Significant details of the work by Mozart and Salieri. "Mozart and Salieri" (history of creation)

The play “Mozart and Salieri” belongs to the cycle of Pushkin’s “Little Tragedies”, created by the poet in 1830 in Boldin. This cycle includes “The Miserly Knight”, “Mozart and Salieri”, “The Stone Guest”, “A Feast in the Time of Plague”. Each of the plays, according to Pushkin, is based on one of the main human passions that completely absorb and subjugate a person: insatiable greed, inexhaustible envy, unbridled obsession, insatiable absorption. “Little tragedies” are a development of Pushkin’s phrase in the poem “Gypsies”: “And fatal passions are everywhere.”

Pushkin’s appeal to the history of Mozart and Salieri was caused by a fact that in the late 1820s attracted widespread attention around the world: after Salieri’s death in 1825, rumors spread that in his dying confession he allegedly admitted that in 1791 poisoned his contemporary, the great composer Mozart. The legend that arose as a result of rumors touched the deepest and most secret strings of the human soul. It influenced the imagination of many artists and gave rise to wonderful works of literature, theater, and much later cinema. Moreover, this very murder out of envy of someone else's talent (fictitious or real) has acquired a nominal meaning.

If you carefully analyze the content of the tragedy, it becomes clear that Pushkin is not primarily interested in the fact of the murder and its reliability. The plot of the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” unfolds in two scenes: the first is dedicated to Salieri’s monologue, in which he reveals his envy of Mozart and accuses Heaven of injustice, because of which the “immortal genius” was not sent to him as a reward for his love of music and selfless labor, but “illuminated the head of a madman, an idle reveler.” In addition, in the first scene, Mozart comes to Salieri, who considers him his most sincere friend. In the second scene, Mozart and Salieri are having lunch together, and Salieri, burning with unbearable envy, pours poison into Mozart's glass of wine.

It would seem that Pushkin fully supports the rumors about Salieri’s crime and shows in detail how it happened. However, the meaning of the tragedy far exceeds this obvious fact, and in order to understand its meaning, let’s begin our discussion with Salieri’s final words:

You'll fall asleep

Long live, Mozart! But is he right?

And I'm not a genius? Genius and villainy

Two things are incompatible. Not true:

And Bonarotti? or is it a fairy tale

Dumb, senseless crowd - and was not

The creator of the Vatican is a murderer.

Salieri is confused by Mozart’s words “genius and villainy are two incompatible things,” understanding Mozart’s word “villainy” as a banal murder. Therefore, for him, the undeniable genius of Michelangelo Buonarroti is incompatible with the legend that, while working on the Last Judgment scene in the Sistine Chapel, the great artist ordered the death of the sitter in order to realistically depict his suffering. Consequently, Pushkin put a different meaning into the phrase about the incompatibility of genius and villainy.

Mozart speaks his words, unaware of Salieri's monstrous plan. He sincerely believes in Salieri’s genius, speaking about him, the playwright Beaumarchais and himself: “He’s a genius, like you and me.” In his statement, Mozart does not at all evaluate the “degree” of genius; for him, genius is serving art and fulfilling one’s calling. Apostasy from one’s calling, betrayal of one’s gift is, in his eyes, villainy. What is Salieri's defection?

At the beginning of the tragedy, Salieri talks about his all-consuming love for music, the incredible work through which he achieved mastery, and the cruel envy that struck him when Mozart appeared. Salieri's greatest gift was in his sense of music, his understanding of it, because Salieri is the only one who could penetrate so deeply into the perfection of Mozart's music.

A passionate desire to become a creator of music himself led Salieri to his first deviation from his calling to be its unsurpassed connoisseur:

I became a craftsman: fingers

Gave obedient, dry fluency

And loyalty to the ear. Killing the sounds

I devoured the music like a corpse. Believed

I use algebra to create harmony...

Salieri achieved a lot and was calm until the real creator of music appeared. This is how he admires Mozart’s new work as soon as he hears it:

What depth!

What courage and what harmony!

You, Mozart, are a god, and you don’t know it yourself;

I know I am.

Pushkin shows that Salieri does not envy the man Mozart, but his talent. However, Mozart's talent is to create music that makes up the meaning of Salieri's life. Therefore, by killing Mozart, Salieri destroys music, in other words, himself. This is Salieri’s villainy: he committed a crime by poisoning a man, and a crime by deviating from his calling.

Having written the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” in the fall of 1830, Pushkin defined his position as an artist and a person who realized the need to be faithful to his calling, to write only the truth and not to succumb to weakness and false blessings.

Source (abbreviated): Moskvin G.V. Literature: 9th grade: in 2 hours. Part 2 / G.V. Moskvin, N.N. Puryaeva, E.L. Erokhin. - M.: Ventana-Graf, 2016

The work in genre refers to a tragedy, called small by the author and created in accordance with the unity of place, time and action in the style of classicism. The creation is one of the components of Pushkin’s cycle called “Little Tragedies”.

basis The work was created using a legend about the death of the talented musician Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which has no historical evidence, so the poet’s tragedy cannot be a historical work.

