Letter 679 - Revision history

Brett: Text replacement - "Moscow Gazette" to "Moscow Register"

2024-05-27T09:29:26Z

Text replacement - "Moscow Gazette" to "Moscow Register"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 27 May 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:
	At the end of my letter I shall tell you about a piece of news which I have received and which has filled me with the greatest happiness. My brother [[Modest]] writes to say that his pupil's father will indeed send them both ''abroad''. This should take place very soon indeed. I can hardly tell you how happy I am. This is how it happened: When my brother [[Anatoly]] left and I stayed in [[Vienna]], after seeing him off, I fell in to the deepest depression. Suddenly I had a brilliant idea which I immediately put into action. I wrote '' [[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]]'' a letter, asking him to excuse me should the request be completely insane and not to breathe a word to my brother in the event that my wish were to remain unfulfilled. In my letter, I spoke of my loneliness and asked [[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]] straight out if he would allow his son to go abroad with my brother. The boy is extremely delicate and in the past his winter trips were very efficacious. I used all my eloquence to persuade ''[[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]]''. The result of all this was the following telegram which I received yesterday from my brother: "Tu as vaincu Conrady. Pars après couches avec Nicolas à l'étranger. Au revoir" <ref name="note4"/>. If you want to know what ''après couches'' <ref name="note5"/> refers to, then I should add that ''Madame [[Alina Bryullova\|Konradi]]'' is due to give birth in the next few days. It goes without saying that the boy's parents could not release him until his brother or sister arrives. So, within the next two or three weeks I shall have the opportunity of living with my dear brother and his pupil, whom I am terribly fond of. You simply cannot imagine how darling, clever, good and tender this poor boy is. His devotion to my brother is beyond all measure. My heart bleeds to see them together. I am happy beyond all measure.		At the end of my letter I shall tell you about a piece of news which I have received and which has filled me with the greatest happiness. My brother [[Modest]] writes to say that his pupil's father will indeed send them both ''abroad''. This should take place very soon indeed. I can hardly tell you how happy I am. This is how it happened: When my brother [[Anatoly]] left and I stayed in [[Vienna]], after seeing him off, I fell in to the deepest depression. Suddenly I had a brilliant idea which I immediately put into action. I wrote '' [[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]]'' a letter, asking him to excuse me should the request be completely insane and not to breathe a word to my brother in the event that my wish were to remain unfulfilled. In my letter, I spoke of my loneliness and asked [[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]] straight out if he would allow his son to go abroad with my brother. The boy is extremely delicate and in the past his winter trips were very efficacious. I used all my eloquence to persuade ''[[Herman Konradi\|Konradi]]''. The result of all this was the following telegram which I received yesterday from my brother: "Tu as vaincu Conrady. Pars après couches avec Nicolas à l'étranger. Au revoir" <ref name="note4"/>. If you want to know what ''après couches'' <ref name="note5"/> refers to, then I should add that ''Madame [[Alina Bryullova\|Konradi]]'' is due to give birth in the next few days. It goes without saying that the boy's parents could not release him until his brother or sister arrives. So, within the next two or three weeks I shall have the opportunity of living with my dear brother and his pupil, whom I am terribly fond of. You simply cannot imagine how darling, clever, good and tender this poor boy is. His devotion to my brother is beyond all measure. My heart bleeds to see them together. I am happy beyond all measure.

