"Casus Wagner"(it. Der fall wagner) - the work of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The manuscript of the work was completed in the spring of 1888. The book was published in the fall of the same year by the Leipzig publishing house of K.G. Naumann.
Friedrich Nietzsche on his book
I give myself a little relief. It is not just pure malice if in this essay I praise Bizet at the expense of Wagner. Under the cover of many jokes, I am talking about a business that cannot be joked. To turn my back on Wagner was something fatal for me; to love something again after that is a victory. No one, perhaps, merged in a more dangerous degree with Wagnerianism, no one defended himself more stubbornly from it, no one was more happy that he was freed from it. Long story! - Would you like me to formulate it in one word? - If I were a moralist, who knows what I would call her! Perhaps self-overcoming. - But the philosopher does not like moralists ... He also does not like beautiful words ...
The work marks Nietzsche's final break with Richard Wagner. The work speaks of the uselessness and harmfulness of the work of the German composer.
Write a review on the article "Casus Wagner"
Notes (edit)
Work in Russian
- Collection of works - "Beyond Good and Evil", "Casus Wagner", "Antichrist", "Esse Nomo", "Human, Too Human", "Wicked Wisdom". Minsk, 2005, publishing house "Harvest". ISBN 985-13-0983-4
Excerpt from Casus Wagner
“That’s the thing,” Bilibin answered. - Listen. The French are entering Vienna, as I told you. Everything is very good. The next day, that is, yesterday, gentlemen marshals: Murat Lann and Belyard, sit on horseback and go to the bridge. (Note, all three are Gascons.) Gentlemen, says one, you know that the Tabor bridge is mined and countermined, and that in front of it is a formidable tete de pont and fifteen thousand troops, who were ordered to blow up the bridge and not let us in. But our sovereign Emperor Napoleon will be pleased if we take this bridge. Let's pass the three of us and take this bridge. - Let's go, others say; and they go and take the bridge, cross it, and now with the whole army on this side of the Danube are heading towards us, towards you and towards your messages.- To joke completely, - said Prince Andrey sadly and seriously.
This news was sad and at the same time pleasant to Prince Andrey.
As soon as he found out that the Russian army was in such a hopeless situation, it occurred to him that it was precisely for him that it was intended to bring the Russian army out of this situation, that here he was, that Toulon, who would lead him out of the ranks of unknown officers and would open the first path for him to glory! Listening to Bilibin, he was already thinking how, having arrived at the army, he would give an opinion at the council of war, which alone would save the army, and how he alone would be entrusted with the implementation of this plan.
“To be completely joking,” he said.
“I'm not joking,” Bilibin continued, “there is nothing more just and sadder. These gentlemen come to the bridge alone and raise their white kerchiefs; they assure that there is a truce, and that they, the marshals, are going to negotiate with Prince Auersperg. The officer on duty lets them into the tete de pont. [bridge fortification.] They tell him a thousand Gascon nonsense: they say that the war is over, that Emperor Franz has made an appointment with Bonaparte, that they want to see Prince Auersperg, and a thousand Gasconades, and so on. Officer sends for Auersperg; These gentlemen hug the officers, joke, sit down on the cannons, while the French battalion, unnoticed, enters the bridge, throws sacks of flammable substances into the water and approaches the tete de pont. Finally, the Lieutenant General himself, our dear Prince Auersperg von Mautern, appears. “Dear enemy! The color of the Austrian army, the hero of the Turkish wars! The enmity is over, we can shake hands with each other ... Emperor Napoleon is burning with the desire to recognize Prince Auersperg. " In a word, these gentlemen, not for nothing the Gascons, so bombard Auersperg with beautiful words, he is so seduced by his so quickly established intimacy with the French marshals, so blinded by the appearance of Murat's mantle and ostrich feathers, qu "il n" y voit que du feu, et oubl celui qu "il devait faire faire sur l" ennemi. [That he sees only their fire and forgets about his own, which he was obliged to open against the enemy.] (Despite the liveliness of his speech, Bilibin did not forget to pause after this mot to give time to evaluate him.) The French battalion rushes into tete de pont, the cannons are nailed down, and the bridge is taken. No, but what is best, - he continued, calming down in his excitement by the charm of his own story, - is that the sergeant, assigned to that gun, at the signal of which he was supposed to light mines and blow up the bridge, this sergeant, seeing that the French troops running to the bridge, was about to shoot, but Lann pulled his hand away. The sergeant, who, apparently, was smarter than his general, approaches Auersperg and says: "Prince, they are deceiving you, here are the French!" Murat sees that the case is lost if the sergeant is allowed to speak. He is surprised (a real Gascon) turns to Auersperg: “I don’t recognize the Austrian discipline so vaunted in the world,” he says, “and you allow the lower rank to talk to you like that!” C "est genial. Le prince d" Auersperg se pique d "honneur et fait mettre le sergent aux arrets. Non, mais avouez que c" est charmant toute cette histoire du pont de Thabor. Ce n "est ni betise, ni lachete ... [This is brilliant. Prince Auersperg is insulted and orders the arrest of the sergeant. No, admit it is lovely, this whole story with the bridge. This is not just stupidity, not like meanness ...]
