“The same year, April, on the 27th day, the sovereign tsar reposed and Grand Duke Fedor Alekseevich of all the Great and Small and White Russia autocrat. The same hour was chosen for Moscow State the tsar of his brother, the sovereign Tsarevich Menshov and the Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich ... past his greater brother, Tsarevich John Alekseevich. And the sovereign's cross was kissed by the boyars and the courtiers, and the duma, and the stewards, and the solicitors, etc.
On the 15th day of the same year in May, there was confusion in the Muscovite state. The archers of all orders, and the elected regiment, and the soldiers came to the city of the Kremlin at 11 o'clock with banners and drums, with muskets, with spears, with a reed, and on the run to the city they shouted that Ivan and Afonasy Kirillovich Naryshkin had strangled the prince John Alekseevich. BUT initial people no one was with them. And having run to the Kremlin, archers and soldiers ran to the Red and Bed porches in the royal mansions and forcibly from the top, from the sovereign's mansions, from the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, boyars and okolnichi, and duma, and stewards were thrown from the porch to the ground , and on the ground they chopped with reeds and stabbed with spears ... "
C1. In what year did the events described in the text take place? What city was the setting?
C2. Who was in the performance? What was the reason for the unrest? Who was the victim of the speech?
SZ. Representatives of what boyar family organized this performance? Who began to officially reign as a result of the events described? Who became the actual ruler?
C4. What are the tasks set before the authorities government controlled Catherine II, implementing a policy of enlightened absolutism? List at least two tasks. Give at least three examples of the actions of the empress aimed at solving these problems.
C5. Below are two points of view on the significance of the reforms of Peter I.
1. Peter's reforms meant Russia's entry into a new period in its history. Modernization has affected almost all aspects of the life of Russian society, expanded the country's ties with Europe, and reduced its lag behind the advanced countries.
2. The reforms had more negative consequences than positive ones. They gave little to the bulk of the country's population.
Indicate which of the above points of view seems to be more preferable to you. Give at least three facts, provisions that can serve as arguments confirming your chosen point of view.
Sat. Review the historical situation and answer the questions.
During the reign of Catherine II, the largest popular uprising in the history of Russia broke out under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev. It was long and covered a vast territory. List at least two reasons for the uprising. The struggle of the rebels against the government troops was extremely fierce. Name at least three facts related to the uprising.
C7. Compare the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in late XVII in. and at the end of the XVIII century.
King Kemchin of Korea gathered with Mun, Prince of Korea, and they made a peace treaty.
And that Korean land lies on a spit, and on three sides it is streamlined by the sea, and on the fourth, from the Midnight country, a boundary is laid with the Chinese kingdom.
And that land is divided into two states, on the Noon side the princes rule, both with the boyars and with the best people, and in the Midnight side of the Kemchine kingdom, from otchich and dedich.
And between those two countries there was enmity and setuga and non-peace the great seventy years: from the summer of 7456, as Kemirsey the king sat in the kingdom of Korea, and until this summer, until 7526.
And in the summer of 7458, King Kemirsey came from his own from the Midnight country to the Midday country, and the war was strong on the Korean people from the Korean people. And in the Midday side, princes and boyars and all sorts of people taught to ask for help from the American Germans, and the tsar sent Kimersey to the Chinese tsar, and even to the Muscovite state. And there was that war for three years, and many kingdoms fought at that time: the Americans and the English stood for the Midnight Koreans, and Chinese willing people stood for the Midnight Koreans, and all sorts of Russian service people from the Moscow state.
And in the summer of 7461, having sentenced those great powers among themselves, the war was stopped, and a straight line was laid between the two Korean states along the Sun. Tsar Kemirsei and the Korean boyars gave the wool that they, without referring to the big powers, would not go to war with their neighbor. And from those places there was no war in Korean land, but there was no peace either, because in those states on both sides there was no faith in the other side, and they looked for any dashing deed from each other and were going to fight every day. And there was fear and non-peace in the land of Korea from the king Kemirsey and under his son Kemchinyr, even to the unuk of Kemirseev, to Kemchiney.
The same Kemchinei king, as he sat down on the kingdom of Korea after his father, and began to strengthen his power and did a lot of great fiery garb. And with that big outfit he threatened to shoot as far as the American land, for their previous non-corrections to him. And there was fear throughout the land of God. But the Lord our God, do not want the final death of your creation, and forgiving us all our sins, soften the heart of Kemchine. And there was a meeting between both sovereigns at the Korean border, and Kemchinei from the midnight country came himself, and vouched for Prince Mun at the border and he was in good health and crossed the border, and the kings of Korea did not go beyond that border for sixty and six years from the summer of 7461, from the Great Korean War. And Tsar Kimersey gave his word to live in the world and to gather about all sorts of business with ambassadors. And all Christians and all pagans who were reputed under Heaven had joy about that peaceful decree.
When ingenuous people are faced with the question of what art is, they do not try to figure out where it came from, what place it occupies in the universe, but accept it as a fact and only want to find some application for it in life. Thus arise the theories of useful art, the most primitive stage in the relationship of human thought to art. It seems so natural to people that art, if it exists, should be suitable for their immediate little needs and needs. They forget that there are many things in the world that are completely useless for people, such as beauty, and that in their lives they themselves constantly do things that are completely useless - love, dream.
Of course, we laugh now when Tasso asserts that poetic inventions are like "sweets" with which they smear the edges of a vessel with bitter medicine; we read Derzhavin's poems with a smile to Great Catherine where he compares poetry to "sweet lemonade". But did Pushkin himself, who partly under the influence of the echoes of Schelling's philosophy, partly reaching such views on his own, vilify the "stove pot" and reproach the mob for seeking "benefit", in the "Monument" did not mention such verses:
And for a long time I will be kind to the people,
That I aroused good feelings with lyre,
And Zhukovsky, adapting Pushkin's poem for publication, didn't he put it further directly:
That by the charm of living poetry I was useful ...