Compositional structure The work consists of two acts and is traditional, characteristic of the tragic genre, in which the monologues of one of Salieri’s heroes have a structural ring that envelops the action of the play. The internal composition of the tragedy is an exposition in the form of a monologue by Salieri, containing discussions about art and his own life, an obvious climax in the form of the death of one of the characters and a philosophical denouement.

The main theme of the play the poet considers the manifestation of interconnected human feelings in the form of envy, talent and hard work, rationalism and creativity, craftsmanship and genius.

As poetic size Iambic hexameter, called Shakespearean, is used.

Characters in the work are fictional images that conditionally coincide with real prototypes by the Austrian composer Mozart and the Italian musician Salieri. The image of Mozart is used by the poet in a service role to reveal the true essence of the second hero in the image of Salieri, while the development of the characters’ characters does not occur throughout the narrative, and their natures are tested.

Contents of the work emphasizes the contrast between the images of the characters, in which Salieri symbolizes human self-affirmation, a servant of art, and Mozart personifies the heavenly forces, identified in vital carelessness, unconsciousness, breathing genius in musical creativity, since he is friends with the will of heaven and is the son of harmony, indulging in free art.

The central place in the storyline is given to the demonstration of human negative feelings in the form of envy, which is portrayed by the poet as the most destructive thing, which is a terrible mortal sin that pushes people to commit a crime.

Final conclusion in the tragedy it sounds like a requiem, a funeral hymn created by the deceased Mozart, emitting a wondrous melody that evokes tears and pain for Salieri, who considered himself a fighter for the restoration of justice for the sake of serving art.

Option 2

In 1830, during the most fruitful period of the Boldino autumn, the genius of Pushkin gives birth to “Mozart and Salieri” to the world. A small tragedy, as the poet himself characterized this genre, became one of four embodied on paper. In general, Pushkin planned to write thirteen tragedies. But the reader is familiar with only four - “The Miserly Knight”, “A Feast during the Plague”, “The Stone Guest” and “Mozart and Salieri”.

The work consists of two scenes, which is why the name itself appeared - a small tragedy. But, despite the laconic presentation in the tragedy, Pushkin raises a deep question about the oldest of human vices - envy and others like it.

It is based on the legend of the Austrian composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his friend, the Italian musician Antonio Salieri. However, Pushkin’s characters only conditionally coincide with real prototypes. This story helped the poet express on paper his attitude towards this quality of people and show the scale of the tragedy of the human soul. By the way, after the publication of the work, almost no one doubted that Mozart died at the hands of Salieri. The name of the poisoner Salieri subsequently became generally accepted as a common noun with the meaning “envious.”

The main character of the tragedy is Salieri. At that time, no matter how strange it may seem, Mozart was a minor person. The author uses the image of a genius only to show readers through it all the baseness of Salieri’s soul, his disgusting thoughts and thoughts. Exploring the inner world of the protagonist, Pushkin exposes the envy that pushes him to crime.

The story of the tragedy begins in Salieri's house. At that very moment when some breakdown occurs in his soul. Salieri walked long and stubbornly towards fame - he studied the beauty of music and the correct construction of melodies, he literally hated and was deeply envious of his young friend and colleague Mozart, who was given talent at birth. His former calm leaves him, because he is unable to cope with his talent.

At this moment, Salieri becomes obsessed with a new idea - he wants to poison Mozart, despite the trusting relationship established between them. Because the envious person considers the young talent to be a “mistake of nature”, who has not made a single bit of effort to achieve such heights, and also does not value his talent at all and squanders it in vain.

According to Pushkin, Salieri represents human self-affirmation, having achieved everything with blood and sweat, while Mozart is the personification of higher, heavenly powers. The confrontation between these forces is inevitable, and here Salieri reveals himself completely, exposing his dirty insides. However, Mozart does not even suspect what is going on in the soul of his comrade. He enjoys his friend’s company, he is as pure as a child in front of him.

Despite the fact that Mozart is a minor character, it is he who utters the main thought at the end of the tragedy: “genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” This phrase, spoken by a dying genius, finally tramples Salieri’s soul. Only now does he realize that he has made the greatest mistake in his life and understands that, together with his friend, he killed the genius in himself, and now he has no reason to live. The talent that died at his hands will live forever in the hearts of people, and he will be forgotten.

The lyrical image of Mozart became a kind of identification with the poet himself; he was also very familiar with envy. Pushkin understood perfectly well how insidious this vile vice - envy - is, how it destroys friendships and corrodes hearts.