	Thank you, my dear friend, for your suggestion of sending me the "''Moscow ~~Gazette~~''". It would be lovely, but my uneasy disposition does not allow me to stay long in one place and I am fearful of taking out even a month's subscription to a newspaper. However, I do have this very earnest request for you. I am an avid reader of magazines specialising in the past. In [[Moscow]] I used to take "''Russian Archive''","''Russian Antiquity''" and "''Ancient and Modern Russia''", but this year I did not subscribe to them because I could read them for free. Would you be so kind as to order a subscription for me to one (for the moment) of these three magazines for the current year. I should be very, very happy if you were to provide me with the opportunity of reading "''Russian Antiquity''". I trust my request is not troublesome for you? Forgive my directness.		Thank you, my dear friend, for your suggestion of sending me the "''Moscow Register''". It would be lovely, but my uneasy disposition does not allow me to stay long in one place and I am fearful of taking out even a month's subscription to a newspaper. However, I do have this very earnest request for you. I am an avid reader of magazines specialising in the past. In [[Moscow]] I used to take "''Russian Archive''","''Russian Antiquity''" and "''Ancient and Modern Russia''", but this year I did not subscribe to them because I could read them for free. Would you be so kind as to order a subscription for me to one (for the moment) of these three magazines for the current year. I should be very, very happy if you were to provide me with the opportunity of reading "''Russian Antiquity''". I trust my request is not troublesome for you? Forgive my directness.

	[[Anton Rubinstein\|Rubinstein]]'s "[[Twelve Persian Songs (Rubinstein)\|Persian Songs]]" are settings of German texts by the poet ''Bodenstedt''. This Bodenstedt (the translator of Lermontov and Pushkin) wrote several poems in imitation of Hafiz and signed them with the fictitious name ''Mirza Shaffi'', the imaginary author of the original Persian works. Despite this, I happen to know personally that Bodenstedt (whose acquaintance I made in [[Bayreuth]] last year) does not know Persian. I then translated from the German text. Does it really say on the music ''translated from the Persian''? If so, then I am not to blame, but I am displeased.		[[Anton Rubinstein\|Rubinstein]]'s "[[Twelve Persian Songs (Rubinstein)\|Persian Songs]]" are settings of German texts by the poet ''Bodenstedt''. This Bodenstedt (the translator of Lermontov and Pushkin) wrote several poems in imitation of Hafiz and signed them with the fictitious name ''Mirza Shaffi'', the imaginary author of the original Persian works. Despite this, I happen to know personally that Bodenstedt (whose acquaintance I made in [[Bayreuth]] last year) does not know Persian. I then translated from the German text. Does it really say on the music ''translated from the Persian''? If so, then I am not to blame, but I am displeased.

Tony: "specializing" to "specialising" for consistency / Added spaces before Notes

2024-04-25T09:48:43Z

"specializing" to "specialising" for consistency / Added spaces before Notes

Show changes

Tony: "plaït" to "plait" / Added commas for ease of reading

2024-04-23T13:18:46Z

"plaït" to "plait" / Added commas for ease of reading

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 23 April 2024
Line 43:		Line 43:
	I confess that I was already beginning to fear yesterday that the letter had been lost. It took a very long time. I have already been to the banker, who instructed me to come in 3 days.		I confess that I was already beginning to fear yesterday that the letter had been lost. It took a very long time. I have already been to the banker, who instructed me to come in 3 days.

