Grove's dictionary of music and musicians

1835- SCHUMANN —1839 355
him as to a high moiintain-peak, and that even
in his daily talk about art some thought at least
would he uttered worthy of being graven in
gold. And when he mentions him in his
writings, it is in a tone of enthusiastic admiration,
which shows in the best light Schumann's
fine ideal character, so remarkable for its freedom
from envy. And his opinion remained unaltered
; in 1842 he dedicated his three string
quartets to Mendelssohn, and in the 'Album
ftir die Jugend' there is a little piano piece
called Erinnerung,' dated Nov. ' 4, 1847, which
shows with eloquent simplicity how deeply he
felt the early death of his friend. It is well
known how he would be moved out of his quiet
stillness if he heard any disparaging expression
used of Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn, on the
contrary, at first only saw in Schumann the
man of letters and the art -critic. Like most
productive musicians, he had a dislike to such
men as a class, however much he might love
and value single representatives, as was really
the case with regard to Schumann. From
this point of view must be regarded the expressions
which he makes use of now and then in
letters concerning Schumann as an author.
(See Mendelssohn's Briefe, ii. 116 ; Lady Wallace's
translation, ii. 97 ; ' and HUler's 'Felix
Menddssohn Bartholdy, Cologne, 1878, p. 64.)
If they sound somewhat disparaging, we must
remember that it is not the personal Mendelssohn
speaking against the personal Schumann,
but rather the creative artist speaking against
the critic, always in natural opposition to
him. Indeed it is obviously impossible to
take such remarks in a disadvantageous sense,
as Schumann quite agreed with Mendelssohn
on the subject of criticism. One passage in
his writings is especially remarkable in this
respect. He is speaking of Chopin's pianoforte
concerto, and Florestan exclaims, What
'
is a whole year of a musical paper compared
to a concerto by Chopin ? What is a magister's
rage compared to the poetic frenzy ? What
are ten complimentary addresses to the editor
compared to the Adagio in the second Concerto
? And believe me, Davidites, I should
not think you worth the trouble of talking
to, did I not believe you capable of composing
such works as those you write about,
with the exception of a few like this concerto.
Away with your musical journals ! It should
be the highest endeavour of a just critic to
render himself wholly unnecessary ; the best
discourse on music is silence. Why write about
Chopin ? Why not create at first hand — play,
write, and compose ? ' (CfesammeUe Schriften, i.
276 ; Engl, trans, in Music amd Musicians,
series i. p. 205.) True, this impassioned outburst
has to be moderated by Eusebius. But consider
the significance of Schumann's writing thus in
1 HaTdly recognisable, owing to Die mvHkalUcM Zeitwng (Sehnmann'a
paper) being rendered ' The nmeical papers. '
his own journal about the critic's vocation ! It
plainly shows that he only took it up as an
artist, and occasionally despised it. But with
regard to Schumann's place in art, Mendelssohn
did not, at that time at all events, consider it
a very high one, and he was not alone in this
opinion. It was shared, for example, by Spohr
and Hauptmann. In Mendelssohn's published
letters there is no verdict whatever on Schumann's
music. The fact, however, remains that
in Schumann's earlier pianoforte works he felt
that the power or the desire for expression in
the greater forms was wanting, and this he said in
conversation. He soon had reason to change his
opinion, and afterwards expressed warm interest
in his friend's compositions. Whether he ever
quite entered into the individualities of Schumann's
music may well be doubted ; theirnatures
were too dissimDar. To a certain extent the German
nation has recovered from one mistake in
judgment ; the tendency to elevate Schumann
above Mendelssohn was for a very long time
unmistakable. Latterly their verdict has become
more just, and the two are now recognised as
composers of equal greatness.
Schumann's constant intimacy in Wieck's
house had resulted in a tender attachment to
his daughter Clara, now grown up. It was in
the latter part of 1835 that this first found
any definite expression. His regard was reciprocated,
and in September 1837 he preferred his
suit formally to her father. ^ Wieck, however,
did not favour it ;
possibly he entertained
loftier hopes for his gifted daughter. At any
rate he was of opinion that Schumann's means
and prospects were too vague and uncertain to
warrant his setting up a home of his own.
Schumann seems to have acknowledged the
justice of this hesitation, for in 1838 he made
strenuous efforts to find a new and wider sphere
of work. With the full consent of Clara Wieck
he decided on settling in Vienna, and bringing
out his musical periodical in that city. The
glory of a great epoch still cast a light over
the musical life of the Austrian capital—the
epoch when Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,
and Schubert were living and working there.
In point of fact, all genuine music had vanished
even during Beethoven's lifetime, and had given
way to a trivial and superficial taste. Rossini
and his followers were paramount in opera ;
in orchestral music there were the waltzes of
Strauss and Lanner ; and in vocal music the
feeble sentimentalities of Proch and his fellowcomposers.
So far as solo-playing was concerned,
the fourth decade of the century saw it at its
highest pitch of executive brilliancy, and its
lowest of purpose and feeling—indeed it may
be comprehensively designated as the epoch of
Thalberg. Thus Schumann would have found
in Vienna ample opportunity for doing good
2 [These datee are now finally settled by Litsniann's Clara Schv^
mann, vol. i. p. 123, etc]