Which gave Pisarev a reason to celebrate.
In the general public, in the public that knows art in the form of novels in magazines, opera performances, symphony concerts and art exhibitions, the conviction still reigns supreme that the whole purpose of art is to give noble entertainment. Dancing at balls, riding, playing screw - also entertainment, but less noble; and people belonging to the intelligentsia should, among other things, read Korolenko and even Maeterlinck, listen to Chaliapin, and visit the Peredvizhnaya and decadent exhibitions. The novel helps to spend time in the carriage or before going to bed in bed, you meet acquaintances at the opera, you dissipate at the art exhibition. And these people achieve their goals, really relax, disperse, laugh, fall asleep.
The defender of "useful art" in his books is none other than the "apostle of beauty" Ruskin. He advised his students to copy olive leaves and rose petals in order to acquire for themselves and give others more information than we had hitherto about the olives of Greece and the wild roses of England; advised to reproduce rocks, mountains and individual stones in order to get a more complete understanding of the properties of the mountain structure; advised to depict the ancient disappearing ruins as soon as possible in order to preserve their images at least on the canvas for the curiosity of future centuries. "Art, says Ruskin, gives the form of knowledge, makes forever visible to us those objects that without it our science could not describe, our memory could not hold." And again: "The whole essence of art depends on whether it is true and useful. Great masters could allow themselves to be incompetent, to ugliness, but never to uselessness."
Just as Ruskin treats the plastic arts, so does a very widespread and almost dominant school of literary historians treat poetry. They see in poetry only an exact reproduction of life, according to which one can study the life and customs of that time and the country where the poetic work was created. They carefully study the descriptions of the poet, the psychology of the faces he created, his own psychology, then moving on to the psychology of his contemporaries and to the characteristics of his time. They are absolutely convinced that the whole point of literature is to be an aid to the study of the life of such and such a century, and that readers and poets themselves, not realizing this, like non-scientists, are simply deluded.
Thus, the theory of "useful art" still has quite prominent supporters today. Meanwhile, it is obvious that there is no way to stretch this theory to all the phenomena of art, that it is ridiculously small for him - like a dwarf's caftan for the Spirit of the Earth. It is impossible to please the good bourgeois, who want to receive "noble entertainment" from art, to limit all art to Sudermann and Bourget. Much in art will in no way fit under the concept of "enjoyment", if only we understand this word in its natural sense, and do not substitute for it the wordless, self-explanatory term "aesthetic pleasure". Art terrifies, art shocks, makes you cry. In art there is Aeschylus, there is Edgar Allan Poe, there is Dostoyevsky. More recently, L. Tolstoy, with his usual accuracy of expression, equated those who seek only pleasure in art with people who would argue that the only goal of eating is the pleasure of taste.
In the same way, it is impossible for the sake of knowledge and science to see in art only reflections of life. Although the divine Leonardo himself wrote arguments about come lo specchio e maestro de "pittori [Like a mirror is an artist's teacher (it.)], and although recently in literature and in the plastic arts "realism" seemed to be the final word (this is how it is reported in school textbooks to this day) - but art has never reproduced, but always transformed reality: even in the paintings of da Vinci, even in the most ardent realist writers, like Balzac, our Gogol, Zola. There is no art that would repeat reality. In the external "There is nothing in the world that corresponds to architecture and music. Neither Cologne Cathedral nor Beethoven's symphonies reproduce the environment around us. In sculpture, only form without color is given, in painting only colors without form, while in life, both are inseparable. Sculpture and painting give immovable moments, while in the world everything flows in time Sculpture and painting repeat only the appearance of objects: neither marble nor br onza is unable to convey the structure of the skin; statues have no heart, lungs, entrails; there are no hidden minerals in the drawn mountain range. Poetry is devoid of spatial embodiment; from innumerable feelings, from the uninterrupted flow of events, she snatches out only individual moments and scenes. Drama combines with the means of poetry the means of sculpture and painting, but behind the scenery of the room there are no other parts of the apartment, the street, the city; the actor, going backstage, ceases to be Prince Hamlet; what actually lasted twenty years can be seen on the stage at two o'clock.
Art never, except in rare anecdotal cases, deceives the people, like Zeuxis' fruit of stupid birds. No one takes a picture for a view through an open window, no one bows to a bust of his acquaintance, and no author has been sentenced to prison for a fictional crime in the story. Moreover, it is precisely those works that reproduce reality with special similarity that we refuse to call artistic. We do not recognize panoramas or wax statues as art. And what would be achieved if art succeeded in mimicking nature to perfection? What could be the use of doubling reality? "The advantage of a painted tree over a real one, says Aug. Schlegel, is only that it cannot have caterpillars." Botanists will never study a plant from drawings. The most skilful marina will never replace a traveler's view of the ocean, for the mere fact that a salty smell will not waft into his face and no waves will be heard hitting the coastal stones. Let us leave the reproduction of reality to photography, to the phonograph, to the ingenuity of technicians. "Art is to reality like wine is to grapes," said Grillparzer.