	Reading today's letter from you, I very much regretted writing to you from [[Vienna]] rebutting your theory, or rather it was not so much rebutting it as denying that you live by your philosophy. Now I understand that this was both naive and insensitive on my part. People tend to judge those around them by their own standards. Because I cannot find in my own soul the strength to develop any solid convictions and because I spin around like a weather-vane between traditional religion and critical rational argument, so of course I was determined you should also be swimming around with me in this sea of doubt. I had also then forgotten about those people, such as Spinoza, [[Goethe]]{{*}} and Kant, who have found it possible to manage without religion. I had also forgotten that, even aside from these colossuses, there exists a huge number of people who have found it possible to create for themselves a harmonious system of ideas to replace religion. I can only envy these people. I feel that I am doomed to a lifetime of doubt and searching for a way out from these contradictions. On the whole my half-hearted attempt to compare myself with you was not very successful. From everything that you had written me and from certain biographical details which you have conveyed to me in today's letter, I came to the conclusion that you were undoubtedly someone with great strength of character and an inflexible will. I saw very clearly that a nature of such integrity and strength as yours could not fail to arrive at certain firm convictions. How weak, incapable of struggle, indecisive and pathetic I am in comparison with you! I say this without in any way intending to play coquettishly on my self-abasement but rather as a result of my genuine awareness of my soul's ''flabby weakness''. At this moment I can only think that you must have drawn the same conclusion from my admissions, and I feel ashamed. Standing before you I experience a feeling similar to the one that envelops someone of tiny stature talking to an enormously tall person. This isn't just empty words. After everything that I read in your letter my respect and love for you have become, if possible, even stronger — but at the same time I have become aware of the incontrovertible evidence of my own insignificance.		Reading today's letter from you, I very much regretted writing to you from [[Vienna]] rebutting your theory, or rather it was not so much rebutting it as denying that you live by your philosophy. Now I understand that this was both naive and insensitive on my part. People tend to judge those around them by their own standards. Because I cannot find in my own soul the strength to develop any solid convictions and because I spin around like a weather-vane between traditional religion and critical rational argument, so of course I was determined you should also be swimming around with me in this sea of doubt. I had also then forgotten about those people, such as Spinoza, [[Goethe]]{{*}} and Kant, who have found it possible to manage without religion. I had also forgotten that, even aside from these colossuses, there exists a huge number of people who have found it possible to create for themselves a harmonious system of ideas to replace religion. I can only envy these people. I feel that I am doomed to a lifetime of doubt and searching for a way out from these contradictions. On the whole, my half-hearted attempt to compare myself with you was not very successful. From everything that you had written me and from certain biographical details which you have conveyed to me in today's letter, I came to the conclusion that you were undoubtedly someone with great strength of character and an inflexible will. I saw very clearly that a nature of such integrity and strength as yours could not fail to arrive at certain firm convictions. How weak, incapable of struggle, indecisive and pathetic I am in comparison with you! I say this without in any way intending to play coquettishly on my self-abasement but rather as a result of my genuine awareness of my soul's ''flabby weakness''. At this moment I can only think that you must have drawn the same conclusion from my admissions, and I feel ashamed. Standing before you I experience a feeling similar to the one that envelops someone of tiny stature talking to an enormously tall person. This isn't just empty words. After everything that I read in your letter, my respect and love for you have become, if possible, even stronger — but at the same time I have become aware of the incontrovertible evidence of my own insignificance.

	I find a great deal of what you write extremely attractive. I like your lofty attitude towards social opinion. When I was in my normal state of mind, before my current breakdown, I can assure you that my disregard for ''qu'en dira-t-on'' <ref name="note1"/> was at least as strong as yours. I admit that now I have become as it were more sensitive in this matter. In any case I am ''sick'', that is to say sick in mind. Moreover, I always despised the ''public gaze'' and was always distressed to see people devoting a great deal of attention to me. And since the story of my marriage, my flight and my illness could only set tongues wagging, this irritated me. Unfortunately, my activity as an artist is inseparable from the ''public gaze'' and I am unable to play the role of the observer standing ''apart'' and of interest to no-one. Why do you say that you and I differ in regard to human beauty? What makes you think that I accord it such importance in assessing a person? Yes! Of course, a person's beauty affects me. But what is human beauty? After all, it is an entirely relative concept and has nothing in common with the ''absolute'' beauty that is revealed in art. The French have a vulgar but very truthful definition of human beauty: ''beau qui ~~plaït~~''<ref name="note2"/>. But then even an ugly face can ''plaire''<ref name="note3"/>, a fact we come across all the time! I will say more. Faces that possess beauty in the classical sense rarely please. What pleases in a person's face, his walk, his manners, movements and look is something that is ''intangible'' and defies definition. In essence, this something is a reflection of spiritual beauty. In this sense I am of course easily swayed by the charming effect of a person's appearance. Consequently when it comes to observing people's beauty there exists a ''verbal'' confusion. By a person's ''beauty'' we mean the outer reflection of their inner qualities, but there is no word for this exterior.		I find a great deal of what you write extremely attractive. I like your lofty attitude towards social opinion. When I was in my normal state of mind, before my current breakdown, I can assure you that my disregard for ''qu'en dira-t-on'' <ref name="note1"/> was at least as strong as yours. I admit that now I have become as it were more sensitive in this matter. In any case I am ''sick'', that is to say sick in mind. Moreover, I always despised the ''public gaze'' and was always distressed to see people devoting a great deal of attention to me. And since the story of my marriage, my flight and my illness could only set tongues wagging, this irritated me. Unfortunately, my activity as an artist is inseparable from the ''public gaze'', and I am unable to play the role of the observer standing ''apart'' and of interest to no-one. Why do you say that you and I differ in regard to human beauty? What makes you think that I accord it such importance in assessing a person? Yes! Of course, a person's beauty affects me. But what is human beauty? After all, it is an entirely relative concept and has nothing in common with the ''absolute'' beauty that is revealed in art. The French have a vulgar but very truthful definition of human beauty: ''beau qui plait''<ref name="note2"/>. But then even an ugly face can ''plaire''<ref name="note3"/>, a fact we come across all the time! I will say more. Faces that possess beauty in the classical sense rarely please. What pleases in a person's face, his walk, his manners, movements and look is something that is ''intangible'' and defies definition. In essence, this something is a reflection of spiritual beauty. In this sense I am of course easily swayed by the charming effect of a person's appearance. Consequently, when it comes to observing people's beauty there exists a ''verbal'' confusion. By a person's ''beauty'' we mean the outer reflection of their inner qualities, but there is no word for this exterior.