Friedrich Nietzsche. Ecce Homo, how to become yourself. Casus Wagner
The musician's problem
To treat this work fairly, one must suffer from the fate of music as from an open wound. Why do I suffer, suffering from the fate of music? Because music is devoid of its world-glorifying, affirming character - because it has become the music of decadence and has already ceased to be the flute of Dionysus ... But if someone, like me, feels his own business in the matter of music, the history of his own suffering, then will find this composition still too condescending, too bland. To be cheerful in such cases and good-naturedly ridicule oneself along the way - ridendo dicere severum, - where verum dicere would justify any severity, is humanity itself. Who really doubts that, as an old artilleryman, I can roll out my heavy weapon against Wagner? - I kept everything decisive in this matter to myself - I loved Wagner. - However, in the sense and on the way of my task lies an attack on a more subtle "stranger", which the other will not easily guess - oh, I have to discover more completely different "strangers" than some Cagliostro music - and of course a stronger an attack on the spiritually becoming more and more cowardly and poor in instincts, increasingly becoming a venerable German nation, which with an enviable appetite continues to feed on opposites and without indigestion swallows "faith" together with scientific knowledge, "Christian love" together with anti-Semitism , the will to power (to the "Empire") together with evangile des humbles ... This is indifference among opposites! This digestive neutrality and this "selflessness"! This common sense of the German palate, which gives equal rights to everything - which finds everything tasty ... Without a doubt, the Germans are idealists ... When I last visited Germany, I found German taste preoccupied with granting equal rights to Wagner and the trumpet player from Säckingen; I myself witnessed how in Leipzig, in honor of the most real and most German musician in the old sense of the word, and not only in the sense of the imperial German, Maester Heinrich Schütz, Liszt's Ferein was founded with the aim of developing and spreading sinuous church music ... Without a doubt, the Germans are idealists ...
But here nothing should prevent me from becoming rude and telling the Germans a few hard truths: who will do this besides me? “I'm talking about their obscenity in historicis. German historians have not only lost a broad outlook on the course, on the values of culture, but they are all jesters of politics (or the church): they even ostracize this broad outlook. First of all, you must be a "German", "a race", then you can already make decisions about all values and non-values in historicis - to establish them ... "German" is an argument, "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" is a principle, Germans are the essence "moral world order" in history; in relation to the imperium Romanum, bearers of freedom, in relation to the eighteenth century - restorers of morality, the "categorical imperative" ... There is imperial German historiography, I am afraid that there is even an anti-Semitic one, - there is court historiography, and Herr von Treitschke is not ashamed .. Recently, as a "truth", the idiotic opinion in historicis bypassed all German newspapers, the thesis, fortunately, of the deceased aesthetic Swabian Fischer, with whom every German must agree: "The Renaissance and the Reformation together form one whole - aesthetic revival and moral revival ". - With such theses my patience comes to an end, and I feel the desire, I even feel it as a duty - to finally tell the Germans what they already have on their conscience. All the great crimes against culture for four centuries lie on their conscience! .. And always for one reason: because of their deep cowardice in front of reality, which is also cowardice in front of the truth, because of their instinct, untruthfulness, because of their "idealism" ... The Germans deprived Europe of the harvest, the meaning of the last great era, the Renaissance, at a time when the highest order of values, when aristocratic, life-affirming and future-proof values achieved victory in the very residence of opposite values, values of decline - and down to the instincts of those who were there! Luther, this fatal monk, rebuilt the church and, a thousand times worse, Christianity at the moment it was defeated ... Christianity is the denial of the will to live that has become a religion ... Luther, an impossible monk who, by reason of his " impossibility "attacked the church and - therefore! - restored it ... Catholics would have reason to arrange festivities in honor of Luther, to compose theatrical performances in honor of Luther ... Luther - and "moral revival"! To hell with all psychology! - Without a doubt, the Germans are idealists. Twice, when, with great courage and self-overcoming, a truthful, unambiguous, completely scientific way of thinking was achieved, the Germans were able to find roundabout ways to the old "ideal", to reconciliation between truth and "ideal", in essence to formulas for the right to deviate from science, on the right to lie. Leibniz and Kant are two of the greatest brakes on the intellectual truthfulness of Europe! - Finally, when the force majeure of genius and will appeared on the bridge between two centuries of decadence, strong enough to create from Europe unity, political and economic unity, in order to rule the land, the Germans with their "wars for freedom" deprived Europe of meaning, wonderful meaning in the existence of Napoleon - that is why everything that came after, that exists now - lies on their consciences: this disease and madness, which is most hostile to culture, is nationalism, this nevrose nationale, which Europe suffers from, this perpetuation small states of Europe, small politics: they deprived Europe itself of its meaning, its reason - they led it to a dead end. - Does anyone, except me, know the way out of this impasse? .. The task is great enough - to re-connect the peoples? ..