Advocates of "useful art" have, it is true, one refuge. Art does not serve personal individual enjoyment. Art does not serve the purposes of science. But it can serve society, the social order. The usefulness of art may lie in the fact that it unites individuals among themselves, transfusing the feelings of one into another, that it welds the classes of society into one whole and helps their historical struggle among themselves. From this point of view, art is only a means of communication between people among themselves in a number of other means, which are, firstly, the word, then writing, printing, telegraph, telephone. An ordinary word, prosaic speech conveys thoughts, while art conveys feelings ... Guyot defended such a circle of thoughts with force and wit. We have the same ideas, having modified them somewhat, L. Tolstoy recently preached.
But does this theory explain why artists create, and why listeners, readers, viewers seek artistic impressions? When sculptors crush clay, when artists cover canvases with colors, when poets look for the right words to express what they need, none of them sets out to convey their feelings to another. We know artists who despised humanity, who created only for themselves, without purpose, without the intention of making their creations public. Is there no self-gratification in creativity? Didn't Pushkin say to the artist: "Your work is your reward"? And why don't readers break this telegraph thread between themselves and the artist's soul? What do they need in these feelings of a person they do not know, who often lived many years ago, in another country? To unravel what the artist's dark cravings and the response cravings of his listener and spectator are based on - that is the task of the science of art. And this clue is not in the scholastic answer: "art is useful because it gives communication of feelings; and communication by feelings is desirable for us, because we have a special instinct for sociability."
The stubbornness of the champions of "useful art", in spite of all the blows dealt to them by the European thought of the last century, does not diminish to our days and probably will not dry up until the last days, as long as there are disputes about art. There will always remain the possibility of pointing out the benefit of art in one way or another. But you never know how you can use this and that object, that and that force! Archaeologists study the ancient way of life on the remains of buildings. But we do not build our houses so that their ruins serve as an aid to archaeologists of the XLth century. Graphologists say that a person's character can be known from handwriting. But the Phoenicians (according to the myth) did not invent writing for this purpose at all. The peasant in Krylov's fable doomed the ax to hew splinters. The ax rightly remarked that it was not his fault. In Mark Twain's story about the prince and the beggar, poor Tom, once in the palace, uses the state seal to crack nuts with it. Maybe Tom cracked nuts very successfully, but still the purpose of the state seal is different.
People of a different mindset, leaving aside the question of what art is for, what is the use of it, they set themselves a different, metaphysical one: what is art. Separating art from life, they considered its creations as something self-sufficient, closed in itself. This is how the theories of "pure art" arose - the second stage in the relationship of human thought to art. Carried away by the struggle with the defenders of applied, useful art, these people went to the other extreme, asserting that there should be no benefit from art, no and never, that art is directly opposed to any self-interest, any goal: art is aimless. Our Turgenev expressed these thoughts with merciless frankness. "Art has no purpose other than art itself," he said. And in a letter to Fet and even sharper: "Not useless art is rubbish, uselessness is precisely the diamond of his crown." When the supporters of these views were asked: what unites into one class the creations that they recognize as artistic, why the paintings of Raphael, and the poems of Byron, and the melodies of Mozart - all this art, what is common between them? they answered - Beauty!
This word, first uttered in this sense in antiquity, picked up and repeated a thousand times by German aestheticians, has become a kind of spell. They reveled in it, they intoxicated themselves with it, even not wanting to delve into its meaning.
Only youth and beauty
Genius must be a fan
Pushkin said. Maikov repeated his testament almost word for word, saying that art -
isn't it a revelation
From above the stars,
From the realm of eternal youth
And eternal beauty.
It would seem that Baudelaire, alien to them, created a stunning image of Beauty, destroying and attracting to itself:
Je suis belle, o mortels! comme un reve de pierre,
Et mon sein, ou chacun s "est meurtri tour a tour,
est fait pour inspirer au poete un amour
Eternel et muet ainsi que la matiere
Et jamais je ne pleure et jamais je ne ris.
[Oh, mortal! Like a dream made of stone, I'm beautiful!
And my chest, which will destroy everyone in succession,
The hearts of artists are oppressively tormented by love,
Like substance, eternal and mute.
I never laugh, I never cry.
(Translated by V. Bryusov.)]
When the theory of "pure art" was just being created, one could understand by beauty exactly what this word means in the language. Almost every creation of ancient art and art from the time of pseudo-classicism could be applied to the word "beautiful". The naked bodies of the statues, the images of gods and heroes were beautiful, the myths of tragedies were majestically beautiful. However, in Greek sculpture and in Greek poetry there were Thersites, hanged slaves, incest - which did not really fit into the concept of beauty. Already Aristotle and later his imitator, Boileau, had to be advised to portray the ugly so that it still seemed attractive. But the romantics and their successors, the realists, rejected this embellishment of reality. All the ugliness of the world invaded artistic creativity. The pictures showed ugly faces, rags, the miserable atmosphere of reality; novels and poems from the royal palaces transferred their action to damp cellars and smoky attics, poetry took over the vanity Everyday life, her vices, her horrors, her insignificance - petty, vulgar people of our time. There was no way left to refer even to spiritual beauty when it came to Plyushkin. Beauty, like once the maiden Astrea, ultima coelestum [Last of the celestial goddesses (lat.)], apparently completely left art, and only with complete blindness to the environment was it possible after Gogol, after Dickens, after Balzac to sing revelations
From the starry heights From the realm of eternal youth And eternal beauty.
In addition, the very concept of beauty is not immutable. There is no special universal measure of beauty. Beauty is nothing more than a distraction general concept, similar to the concept of truth, goodness, and many other broad generalizations of human thought. Beauty changes over the centuries. Beauty is different for different countries. What was beauty to the Assyrian seems ugly to us; fashionable costumes, which captivated by the beauty of Pushkin, excite laughter in us; what even now the Chinese consider beautiful is alien to us. Meanwhile, the works of art of all ages and all peoples are equally defeating us. History has recently witnessed how Japanese art enslaved Europe, although the concept of beauty in these two worlds is completely different. In art there is immutability and immortality, which are not in beauty. And the marbles of the Pergamon altar are eternal, not because they are beautiful, but because art has breathed into them its own life, independent of beauty.
