

1. Material and technical conditions for the implementation of the program

The material and technical conditions for the implementation of the “Listening to Music” program must ensure that students can achieve the results established by these Federal State requirements.

The material and technical base of the educational institution must comply with sanitary and fire safety standards, labor safety standards. An educational institution must comply with timely deadlines for current and major repairs.

The minimum list of audiences and logistics required for implementation within the “Listening to Music” program includes:

classrooms for small-group piano lessons;

educational furniture (tables, chairs, shelves, cabinets);

visual and didactic means: visual teaching aids, magnetic boards, interactive whiteboards, demonstration models;

electronic educational resources: multimedia equipment;

room for audio and video library (classroom).

An educational institution must create conditions for the maintenance, modern maintenance and repair of musical instruments.

Creative Mesterskaya “Music Without Borders”

piano

Supervisor