Several interesting essays

• Analysis of Andreev's story Bargamot and Garaska

  In this story, Leonid Nikolaevich describes the history of ordinary people. Andreev reveals the problem of human cruelty and hostility towards people. In the story there is a character like Garaska, who is constantly drunk and shouting obscenities

• Analysis of the fairy tale The Selfless Hare by Saltykov-Shchedrin essay

  The conflict of the fairy tale described by the writer is the offense of the hare, who did not stop at the call of a stronger animal, for which he is sentenced to death by the wolf, but at the same time the wolf does not seek to destroy the prey at that very second

• Characteristics and image of Shvabrin in the story The Captain's Daughter by Pushkin, essay 8th grade

  Alexey Ivanovich Shvabrin is a minor and negative hero of the story “The Captain's Daughter”. This is a young, educated officer from a wealthy family

• The image and characteristics of Abadonna in the novel The Master and Margarita Bulgakova

  One of the minor characters of the work is Abadonna, presented by the writer in the demonic image of Woland’s secret assistant, personifying the devil’s power.

Self-confidence is an integral property for a person. After all, only confidence allows you to reach some heights and get the desired results.

MOZART Wolfgang Amadeus (1756-91) - Austrian composer. A representative of the Viennese classical school, a musician with universal talent that manifested itself from early childhood. Mozart's music reflected the ideas of the German Enlightenment and the Sturm and Drang movement, and incorporated the artistic experience of various national schools and traditions. He modified traditional opera forms (The Marriage of Figaro, 1786; Don Giovanni, 1787; The Magic Flute, 1791), individualized the genre types of symphonies (E-flat major, G minor; C major, the so-called “Jupiter” , all 1788). St. 20 operas, St. 50 symphonies, concertos for piano and violin and orchestra, chamber-instrumental (trios, quartets, quintets, etc.) and piano works (sonatas, variations, fantasies), "Requiem", (1791; completed by F. X. Süssmayr) , masses and other choral works, songs.
2006, declared by UNESCO as the year of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, is 250 years since the birth of the great composer and 215 years since his death. The "God of Music" (as he is often called) left this world on December 5, 1791, at the age of 35, after a strange illness.
No grave, no cross
The national pride of Austria, the musical genius, imperial and royal bandmaster and chamber composer, was not awarded either a separate grave or a cross. He found rest in a common grave in Vienna's St. Mark's Cemetery. When the composer’s wife, Constanza, 18 years later, first decided to visit his grave, the only witness who could indicate the approximate burial place - the gravedigger - was no longer alive. The plan for St. Mark's Cemetery was found in 1859 and a marble monument was erected at the supposed burial site of Mozart. Today it is even more impossible to accurately determine the place where he was lowered into a pit with two dozen unfortunate people - vagabonds, homeless beggars, poor people without family or tribe.
The official explanation for the poor funeral is the lack of money due to the extreme poverty of the composer. However, there is information that the family still had 60 guilders left. The third-class burial, costing 8 guilders, was organized and paid for by Baron Gottfried van Swieten, a Viennese philanthropist, to whom Mozart, out of friendship, gave many of his works for free. It was van Swieten who persuaded the composer's wife not to take part in the funeral.
Mozart was buried already on December 6, with incomprehensible haste, without basic respect and an official announcement of death (it was made only after the funeral). The body was not brought into St. Stephen's Cathedral, but Mozart was the assistant conductor of this cathedral! The farewell ceremony, with the participation of a few accompanying people, was hastily held at the Chapel of the Holy Cross, adjacent to the outer wall of the cathedral. The composer's widow and his fellow Masons were absent.
After the funeral service, only a few people - including Baron Gottfried van Swieten, composer Antonio Salieri and Mozart's student Franz Xaver Süssmayr - went to accompany the composer on his final journey. But none of them reached St. Mark's cemetery. As van Swieten and Salieri explained, heavy rain, which turned into snow, interfered. However, their explanation is refuted by the testimony of people who clearly remembered this warm, foggy day. And also - an official certificate from the Central Institute of Meteorology in Vienna, issued in 1959 at the request of the American musicologist Nikolai Slonimsky. The temperature that day was 3 degrees Celsius according to Reaumur (1 degree of the Reaumur scale = 5/4 degrees of the Celsius scale. -N.L.), there was no precipitation; at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, when Mozart's funeral service was held, only a "weak east wind" was observed. The archived statement for that day also stated: “the weather is warm, foggy.” However, for Vienna, fog at this time of year is quite common.
Meanwhile, back in the summer, while working on the opera “The Magic Flute,” Mozart felt unwell and became increasingly stronger in the suspicion that someone was encroaching on his life. Three months before his death, while walking with his wife, he said: “I feel like I won’t last long. Of course, they gave me poison...”
Despite the official record in the office of St. Stephen’s Cathedral about the composer’s death from “acute millet fever,” the first cautious mention of poisoning appeared in the Berlin “Musical Weekly” on December 12, 1791: “Since after death his body was swollen, they even claim that he was poisoned."
In search of a definitive diagnosis
Analysis of various evidence and research by dozens of specialists allows us to draw up an approximate picture of the symptoms of the disease that Mozart had.
From the summer to the autumn of 1791 he celebrated; general weakness; weight loss; periodic pain in the lumbar region; pallor; headache; dizziness; mood instability with frequent depression, fearfulness and extreme irritability. He faints with loss of consciousness, his hands begin to swell, loss of strength increases, and vomiting is added to all this. Later, symptoms such as a metallic taste in the mouth, handwriting problems (mercury tremors), chills, abdominal cramps, foul (foul) body odor, fever, general swelling and rash appear. Mozart died with a painful headache, but his consciousness remained clear right up to his death.
Among the works devoted to the study of the cause of the composer’s death, the most fundamental works belong to doctors Johannes Dalchow, Günter Duda, Dieter Kerner (“W.A. Mozart. Chronicle of the last years of his life and death,” 1991) and Wolfgang Ritter (“So was he killed ?, 1991). The number of diagnoses in the Mozart case is impressive, which in itself is suggestive, but, according to scientists, none of them can withstand serious criticism.