In order to somehow harmonize the theory of "pure art" with the facts, its defenders had to force the concept of beauty in every possible way. For a long time, when speaking about art, they began to give the concept of "beauty" different, often quite unexpected meanings. Beauty was identified with perfection, with unity in diversity, they were looking for it in waving lines, in softness, in moderation in size. “The unfortunate concept of beauty,” says one German critic, “was stretched in all directions, as if it were made of rubber ... They say that, in relation to art, the word “beauty” should be understood in a broader sense, but rather it was To say that Ugolino is beautiful in a broader sense is the same as to say that evil is good in a broader sense, and a slave is a master in a broader sense.
Particularly successful was the substitution of the word "beauty" for the word "typical". It was assured that the creations of art are beautiful because they are types. But if you put these two concepts one on top of the other, they are far from coinciding. Beauty is not always typical, and not everything typical is beautiful. Le beau c "est rare [Beautiful is rare (fr.)], said a whole school in art. Emerald green eyes seem beautiful to too many, although they are rare. Winged human figures in oriental images are striking in beauty, but they are the fruit of fantasy and create their own type.On the other hand, are there not animals, according to the most hallmarks their ugly ones, which cannot be depicted typically otherwise than as ugly: such are cuttlefish, stingrays, spiders, caterpillars ... And the types of all internal ugliness, all vices, everything flat in a person, stupid, vulgar - how can they become beauty? And does not the new art, moving bolder and bolder into the world of personal, individual feelings, sensations of the moment, and precisely of this moment, break forever and decisively from the specter of typicality?
In one place Pushkin speaks of the "science of love," of "love for the sake of love," and remarks:
this important fun
Worthy of old monkeys
Vaunted grandfather's times.
The same words can be repeated about "art for art's sake". It separates art from life, that is, from the only soil on which anything can grow in humanity. Art in the name of aimless Beauty (with a capital letter) is a dead art. No matter how flawless the forms of the sonnet, no matter how beautiful the face of the marble bust, but if there is nothing behind these sounds, behind this marble, what will attract me to them? The human spirit cannot reconcile itself to peace. "Je hais le mouvement qui deplace les lignes" - "I hate any movement of lines," says Beauty in Baudelaire. But art is always a search, always an impulse, and Baudelaire himself poured into his polished sonnets not mortal immobility, but whirlpools of anguish, despair and curses. The one state seal, which Tom cracked nuts in the palace, probably sparkled very beautifully in the sun. But a beautiful brilliance was not her destination. She was made for more.
Men of science approached art from completely different paths. Science has no pretensions to penetrate into the essence of things. Science knows only the correlations of phenomena, it can only compare and contrast them. Science cannot consider any thing without its relation to others.
The conclusions of science are observations on the correlations of things and phenomena.
Science, approaching the creations of art with its special methods, first of all refused to consider them in themselves. She realized that the creation of art without relation to a person - to the artist-creator and to the perceiver of someone else's creativity - is nothing more than a painted canvas, a chiseled stone, words and sounds connected in periods. Can't find anything in common between Egyptian pyramids and poems by Keats, if we forget about the plans of the builder and the poet and about the impressions of viewers and readers. One and the other can be identified only in the human spirit. Art exists only in man, and nowhere else. The honor of realizing this truth belongs to the philosophers of the English school. “Beauty,” Brown wrote, “is not something that exists in objects, independently of the spirit that observes it, and therefore something stable, like the objects themselves. Beauty is the disturbances of our spirit and, like other disturbances, changes under different circumstances.”
Relying on this truth, science naturally opened up two ways to study art: the study of the emotional unrest that seizes the viewer, reader, listener when he gives himself up to artistic impressions, and the study of the emotional unrest that prompts the artist to create. Science followed these two paths, but almost from the first steps it got lost.
The attempt to connect the study of aesthetic disturbances, those impressions that the creations of art give us, with physiology must be recognized as hopelessly unsuccessful. The connection of psychological facts with physiological facts is a riddle for science even in the most simple phenomena. She still does not know how to explain the transition of a pin prick into a feeling of pain. The desire to reduce immensely complex artistic disturbances to something like a pleasant or unpleasant movement of the eyeball cannot give anything but ridiculous. All physiological explanations of aesthetic phenomena do not go beyond dubious analogies. With equal success it was possible to look in physiology (in its present development) for the solution of questions of higher mathematics.
Psychology could do more here. But this science, of which Maeterlinck said that it "usurped the beautiful name of Psyche," is also far from being mature. So far, she has investigated only the simplest phenomena of our spiritual life, although with the frivolity characteristic of children, she hastens to assert that she already knows everything, that there is nothing else in the human spirit, and if there is anything, then everything is done according to the same stencils. . Faced with one of the most mysterious phenomena of human spiritual existence, in front of the sphinx riddle of art, psychology is this complex mathematical problem that requires the most sophisticated methods higher analysis, began to solve the four rules of arithmetic. Of course, the problem remained unsolved, the answer turned out to be the most arbitrary. But psychology said the job was done. And if the facts themselves did not fit her template, so much the worse for the facts!