And after all, why not let my suspicion speak? The Germans, and in my case, will again try everything in order to give birth to a mouse from a monstrous fate. They have compromised themselves in me so far, I doubt that in the future they will succeed in this in the best way. - Oh, how I want to be a bad prophet here! .. Even now, my natural readers and listeners are Russians, Scandinavians and French - will there be more and more of them all the time? - The Germans inscribed in the history of knowledge only ambiguous names, they always produced only "unconscious" counterfeiters (Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Schleiermacher, this name befits to the same extent as Kant and Leibniz; they are all only schleiermakers): they never honor will not wait for the first truthful mind in the history of thought, the mind in which the truth pronounces its judgment on counterfeiting coins for four millennia, would be identified with the German spirit. The "German spirit" is my bad air: I can hardly breathe in this, which has become an instinct, uncleanliness in psychologicis, which is given out by every word, every mine of a German. They have not at all gone through the seventeenth century of harsh self-examination, like the French - some La Rochefoucauld, some Descartes are a hundred times superior in truthfulness to any German - they have not yet had a single psychologist. But psychology is almost a scale for the cleanliness or uncleanliness of a race ... And if there is no cleanliness, how can there be depth? A German, like a woman, cannot get to the bottom, he is deprived of it: that's all. But you can't even be flat. - What is called "deep" in Germany is precisely this instinct of uncleanliness in relation to oneself, about which I speak: there is no desire to understand oneself. May I suggest the word "German" as an international coin to denote this psychological depravity? - At the moment, for example, the German Kaiser calls his "Christian duty" the emancipation of slaves in Africa: among us, other Europeans, it would be called simply "German" duty ... Have the Germans created at least one book in which there would be depth? They don't even have a clue of what's deep in the book. I met scholars who considered Kant profound; at the Prussian court, I am afraid, Herr von Treitschke is considered profound. And when I, on occasion, praise Stendhal as a profound psychologist, it happens that a German university professor asks him to say this name by syllable ...
And why don't I go all the way? I love to clear the table. To be considered a man who despises Germans par excellence is even my pride. I have already expressed my distrust of the German character for twenty-six years (Third Untimely) - Germans are impossible for me. When I invent for myself a kind of man that contradicts all my instincts, a German always comes out of it. The first thing in which I "test the womb" of a person is the question: does he have a sense of distance in his body, does he see the rank, degree, order between man and man everywhere, does he know how to distinguish: this is what distinguishes gentilhomme; in any other case he belongs hopelessly to the magnanimous, ah! the good-natured concept of canaille. But the Germans are canaille ah! they are so good-natured ... Communication with the Germans humiliates: the German becomes on an equal footing ... With the exception of my relations with some artists, especially with Richard Wagner, I did not experience a single good hour with the Germans ... If you imagine that among the Germans, the deepest mind of all millennia appeared, then some savior of the Capitol would imagine that her imperfect soul is at least also taken into account ... I cannot stand this race, among which you are always in a bad society, in which no fingers for nuances - woe is me! I have a nuance - which does not have esprit in its legs and which does not even know how to walk ... In the end, the Germans have no feet at all, they only have legs ... there is a superlative vulgarity - they are not ashamed even to be only Germans ... They talk about everything, they consider themselves the decisive authority, I am afraid that even about me they have already made a decision ... My whole life is de rigueur proof for these positions ... In vain do I seek even one sign of tact, delicatesse in regard to me. The Jews gave them to me, the Germans never. My nature wants me to be gentle and benevolent in relation to everyone - I have the right not to make any distinctions - this does not prevent, however, that my eyes were open. I make no exceptions for anyone, least of all for my friends - I hope in the end that this has not done any harm to my humanity towards them. There are five or six things that I have always made myself a question of honor. - Despite this, it remains true that each of the letters I received over the years, I feel like cynicism: there is more cynicism in benevolence towards me than in any hatred ... I say to the face of each of my friends that he never bothered to study even one of my works: I recognize by the smallest features that they do not even know what is written there. As for my Zarathustra especially, which of my friends would have seen in him more than unlawful, fortunately, completely indifferent arrogance? the default under which it was buried; only a foreigner, a Dane, first discovered a sufficient subtlety of instinct and courage and rebelled against my imaginary friends ... In which German university would it be possible today to lecture about my philosophy in Copenhagen, which he gave in Copenhagen last spring and this once again proved psychologist Dr. Georg Brandes? - I myself have never suffered because of all this; the necessary does not offend me; amor fati is my innermost nature. But this does not exclude the fact that I love irony, even world-historical irony. And now, almost two years before the devastating lightning strike of the Revaluation, which will plunge the earth into convulsions, I sent "Casus Wagner" into the world: let the Germans once again immortally make mistakes in me and immortalize themselves! there is still time for this! - Has this been achieved? - Delightful, gentlemen Germans! Congratulations...
"Casus Wagner"
Friedrich Nietzsche is a unique figure in the field of philosophy. His work received worldwide recognition and is still the subject of heated debate. Nietzsche's positions are applicable to many areas of life, but the question of their correctness and universality is decided by everyone for himself.
Reconsidering the traditional position of the subject in philosophy, Nietzsche became the discoverer, pioneer of oppositional philosophy, opposing himself to the rest of the research.
The works of Friedrich Nietzsche cover various fields of science and are not combined into a system, which allows us to comprehend the position of the philosopher from several sides.
The values of compassion and mercy were for Nietzsche a sign of decline and weakness. Only the endlessly striving forward will to live and to value can become that healthy morality that will lead to triumph.