By “acute millet fever,” designated as an official diagnosis, 17th-century medicine understood an infectious disease that occurs acutely, accompanied by a rash, fever and chills. But Mozart’s illness progressed slowly, debilitatingly, and the swelling of the body does not fit into the clinic of millet fever at all. Doctors may have been confused by the severe rash and fever in the final stage of the disease, but these are characteristic signs of a number of poisonings. Let us additionally note that in the case of an infectious disease, one should have expected at least someone from one’s close circle to become infected, which did not happen; there was no epidemic in the city.
“Meningitis (inflammation of the meninges),” which appears as a possible disease, also disappears, since Mozart was able to work almost until the very end and retained complete clarity of consciousness; there were no cerebral clinical manifestations of meningitis. Moreover, one cannot talk about “tuberculous meningitis” - Mozart studies with absolute certainty exclude tuberculosis from the composer’s anamnesis. Moreover, his medical history is almost clear until 1791, the last year of his life, which, moreover, marked the peak of his creative activity.
The diagnosis of “heart failure” is absolutely contradicted by the fact that shortly before his death, Mozart conducted a long cantata, which requires great physical
load, and a little earlier - the opera “The Magic Flute”. And most importantly: there is not a single evidence of the presence of the main symptom of this disease - shortness of breath. The legs would swell, not the arms and body.
The clinic of “ephemeral rheumatic fever” also does not find its confirmation. Even if we think about cardiac complications, there were no signs of cardiac weakness, such as, again, shortness of breath - heart-sick Mozart could not sing “Requiem” with his friends before his death!
There is no good reason to assume the presence of syphilis, both because the disease has a different clinical picture, and because Mozart’s wife and two sons were healthy (the youngest was born 5 months before his death), which is excluded if the husband and father were sick.
It is also difficult to agree with the fact that the composer suffered from mental pathology in the form of all kinds of fears and delusions of poisoning. Russian psychiatrist Alexander Shuvalov, having analyzed (in 2004) the history of the composer’s life and illness, came to the conclusion: Mozart is “a rare case of a universally recognized genius who did not suffer from any mental disorder.” But the composer had reason to worry.
The assumption of renal failure is closest to the true clinical picture of the disease. However, renal failure as “pure, quiet uremia” is excluded, if only because renal patients at this stage lose their ability to work and spend their last days in an unconscious state. It is impossible for such a sick person to write two operas, two cantatas, a clarinet concerto and move freely from city to city in the last three months of his life! In addition, an acute disease develops first - nephritis (inflammation of the kidneys) - and only after many years of the chronic stage does the transition to the final stage - uremia. But in Mozart’s medical history there is no mention of the inflammatory kidney damage he suffered.
It was mercury
According to a number of scientists, including toxicologists, Mozart's death occurred as a result of chronic mercury poisoning, namely, from repeated intake of mercury dichloride - mercuric chloride - into the body. It was given at significant intervals: for the first time - in the summer, for the last time - shortly before death. Moreover, the final phase of the disease is similar to true kidney failure, which was the basis for the erroneous diagnosis of inflammatory renal failure.
This misconception is understandable: although in the 18th century a lot was known about poisons and poisonings, doctors practically did not know the clinic of intoxication with mercury (sublimate) - then, in order to eliminate rivals, it was more common to use the so-called aqua Toffana (no name of the famous poisoner who composed the hellish mixture from arsenic, lead and antimony); The first thing that Mozart thought about was aqua Toffana.
All the symptoms observed in Mozart at the beginning of the disease are identical to the signs of acute mercury poisoning, which is currently well studied (headache, metallic taste in the mouth, vomiting, weight loss, neuroses, depression, etc.). At the end of a long period of poisoning, toxic kidney damage occurs with final uremic symptoms - fever, rash, chills, etc. Slow mercuric poisoning is also supported by the fact that the musician maintained a clear consciousness and continued to write music, that is, he was able to work, which is typical for chronic mercury poisoning.
A comparative analysis of Mozart’s death mask and his lifetime portraits gave, in turn, the basis for the conclusion: the deformation of facial features is clearly caused by intoxication (Sergei Mazurkevich, 2003).
Thus, there is much evidence that the composer was poisoned. There are also assumptions about who and how could have done this.
Possible Suspects
First of all, mercury had to be found somewhere. The poison could have come through Gottfried van Swieten, whose father, physician Gerhard van Swieten, was the first to treat syphilis with “mercury tincture according to Swieten” - a solution of sublimate in vodka. In addition, Mozart often visited the von Switenovs' house. The owner of the mercury mines, Count Walseg-zu-Stuppach, the mysterious customer of “Requiem”, a man prone to hoaxes and intrigues, also had the opportunity to supply the killers with poison.
There are three main versions of Mozart's poisoning. However, almost all researchers agree that it is unlikely that one person could do this.
Version one:
Salieri. When defenders of the Italian composer Antonio Salieri (1750-1825) claim that he “had everything, and Mozart had nothing” and therefore could not envy Mozart, they are disingenuous. Yes, Salieri had a reliable income, and after leaving court service, a good pension awaited him. Mozart really had nothing, nothing but... GENIUS. However, he passed away not only in the most fruitful year in terms of creativity, but also in a year that was a turning point for the fate of him and his family - he received a decree of enrollment in a position that gave financial independence and the opportunity to create in peace. At the same time, significant, long-term orders and contracts for new compositions arrived from Amsterdam and Hungary.
In this context, the phrase uttered by Salieri in the short story by Gustav Nicolai (1825) seems quite possible: “Yes, it’s a pity that such a genius left us. But in general, the musicians were lucky. If he had lived any longer, no one would have given us all even a piece of bread for our writings.”
