https://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/index.php?title=Letter_679&feed=atom&action=historyLetter 679 - Revision history2024-03-28T10:24:57ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.38.2https://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/index.php?title=Letter_679&diff=65711&oldid=prevBrett: Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"2024-02-29T09:25:05Z<p>Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en-GB">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 10:25, 29 February 2024</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l47">Line 47:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 47:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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. </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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 <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">event </del>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''. </div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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 <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">case </ins>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''. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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. </div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>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. </div></td></tr>
</table>Bretthttps://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/index.php?title=Letter_679&diff=44816&oldid=prevBrett: 1 revision imported2022-07-12T12:19:53Z<p>1 revision imported</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en-GB">
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 13:19, 12 July 2022</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en-GB"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div>
</td></tr></table>Bretthttps://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/index.php?title=Letter_679&diff=44815&oldid=prevBrett at 14:14, 8 April 20212021-04-08T14:14:57Z<p></p>
<a href="https://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/index.php?title=Letter_679&diff=44815">Show changes</a>Brett