Nietzsche has earned himself the reputation of an excellent stylist, which helps to clothe his thoughts in the correct form. The praise of "free minds", the desire to free oneself from all accepted conventions in matters of culture, religion and much more, shaped the views of Friedrich Nietzsche. His pragmatic approach to life and morality expressed the utmost clarity of concepts and clarity of definitions.
The will to power, considered as the main engine of human development, is for Nietzsche the highest value on which progress should be based.
The work "On the benefits and harms of history for life" I read left a deep impression on me. The views expressed in this essay are able to force us to rethink the views on the role of history in our life and to think about the structure of time, about what is the past and what is the future. Time is one of the most mysterious matters, and history, which studies time and the development of the world over time, is one of the most interesting and inexhaustible sciences.
I agree that a person or a whole nation cannot be judges of the past, but can only consign it to oblivion in order to build the future from scratch.
Like Nietzsche, I believe that the historian must have both precision and depth of thought and simplicity of its expression.
Despite some complexity of the language of the work, the main ideas are formulated clearly and gracefully, which allows you to delve into their essence as consciously as possible.
After reading this work, my thoughts took the same direction as that of the author, I was imbued with the ideas and positions expressed in the work. The questions and answers that we find in "On the benefits and harms of history for life" are worthy of becoming a part of the life philosophy of every person.
Friedrich Nietzsche's essay "Casus Wagner" reflects a difficult period in the life of the philosopher. The short but understanding friendship with Richard Wagner greatly influenced Nietzsche. The two friends became close thanks to the same ideals, the desire for pure truth and common interests, for example, love for the work of Arthur Schopenhauer. For Wagner, Nietzsche became practically a member of the family. All the more painful was the gap that occurred between two outstanding people three years after they met. Nietzsche accused Wagner of betraying his own principles and values, of indulging the interests of the general public, of renouncing ideals. Wagner's adoption of Christianity also angered Friedrich Nietzsche and contributed to the destruction of friendship. Harsh criticism of each other was a frequent manifestation of the mutual frustration of Nietzsche and Wagner. The beginning of this stage of enmity was the composer's statement that Nietzsche's book "Human, Too Human" is nothing more than a sad testimony to the author's illness. Friedrich Nietzsche's essay Casus Wagner is not a direct response to such criticism. Neither Wagner nor Nietzsche would have stooped to mutually derogatory remarks about each other, caused only by the desire to hurt their former friend more painfully. Such behavior is unworthy of great minds, therefore the essay "Casus Wagner" is an example of the author's outstanding self-sacrifice and self-denial. It is not easy to admit that a person with whom you recently shared common ideals has betrayed them. It is not easy to accept your own loneliness, when until recently there was someone with you whom you considered your ally.
Nietzsche defines music not simply as an art designed to delight the ear and soul. No, the author equates music with philosophy! "Have you noticed that music makes the mind free? It gives wings of thought? That you become the more a philosopher the more you become a musician?" The ability to find answers to questions in music, to make it your medicine or, conversely, a poison is inherent in few. Only an outstanding mind responds to the call of music, understands all the ulterior motives, reads between the musical lines.
"Wagner is not the only savior." From this statement, we can conclude that Wagner's music once admired and saved Nietzsche himself, but not a trace remained of this. The author elevates the brave and genius Bizet with his new sensuality and gaiety, replacing refined sentimentality.
An important point in the essay is the author's reasoning about love. How does Nietzsche understand love, what does he put into this concept, about which so much has already been said? A tremendous discovery awaits us, one of those revelations that come from the reading of outstanding works. So love is hate! This oxymoron finds expression in the opera Carmen, where mad passion and murder are separated by only a fine line. Love is not pseudo-sacrifice, under the mask of which selfishness and the desire to completely possess the object of one's passion are hidden. This is how many artists understand love, including Wagner. But Nietzsche dismisses this idea as fundamentally wrong, claiming the motto that love is war. She was born by nature itself and is not subject to selfish and selfish aspirations. She is cynical, sometimes cruel, but in no way artificial. Only such an understanding of love is worthy of a philosopher.
Another accusation thrown to Nietzsche to Wagner is the reproach that Wagner takes the listener away from the real world, clouding our minds with naive illusions. Nietzsche is wary of the ideas and problems of Wagner's works, considers them unacceptably stereotypical and sentimental. Nietzsche states that Wagner defends the Christian concept "you must and must believe." Friedrich Nietzsche was far from religious dogmas and concepts, and in this case, such a position of Wagner can cause him only misunderstanding and indignation. Clarity and truth, validity of actions are the values that Nietzsche followed, and renunciation of knowledge is the highest crime for him. The philosopher asks questions, the answers to which can hardly be found in the works of Wagner. Nietzsche accuses the composer of being illogical, naive, escaping reality into a fantasy world.
Interesting is the attitude of Nietzsche to women, expressed in the essay "Casus Wagner". Citing examples from the works of Richard Wagner, Nietzsche categorically rejects the exaltation of the image of the Lady in them. The philosopher is deeply disgusted by the blind admiration of the strong masculine principle before the vague image of the Eternal Feminine.