It was precisely the feeling of envy that could have pushed Salieri to commit a crime. It is known that other people's creative successes caused Salieri deep irritation and a desire to resist. It is enough to mention a letter from Ludwig van Beethoven dated January 1809, in which he complains to the publisher about the machinations of enemies, “of which the first is Mr. Salieri.” Biographers of Franz Schubert describe the intrigue Salieri undertook to prevent the brilliant “king of songs” from getting just a position as a modest music teacher in distant Laibach.
Soviet musicologist Igor Belza (in 1947) asked the Austrian composer Josef Marx whether Salieri really committed a crime? The answer was instantaneous, without hesitation: “And which of the old Viennese doubts this?” According to Marx, his friend, music historian Guido Adler (1885-1941), while studying church music, discovered in a Viennese archive a recording of Salieri’s confession from 1823, containing a confession of committing this monstrous crime, with detailed and convincing details, where and under what circumstances the composer was given poison. The church authorities could not violate the secrecy of confession and did not agree to make this document public.
Salieri, tormented by remorse, tried to commit suicide: he cut his throat with a razor, but remained alive. There are supporting entries for this in Beethoven’s “conversation notebooks” for 1823. There are other references to the content of Salieri's confession and his failed suicide.
Salieri's intention to commit suicide matured no later than 1821 - by that time he had written a requiem for his own death. In his farewell message (March 1821), Salieri asked Count Haugwitz to serve a funeral service for him in a private chapel and to perform the requiem sent for the sake of saving his soul, because “by the time the letter is received, the latter will no longer be among the living.” The content of the letter and its style indicate that Salieri did not have a mental illness. Nevertheless, Salieri was declared mentally ill, and his confession was declared delusional. Many researchers believe that this was done to avoid a scandal: after all, both Salieri and the Sweetens were closely associated with the ruling Habsburg court, which to some extent fell under the shadow of the crime. - Salieri died in 1825, as is clear from the death certificate, “of old age”, having received the Holy Gifts (which Mozart did not receive).
And now is the time to remember Pushkin’s tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” (1830) and the angry attacks of some Europeans on the author for “not wanting to present his two characters as they really were”, for using an alleged legend that denigrated name Salieri.
While working on the tragedy, Pushkin wrote an article “Rebuttal to Critics,” in which he spoke unequivocally: “... burdening historical characters with fictional horrors is neither wise nor generous. Slander in poems has always seemed uncommendable to me.” It is known that this work took the poet more than one year: Pushkin carefully collected various documentary evidence.
The Pushkin tragedy served as a strong impetus for research in this direction. As D. Kerner wrote: “If Pushkin had not captured Salieri’s crime in his tragedy, on which he worked for many years, then the mystery of the death of the greatest composer of the West would never have been resolved.”
Version two:
Sussmayr. Franz Xaver Süssmayr, a student of Salieri, then a student of Mozart and an intimate friend of his wife Constanze, who after Mozart’s death again began studying with Salieri, was distinguished by great ambitions and took Mozart’s ridicule hard. Süssmayr's name remains in history thanks to the Requiem, to the completion of which he was involved.
Constance quarreled with Zyu-smayr. And then she carefully erased his name from her husband’s documentary heritage. Sussmayr died in 1803 under strange and mysterious circumstances; in the same year, Gottfried van Swieten also passed away. Considering Süssmayr's closeness to Salieri and his career aspirations, combined with an inflated assessment of his own talents, as well as his affair with Constance, many researchers believe that he could have been involved in the poisoning rather in the role of a direct performer, since he lived in the composer's family. Perhaps Constanza also learned that her husband was receiving poison - this largely explains her further behavior.
It becomes clear, in particular, the unseemly role that, according to some contemporaries, Constanza played by “revealing the truth” on the day of the funeral about the alleged love affair of Mozart and his student Magdalena to her husband, lawyer Franz Hofdemel, friend and brother of Mozart in the Masonic lodge . In a fit of jealousy, Hofdemel tried to stab his pregnant, beautiful wife with a razor - Magdalena was saved from death by neighbors who heard the screams of her and their one-year-old child. Hofdemel committed suicide, also using a razor. Magdalena survived but was left disfigured. It is believed that in this way Constanza tried to shift suspicions of poisoning her husband to the poor lawyer. Indeed, this gave grounds to a number of researchers (for example, the British historian Francis Carr) to interpret this tragedy as an outburst of jealousy by Hofdemel, who poisoned (!) Mozart.
Be that as it may, Constanza’s youngest son, musician Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart, said: “I, of course, will not become as great as my father, and therefore there is nothing to fear from envious people who could encroach on my life.”
Version three:
ritual murder of a “disobedient brother.” It is known that Mozart was a member of the Masonic Lodge "Charity" and had a very high level of initiation. However, the Masonic community, which usually provides assistance to its brothers, did nothing to help the composer, who was in a very cramped financial situation. Moreover, the Freemason brothers did not come to see Mozart off on his last journey, and a special meeting of the lodge dedicated to his death took place only a few months later. Perhaps a certain role in this was played by the fact that Mozart, being disappointed with the activities of the order, planned to create his own secret organization - the Grotto lodge, the charter of which he had already written.
The ideological differences between the composer and the order reached their peak in 1791; It is in these discrepancies that some researchers see the reason for Mozart’s early death. In the same 1791, the composer wrote the opera “The Magic Flute,” which was a resounding success in Vienna. It is generally accepted that Masonic symbolism was widely used in the opera; many rituals were revealed that only initiates should know. Which couldn't go unnoticed. Georg Nikolaus Nissen, Constanze's second husband and later Mozart's biographer, called The Magic Flute "a parody of the Masonic order."
As J. Dalchow believes, “those who hastened Mozart’s death eliminated him with a poison “befitting his rank” - mercury, that is, Mercury, the idol of the muses. ...Or maybe all versions are links in the same chain?