Psychological aesthetics has collected a number of phenomena that it has recognized as "direct producers of an aesthetic feeling", such as, for example, in the field of vision: combinations of chiaroscuro, harmony of colors and their combination with brilliance, the beauty of complex movements and forms, the proportionality of parts, firm and light support of gravity, - or in the field of sounds: special combinations of tones called melody and harmony, tempo, emphasis, cadence. To these "producers" she added various pleasant sensations, delivered by the ability of associations. And by this "addition and subtraction," even without "multiplication and division," psychological aesthetics still intends to decide the question of art. She seriously thinks that every artistic creation can, in its crude sense, be decomposed into these crude elements: into brilliance, into curvature, into melody, and that after this decomposition there will be no residue.
Not to mention that the simplicity of many of these quasi-elements is highly doubtful - the whole point is that only in art do these impressions cause "aesthetic excitement". We all know the brilliance of the sun, it is often beautiful, pleasant, you can enjoy it: but it does not have that single trembling that the creations of art infuse in everyone who truly knows how to cling to them. And in the poem, where the same sun is depicted, although it “does not illuminate” from verses (Lotze’s remark), it shines for us with a completely special brilliance, the brilliance of creations of art. And so everywhere. Let's break Klinger's Beethoven into pieces - into multi-colored marbles, into dull and shiny metals, we even add here "associative" feelings about the creator of the IXth Symphony, but there will be no delight that seizes us before the creation of a new Phidias!
And the miraculous beauty of nature, the sweetest graceful and solemn landscapes, enchanting, captivating us, will never give us exactly what is called "aesthetic excitement." This feeling is destined only for the special messengers of God, who are given the significant name of the Creator - Ποιητήξ [Creator, poet (Greek)].
Another path led science to the study of spiritual disturbances that induce a person to sculpt statues, paint pictures, and compose poems. Science began to find out what kind of desires attract the artist, make him work - sometimes to the point of exhaustion - and find self-satisfaction in his work. And the spirit that blew over the science of the just past century, which at one time tore from their places things and phenomena that seemed immovable to the 18th philosophical century and turned them into an unstoppable stream of an ever-changing, ever-only becoming world, the spirit of evolutionism - directed attention of researchers to the origin of art. As in many other cases, science replaced the word "be" with the word "become" and began to investigate not "what is art", but "where did art come from", thinking that it was solving the same question. And now detailed investigations have appeared about the beginning of art in primitive people and among the savages, about the crude, powerless rudiments of ornament, sculpture, music, poetry... Science thought to unravel the secret of art by sorting out its genealogical tree. In its own way, the theory of heredity was also applied here, with the certainty that the soul of a child depends entirely on the combination of the mental properties of his ancestors.
The search for these ancestors of art led to a theory that was first expressed with complete decisiveness by Schiller. This theory was picked up and developed in passing, but with overwhelming scientific thoroughness by Spencer. The forefather of art was recognized as a game. The lower animals do not play at all. Those who, thanks to better nutrition, have a surplus nervous activity, feel the need to use it up - and spend it in the game. Humanity spends it in art. A rat that gnaws on objects that are unfit for food, a cat that rolls a ball, especially children playing, are already indulging in artistic activity. It seemed to Schiller that by this theory he in no way belittled the significance of art. "A man," he says, "plays only where he is a man in the full sense of the word, and he is only a man when he plays." This theory, of course, adjoins the theories of useless art, which Spencer admits: “To look for a goal that would serve life, that is, goodness and benefit,” he writes, “means inevitably losing sight of the aesthetic principle.”
Like another scientific solution to the riddle of art, and this theory is too broad to define art precisely, just as the theories of "useful" and "pure" art were too narrow. In search of the simplest elements into which aesthetic disturbances are resolved, science has presented elements that are often not the essence of art and which do not at all explain the unique, unique influence of art. In search of reasons that lead to creativity, she also named those that often do not lead to art at all. If all art is a game, then why isn't all play an art? How to put a limit between them? Are children playing ball more like adults playing vint than Michelangelo playing David? And why was the same Michelangelo an artist when he sculpted his statues, and was not an artist when he played money? And why do we know the aesthetic excitement of listening to the flight of the Valkyries, but only amuse ourselves by looking at the fussing kittens? How, finally, to explain the worship that artists of all times arouse in humanity: it sees in them prophets, leaders of life, teachers. Are Ibsen and Leo Tolstoy in our day only the organizers of the big world games?
Modern science has so far proved powerless to cope with the riddle of art. The theories put forward by it cannot stand, because they are fraught with contradictions. But even if we assume that the science of the future will happily bypass all the pitfalls and carefully, checking its every step, feeling every inch of the earth with the stick of its methods, will draw all the conclusions that are available to it - will it give an answer to the question, what is art? But such a question cannot even exist for science, since it still asks about essence. Science will only answer what position aesthetic unrest occupies in a number of other spiritual unrest of a person, and what exactly reasons led a person, in the past millennia of his existence, to artistic creativity. Will our thought be satisfied with this? Will we rest on these sober answers of exact knowledge?
Of course not. Returning to an example that has already served us twice, we can say that science will only decompose in the crucible that state seal that poor Tom has taken possession of. Science will only tell him how much gold and ligature it contains, only how its brilliance affects human eyes and how difficult it is to wear. But poor Tom will still know nothing about the purpose of this thing. Who will guess what art is, this state seal in a great state, the universe?
The most striking thing is that all the theories put forward have irrefutable facts behind them. Art gives pleasure - who will argue! Art teaches - we know this from thousands of examples. But at the same time, in art there are often no immediate goals, no benefit - only fanatics can deny this. Finally, art brings people together, reveals the soul, makes everyone involved in the artist's work. What is art? How is it both useful and useless together? serves Beauty and often ugly? and means of communication and privacy of the artist?
