Theory and Practice in Schumann's Aesthetics

For those who are interested in comparing theory and practice in the field of musical aesthetics, the composers of the 19th century possess a special attraction, since they often express themselves in words almost as readily as in tones. To some extent, however, the combination of theorist and practitioner in one person is illusory, for the writings of composers rarely come under the head of speculative aesthetics, and take the form of criticism, letters, or diaries, of literary works and tracts on technical theory, rather than the form of a philosophical treatise. Conceptions of music will be either implicit or incidental; they must be uncovered as the presuppositions of criticism or assembled into coherent form from occasional reflections. Although Schumann once projected a study of musical aesthetics, his writings in fact belong to the field of criticism, and thus to applied rather than speculative aesthetics; they constitute a second sphere of practice alongside his music, and similarly call for explanation in terms of general principles. We may therefore examine the characteristics both of Schumann’s music and of his criticism, in order to induce from them the notions that will serve as their theoretical foundation. But we shall be aided by various explicit statements found in his critical writings themselves, as well as in his letters, for if Schumann was little inclined towards systematic philosophy, he could hardly avoid reflecting occasionally on the underlying principles of his creative and critical activity. The time was one that spontaneously coupled music and philosophy; musical ideas assumed a new importance both in literature and in metaphysics; newspaper articles discussed the nature of music as a matter of course; musical philosophy even had its counterpart in philosophical music. We can logically expect that Schumann will represent such a major current of thought, for there is no one who reveals more clearly the dominant concerns of Romanticism. Nor was he an academic critic, for he wrote as the leader and propagandist of a new direction in music, a progressive movement of which he was also the outstanding representative as a composer. Under the circumstances, his work could not fail to embody a particular aesthetic attitude.