Natalya Borisovna Laskova
Candidate of Medical Sciences, neurologist.

I propose to analyze the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri”, since, firstly, it is based on no original literary text, knowledge of which would be desirable for analysis; secondly, this mysterious work is still interpreted in different ways; thirdly, this is one of the most brilliant creations of drama.

Problematic question: Why did Salieri poison Mozart?

It seems the answer is so simple: because of envy. The answer is correct, but this is the first depth of understanding. Let's try to read more deeply, because in Pushkin everything is so brilliantly simple and as complex as life itself. The tragedy begins with a great monologue by Salieri. The very first sentence is blasphemy:

Everyone says: there is no truth on earth.

But there is no truth - and you are higher.

Analyzing this monologue, it can be noted that the stages of Salieri’s life pass before us: “I listened and was listened to”; “I became a craftsman”; ".. I am envious now."

1. Salieri’s life path is a slow ascent to the heights of mastery. Endowed with a love of music, with a keen sense of harmony and the ability to sincerely enjoy it, he devoted his life to studying the secrets of music.

2. He “became a craftsman.” We turn to the article in the explanatory dictionary and see that in this context this word sounds with a somewhat negative connotation. In a figurative sense, a craftsman is a person who does not put creative initiative into his work, acting according to an established pattern. But let us not be like those critics who claim that by calling Salieri a craftsman, Pushkin shows him as a poorly gifted musician who is jealous of a genius. This is not a tragedy of mediocrity and talent! Salieri in the tragedy is a gifted musician, and his real prototype Antonio Salieri is the teacher of Beethoven, Liszt, and Schubert. Craftsmanship for Salieri became the footsteps of art; the self-deprecating “I became a craftsman” is the price paid for fame.

Z. Happiness, glory, peace came to Salieri thanks to “work, diligence, prayer.” This is a reward for dedication to art:

I was happy...

And now - I’ll say it myself - I’m now

Envious. I envy; deep,

I'm painfully jealous.