The only method that can hope to solve these questions is intuition, inspired guessing, the method that philosophers and thinkers used throughout the ages, looking for clues to the mysteries of being. And I will point to one solution to the riddle of art, which belongs precisely to the philosopher, which - it seems to me - provides an explanation for all these contradictions. This is Schopenhauer's answer. With the philosopher himself, his aesthetics is too closely connected with his metaphysics. But, tearing his guesses out of the narrow shackles of his thought, freeing his teaching about art from the teachings about “ideas”, mediators between the world of noumenons and phenomena, that quite accidentally entangled him, we will get a simple and clear truth: art is the comprehension of the world by other, non-rational ways. Art is what in other areas we call revelation. Creations of art are ajar doors to Eternity.
The phenomena of the world, as they are revealed to us in the universe - stretched in space, flowing in time, subject to the law of causality - are subject to study by the methods of science, reason. But this study, based on the indications of our external senses, gives us only an approximate knowledge. The eye deceives us by ascribing the properties of a sunbeam to the flower we are looking at. The ear deceives us, considering the fluctuations in the air as a property of a ringing bell. All our consciousness deceives us by transferring its properties, the conditions of its activity, to external objects. We live among eternal, primordial lies. Thought, and therefore science, are powerless to expose this lie. The most they could do was point it out, figure out its inevitability. Science only brings order into the chaos of false ideas and places them in ranks, making them possible, facilitating their recognition, but not knowledge.
But we are not hopelessly locked in this "blue prison" - using the image of Fet. From it there are exits to freedom, there are gaps. These gaps are those moments of ecstasy, supersensible intuition, which give other comprehension of world phenomena, penetrating deeper beyond their outer crust, into their core. The original task of art is to capture these moments of insight, inspiration. Art begins at the moment when the artist tries to clarify to himself his dark, secret feelings. Where there is no such clarification, there is no artistic creativity. Where there is no mystery in feeling, there is no art. For whom everything in the world is simple, understandable, comprehensible, he cannot be an artist. Art is only where daring is beyond the bounds, where there is a break beyond the limits of the cognizable in the thirst to scoop up at least a drop.
The elements are alien, transcendent.
"The gates of Beauty lead to knowledge," said the same Schiller. In all the centuries of their existence, unconsciously, but invariably, artists fulfilled their mission: by clarifying the secrets they revealed to themselves, they thereby sought other, more perfect ways of understanding the universe. When a savage drew spirals and zigzags on his shield and claimed that it was a "snake", he was already performing an act of knowledge. In the same way, antique marbles, images of Goethe's Faust, Tyutchev's poems - all these are precisely the impressions in a visible, tactile form of those insights that the artists knew. The true knowledge of things is revealed in them with the degree of completeness that the imperfect materials of art allowed: marble, colors, sounds, words ...
But for many centuries art did not give itself a clear and definite account of its purpose. Various aesthetic theories brought down artists. And they erected idols for themselves, instead of praying to the True God. The history of the new art is above all the history of its emancipation. Romanticism, realism and symbolism are the three stages in the struggle of artists for freedom. They finally overthrew the chains of slavery to various random purposes. Now art is finally free.
Now it consciously surrenders to its highest and only purpose: to be the knowledge of the world, outside of rational forms, outside of thinking by causality. Do not interfere with the new art in its, as it may sometimes seem, useless and alien to modern needs, task. You measure usefulness and modernity by too small measures. The benefit of humanity is at the same time our personal benefit. We all live in eternity. Those questions of being, which art can solve, never cease to be topical. Art is perhaps the greatest power that mankind possesses. While all the scraps of science, all the axes public life not able to break down the doors and walls that enclose us - art conceals in itself a terrible dynamite that will crush these walls, moreover - it is the sesame from which these doors will dissolve themselves. Let contemporary artists consciously forge their creations in the form of keys of secrets, in the form of mystical keys that open the doors for humanity from its "blue prison" to eternal freedom.
Bryusov Valery Yakovlevich (1873 - 1924) - Russian poet, prose writer, playwright, translator, literary critic, literary critic and historian. One of the founders of Russian symbolism.
And already on April 16 of the same year, it began its activity
Irkutsk provincial military commissariat. In "Service
form" of the military registration and enlistment office only one break - from July
1918 to January 1920 - the time of a short "directory"
Kolchak and interventionists. Total - 85 years in the service of the Fatherland.
Vasily Filippovich Dygay - retired colonel, former
head of the third branch of the regional military registration and enlistment office, -
without exaggeration, a living page in the history of this institution.
And not only. For example, I rarely met veterans
Great Patriotic War, who began the front line in the western
borders of the country, and finished on Far East having
24 military awards, the first of which is the famous
Medal of Honor"; surviving and continuing to serve
26 more "full calendars" in not the warmest places ...
By the way, this is also about military registration and enlistment offices.
- Those who think that they are sitting at this job are mistaken
only "clerks" and wipe their pants, - says
Vasily Filippovich. - The military registration and enlistment office is a mobilization
army reserve, spring actuating the trigger
mechanism. The spring will weaken, and the strikers and drummers are worthless.
Do you think it was accidentally said that personnel officers meet the war,
and finish the reservists?
Thanks to those military commissars who prepared us before the war.
Not a week went by that the schools did not
competitions for passing the TRP standards (“Ready for work and defense”),
hikes for 15-20 kilometers with full equipment, fees
in paramilitary camps, tests under the program "Voroshilovsky
shooter."
But how useful ... Do you want a story? It's before
the beginning of the Iasi-Kishinev operation happened. I then
was assistant chief of staff of the battalion for intelligence and received
task to get a useful "language". Before this, everything was not lucky:
either we’ll lose our people, or we’ll lose some “wagon guard”
let's take the stupid one.