Friedrich Nietzsche ironically speaks of the revival of Goethe's work by Wagner. The "unclean spirit" that Goethe was believed to be saved by Wagner! But how was he saved? Not selflessly raised from the depths of public contempt, but only refreshed, because Wagner still takes the side of the "highest virgin" ...
What is "holiness" to Nietzsche? It is a landmark that the crowd recognizes, but does not recognize. The ideal for the nearsighted - that's what holiness is! Infinitely far from philosophy.
Another accusation thrown at Wagner is his belief in a saving revolution. Let's destroy the old order - and disasters will disappear! This idea is developed in Wagner's work "The Ring". Emancipation of a woman, declaring war on old treaties, striving for everything unconventional are the goals of Siegfried's hero. But there is optimism here, "unholy optimism," as Schopenhauer calls it. Nietzsche notes with relief that Wagner's Ring was saved by Schopenhauer.
Friedrich Nietzsche asks the question: "Is Wagner a man at all? Isn't he more of a disease?" After all, "he made music for the sick." He won over the not poor in spirit to his side! He persuaded many to his own ideals, won great fame, gained unprecedented power, enveloping people with illusions!
Nietzsche wonders why people do not see the essence of Wagner's work. He sees in this a sign of the decline and decay of society, a general European decadence! And that sounds like an accusation. The accusation of exorbitant selfishness, when those who honor Wagner, thereby satisfy their own vanity. Wagner attracts the exhausted because he himself increases the exhaustion. Brings up the problems of hysterical heroes to the stage, glorifies inconstancy and hypertrophied effects, expresses a hypersensitivity unusual for the real world with its imperfections. Wagner is the main protagonist of decadence, a hero of that time, praised by the same sick and emaciated people like himself. "Wagner is a great spoilage for music," Nietzsche argues. Criticizing the very time that gave birth to such a hero, he criticizes everything: society, art, customs.
Beauty according to Nietzsche will not find a place in such a time. What should she do in a world where only the sublime, exalted and solemn finds a response in souls? In a world in which everyone needs something deep and motivating and, having received it, does not require anything else. In a world in which the thought itself is not needed, but only the feeling that it is about to be born is needed. So let's be solemn! Majestic! Let's take passion to the absolute, make others in awe! Let us reject what is hard given! casus wagner nietzsche work
Nietzsche is ironic about idealism. He does not understand it, does not see the truth in it. But the time that praised Wagner needs idealism. He needs to hide his own vices behind lofty matters, behind lofty feelings and noble motives.
"Let us never allow music to serve for relaxation; that it amuses; that it gives pleasure! - we are lost if people begin to think about art hedonistically ..." These words fully reflect Nietzsche's attitude to music. No rest, no relaxation! The philosopher hates hedonism. There are good reasons for this, because the idea of a superman expressed by Nietzsche does not imply pleasure as the raison d'être of existence. The main goal is the will, the pursuit of truth.
The general decline of art worries Nietzsche. The transformation of a musician, who, according to Nietzsche, should be a philosopher, into an actor, a lyceum, trying on masks is another problem of society, a product of a newly acquired philosophy of pleasure. It is not art itself that develops, but the ability to lie, elevated to the rank of art. This expresses the disability and inferiority of society.
Even in literature, times are tough. The whole ceases to be whole. Nietzsche was not a supporter of the system, he believed that a great mind is capable of disobeying it, but in this case we are not talking about the system, but about unity and integrity. It is integrity that leads to truth, if it does not exist, but there are only vague reasoning, darkening our consciousness and plunging us into the abyss of anarchy, then what will happen to literature? What will happen to this art form when the word jumps out of order and becomes independent?
The poverty of Wagner's art is expressed in the fact that he is capable only of details, but not of the general picture and meaning. But, no matter how precise the little things are, the main thing should be the Idea, which will determine the very meaning of the creation of the work. Wagner is incapable of organic creativity, incapable of style. Nietzsche reproaches Wagner for applying principles where there is no ability, but here I allow myself to disagree with him. No matter how praised the striving for the ideal, it is endless and unattainable, since the ideal does not exist. There is no perfect genius. So, is it worth blaming anyone for replacing abilities with principles if the very idea that there is a kind of comprehensively gifted person capable of anything contradicts nature itself and the very understanding of man?
Suddenly Nietzsche, after all the criticism expressed against Wagner, recognizes another facet of the composer. Not that Wagner who created deliberately and falsely solemn art, but the one who became a jeweler who created a masterpiece for music. For the first time in all his essays, Friedrich Nietzsche openly acknowledges Wagner's virtue, his talent, his strengths in creativity. It is the acting nature of Wagner that Nietzsche recognizes as dominant, and this conclusion, alas, is not in favor of the composer. Nietzsche does not accept actors, does not accept their art of lying, their desire to force non-existent fantasies into our heads.
But there is also the Wagner-actor, whom Nietzsche condemns. For pathos, for tyranny, for the heavy curtain of his works, behind which there is nothing.
The definition that plays a large role in the essay "Casus Wagner" is the Wagnerians. Who are they? The author himself gives us the answer: these are numb, pale, breathless youths! Romantics who do not recognize their romanticism, revel in the poison of self-created illusions and glorify the one who makes them better. It is these young men who are decadents. So what is decadence?