	There is only one thing in your letter with which I shall never agree — that is your take on music. I especially do not like your comparing music with intoxication. I feel this is erroneous. A person has recourse to wine in order to deceive himself and create for himself the ''illusion'' of satisfaction and happiness. And this deception comes at a high cost for him! The reaction can be dreadful. But when all is said and done it is true that wine does provide a moment's respite from grief and sadness — but not more than that. Surely that is not the effect that music has? Music is not a deception but a ''revelation'', and its triumphant strength lies precisely in its ability to reveal aspects of ''beauty'' to us which are inaccessible in any other sphere, and whose contemplation is not temporary but forever reconciles us with life. It lights us up with joy. It is very difficult to grasp and follow the process of musical enjoyment, but it has nothing in common with ''intoxication''. In any case it is not a ''physiological'' phenomenon. Quite patently, our nerves, hence our material organs, participate in the perception of musical impressions, and in this sense music delights our body, but then everyone knows how difficult it is to draw a clear line between a person's material and spiritual aspects. After all ''thinking'' is also a physiological process, for it belongs to the brain's functions. Mind you, all of this is just words. However dissimilar are the explanations we give ourselves as to the meaning of musical enjoyment, one thing is certain: you and I love music with equal intensity. Its role in our lives is equal. For me this is entirely sufficient. I like the fact that the art I have devoted my life to is something you love so passionately and view as something ''divine''.		There is only one thing in your letter with which I shall never agree — that is your take on music. I especially do not like your comparing music with intoxication. I feel this is erroneous. A person has recourse to wine in order to deceive himself and create for himself the ''illusion'' of satisfaction and happiness. And this deception comes at a high cost for him! The reaction can be dreadful. But when all is said and done, it is true that wine does provide a moment's respite from grief and sadness — but not more than that. Surely that is not the effect that music has? Music is not a deception but a ''revelation'', and its triumphant strength lies precisely in its ability to reveal aspects of ''beauty'' to us which are inaccessible in any other sphere, and whose contemplation is not temporary but forever reconciles us with life. It lights us up with joy. It is very difficult to grasp and follow the process of musical enjoyment, but it has nothing in common with ''intoxication''. In any case it is not a ''physiological'' phenomenon. Quite patently, our nerves, hence our material organs, participate in the perception of musical impressions, and in this sense music delights our body, but then everyone knows how difficult it is to draw a clear line between a person's material and spiritual aspects. After all, ''thinking'' is also a physiological process, for it belongs to the brain's functions. Mind you, all of this is just words. However dissimilar are the explanations we give ourselves as to the meaning of musical enjoyment, one thing is certain: you and I love music with equal intensity. Its role in our lives is equal. For me this is entirely sufficient. I like the fact that the art I have devoted my life to is something you love so passionately and view as something ''divine''.