And then the guys noticed one machine-gun nest from the Germans
100-150 meters from our trenches and decided to take
we'll be a day. The main bet is on their pedantry. Fascists
even at the front, they fought according to the schedule. Breakfast lunch,
supper is sacred to them. We selected three strong
guys and in the morning, when all the German machine gunners were distracted
for coffee with biscuits, threw them "for a hundred meters" ... The sun
the Germans in the eye, plus the factor of surprise, and even speed.
In short, they threw grenades at the nest, grabbed the "tongue"
calm down and go back. Guess I guess then stopwatch
let it go, the record of "hundred meters" would long ago have been from another count
led ... Here you have the TRP, here you have work with conscripts.
- And you yourself thought that you would ever have to go to the military registration and enlistment office
serve? How did it even happen?
- In general, when our 110th Guards Rifle
Alexandrinsky-Khinganskaya twice Red Banner, orders
Suvorov and Alexander Nevsky, the division was transferred to
1945 from near Mukden to Irkutsk, there was no such thought.
But since 1948, I have, in principle, been engaged in almost
military commissariat work - served in the headquarters of the district as a senior
assistant to the head of the organizational and mobilization department
department. In 1953, a major reform was carried out in the army
and the East Siberian District was abolished with headquarters
in Irkutsk, and here I already got to serve in the regional military registration and enlistment office.
Then many front-line officers were sent to this system.
Firstly, in order not to lose the officers, and secondly,
to strengthen the military registration and enlistment offices themselves. During the war and
after it, they were often staffed with personnel who did not have
appropriate education, logistics specialists, which
in the conditions of "cooling" it was, to put it mildly, short-sighted.
- And what, now the front-line soldiers began to teach military registration and enlistment offices
run a hundred meters?
- And how ... Previously, because the working conditions are not like
the current ones were - no telexes, no mobile phones, no computers.
Transport was not enough. The regional military registration and enlistment office
housed in a one-story wooden building opposite the factory
named after Kuibyshev. And they worked in it ... 60 people - 36
officers and 24 employees, said to be from civilian
population. What about the scope of work? The current military commissars even imagine
difficult, what is it to call on a valid yearly
service of 10 thousand recruits and even provide mandatory
retraining of 500 officers and more than 2 thousand soldiers and
reserve sergeants ... Now about this form of work, almost
forgotten, but it would not hurt to remember - as well as about the "fried
rooster, "who pecks at the wrong time, and that" the people
who does not want to feed his own army, will feed someone else's ... "
However, this is different.
So about hundred meters. In order not to take the post-war
time - you yourself understand, even the law of inertia could work,
Let me give you an example from 1969. A quarter of a century after the war
superpower complex, and it seems to be the beginning of "shortness of breath".
And the order of the district commander - within 48 hours
deploy a division from among the reservists in the region,
staffed according to wartime states. For military registration and enlistment offices
this period is always halved ... So, after
24 hours military commissar of the Tulunsky district, Lieutenant Colonel Ivan
Artemenko gathered and sent 600 people to the assembly point
soldiers and sergeants, 100 officers and more than 200 vehicles.
Lieutenant Colonel Iosif Bochever from Nizhneudinsk - more
1000 people and 300 vehicles. And so on for everyone
district military offices. How else? Our practice was:
gave an introductory to this or that district to collect in the right
time for so many reservists, and if 10-15 percent did not
- marriage in the work of military enlistment offices. Yes ... front-line hardening was.
To the current practice of the work of military registration and enlistment offices Vasily Filippovich
treats with understanding - difficult time, other tasks,
and yet there is one "but" that does not approve: few
humanity towards people. What to say about
conscripts, reservists, even if their veterans
the recruiting office remembers less and less. Last congratulations
received from colleagues Vasily Filippovich ... for the 80th anniversary of the military registration and enlistment office.
Maybe now they will remember by the 85th anniversary? But from the institute
"Vostsibgiproshakht", where he worked for only five years as the head
civil defense, regularly receives congratulations,
and material assistance... Even the president of Russia and the minister
defense every year do not forget to congratulate on the Victory Day.
- This is the main thing I want to wish my colleagues on the day
Anniversary of the military registration and enlistment office: remember people. Remember results
work - "hundred meters" has not yet ended. It would be good for everyone
us to be in full shape ...
1682
(Chronicles of the Streltsy rebellion)
On April 27, 1682, the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand prince of all Great Little and White Russia, autocrat Fyodor Alekseevich, died, and the next day, the young clerk of the Discharge Order, Savely Egoza, sharpened his pen, straightened the already fairly burnt candle, scratched his right ear and began to slowly fill out a notebook.
“The summer of 7190 April on the 27th day was called Russian state as king of the Sovereign Tsarevich and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich of All Russia on the presentation of the brother of his Grand Sovereign, the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Great Lesser and White Russia, Autocrat Fyodor Alekseevich of the day at 13 o'clock on Thursday of St. Thomas' week "
Then the clerk looked up at the smoky ceiling of his tiny cell, sneezed at the sudden tickling in his nose, and continued to write.
“On the same date, the boyars and devious and close people kissed the cross to the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich of all Great Little and White Russia, the autocrat in wooden mansions, where the great sovereign was gone.”
Savely finished the sentence and thought. There was something for him to think about. He saw this kissing of the cross. The chance presented itself to him. They sent him with a scroll to the royal chambers, and there ...
Fyodor Alekseevich was still snoring on his deathbed, and worried people were bustling around. But they did not care about the welfare of the sick person, they had other things on their minds.
- Departs, after all, departs, - the boyar Kirill Poluektovich Naryshkin ran from corner to corner. “Send for the Patriarch as soon as possible, for Jokim!”