Many scholars define decadence as a generalization of the crisis phenomena of European culture in the second half of the 19th century.
Decadence was characterized by such phenomena as: despondency, pessimism, hopelessness. This complex creative phenomenon manifested itself in almost all areas of culture and creativity. It is precisely because of decadence that creativity in the second half of the 19th century was filled with subjectivism and cliches, and it is these cliches in the assessment not only of Wagner's work, but also in the assessment of creativity and culture in general that Friedrich Nietzsche condemns.
Art abandoned political and civic themes at that time. Decadent artists considered the freedom to choose a theme for their works as an indispensable condition for freedom of creativity. Constant themes are the motives of nothingness and death, the denial of historically established spiritual ideals and values.
It is against decadence that Nietzsche's criticism is directed. He believes that Wagner belongs to the decadents and therefore condemns him, condemns his work and his followers.
Friedrich Nietzsche does not recognize Wagner's natural talent for music. He believes that the composer has overcome nature, dropped laws. He became an innovator of the first rank, introduced so many new things into music that no one else did. But he turned music into a language, made it acting and dramatic. And Nietzsche condemns this drama. Condemns the elementary nature of music, the desire for indispensable action.
He compares Wagner to Schiller, condemning both Schiller and Wagner's inherent arrogance and contempt for the world, which, as Nietzsche believed, they both cast at their feet. Nietzsche believes that Wagner's music is not true, but it is considered so by his fans. Moreover, Wagner, according to Nietzsche, does not bother himself with detailed thinking and elaboration of the scenes of his works. As Nietzsche says, “Some strong scene comes to his mind, from which he already extracts characters ...
Wagner probably judged the "one thing needed" in approximately the same way as any other actor nowadays judges: a series of strong scenes, one stronger than the other, and smart nonsense "
Nietzsche accuses Wagner of just wanting to impress the public, shock it and thus glorify himself.
But Friedrich Nietzsche condemns not only Wagner as an author, but also the public that is ready to idolize him after listening to his works. Nietzsche believes that Wagner's work is also too mythological and heroic, has no special connection with reality. As proof of this thesis, Nietzsche cites Parsifal from Wagner's opera of the same name. Nietzsche considers this plot too divorced from reality and condemns it. After all, such a disconnectedness of the plots of Wagner's works is a typical manifestation of decadence. Wagner separates his heroes and heroines from reality so much that he does not allow the heroines to give birth to children! This does not fit into the concept of Wagner's heroic epic. Nietzsche condemns precisely such details that separate Wagner's works from life. But it would be a mistake to think that Nietzsche condemns only Wagner for escaping reality. He condemns through Wagner all decadents who, in Nietzsche's opinion, are too divorced from reality and are absolutely incapable of leading a normal life. In this I completely agree with Friedrich Nietzsche, because even now, in the 21st century, there are whole subcultures that advocate a departure from reality and closure in oneself or in a certain subculture.
Nietzsche also criticizes Schopenhauer, whom he previously called the savior of Wagner. He writes ironically about Schopenhauer's accusations thrown to the world. Schopenhauer's pessimism, which was once so close to Nietzsche, is now seen by the philosopher as an unjust falsehood, hypocrisy. And Hegel? Hegel is taste! Misunderstood by Wagner, who dared to present himself as the heir to Hegel.
For Wagner, music is a means, not a philosophy. And he conquered people with an idea, not music. He captivated the minds, giving them a ghostly hope for understanding. But this music lacks lightness, grace. There is no place in history for such music. This is not the past or the future - this is a spoiled present, a symbol of the century of decadents, the triumph of acting over melody. Only by becoming an actor will you gain success with the crowd. And authenticity is not needed, there would be pretense - a sign of the decadence and corruption of time. Let art entertain us, save us from boredom, give the illusion of self-improvement! Taste is not needed, talents are forgotten - give us complexity, drama, ideal!
Nietzsche blames Wagner, blames the time that brought up such a hero. But he does not blame his admirers. Recognizes Wagner's right to a noble influence on minds.
Wagner is the commander. He commands, dictates, acts. He is a tyrant and a teacher. He surpassed everyone! He made everyone believe in something that does not exist.
"Loyalty to Wagner is costly." Nietzsche develops this idea already in addition to the essay, as if summing up the results of his reasoning. There is a fog of vague understanding in the air, it does not dissipate, but people just learned not to notice it. Wagner is expensive, but he won! Wagner has weakened his instincts! He made us forget about the obstacles! There is no more resistance. So why did the Germans surrender? Is this not yet another sign of decadence?
Nietzsche's reasoning about Germany and the Germans deserves separate consideration. The philosopher endows the Germans with special qualities, shares them with the French, the naive followers of the revolution. Whether Wagner was a German, Nietzsche wonders. Is he the son of this people? But is Nietzsche's assertion that the Germans are "the most backward cultured people of Europe" true? Can you dare to say that when Germany gave the world Schopenhauer, Goethe, Hegel, Heine, Schiller and many others?