	In your philosophy I find the way you look at good and evil in people terribly attractive. It is a way of looking that is somewhat fatalistic, but full of the most ''Christian'' charity towards our fellow human's vices and defects. You are entirely right to say that it is absurd to expect a person, who has not been ''endowed'' with goodness or intelligence, to become good and clever. Here once again I cannot avoid the blindingly obvious difference between your individuality, which is of the highest order, and mine, which belongs entirely in the category of vile and weak natures, despite the fact that nature herself has bestowed such musical talent on me. I have always made myself look on the evil of human nature as an inevitable negation of ''good''. Starting from this point of view (''elucidated, if I am not mistaken, by Spinoza'') I ought never to succumb to feelings of ''malice'' or ''hatred''. However in practice it turns out that I feel ''malice, hatred and indignation'' towards people no less surely than a person who has never stopped to consider that each of his fellow humans acts according to the dictates of his personal ''fate''. I know for a fact that you are impervious to those petty feelings of vindictive spite. This is clear to me from everything that I know about you as well as from you yourself and from others. You shield yourself from the blow struck by your fellow human and yet do not pay him back with an even more forceful blow. In a word, you live out your philosophy in practice too. Again I display the same dichotomy: I think one thing, but do another.		In your philosophy, I find the way you look at good and evil in people terribly attractive. It is a way of looking that is somewhat fatalistic, but full of the most ''Christian'' charity towards our fellow human's vices and defects. You are entirely right to say that it is absurd to expect a person who has not been ''endowed'' with goodness or intelligence to become good and clever. Here once again I cannot avoid the blindingly obvious difference between your individuality, which is of the highest order, and mine, which belongs entirely in the category of vile and weak natures, despite the fact that nature herself has bestowed such musical talent on me. I have always made myself look on the evil of human nature as an inevitable negation of ''good''. Starting from this point of view (''elucidated, if I am not mistaken, by Spinoza''), I ought never to succumb to feelings of ''malice'' or ''hatred''. However in practice it turns out that I feel ''malice, hatred and indignation'' towards people no less surely than a person who has never stopped to consider that each of his fellow humans acts according to the dictates of his personal ''fate''. I know for a fact that you are impervious to those petty feelings of vindictive spite. This is clear to me from everything that I know about you as well as from you yourself and from others. You shield yourself from the blow struck by your fellow human and yet do not pay him back with an even more forceful blow. In a word, you live out your philosophy in practice too. Again I display the same dichotomy: I think one thing, but do another.