Why did the feeling of envy in him arise specifically towards Mozart? After all, next to Salieri at the peak of musical fame are Gluck, Haydn, Piccini. And a petty feeling of envy, and a protest against the highest injustice in the words of Salieri:

- Oh heaven!

Where is rightness, when a sacred gift,

When immortal genius is not a reward

Burning love, selflessness,

Works, zeal, prayers sent -

And it illuminates the head of a madman,

Idle revelers? ..

Why does Salieri call Mozart “a madman, an idle reveler”?

Salieri is endowed with a rare talent to understand and subtly feel music, but his “creative night and inspiration” very rarely visit him. The lightness, “depth,” “courage,” and “harmony” of Mozart’s creations seem to him not the result of intense spiritual work, but of idleness bestowed from above.

By the way, it is curious that most critics agree with Salieri on this and try, as if justifying Pushkin, to explain why the author portrayed the brilliant composer as idle and creative. But Mozart refutes the opinion of his idleness:

The other night

My insomnia tormented me,

And two or three thoughts came to my mind.

Today I sketched them.

Not just random insomnia, but my insomnia, it’s mine as a companion of the creator. So, Salieri’s first monologue is the beginning of the tragedy, but it is also the culmination of Salieri’s torment, which has been tormenting his soul for a long time: how humiliating it is to admit to the “proud Salieri” that now he is an envious person! And so the little tragedy became deeper, its content expanded, “including pre-tragic action,”

Before us is Salieri's second monologue. This monologue is a justification for the murder plot: “I was chosen to stop it.” What does Mozart do, from Salieri’s point of view, that he needs to be stopped? Yes, music can be “dissected like a corpse,” harmony can be verified by algebra, one can understand how a beautiful creation was created, but one cannot teach divine inspiration. “We are all priests, ministers of music.” And Mozart is a creator:

"You, Mozart, are a god."

What good is it if Mozart lives?

Will it still reach new heights? ..

He will not leave us an heir.

No matter how much you read into this monologue, it is an attempt to justify murder for oneself. Villainy needs high arguments, which is why Salieri’s monologues are so verbose in this little tragedy. Salieri envies Mozart because he understands: he himself will not be able to learn what a genius possesses - creation (not creativity - creation).

The first reason for the murder is named - deep, hidden from everyone, soul-destroying envy. But there is also a second one. I’ll quote the guys’ opinion verbatim: “Salieri is infuriated by Mozart’s behavior.” Rough in form, but accurate in content.

Mozart brought a blind violinist to Salieri. He laughs: the violinist plays “from Mozart.” But Salieri doesn't laugh. There is no envy here. This is different. It’s not funny for him when the “despicable buffoon” plays Mozart’s divine music in the tavern, because Salieri treats music as a high, imperishable art, not accessible to everyone. And the poor blind old violinist is talented, although, as critics say, he is out of tune. Whether it is fake or not is not for us to judge, we are not art critics, we read Pushkin ourselves, and Mozart says to him: “... I brought a violinist to treat you to his art.” Mozart easily pushes the sacred boundaries of the chosen priests of music for Salieri.

Salieri invites Mozart to dine at the tavern, and Mozart goes home to tell his wife not to wait for him for dinner. Pushkin does not have a single extra word. Not a single extra movement. Why is he sending Mozart home?

Why are you cloudy today? ..

Are you upset about something, Mozart?

Admit,

My Requiem worries me.

What two meanings can be read in this phrase? My requiem is a work by Mozart; my requiem is a requiem for Mozart, about Mozart.

Why did he accept the commission to write music full of reminders of death? There are opinions about the desire to try himself in a new genre, that Mozart hoped to make money, since he always had financial difficulties... Mozart’s last words echo the whole tragedy:

If only everyone felt so strong

Harmony! But no: then I couldn’t

And the world to exist; no one would

Take care of the needs of low life...

Mozart himself, “the chosen one, the happy idle one,” knew well what the needs of a low life were. Salieri drives away the blind violinist, and Mozart does not forget to pay: “Wait: here you go, drink to my health.” Music to order is also the family’s livelihood. Going to the tavern, he warns his wife not to wait: not to worry, and perhaps not to spend too much on dinner. For Mozart, as for Pushkin, high art is not only a divine gift, pleasure, but it is also a means of existence in that “low” life, where there is also happiness, family, friends... In order not to be unfounded, let’s read fragments from letters Pushkin to Pletnev: “Money, money... I am able to take a wife without a fortune, but I am not able to go into debt for her rags. There is nothing to do: I will have to print my stories. I’ll send it to you in the second week, and we’ll emboss it to the Saint...”