Next to the dying man's bed, closer than anyone else, stood the Yazykovs, Pavel Petrovich, with Semyon Ivanovich, and the doctor Jan Gutman.
“Maybe he’ll get some more, sir?” whispered the cup-bearer Semyon Ivanovich in a barely audible voice, peering with great hope at the doctor's stooped back.
“Yes, where is it,” the roundabout Pavel Petrovich waved his hand dismissively, “it’s coming to an end. Oh, our grave sins ...
The tea-cup-maker rushed impetuously to the roundabout and hurriedly whispered in his ear:
- Maybe we didn’t believe Naryshkin in vain? Maybe Ivan - do you need sovereigns? He's the eldest.
- And who knows now, how is it better now?
- Maybe in vain we agreed to Peter? Oh, in vain ...
- What are you, Herod, - out of nowhere, the ruddy Ivan Kirillovich Naryshkin appeared next to whispering, - are you starting a turmoil? Yes, I am you now ...
And then someone groaned:
- It's over!
And an alarming whisper rustled through the royal mansions:
- Lord, Lord, Lord...
And suddenly a cry in the midst of this rustle, like a whip whistling:
- Natalia! Where is Natalya?! Petra, come on! Petra! Where are you all?!
It was Kirill Poluektovich Naryshkin who was worried. And the movement of people from these cries was more busy than before. Everyone fussed, ran ... and then on their knees at once - bang! Patriarch of Moscow Joachim granted. The patriarch approached the dead man and began to read a prayer in a whisper. The silence in the royal chambers hung dead. And what else should she be in this case? And, suddenly, in the midst of that silence, a deathly cough is polite, and then the words are asking.
“Everything is ready,” Kirill Poluektovich hoots. “Forgive me, my lord, but it’s time. Let Peter crown the kingdom. Wouldn't be late...
Again the people got excited. All eyes turned to the throne. And Savely, of course, like everyone else ... He wanted to see the new sovereign, but he saw a frightened boy, ruffled like sparrows after rain, and timidly looking around him. And the people in the wards kept coming and coming. And this was not a simple people, but one of the most prominent. The young clerk was pushed back to the door. It's a shame, of course, a little, but in this case, it's not a sin to stand at the door. Not every day a sovereign is crowned king. True, nothing is visible from the door. No matter how hard Savely tried, he did not reach on tiptoe, but apart from someone's back in a shaggy caftan, nothing could be seen. And Egoza decided to squeeze forward to try, and he seemed to have found some kind of crack, and then a woman’s cry behind his back:
- Yes, what are you doing, Herods?! How can that be? Why are you like crows ... Well, his soul is still here, and you ...
Savely turned around and saw Princess Sophia. He just wasn't used to seeing her like that. She was always majestic, and, as it were, solemn, but here ... Her hair was disheveled, her face was pale with red spots, her hands were trembling. An amazing sight. Only the deacon was not destined to marvel at his pleasure. Naryshkin's father and sons ran up to Princess Naryshka, and okolnichiy Yazykov, like watchdogs...
“You, Sofyushka, that one,” Kirill Poluektovich pushed the angry Sophia to the threshold, “we do everything according to the covenant. According to the behest of Fyodor Alekseevich. Don't be mad Sophia. Last words he was, so that Peter to the kingdom ... Get out, ask Yazykov. He will tell you the whole truth. You tell her Languages, tell her. What happens, that cannot be avoided. Don't be angry. Which Ivan is the king? You know…
Sofya wanted to object to Naryshkin, but suddenly she howled like a woman, like a village, covered her face with her hands and ran out the door.
- Thank you Lord, - whispered, exhaling noisily, Kirill Poluektovich. I thought it would be worse...
Meanwhile, the patriarch brought the solemn rite to completion, and ordered everyone to kiss the new sovereign's cross. The triumph of the moment has come ... All those who were in the ward were driven to the throne ...
The clerk wiped his face with his sleeve and continued writing in the book:
“On the same date, the stolniks and solicitors, and Moscow nobles and residents kissed the cross to the great sovereign…”
When the pandemonium subsided a little in the chambers, noble boyars went to the people. And Savely, together with everyone else, fled from the steps of the royal porch. The people in the square in front of the porch were apparently invisible. Everyone was worried, only Kirill Pluektovich Naryshkin was businesslike, calm and strict, sending out boyars from his inner circle in order to quickly bring the people to the oath of the new tsar. The bigger, the better! He wanted to get it done as soon as possible. Strike while the iron is hot!
“and the boyar Yakov Nikitich Odoevskoy and the roundabout prince Kostentin Osipovich Shcherbaty Duma clerk Vasily Semenov led to faith. And in the cathedral apostolic church, the boyar Pyotr Mikhailovich Soltykov, the prince Grigory Afanasyevich Kozlovsky, and the duma clerk Emelyan Ukraintsev brought to the cross. In the Posolsky Prikaz, the duma deacon Larion Ivanov led clerks, translators, and interpreters to the cross. At Christmas on Christ, the steward Ivan Afonasiev son Likhachev and palace clerks led to the cross. In Opteka, the boyar and butler Prince Vasily Fedorovich Odoyesky and the deacon Andrey Vinius led to faith.
At first everything went well. No one slammed, and everyone regularly kissed the cross, but a petty rumor flew around the square.
- Archers refuse to swear allegiance to the new king.
Dyak Saveliy sighed, in his soul cursing the archers for their self-will, so, after all, what outrageous things, yes, he wrote down:
“On the same date, the strong ones were made and the archers of the Alexandrov order of Karandeev did not kiss the cross.”