	I will offer you right now an obvious example of what I have just written. I have a friend — a certain [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]], who is the sweetest and most charming person to deal with but who suffers from one defect: egotism. This egotism reveals itself in him in such sweet and gentlemanly forms that you cannot be angry with him for long. In September, before my illness, when I was in [[Moscow]], succumbing to despair and searching in a paroxysm of grief for someone to help me, it just so happened that this ''[[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]]'', who was living in a village in [[Kharkov]] province, wrote me a letter overflowing, as always, with professions of the most ardent friendship. I did not wish to open up to my brothers, fearing in case I should worry them to death. My cup was overflowing. I wrote [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]] a letter in which I set forth the full horror and hopelessness of my situation. The meaning of the letter, to be read between the lines, of course, was this: "I am done for — save me, support me and come quickly!" He is a man of considerable means, entirely free and, as he says himself, prepared to make any sacrifices for a friend. I was convinced that he would come to my aid. What occurred then, you know. I was already in Clarens when I received his letter which had arrived in [[Moscow]] a week after I had fled. In his letter my friend had every sympathy for me and finished by writing: "''Pray, my friend, pray! God will help you out of this situation!''" He dismissed me easily and disdainfully! Last night I was reading the 3rd volume of ''Thackeray''{{'}}s wonderful novel "''Pendennis''". In it there is the very lifelike character of the major, Pendennis, who often reminds me of [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]]. By coincidence one episode drew a particularly sharp portrait of my friend. I jumped out of bed and dashed off a quite excessively impulsive letter to him, in which I attacked him using as my weapon a humour that barely concealed my ''anger''. On reading your letter I became quite ashamed and immediately sent him another letter, asking him to forgive me for my intemperate and inappropriate impulsiveness. So you can see what a beneficial effect you have on me, my best friend, my providence and my solace!		I will offer you right now an obvious example of what I have just written. I have a friend — a certain [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]], who is the sweetest and most charming person to deal with but who suffers from one defect: egotism. This egotism reveals itself in him in such sweet and gentlemanly forms that you cannot be angry with him for long. In September, before my illness, when I was in [[Moscow]], succumbing to despair and searching in a paroxysm of grief for someone to help me, it just so happened that this ''[[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]]'', who was living in a village in [[Kharkov]] province, wrote me a letter overflowing, as always, with professions of the most ardent friendship. I did not wish to open up to my brothers, fearing in case I should worry them to death. My cup was overflowing. I wrote [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]] a letter in which I set forth the full horror and hopelessness of my situation. The meaning of the letter, to be read between the lines, of course, was this: "I am done for — save me, support me and come quickly!" He is a man of considerable means, entirely free and, as he says himself, prepared to make any sacrifices for a friend. I was convinced that he would come to my aid. What occurred then, you know. I was already in Clarens when I received his letter which had arrived in [[Moscow]] a week after I had fled. In his letter my friend had every sympathy for me and finished by writing: "''Pray, my friend, pray! God will help you out of this situation!''" He dismissed me easily and disdainfully! Last night I was reading the 3rd volume of ''Thackeray''{{'}}s wonderful novel "''Pendennis''". In it there is the very lifelike character of the major, Pendennis, who often reminds me of [[Nikolay Kondratyev\|Kondratyev]]. By coincidence one episode drew a particularly sharp portrait of my friend. I jumped out of bed and dashed off a quite excessively impulsive letter to him, in which I attacked him using as my weapon a humour that barely concealed my ''anger''. On reading your letter I became quite ashamed and immediately sent him another letter, asking him to forgive me for my intemperate and inappropriate impulsiveness. So you can see what a beneficial effect you have on me, my best friend, my providence and my solace!
Line 68:		Line 68:
	<references>		<references>
	<ref name="note1">"qu'en dira-t-on" (French) = 'what people think'.</ref>		<ref name="note1">"qu'en dira-t-on" (French) = 'what people think'.</ref>
	<ref name="note2">"beau qui ~~plaït~~" (French) = 'beauty is what pleases'.</ref>		<ref name="note2">"beau qui plait" (French) = 'beauty is what pleases'.</ref>
	<ref name="note3">"plaire" (French) = 'pleases'.</ref>		<ref name="note3">"plaire" (French) = 'pleases'.</ref>
	<ref name="note4">You have convinced Konradi. Leave abroad with Nikolay after the birth. Meet soon.</ref>		<ref name="note4">You have convinced Konradi. Leave abroad with Nikolay after the birth. Meet soon.</ref>

Brett: Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"