For Salieri, such an attitude towards art is unacceptable; art and everyday life are incompatible. For Mozart, these are two sides of his life. The ability to create divine music and the ability to make friends, love, be caring, attentive, cheerful, anxious... Salieri knows only one passion - art. Let us remember: the last gift of beloved Izora is poison. Isn't it strange? Love is good if the beloved gives poison, friendship is good if there is poison in the cup! Salieri separates the life of a man and the life of a composer. And if Mozart the composer evokes delight and envy in him, then Mozart the man evokes hatred. It is quite possible that the most brilliant thing about Mozart is the combination of human and divine gifts. We look at Vrubel’s painting of Mozart and Salieri in a tavern: Salieri is demonic (remember: “... there is no truth on earth. But there is no truth - and above”).

Murder is the culmination of tragedy. “It’s both painful and pleasant, as if I had committed a heavy DUTY...” Well, Mozart’s tragedy is over. Only a few moments pass, perhaps minutes of peace, and then a new tragedy begins - the tragedy of Salieri:

But is he right?

And I'm not a genius? Genius and villainy

Two things are incompatible.

These words are the denouement of this small tragedy, but they are the beginning of a new tragedy. The lofty arguments about high duty and chosenness collapsed. The tragedy of a talented musician, a subtle connoisseur of art, a proud, but at the same time a man with a dark soul of an envious, murderer begins. Pushkin's tragedy becomes even deeper, as it extends to the post-tragic space.

Let's summarize:

— in each “Little Tragedy,” Pushkin the playwright combined real life, philosophical reflections, and autobiographical impressions in a small text space;

- there is no one final answer to many questions that arise when reading a play, that is, there is room for interpretation by readers, directors, and actors; - in his plays, Pushkin turned to eternal themes: fathers and sons, genius and envious person, love, happiness, death...

Despite the fact that the work “Mozart and Salieri” (1830) was created during the Boldino autumn, the poet’s idea for it arose much earlier. As a matter of fact, for Pushkin, who in art (at first glance) continued the “line” of Mozart, that is, he wrote outwardly with unusual ease and, as if playfully, created masterpieces, the theme of envy as a feeling capable of destroying a person’s soul was very close, he constantly encountered with envy and hostility towards himself and his creativity and could not help but think about their nature.

Pushkin's Salieri, in contrast to a real historical figure, whose guilt in poisoning Mozart already raised serious doubts among his contemporaries, is simply “obliged” to poison the “idle reveler” who is “unworthy of himself” because the human element in him stands above art, which he serves. The author psychologically accurately depicts Salieri’s state of mind, reflecting that “I was chosen to Stop him - otherwise we all died, We are all priests, ministers of music...”. Explaining the reasons for his decision, Salieri, admitting that he envies Mozart, says: “Oh heaven! Where is rightness when a sacred gift, When an immortal genius is not a reward of burning love, selflessness, labor, diligence, prayers is sent - but illuminates the head a madman, an idle reveler?.." Here is an explanation of Salieri's phrase with which the tragedy begins: "Everyone says: there is no truth on earth, But there is no truth - and above." According to Salieri, only hard work can and should be rewarded by the fact that the artist creates - as a result of selfless service to art - a work of genius, and the appearance of Mozart not only denies this point of view, it denies the life of Salieri himself, everything that was created by him in art. Consequently, Salieri, as it were, protects himself, his creativity from the “madman” who manages with “extraordinary ease” to create something that is simply beyond his control... This decision is even more strengthened after he listened to “ Reguiem "Mozart: "What good is it if Mozart is alive and still reaches new heights? Will he elevate art? No..." The decision has been made, and Salieri is ready to carry it out.

In the second scene of the tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” by Pushkin, Salieri poisoned the wine that Mozart drinks. It would seem that the moment when Mozart drinks poison should be the moment of triumph for Salieri, but everything turns out the other way around, and he is guilty of this... Mozart, who innocently assures that the great Beaumarchais, the author of the immortal "Marriage of Figaro", could not, as They told him to be a poisoner, citing an irrefutable argument from their point of view: “He’s a genius, like you and me. And genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” And Mozart drinks the wine poisoned by Salieri... “For your Health, friend, for a sincere union, Connecting Mozart and Salieri, Two sons of harmony.” Salieri's desperate attempt to change what he had done is pointless, because Mozart has already made his choice: “Wait, Wait, wait!.. Did you drink!.. Without me?” - Salieri exclaims...

After Mozart plays his " Reguiem ", which accompanies his departure from life, he actually goes to "sleep", not knowing that this will be an eternal sleep...

The tragedy ends with the words of Salieri, who accomplished his plan, but never found peace of mind, because he cannot get rid of the words of Mozart: “But is he right, and am I not a genius? Genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” How then to live further?

In "Mozart and Salieri" Pushkin examines one of the universal human problems - the problem of envy - in close connection with the problem of the moral principle in artistic creativity, the problem of the artist's responsibility to his talent. The author's position here is clear: true art cannot be immoral. "Genius and villainy are two incompatible things." Therefore, Mozart, who passed away, turns out to be more “alive” than Salieri, who committed the “villainy,” and Mozart’s genius becomes especially necessary for people.