In addition to his essay, Friedrich Nietzsche uses an anaphora, or one-man command, beginning each paragraph with the words "Commitment to Wagner is costly." Nietzsche accuses Wagner of causing the Germans to be delusional. Such a serious accusation undoubtedly requires proof, and Nietzsche provides them to us in full. Didn't Wagner overshadow the service of art, elevating the belief in an unattainable ideal into a cult? Wagner spoiled culture, made music sick. When the composer died, a wreath was placed on his grave with the words "Salvation for the Savior", and someone immediately added the amendment: "Salvation from the Savior." It sounds cynical, but isn't that what real philosophy should be? How else to see the essence of things when the gaze cloudes morality and ethics?
The Savior is gone. What is left after him?
The main question that gives rise to the essay: what is the Wagner case? Nietzsche gives an answer to this question only at the very end. Wagner's incident is that Wagner ruined art! He spoiled the taste, conquered the crowd, penetrated the minds of people. And people calmly accepted it, submitted to the actor, voluntarily deteriorated. And all thanks to flattery and illusion. Human nature consists in the fact that we think that what is good, which gives us the illusion of a better life. This is Wagner's incident, which remained a mystery for the time of decadence and was exposed by Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche does not urge people to change their minds. He only states that the time that gave birth to such a protagonist cannot be saved or persuaded. People themselves made their choice in favor of the solemn and majestic, followed the easy path. This behavior is not only worthy of criticism, because it is natural. But how difficult it is for Nietzsche to realize that people are blind to the consequences! Let Wagner, the sorcerer and the old robber, bewitched and robbed himself! They proclaimed it high style and betrayed the very concept of "high style"!
The entire essay is filled with pain and feelings of the philosopher. He is like a patient delirious and trying to snatch the elusive thoughts from the abyss of betraying consciousness. This style is characteristic of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, but here we see not only a militant appeal and denunciation, but personal tragedy, self-denial. A true philosopher is not afraid of loneliness, but it is always difficult and scary to be alone with your ideals in a cruel era of decline. Nevertheless, such an outstanding person as Nietzsche finds the strength to move on, to chase after truth, to strive for unattainable perfection.
The essay I read left a deep impression on me, made me think and not only analyze the phenomena described by the philosophers, but also take a fresh look at the modern world, try to understand Nietzsche's logic and apply it in my own life.
casus wagner asi, casus wagner listenFriedrich Nietzsche
German
Towards a genealogy of morality. Polemic essay
Twilight of idols
"Casus Wagner"(German Der Fall Wagner) is a work of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The manuscript of the work was completed in the spring of 1888. The book was published in the fall of the same year by the Leipzig publishing house of K.G. Naumann.
- 1 Friedrich Nietzsche on his book
- 2 Contents
- 3 Notes
- 4 Work in Russian
Friedrich Nietzsche on his book
I give myself a little relief. It is not just pure malice if in this essay I praise Bizet at the expense of Wagner. Under the cover of many jokes, I am talking about a business that cannot be joked. To turn my back on Wagner was something fatal for me; to love something again after that is a victory. No one, perhaps, merged in a more dangerous degree with Wagnerianism, no one defended himself more stubbornly from it, no one was more happy that he was freed from it. Long story! - Would you like me to formulate it in one word? - If I were a moralist, who knows what I would call her! Perhaps self-overcoming. - But the philosopher does not like moralists ... He also does not like beautiful words ...The work marks Nietzsche's final break with Richard Wagner. the work speaks of the uselessness and harmfulness of the work of the German composer.
Notes (edit)
- translated by N. Polilov: "Wagner as a phenomenon." There is also an erroneous translation of "Wagner's Casus"
Work in Russian
- Collection of works - "Beyond Good and Evil", "Casus Wagner", "Antichrist", "Esse Nomo", "Human, Too Human", "Wicked Wisdom". Minsk, 2005, publishing house "Harvest". ISBN 985-13-0983-4
| ||||||
In 1888, an extraordinary explosion of euphoria occurs: first in Turin "Casus Wagner", then during the last stop in Sils Maria "Twilight of Idols" and parallel to "Antichrist", after which the creation of "Ecce Homo". In addition, at the same time, work on "Dionysus praises".
Turin letter "Casus Wagner" is an elaborate, brilliantly written work, imbued with poisonous and destructive sarcasm. The pamphlet is the result of long and painful meditations of Nietzsche over the great problem of the fall of culture and the world, the solution of which follows from the analysis of art, in which Nietzsche singled out primarily music. “Wagner is an artist of decadence. I am far from serenely contemplating how this decadent spoils our health - and music, too! Is Wagner even human? Isn't he rather a disease? He makes sick everything he touches - he made music for the sick. " However, the amazing style of beating R. Wagner should not be confusing; Nietzsche continued to love Wagner like no one else, and carried this love of his even in the years of darkness: "I call Wagner the great benefactor of my whole life." Wagner idealized romanticism to the limit, but for Nietzsche romanticism was just a milestone on the path to nihilism, therefore, noting the painful nature of Wagner's music, Nietzsche spoke about German culture in general and used Wagner's name not because his music is bad, but because he covers up squalor their ideas - the splendor of the scenery and the grandeur of legends (Ring of the Nibelungen); with the rumble of drums and the howling of flutes, he seeks to force all other composers to march behind him. Therefore, Wagnerianism became for Nietzsche the personification of an unacceptable and dangerous form of manifestation of idiocy and servility in culture, as well as Christianity in morality.