2024-02-29T09:25:05Z

Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 29 February 2024
Line 47:		Line 47:
	I find a great deal of what you write extremely attractive. I like your lofty attitude towards social opinion. When I was in my normal state of mind, before my current breakdown, I can assure you that my disregard for ''qu'en dira-t-on'' <ref name="note1"/> was at least as strong as yours. I admit that now I have become as it were more sensitive in this matter. In any case I am ''sick'', that is to say sick in mind. Moreover, I always despised the ''public gaze'' and was always distressed to see people devoting a great deal of attention to me. And since the story of my marriage, my flight and my illness could only set tongues wagging, this irritated me. Unfortunately, my activity as an artist is inseparable from the ''public gaze'' and I am unable to play the role of the observer standing ''apart'' and of interest to no-one. Why do you say that you and I differ in regard to human beauty? What makes you think that I accord it such importance in assessing a person? Yes! Of course, a person's beauty affects me. But what is human beauty? After all, it is an entirely relative concept and has nothing in common with the ''absolute'' beauty that is revealed in art. The French have a vulgar but very truthful definition of human beauty: ''beau qui plaït''<ref name="note2"/>. But then even an ugly face can ''plaire''<ref name="note3"/>, a fact we come across all the time! I will say more. Faces that possess beauty in the classical sense rarely please. What pleases in a person's face, his walk, his manners, movements and look is something that is ''intangible'' and defies definition. In essence, this something is a reflection of spiritual beauty. In this sense I am of course easily swayed by the charming effect of a person's appearance. Consequently when it comes to observing people's beauty there exists a ''verbal'' confusion. By a person's ''beauty'' we mean the outer reflection of their inner qualities, but there is no word for this exterior.		I find a great deal of what you write extremely attractive. I like your lofty attitude towards social opinion. When I was in my normal state of mind, before my current breakdown, I can assure you that my disregard for ''qu'en dira-t-on'' <ref name="note1"/> was at least as strong as yours. I admit that now I have become as it were more sensitive in this matter. In any case I am ''sick'', that is to say sick in mind. Moreover, I always despised the ''public gaze'' and was always distressed to see people devoting a great deal of attention to me. And since the story of my marriage, my flight and my illness could only set tongues wagging, this irritated me. Unfortunately, my activity as an artist is inseparable from the ''public gaze'' and I am unable to play the role of the observer standing ''apart'' and of interest to no-one. Why do you say that you and I differ in regard to human beauty? What makes you think that I accord it such importance in assessing a person? Yes! Of course, a person's beauty affects me. But what is human beauty? After all, it is an entirely relative concept and has nothing in common with the ''absolute'' beauty that is revealed in art. The French have a vulgar but very truthful definition of human beauty: ''beau qui plaït''<ref name="note2"/>. But then even an ugly face can ''plaire''<ref name="note3"/>, a fact we come across all the time! I will say more. Faces that possess beauty in the classical sense rarely please. What pleases in a person's face, his walk, his manners, movements and look is something that is ''intangible'' and defies definition. In essence, this something is a reflection of spiritual beauty. In this sense I am of course easily swayed by the charming effect of a person's appearance. Consequently when it comes to observing people's beauty there exists a ''verbal'' confusion. By a person's ''beauty'' we mean the outer reflection of their inner qualities, but there is no word for this exterior.

	There is only one thing in your letter with which I shall never agree — that is your take on music. I especially do not like your comparing music with intoxication. I feel this is erroneous. A person has recourse to wine in order to deceive himself and create for himself the ''illusion'' of satisfaction and happiness. And this deception comes at a high cost for him! The reaction can be dreadful. But when all is said and done it is true that wine does provide a moment's respite from grief and sadness — but not more than that. Surely that is not the effect that music has? Music is not a deception but a ''revelation'', and its triumphant strength lies precisely in its ability to reveal aspects of ''beauty'' to us which are inaccessible in any other sphere, and whose contemplation is not temporary but forever reconciles us with life. It lights us up with joy. It is very difficult to grasp and follow the process of musical enjoyment, but it has nothing in common with ''intoxication''. In any ~~event~~ it is not a ''physiological'' phenomenon. Quite patently, our nerves, hence our material organs, participate in the perception of musical impressions, and in this sense music delights our body, but then everyone knows how difficult it is to draw a clear line between a person's material and spiritual aspects. After all ''thinking'' is also a physiological process, for it belongs to the brain's functions. Mind you, all of this is just words. However dissimilar are the explanations we give ourselves as to the meaning of musical enjoyment, one thing is certain: you and I love music with equal intensity. Its role in our lives is equal. For me this is entirely sufficient. I like the fact that the art I have devoted my life to is something you love so passionately and view as something ''divine''.		There is only one thing in your letter with which I shall never agree — that is your take on music. I especially do not like your comparing music with intoxication. I feel this is erroneous. A person has recourse to wine in order to deceive himself and create for himself the ''illusion'' of satisfaction and happiness. And this deception comes at a high cost for him! The reaction can be dreadful. But when all is said and done it is true that wine does provide a moment's respite from grief and sadness — but not more than that. Surely that is not the effect that music has? Music is not a deception but a ''revelation'', and its triumphant strength lies precisely in its ability to reveal aspects of ''beauty'' to us which are inaccessible in any other sphere, and whose contemplation is not temporary but forever reconciles us with life. It lights us up with joy. It is very difficult to grasp and follow the process of musical enjoyment, but it has nothing in common with ''intoxication''. In any case it is not a ''physiological'' phenomenon. Quite patently, our nerves, hence our material organs, participate in the perception of musical impressions, and in this sense music delights our body, but then everyone knows how difficult it is to draw a clear line between a person's material and spiritual aspects. After all ''thinking'' is also a physiological process, for it belongs to the brain's functions. Mind you, all of this is just words. However dissimilar are the explanations we give ourselves as to the meaning of musical enjoyment, one thing is certain: you and I love music with equal intensity. Its role in our lives is equal. For me this is entirely sufficient. I like the fact that the art I have devoted my life to is something you love so passionately and view as something ''divine''.

	In your philosophy I find the way you look at good and evil in people terribly attractive. It is a way of looking that is somewhat fatalistic, but full of the most ''Christian'' charity towards our fellow human's vices and defects. You are entirely right to say that it is absurd to expect a person, who has not been ''endowed'' with goodness or intelligence, to become good and clever. Here once again I cannot avoid the blindingly obvious difference between your individuality, which is of the highest order, and mine, which belongs entirely in the category of vile and weak natures, despite the fact that nature herself has bestowed such musical talent on me. I have always made myself look on the evil of human nature as an inevitable negation of ''good''. Starting from this point of view (''elucidated, if I am not mistaken, by Spinoza'') I ought never to succumb to feelings of ''malice'' or ''hatred''. However in practice it turns out that I feel ''malice, hatred and indignation'' towards people no less surely than a person who has never stopped to consider that each of his fellow humans acts according to the dictates of his personal ''fate''. I know for a fact that you are impervious to those petty feelings of vindictive spite. This is clear to me from everything that I know about you as well as from you yourself and from others. You shield yourself from the blow struck by your fellow human and yet do not pay him back with an even more forceful blow. In a word, you live out your philosophy in practice too. Again I display the same dichotomy: I think one thing, but do another.		In your philosophy I find the way you look at good and evil in people terribly attractive. It is a way of looking that is somewhat fatalistic, but full of the most ''Christian'' charity towards our fellow human's vices and defects. You are entirely right to say that it is absurd to expect a person, who has not been ''endowed'' with goodness or intelligence, to become good and clever. Here once again I cannot avoid the blindingly obvious difference between your individuality, which is of the highest order, and mine, which belongs entirely in the category of vile and weak natures, despite the fact that nature herself has bestowed such musical talent on me. I have always made myself look on the evil of human nature as an inevitable negation of ''good''. Starting from this point of view (''elucidated, if I am not mistaken, by Spinoza'') I ought never to succumb to feelings of ''malice'' or ''hatred''. However in practice it turns out that I feel ''malice, hatred and indignation'' towards people no less surely than a person who has never stopped to consider that each of his fellow humans acts according to the dictates of his personal ''fate''. I know for a fact that you are impervious to those petty feelings of vindictive spite. This is clear to me from everything that I know about you as well as from you yourself and from others. You shield yourself from the blow struck by your fellow human and yet do not pay him back with an even more forceful blow. In a word, you live out your philosophy in practice too. Again I display the same dichotomy: I think one thing, but do another.

Brett: 1 revision imported

2022-07-12T12:19:53Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:19, 12 July 2022
(No difference)

Brett at 14:14, 8 April 2021

2021-04-08T14:14:57Z

Show changes