What was written later is usually called "The Revaluation of All Values" and is characterized as "the late Nietzsche." In essence, this is the philosophy of Nietzsche, or rather an introduction to the still unformed direction of philosophy. Philosophy was never written, and it could hardly have been written at such an incredible pace, which alone was enough for the "introduction". This is how it was written: “During the last weeks I have experienced bouts of outlandish inspiration, so that the little that I did not expect from myself, one fine morning, as it were, unconsciously appeared ready. It brought some confusion and exclusivity to my lifestyle; I often jumped up at 2 am in order to be driven by the "spirit" to sketch something on paper. " Driven by the spirit! Here, the psychogenic formula of the last works appears as a diagnosis: a minimum of consciousness with a maximum of style, and, therefore, a style left to itself, as it were, "autopilot" with a course towards - the final catastrophe, because this is, in Nietzsche's opinion, the formula for "a perfect book ". That is why the stylistic luxuries of "Revaluation" defy any other definition as temptation and temptation, in essence self-temptation and self-temptation. "It goes beyond the concept of literature to such an extent that in fact, even in nature itself, there is no comparison."
Composition "Twilight of Idols"- represent a kind of avenue or synopsis of the philosophy of Nietzsche. In it, as if into a single aphorism, it was possible to condense the content of an entire book. The author himself will rate "Twilight" as "radical before the crime." This brilliant essay is written in an amazing, up to super-masterful tricks, stylistics of work in German by means of the French language. “There is nothing richer in content, more independent, more upsetting - more evil. There is not a single reality, not a single "ideality" that would not be touched upon here. The twilight of idols - the old truth comes to an end ... ”It is from this work that the general European resonance of Nietzsche's philosophy begins.
In light of the above, it becomes obvious that "Antichrist" and "Ecce Homo" - the last two books of Nietzsche, require a particularly careful and critical approach. The element of insanity and decay I have built an ominous nest for myself in these works, and for this reason it would be necessary to speak here about authorship in the usual sense of the word with great reservations. Style machine! The car, once started up, and gaining such speed that it is ready to fly to pieces at any second.
Book " EcceHomo" is the story of Nietzsche's life. However, this "autobiography" was written in a style far removed from the genre of memoirs: "with a cynicism that will become world-historical, I tell myself my life." The book, already by its title a most unceremonious attempt on the Crucified One, was conceived as a prelude to the Antichrist, despite the fact that it was written later; a kind of passport ("Hear me out! for I am such and such") to the work after which the world should have shuddered in convulsions, because this book already ends with thunder and lightning thunders against everything that is Christian or Christian infectious. Hence follows a unique form of book execution, like a real amalgam of genres, where the genres of biography, life, confession, myth, tragedy, satire, praise, prophecy, intimate diary, philosophy and psychoanalytic protocol are mixed and boiled over. Essentially, Nietzsche uses the nudity of confession here as a bait for a more contrasting and photogenic presentation of himself as a man of Fate.
Work "Antichrist"- the crown of Nietzsche's philosophy. It is this work that he will define it as "My reassessment of all values." The exceptional importance that Nietzsche attributed to this book and the topic in general forced him to postpone the publication date. This is what his unfulfilled project looked like: the simultaneous translation of the book into 7 languages and the simultaneous publication on a European scale, with a million copies in each language at once. Think about it! such a scale (at the end of the 19th century) for a book with the subtitle "The Curse of Christianity" is a war! "No hearing and no sight can stand it." And only the unconcerned deafness and stunning indifference of Europe can justify the fact that Nietzsche's contemporaries went unnoticed - this war already unleashed, already waged with catastrophic consequences, where lies of millennia and a half-dead pensioner, who for health reasons were forced to select not only the place of residence, but even the level of tea strength.
In January 1889 - a stroke of apoplecticism and the final darkening. After sending out the famous postcards, alternately signed "Dionysus", then "Crucified", F. Overbeck takes Nietzsche to Basel, where he is placed in a psychiatric clinic. Subsequently, his mother will take him out of there, for home care.
Later, in literature, many times attempts were made to interpret the cruel mental illness that poisoned the last quarter of Friedrich Nietzsche's life: as a righteous divine punishment for his wicked freethinking, as a worthy expiation for his satanic pride, or even simply by reducing it to the abuse of "chloral". He really paid with madness for the heroic disobedience of his questioning thought, but in my opinion - the great thinker, having put an end to his life, suddenly realized the full severity of the possible consequences of the literal perception of his thoughts and realized that it was he who, sincerely trying to help humanity, laid the foundation for the future bloody events. Foreseeing the future, Nietzsche, who already had a rather deplorable state of health, could not withstand such a strong emotional shock, so he lost his mind. An impenetrable dark cloud enveloped the proud summit of his spirit, and the chilling whirlwind of human greed extinguished this quivering "Promethean fire" forever. All students left Nietzsche, German philologists declared him a man who died for science, and even his own sister betrayed him.